The revelations that his work via email with donors disclosing cabinet decisions was known by the previous Prime Minister's office is, without question, a scandal.
A cabinet minister breaking rules, rules that Chris Hipkins very clearly stated was a reason and a reason all on its own for a sacking, was known by the office of Jacinda Ardern and no one who knew thought that telling someone else in that office was a good idea?
Why would they not do that? Are they thick?
Are they thick beyond words?
Or are they so Machiavellian that they owned it all by themselves and thought if they said nothing and the Prime Minister remained untouched and unscathed, they could save her?
Why would knowing something about Stuart Nash be of such importance to the people who knew about it that they would think that saving him was worthwhile?
Is it plausible to ask that in fact the then Prime Minister did know, or her chief of staff did know, and they did nothing?
Knowing what we know about Ardern and her policy around discipline, is it plausible to ask whether they could tuck the info away? Maybe tell Stuart he's an idiot and then hope that no one ever found out?
What we know for a fact is that Nash's activities with donors via email;
1) Breached cabinet rules,
2) Was known by the office of the Prime Minister and,
3) Cost him his job, because the breach all by itself is a sackable offence.
If it was sackable this week, why wasn’t it sackable then?
You'll note the theme of this. There seem many questions but very few answers.
Dare I raise the issue of the most honest, open and transparent Government at this stage?
Or is the hole so deep they’ve dug for themselves that it's become such a farce that it's not even worth the reminder?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings.