“Police Commissioner Andrew Coster should have known that Stuart Nash was acting in a way that was inconsistent with section 16 of the Policing Act. The question is, who then received that information and what did they do with it?” Asks ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Police Commissioner Andrew Coster should have known that Stuart Nash was acting in a way that was inconsistent with section 16 of the Policing Act. The question is, who then received that information and what did they do with it?” Asks ACT Leader David Seymour.
“This is a clear case in which the ‘no surprises’ convention should have applied. Coster should have told then Police Minister Poto Williams that he had received a call from Nash about an individual case. The Cabinet Manual says:
“In their relationship with Ministers, officials should be guided by the “no surprises” principle. As a general rule, they should inform Ministers promptly of matters of significance within their portfolio responsibilities, particularly where these matters may be controversial or may become the subject of public debate.”
“Did Coster raise this issue with Williams? If not, why not? If he did, what did Poto Williams do with that information?
“Did Williams tell then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern? If not, why not? If she did, what did Ardern do with that information?
“If the issue did reach Ardern, she had an obligation to censure Nash. That clearly didn’t occur.
“If the information didn’t reach Ardern, that in itself is extremely concerning.
“New Zealanders have a right to answers to all of these questions.”