Former National leader Simon Bridges has called Stuart Nash's decision to talk to donors about Cabinet decisions via email the "most stupid thing I’ve seen".
His comments come after Nash was sacked from Cabinet after disclosing confidential discussions to two donors in a 2020 email.
The communication was a breach of Cabinet rules, and as well as sacking him, the Prime Minister has announced an inquiry into Nash's behaviour.
Former Tauranga MP Bridges - who now leads the Auckland Chamber of Commerce - joined Breakfast this morning and said he "felt sorry" for Nash.
"As a former veteran of these games, I feel a bit sorry for poor ol' Nashie," he said.
"He's a good guy; I've got regard for him; I've been on overseas trips with him.
“But putting it in writing, God Stewie, that was that was the most stupid thing I’ve seen.”
He said conversations about Cabinet decisions shouldn't be had altogether, but writing it in an email was "next level".
Bridge's comments drew the attention of Transparency New Zealand's Julie Haggie, who said his tone might suggest the practice is more widespread than previously thought.
“I think it’s a bigger issue than just one person; I was surprised at comments Simon Bridges made saying, ‘I’m surprised he put it in writing'.
“What is that saying, that this is happening all the time?”
Stuart Nash was dismissed from Cabinet earlier this week after it was revealed he’d disclosed confidential information to donors in 2020. (Source: Breakfast)
Following revelations of Nash’s breach of Cabinet rules, political commentators said there needs to be a clear and thorough look at transparency among New Zealand's lawmakers.
Speaking to Breakfast this morning, political commentator Grant Duncan said the investigation should offer detail about Nash's actions but also how widespread this kind of behaviour is.
“There's the question fundamentally of influence, how much influence those donors were having over his actions in Cabinet at that time,” he said.
“But how often does this happen informally through verbal conversations that no one in the public is really privy to.”
The former minister is considering resigning at the next election. (Source: 1News)
Haggie agreed, saying voters need to be assured that ministers act with integrity “even when no-one is looking”.
“We don’t want everyone to be thinking this is going on all the time.”
Duncan said the results of the inquiry should help in looking “forward to the solutions” regarding ministers' interactions with donors.
He said influence from the public is important to democracy but should be spread out equally, not just to the highest-paying donor.
“In a democracy, we do want our decision makers to be influenced by members of the public, so there needs to be influence, but clearly, some people have more influence than others.
“The trouble fundamentally is that we have ministers making decisions. At the same time, they’re members of a political party, and they are expected to raise funds for the party at the same time.
“We need somehow to influence ministerial decision making, and indeed lawmakers generally, from the influence of donors.”
Both Duncan and Haggie suggested a number of ways to ensure that donors aren’t influencing ministers.
“Comparatively speaking, our laws are pretty light on donor transparency, compared to, lets say, the US,” Haggie said.
She said other countries had tighter rules around anonymous donours and caps, which makes things more transparent.
“People should be able to see them happening live.”
Duncan said New Zealand should look at parties being state-funded, saying it will “insulate” decision-making from funding and promote equality between parties.
“Those parties who are representing the poorest members of our communities are the ones who are going to get the least donations.”
When it comes to the question of if Nash should resign, Duncan said it was “up to the Labour Party” and a “question for the people of Napier”, who likely don’t want a by-election.
SHARE ME