Senior staff in the Prime Minister’s office have apologised for an “error of judgment” in failing to bring an email sent by the sacked Stuart Nash to two of his donors to the PM’s attention.
The Prime Minister’s office has issued a timeline of events and an explanation of the handling of an OIA request, for which the Nash email had been considered but not released.
National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis is accusing the Government of operating a “culture of cover-up”.
“Not only did they know about Stuart Nash’s letter ... they broke the law to keep that letter from the New Zealand public. The minute the Prime Minister’s office became aware of Stuart Nash’s letter, they should have released it.
“That they did not do so, that they broke the Official Information Act to cover it up, shows an arrogant, entitled Government that no longer has respect for the acts of this Parliament.”
The Chief Ombudsman has also told the Herald he will be speaking with the person who submitted the OIA before deciding whether to investigate the matter further.
Jacinda Ardern was the Prime Minister at the time. The explanation today states that deputy chief of staff Holly Donald and a senior adviser had dealt with the original OIA request.
“It was not escalated to the former Prime Minister or the former chief of staff at any point,” Hipkins said today.
“Both staff have apologised for their error of judgment in not recognising the significance of the email and escalating it at the time.”
Ardern has been contacted for comment.
Hipkins said the situation was “not acceptable”.
“I have accepted the apology of the staff involved and believe this was an oversight. Staff in the Prime Minister’s office deal with large volumes of information every day and errors of judgment do occur. However, I’ve made my expectation clear and don’t expect such an error to occur again.”
However, he said the onus had been on Nash to review his correspondence and identify the email himself. “I asked him on two occasions to provide an assurance there were no further actions I should be aware of where he may have breached the Cabinet Manual. He had the responsibility to alert me to this email and he did not.”
Both staff are still in Hipkins’ office – Donald had worked under chief of staff Raj Nahna throughout Ardern’s tenure and had agreed to stay on for a period to help through the transition to Hipkins.
The original OIA request was from Newsroom and had asked for all communications between Nash and a named list of his donors.
Newsroom has now reported that it was declined on the grounds that such communications fell outside Nash’s ministerial role.
The email in question was from one of Nash’s Parliamentary email addresses and was to Troy Bowker and Greg Loveridge, telling them about Cabinet discussions on a rent-relief scheme.
Newsroom had complained to the Ombudsman about the rejection of the request, but it was dropped.
Only the senior adviser had known about the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Hipkins has ordered a review of all of Nash’s communications with his donors to ensure there are no other similar instances – it is expected to take two months.
Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, fronting reporters at Parliament with Hipkins away in Auckland, denied her Government had broken the law and did not believe a cover-up had occurred.
“The minister or former minister himself has made some assertions about why he didn’t need to release the information, I’m not the person to determine whether or not they were right or wrong,” she said.
“But certainly, with regards to sharing the information when asked by the Prime Minister, [Nash] should have shared that with the Prime Minister.”
Sepuloni admitted staff involved in the request “failed to recognise the significance of what was in front of them”, but said the authority to determine what would be released sat with the minister.
“As I said, I’m not the person to determine whether or not [Nash’s] rationale for withholding it was the right rationale.”
Willis said she rejected the explanation staff had made a mistake.
“They saw that email and the alarm bells went off straight away, that ‘if this finds itself into the public realm, we are in serious trouble’.
“It makes me ask, how often are we being denied information by this government because it doesn’t suit them to release it?
“We were promised a culture of transparency, instead, we’ve got a culture of cover-up.”
Willis said the Ombudsman needed to investigate and all documentation associated with the handling of this request be released.
“Heads have to roll here,” she said.
“This is about the Prime Minister’s office actively conspiring to cover up serious ministerial misconduct.”
In a statement to the Herald, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said he received a complaint from a journalist in August 2021 about Nash’s decision to refuse aspects of the OIA request.
“The complainant was concerned that the Minister’s office may have treated information provided to the then Minister too narrowly when he decided against disclosing it on the basis it was out of scope of the request.
“I notified Mr Nash of my decision to initiate an investigation in March 2022 and received a response from him later that month.”
However, the investigation was stopped following discussions with the journalist - prior to the merits of the complaint being considered.
“I subsequently advised the Minister’s office that the investigation was discontinued and the case closed.”
Boshier said he would speak to the journalist before deciding on whether to investigate the matter further.
In a fiery, urgent debate in Parliament on the matter, Willis called the saga “incredibly stinky” and said it raised wider questions about the conduct of Cabinet.
She called for thorough investigations to “clear the rot” and free New Zealand from “this sort of stench”.
She noted how the legislation in question was not supported by Cabinet in the end.
“It certainly seems something influenced their decision-making.”
She repeated her accusations that staff in the Prime Minister’s office were part of a conspiracy to cover up the information, to which Labour MPs heatedly objected in the House.
“They knew about it, they did nothing, they are complicit in a cover-up,” Willis said.
She also said along with a review into Nash’s conduct, there should be a wider investigation into Cabinet conduct, citing recent comments from former Cabinet member and NZ First leader Winston Peters about how often information was leaked.
“I fear, Mr Speaker, there may be a lot more to this ... I have been careful not to make allegations that cannot yet be proved.
“We will be examining the evidence very carefully.”
Finance Minister Grant Robertson, who was deputy prime minister at the time of the OIA being responded to, gave an impassioned response, at times almost shouting as he defended the staff at the heart of the matter over what he called “a mistake” and “error of judgment”.
Robertson said hearing Willis’ speech made him the “angriest I have felt possibly my entire time in Government”.
He said Willis, in “accusing them of engaging in a conspiracy”, had called into question the integrity of staff who had “no ability to defend themselves”.
“I think it is appalling behaviour.”
As National MPs then shouted back, Robertson’s voice rose above as he responded: “Mr Speaker, that is a disgrace.”
Robertson said Willis was “jumping at shadows” calling it a conspiracy.
Parliamentary staff worked in one of the most stressful environments under “extraordinary stress” and this email in particular occurred during the height of the pandemic, he said.
“That is the reason ... why an error of judgment was made.”
He said in the end, it was the ministers themselves who were responsible for signing out an OIA response.
“We are the ones that are responsible for what goes out.”
He said if Nash were here he was “sure Nash would acknowledge he is the person who is ultimately responsible”.
Robertson also pointed out a series of scandals in the previous National Government and said it was “absolutely outrageous” for National to be “getting up on the high horse”.
Justice Minister Kiri Allan, the last to speak in the debate, expressed some personal regret following statements made about Donald.
“The thing about this particular individual, for those who have had the opportunity to work with her, she’s one of the most humble and honest people you’ll ever have the chance to meet.
“[She’s] a really good, good person and I hate that her name has been tarred in this House by allegations she was somehow imbued within a conspiracy it makes me disdain [politics]”
2020
June 3: Cabinet Committee agrees to amend the Property Law Act to include an implied clause into leases, with criteria including businesses having 20 or fewer FTE per lease site. Also agreed to government support for arbitration.
June 4: PR from Minister Little announcing the Government will temporarily amend the Property Law Act to insert a clause in commercial leases requiring a fair reduction in rent, and $40 million support for arbitration.
June 5: Stuart Nash sends email to Greg Loveridge and Troy Bowker.
June 30: Property Law Act changes do not proceed after NZ First withdraws support. $40m in arbitration still proceeds.
2021
June 8: Stuart Nash’s office receives an OIA asking for all written correspondence between himself and a list of individuals. This is discussed with staff in the Prime Minister’s Office three times.
July 30: Stuart Nash’s office emails deputy chief of staff Holly Donald and a senior adviser with the emails found in relation to the request noting that in their view they were out of scope as they weren’t received by Nash in his capacity as minister. This includes the email of June 5, 2020. The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply.
September 27: Cabinet agrees to a Bill amending the Property Law Act.
September 28: PR from Ministers Faafoi and Williams announcing changes to the Property Law Act to help those affected by Covid-19 restrictions.
November 2: The Covid-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill received Royal Assent, This includes changes to the Property Law Act.
2022
March 1: Nash receives a letter from the Ombudsman regarding an investigation into his response to the OIA request.
March 17: Nash’s office drafts a response to the Ombudsman and shares it with the Prime Minister’s Office. This did not include a copy of the June 5, 2020 email but did include a reference to withholding documents under s9(2)(j). The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply.
March 29: Nash replies to the Ombudsman including a redacted and unredacted version of the June 5 email. Includes an explanation that the email was in his capacity as a Labour Member of Parliament rather than in his capacity as minister.
March 30: Office of the Ombudsman responds to Nash’s office, acknowledging receipt of his response.
May 25: Office of the Ombudsman emails Nash’s office saying it would not be pursuing the complaint and the investigation was closed.
There's no cap on the new visa, with up to 10,000 applications expected per year.