Jacinda Ardern’s office knew of Stuart Nash’s 2020 email; Hipkins orders review

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office was aware of a 2020 email, revealed by Stuff on Tuesday, in which sacked minister Stuart Nash divulged Cabinet discussions to two donors.

Neither Ardern nor her chief of staff were informed, Hipkins said, and the severe breach of Cabinet rules was not “covered up”.

But National Party leader Christopher Luxon said it was clear there had been a two-year cover up that suggested a broader culture of improper behaviour.

“Clearly people inside the prime minister’s office were aware of the issue, and so what kind of culture is that if you don’t actually flag those issues higher up the chain?”

READ MORE:
* Police commissioner signals there may have been other Stuart Nash calls
* Chris Hipkins says it’s for Stuart Nash to resign from Parliament
* The tragedy of Stuart Nash’s sacking and Labour’s troubled times ahead

Nash was sacked from Cabinet on Tuesday night, with Hipkins saying the minister’s actions were “inexcusable”.

Hipkins on Wednesday afternoon told reporters he had ordered a review of Nash’s communications with his donors, to be completed over the coming two months.

He said the Cabinet Secretary would “look at whether there have been any other breaches of cabinet collective responsibility or confidentiality, or whether there have been any perceived or actual conflicts of interest in communications between Stuart Nash and those donors”.

Hipkins said the offending email had “gone through” Ardern’s office as part of a response to an Official Information Act request in 2021, but the email was deemed out of scope, so not made public in the response.

“I don’t think it was tried to be covered up, my understanding is that it just wasn’t within the scope of the request,” he said.

“I was not the prime minister at the time, but I have certainly made it very clear that I expect to be alerted to the existence of any such communications in the future.”

Luxon said there needed to be a broad investigation, from the beginning of the Labour Government in 2017, to provide reassurance all Cabinet ministers had adhered to standards.

“As prime minister, I’d want to reassure myself that my Cabinet understands the absolute standards of behaviour I’m expecting from them, and that I have full compliance with the Cabinet manual.”

ACT leader David Seymour said the terms of reference for the review into Nash’s correspondence should ensure it could collect evidence relevant to the charge of corruption.

Seymour said he did not, on “gut instinct”, believe Nash was corrupt.

However, he said reviewers should consider this.

“It is a very serious offence. And I can understand why if there was to be an inquiry, it should certainly consider those matters too,” he said.

He said the review should inspect other ministers’ communications with donors, including NZ First ministers during the prior term of Parliament.

Dr Dean Knight​, a constitutional law expert at Victoria University, said, in sacking Nash, Hipkins was acting to retain confidence in Cabinet. Knight did not think there needed to be “a witch hunt through every possible misstep a minister has made”.

“No, because some of those things are benign … There have been lots of hints and nods, and sort of whispers and situations where ministers have said, ‘Well, I didn’t get my way in Cabinet’ – as recently as James Shaw on carbon provisions.”

He said he did not consider Nash’s breach akin to “insider trading”, as Luxon had called it.

Otago University public law professor Andrew Geddis said Nash’s actions were inexcusable, but the shock at the revelation showed “the general norms” of Cabinet have been followed overall.

“If we have some sort of inquiry into Nash’s other behaviours, it’s not clear what we’d be inquiring into, because there’s no allegation has committed any crime or done anything unlawful here.

“He kept people in the loop about information, but it wasn’t information, they can make a gain off … What he’s been accused of at the moment is braking Cabinet confidentiality.

“The punishment for that is what he got, he’s been sacked … you can’t sack him again.”