Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I rise to speak on this motion understanding the gravity of a decision of a Minister of the Crown to resign. When we are issued with our Ministerial warrants it is very clear to Ministers that the responsibilities they take on are serious ones. We all understand the importance of our role as Ministers to exercise our judgment and exercise that well. Ministers are acquainted when they come into office with the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual as Mr Bishop has just indicated when he sat down is clear about the principles on which Ministers must operate. That includes section 4.14 of the Cabinet Manual which says Following a long-established principle Ministers do not comment on or involve themselves in the investigation of offences or the decision as to whether a person should be prosecuted or on what charge."It is for that reason today that it is appropriate that the Hon Stuart Nash has tended his resignation as Minister of Police and that has been accepted by the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister indicated this represented a serious error of judgment from Mr Nash and the idea that he could continue in the role of Minister of Police given the circumstances was not possible at all.On this side of the House I want to reiterate that the Government does regard it as vitally important that we safeguard the independence of our police and the independence of our judiciary. I agree with what Mr Bishop said about the kinds of countries where that does not exist and that New Zealand would never want to be one of those countries. We have seen numerous times in the recent past in New Zealand the extraordinary work done by the police force in supporting and protecting New Zealanders most recently in the cyclones but also in numerous other examples including recent examples where members of the police force have lost their lives. The decisions about what the police do and how they go about that and their operational work must remain that of the Commissioner of Police and then in turn the police Minister needs to be in a position to respect that.The Policing Act is extremely clear: the responsibilities and independence of the commissioner are laid out in section 16 of the Policing Act: "The Commissioner is responsible to the Minister"—under that Act—"for carrying out the functions and duties of the Police … the general conduct of the Police … the effective efficient and economical management of the Police … tendering advice to the Minister … giving effect to any lawful ministerial decisions." Section 16(2) then goes on to say: "The Commissioner is not responsible to and must act independently of any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding the maintenance of order in relation to any individual or group of individuals … the enforcement of the law in relation to any individual or group of individuals … the investigation and prosecution of offences; and decisions about individual Police employees."It is for that reason—both the Cabinet Manual and the Policing Act—that it is clear that Minister Nash had a serious error of judgment. The Prime Minister then has gone on to say that it is his view that removing Mr Nash as the Minister of Police is proportionate to that particular error of judgment.It's very clear that across history a Prime Minister's job is to interpret and enforce the Cabinet Manual as they see fit. I have sat in this House over the last 15 years—and prior to that working in this building—and I have heard Prime Ministers give their interpretation of the Cabinet Manual. Ultimately it is in the hands of each Prime Minister to dictate how that Cabinet Manual will be applied. Mr Bishop's already mentioned the example of Maurice Williamson. I also sat in this House on another occasion where the Prime Minister of the day made a decision not to ask a Minister to resign and that was the Honourable Judith Collins with respect to the Oravida scandal where a breach of the Cabinet Manual was also identified. Equally in Helen Clark's time I recall other Ministers who were found to have breached the Cabinet Manual and a variety of different consequences have occurred for that. In the case of Mr Nash the consequence is one where he has had to lose this particular portfolio. But I reiterate again it is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide upon the gravity of any breach of the Cabinet Manual and what then should happen to that person.Colleagues across the House will be aware of the fact that for Mr Nash this represents a very significant change. He is a person who was a very proud police Minister when he held that portfolio in the previous Government that we were part of. And now as he has taken that portfolio back up all of us know the pride he has in the New Zealand police force—the extent to which he regards this as an important job. And so I think everybody in the House would recognise that the loss of such a portfolio for Mr Nash is a very significant matter. And as I said I think the Prime Minister has indicated that he believes that it is proportionate.I do just want in the remaining time in my call to reflect back again a little bit on the importance of the independence of the Police Commissioner and to raise an issue in relationship to this which is the way in which in this House over a succession of years—and I'm not going to pinpoint any individual—we have got ourselves to a place where a lot of the questioning within this Parliament goes to those parts of the Policing Act that I mentioned before. I believe we all do have a responsibility to uphold the independence of the police force and of the Police Commissioner.During the occupation of Parliament out the front here it became necessary for me as the local member of Parliament representing the people whose lives were being so severely disrupted to have quite regular conversations not with the commission necessarily although that did happen once or twice but with other members of the police. And I knew when I was having those conversations just how important it was that I was clear that as the local MP I was providing my reflections on what was occurring. Every one of those conversations was prefaced with the fact that I could not tell the Police Commissioner to do his job. I remember standing in this House and saying I may disagree or agree with some of the things that the commissioner and his police officers were doing but that I did not feel it was my place to go beyond the comments I made privately in terms of what I was seeing on the ground. It's a fine line for people. I'm not suggesting here in any way Mr Nash's acts represent a fine line but it is a fine line for this House.Something I would encourage colleagues to reflect upon as we go forward from here is how we talk about what the police do and how we raise issues. Ministers in this House are responsible for the resourcing of the Police for example and whether or not they have the resources to do the job. Ministers in this House are responsible for the laws that we promote—and then Parliament passes or doesn't pass—that reflect on what the police can do what their roles are and where they go with that. But when we move beyond that to a place where we are questioning operational questions it's challenging. The last thing I want is for the Minister of Police to have to get up in the House and just say on rote "That's an operational matter. That's an operational matter." because it doesn't take us anywhere. But we need to make sure that in the boundaries that we work within we do uphold that independence. And so I just put that on the table.As I say I'm not actually particularly pointing anyone out and I'm sure people would be able to go back in history and find examples of both sides of the House when they're not in Government taking that approach. We do need to uphold the independence of our police force. Our police force do a terrific job on our behalf. We have seen over the years the development within the Police of a range of diverse operations and people behind those operations. Most of us in our working lives as members of Parliament have significant interaction with the Police and in doing so we have to understand the importance of their independence but also the importance of the work that they do in the community.So to recap the Prime Minister received a resignation letter—or an email I think it was—from Minister Nash. He accepted that. He is being clear—the Prime Minister that is—that this was a serious error of judgment it did indeed breach the Cabinet Manual section 4.14 and it also no doubt cut across section 16 of the Policing Act as well. It is therefore the right decision that Mr Nash has resigned his position and we hope to move forward from here again reinforcing the independence of the Police and the responsibilities of the commissioner in that regard.SPEAKER: I understand the Green Party has decided not to take a call. Just before I call David Seymour I'll let members know if there's any unused time of the one hour debate I'll allocate that at the end."