Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the House take note of the resignation of the Minister of Police.What we saw today was a disgraceful episode where the Minister of Police Stuart Nash was forced to resign over clearly unconstitutional behaviour a breach of one section of the Cabinet Manual and also a breach of the Policing Act 2008—most notably section 16 of the Policing Act. What do those two provisions say? First of all the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers must not involve themselves in prosecution decisions and must not involve themselves in judicial decision-making. That principle is fundamental to our constitution because it says that Ministers administer and govern the judiciary administers and decides on the proof and decides on punishment and Ministers should not involve themselves in that. Why is that? It's because Ministers are drawn from the legislature the democratic part of our constitution and it would be inappropriate wrong and unjust for Ministers who are elected to involve themselves in the administration of justice. Why is that? That is because the administration of justice should be apolitical; it should be neutral as to the party that is in power; it should be neutral as to the people who run the courts and run our system of Government that should be above party politics. So the issue we are dealing with today—and it's good that the Government allowed this debate and I'm looking forward to the contribution of Mark Mitchell who sought for this debate and called out those remarks. The reason we are having this debate and the reason why it's so important is that this goes to the heart of our constitution. Before I return to the point about the Policing Act let's not forget this is a Government that shows a flagrant disregard for our constitutional conventions because it was only at the end of last year that the Government sought to entrench various parts of the three waters legislation in December last year and it was only under significant pressure from the constitutional lawyers of the land and the National Party that they backed down on that. So this goes to the very heart of our constitution and the apolitical nature of the administration of justice in this country. How did Stuart Nash breach that? Well Stuart Nash bafflingly got up on the radio this morning and said Yeah I just called my mate Andrew Coster the Police Commissioner about a particular judicial decision. My mate Andrew Coster goes"—I mean leaving aside the inappropriateness of calling the person who you used to be in charge of "your mate" as the police Minister—that in itself is inappropriate—but to hear reported publicly a judicial decision that you as a Minister don't like and then to ring the Police Commissioner your "mate"—his words—and say "I think you should probably appeal this. Are you guys going to appeal? I think you should." That just beggars belief. It is an unbelievable dereliction of duty an unconstitutional behaviour by the Minister. So the first point is that it is a breach of various sections of the Cabinet Manual and the second point as Mark Mitchell knows so well as a former Minister is that it is a potential breach of or at least runs very close to section 16 of the Policing Act. What does that say? The Policing Act says that Ministers can't direct the Police Commissioner. Again the reason it's there—and I remember the debates back in 2007 about that—is to enshrine absolutely as an important point of law that decisions about prosecutions and decisions about investigations and decisions about the way in which the police do their job are not subject to ministerial direction. They have ministerial oversight because of course Parliament and the Government fund the Police—we fund Vote Police through the Budget cycle and make sure the Police have the resources that they need—but the individual decisions are not directed by Ministers because what sort of banana republic and kangaroo court would we be in if Ministers could say "I don't like that person. Hey Mr Commissioner hey hey mate! Mate the commissioner you should go after that particular person." or—and this is actually worse—you stop prosecutions and say that particular matters shouldn't be investigated. And we have seen—even in developed First World countries and economies that people can think of in the Commonwealth—examples in various police forces where behaviour runs close to the line on that and we don't want to be like that in New Zealand. So that's why the Policing Act 2008 says that Ministers can't direct the commissioner and can't direct the Police executive. In fact it is a breach of the law for Ministers to do that. It's written in statute. So what do we have? Stuart Nash—who in slight defence was not the police Minister at the time but was a Minister of the Crown—hears something 2½ years ago or so and rings up his mate the Police Commissioner and all but directs the commissioner—all but directs the commissioner—and says "Hey you guys are going to appeal this eh?" Now is that a direction? Possibly possibly not but I think we can agree it runs pretty close to the line. And he was not ringing as a backbencher he was not ringing as a local MP but he rang as a Minister. So he wasn't the police Minister at the time but as members opposite who are members of the ministry know and members on this side of the House who have been former members of the ministry know when you're a Minister and you ring an official that carries weight; that is a big thing. Now you might think you're having a joking conversation ringing your mate the Police Commissioner just to have a casual chinwag on a Friday night. But no actually when you call a senior official as the Minister you are calling as someone who carries the imprimatur of the New Zealand Government behind you and with you and that matters. That's why people pay attention to what Ministers do and say because they have extraordinary power. And that's why the Policing Act 2008 explicitly says Ministers cannot use that power because of the extraordinary nature of it. So it is not appropriate and not right for Ministers to intervene or try to intervene in decisions like that. Now I hesitate to bring this up but Maurice Williamson did this back in 2007 and 2008 and we all know what happened there. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. And I want to finish in this debate by making the point that Mr Nash should be removed from the Cabinet because ultimately the Prime Minister has done the right thing in one sense: he has removed him as the police Minister. He'd only had the job again for five minutes but he's removed him as the police Minister. He did the right thing.Simeon Brown: More police Ministers than police.CHRIS BISHOP: That's right. But the selection of Ministers is a very important process. The selection of Ministers is solely up to the Prime Minister and the portfolios that they hold. And it goes to judgment. As Nicola Willis said in her questions to the Prime Minister today it goes to judgment and discretion and how can the Prime Minister have confidence in someone who shows such a flagrant disregard for New Zealand's constitution? How can the Prime Minister retain the confidence in any of the portfolios Mr Nash holds given his appalling behaviour not just violating the Cabinet Manual not just running right up against section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 but doubling down when he was called on it thinking the whole thing was actually a bit of a joke and not actually realising the gravity of what he did? The Cabinet Manual makes it very clear that Ministers are to have regard to the principles and the rules in the Cabinet Manual. Mr Nash flagrantly violated those rules. Mr Nash has been a Minister for five years now. He should have known better. The fact that he didn't reflects badly on him. But what reflects worse on the Government is that Chris Hipkins will not relinquish his ministerial warrants and sack him from the Cabinet altogether. He should do so forthwith."