That Hipkins didn’t use that third example to quickly tidy away a political headache is possibly to his credit – it sends a message to the rest of the ministers that he will be fair in assessing whether something is a sackable offence, rather than sacrificing their careers for the sake of political expedience.
That third offence came in the form of Nash advocating on an immigration issue more directly than he should have for someone in his electorate.
What was key in saving him was that he was doing it for a good purpose: it was not a mate of his, it was a health professional, and the local community wanted him to stay in the country.
Nash’s other offences involved airing his reckons on Newstalk ZB about the decisions of judges, calling a Police Commissioner to discuss a sentence he thought was too low, and saying he hoped a man who had just been arrested would get a very long sentence.
They were clear breaches of the Cabinet manual – and of common sense.
A breach of the Cabinet Manual does not automatically result in a minister losing their job. That is up the Prime Minister to decide.
In that regard, there are two cardinal sins: one is if the minister acts in a morally bankrupt way and shows a lack of personal or professional integrity, such as in abusing their power for personal gain or to benefit people they know.
The other is if a minister lies to the Prime Minister.
On the matter of integrity, Nash was not acting in his own interests in any of his three boo-boos. Nor had he lied. He had shown contrition and accepted his punishment well once he was called out for breaching the rules.
The key reason to sack him - or seek his resignation - was that his various wrongdoings were proving a distraction at a time Hipkins was trying to keep all attention on the cyclone recovery and his cost of living announcements.
He had been cavalier and stupid. The fact he couldn’t recall being told off by the Attorney-General for a potential contempt – and then did the same thing again – beggars belief.
While it might not seem like it right now, Nash is a valuable politician for Hipkins to have around. He is on the right of Labour, and, crucially, a provincial MP with an electorate, Napier.
Labour needs its provincial MPs to try to hold on to those seats – and their voices. That particular province is also wrestling with the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, and Nash is heavily involved in the Government’s work on it.
Hipkins would also have had to take into account what he had hoped for from Nash when he put him back into the Police portfolio: and what he had hoped for was the blunt talk Nash delivered.
So for his earlier sins, Hipkins recognised that he had put Nash into the Police portfolio precisely to make Labour look tough on crime. Hipkins also appeared to recognise that a commercial radio network was the very place where he needed to look tough on crime.
Hipkins said as much when he noted Nash “speaks in a colloquial manner that often reflects the sentiments of a significant proportion of the community.”
Nash got carried away.
There is a lingering risk, however. That risk is that something else pops up, as things tend to do once a minister is on the ropes. Hipkins can be certain his political rivals will be combing through every utterance to find it.
