Because if any other party had recruited a top cop for its party list without the top cop telling police bosses about it until the very last minute, Hipkins and his crew would be going nuts.
And if he wants to deny that, then he’s more arrogant than I’m giving him credit for.
But, given it’s not another party and it’s the Labour Party that announced yesterday that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was number 13 on its list, it’s not a problem, apparently.
In fact, Hipkins is saying that Naidoo has handled the matter with integrity.
I’d like to see him say that to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who is brassed off that Naidoo waited until last Thursday to tell him that he was intending to stand for Labour.
And it wasn’t until Sunday - the day before Labour released its party list - that the commissioner found out that Superintendent Naidoo had actually accepted a list spot.
Which is very bad form, because who knows what information Labour’s latest candidate has been privy to? Without anyone in the police having any idea that he’s about to run for Parliament for the Labour Party.
Hipkins isn’t commenting on how long the party has been in discussions with the senior police officer, other than saying there had been a couple of conversations over the last few months.
But the Police Commissioner didn’t know about it until it was pretty much a done deal, which is not acting with integrity, as Hipkins seems to think it is.
Acting with integrity would be having a quiet word with the bosses as soon as you start having those quiet conversations with the Labour Party.
Because this isn’t about a cop moving to Australia for a new job. This is about a senior cop signing up to a political party wanting to take down the current government.
The current government that this particular officer serves, whether he likes it or not.
So no, Chris Hipkins, this hasn’t been handled with integrity. And for you to try and convince us that it has speaks volumes about the arrogance of you and your party.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
But, given it’s not another party and it’s the Labour Party that announced yesterday that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was number 13 on its list, it’s not a problem, apparently.
In fact, Hipkins is saying that Naidoo has handled the matter with integrity.
I’d like to see him say that to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who is brassed off that Naidoo waited until last Thursday to tell him that he was intending to stand for Labour.
And it wasn’t until Sunday - the day before Labour released its party list - that the commissioner found out that Superintendent Naidoo had actually accepted a list spot.
Which is very bad form, because who knows what information Labour’s latest candidate has been privy to? Without anyone in the police having any idea that he’s about to run for Parliament for the Labour Party.
Hipkins isn’t commenting on how long the party has been in discussions with the senior police officer, other than saying there had been a couple of conversations over the last few months.
But the Police Commissioner didn’t know about it until it was pretty much a done deal, which is not acting with integrity, as Hipkins seems to think it is.
Acting with integrity would be having a quiet word with the bosses as soon as you start having those quiet conversations with the Labour Party.
Because this isn’t about a cop moving to Australia for a new job. This is about a senior cop signing up to a political party wanting to take down the current government.
The current government that this particular officer serves, whether he likes it or not.
So no, Chris Hipkins, this hasn’t been handled with integrity. And for you to try and convince us that it has speaks volumes about the arrogance of you and your party.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.