RNZ this week highlighted the phlegmatism of a Labour candidate under the headline –
No hard feelings: Rakesh Naidoo refuses to hit back after police row
Some readers might have sensed an element of disappointment at RNZ that Naidoo did not react as they had hoped to their questions about the way he had been treated when he resigned from the force.
Ranked 13th as a list candidate for the Labour Party, Naidoo had risen through the police ranks to become the first person from the Asian community to be appointed as a police inspector in New Zealand and the first Indian-origin Police Superintendent.
His selection triggered a public fuss after Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell questioned the timeline of his political intentions and raised concerns over his access to sensitive operational information while talking to Labour.
A formal police review last month cleared him of any policy or confidentiality breaches, confirming his correspondence had been strictly professional.
As RNZ recalls:
Naidoo’s candidacy, announced in June, prompted public criticism from Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Minister Mark Mitchell, with both claiming the superintendent should have declared his intentions earlier.
An internal review later concluded that Naidoo had complied with police policy, though noted it would have been “prudent” for him to have given his superiors more advance warnings
Naidoo is not saying whether he was angered. affronted or disappointed by the accusations levelled at him or whether he harbours a grudge.
The RNZ report begins:
Labour’s top cop candidate Rakesh Naidoo has declined to fire back at police top brass over their criticism of his move into politics, despite maintaining he did nothing wrong.
And:
Speaking to RNZ for the first time since being recruited by Labour, Naidoo said he would not do anything differently with hindsight, pointing to a police review which cleared him of any wrongdoing.
The report says Naidoo, in a sitdown interview marking his entry into the election campaign, “remained diplomatic about the criticism levelled at him by his superiors.
“In my view, they were expressing themselves based on the information that they had,” he said.
“I am grateful that once they looked into it, the review found that I’d follow the right process.”
He said he was also thankful for the apology he received from Assistant Commissioner Tim Anderson, “a man of honesty and integrity”.
What about the Commissioner?
Labour leader Chris Hipkins was critical of him and branded him a bad employer for his role in the reaction to Naidoo’s candidacy.
Naidoo would agree, surely…
But no.
Asked whether he wanted an apology from Chambers as well, Naidoo said only that he respected the process.
He would not say whether he had been hurt or angered by Chambers’ public criticism, nor whether he felt his reputation had been smeared.
Naidoo also declined to repeat Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ criticism of Chambers at the time. Then Hipkins said Chambers had been a bad employer for casting aspersions on an officer with “no evidential base behind it”.
Hmm.
Let’s find if he aspires to Mitchell’s Police portfolio.
Asked whether he had on ambitions on becoming Police Minister, the rookie candidate described himself as a “new recruit” and said he was not getting ahead of himself.
“I’m just really focused on the next few days,” he said. “In fact, today I’m just trying to focus on getting through the media interviews.”
Bugger.
Let’s take the racism tack.
Naidoo was largely unwilling to proffer his opinions on law and order policy, saying it would be “highly inappropriate” for him to share his thoughts on, say, the gang patch ban, given his recent involvement.
But asked about systemic racism, Naidoo said he had seen no evidence of it during his nearly 25 years in the police force.
“I’ve personally never witnessed any racism within police,” he said. “I do not believe there is institutional racism.”
Naidoo said officers themselves were subjected to racism while dealing with the public, pointing to a broader rise in hate and declining trust in institutions as issues that motivated him to enter politics.
Maybe he will say something about Labour’s need to toughen up on crime…
Sorry. Again, no.
Asked whether Labour had been “soft on crime” in government – as alleged by National – Naidoo again punted the question to Hipkins or police spokesperson Ginny Anderson.
He did say his values aligned strongly with Labour.
“When people start making tough choices, when they can’t get good healthcare… when you can’t put food on the table… when you’re unemployed and you’re stressed… then that flows on into wider consequences… things such as crime and victimisation.”
He said former police colleagues had given him “a fair bit of ribbing” about abandoning a secure career and taking a pay cut, but many had also backed his decision.
“My colleagues have been very excited because they see it as I see it: as a continuance of my service to our communities and to our country.”
Naidoo was the ethnic, iwi and communities relationship manager for police.
As Labour’s 13th ranked candidate he is reported to be virtually guaranteed of a seat in Parliament.
RNZ didn’t ask if he fancied becoming Prime Minister.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
His selection triggered a public fuss after Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell questioned the timeline of his political intentions and raised concerns over his access to sensitive operational information while talking to Labour.
A formal police review last month cleared him of any policy or confidentiality breaches, confirming his correspondence had been strictly professional.
As RNZ recalls:
Naidoo’s candidacy, announced in June, prompted public criticism from Police Commissioner Richard Chambers and Minister Mark Mitchell, with both claiming the superintendent should have declared his intentions earlier.
An internal review later concluded that Naidoo had complied with police policy, though noted it would have been “prudent” for him to have given his superiors more advance warnings
Naidoo is not saying whether he was angered. affronted or disappointed by the accusations levelled at him or whether he harbours a grudge.
The RNZ report begins:
Labour’s top cop candidate Rakesh Naidoo has declined to fire back at police top brass over their criticism of his move into politics, despite maintaining he did nothing wrong.
And:
Speaking to RNZ for the first time since being recruited by Labour, Naidoo said he would not do anything differently with hindsight, pointing to a police review which cleared him of any wrongdoing.
The report says Naidoo, in a sitdown interview marking his entry into the election campaign, “remained diplomatic about the criticism levelled at him by his superiors.
“In my view, they were expressing themselves based on the information that they had,” he said.
“I am grateful that once they looked into it, the review found that I’d follow the right process.”
He said he was also thankful for the apology he received from Assistant Commissioner Tim Anderson, “a man of honesty and integrity”.
What about the Commissioner?
Labour leader Chris Hipkins was critical of him and branded him a bad employer for his role in the reaction to Naidoo’s candidacy.
Naidoo would agree, surely…
But no.
Asked whether he wanted an apology from Chambers as well, Naidoo said only that he respected the process.
He would not say whether he had been hurt or angered by Chambers’ public criticism, nor whether he felt his reputation had been smeared.
Naidoo also declined to repeat Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ criticism of Chambers at the time. Then Hipkins said Chambers had been a bad employer for casting aspersions on an officer with “no evidential base behind it”.
Hmm.
Let’s find if he aspires to Mitchell’s Police portfolio.
Asked whether he had on ambitions on becoming Police Minister, the rookie candidate described himself as a “new recruit” and said he was not getting ahead of himself.
“I’m just really focused on the next few days,” he said. “In fact, today I’m just trying to focus on getting through the media interviews.”
Bugger.
Let’s take the racism tack.
Naidoo was largely unwilling to proffer his opinions on law and order policy, saying it would be “highly inappropriate” for him to share his thoughts on, say, the gang patch ban, given his recent involvement.
But asked about systemic racism, Naidoo said he had seen no evidence of it during his nearly 25 years in the police force.
“I’ve personally never witnessed any racism within police,” he said. “I do not believe there is institutional racism.”
Naidoo said officers themselves were subjected to racism while dealing with the public, pointing to a broader rise in hate and declining trust in institutions as issues that motivated him to enter politics.
Maybe he will say something about Labour’s need to toughen up on crime…
Sorry. Again, no.
Asked whether Labour had been “soft on crime” in government – as alleged by National – Naidoo again punted the question to Hipkins or police spokesperson Ginny Anderson.
He did say his values aligned strongly with Labour.
“When people start making tough choices, when they can’t get good healthcare… when you can’t put food on the table… when you’re unemployed and you’re stressed… then that flows on into wider consequences… things such as crime and victimisation.”
He said former police colleagues had given him “a fair bit of ribbing” about abandoning a secure career and taking a pay cut, but many had also backed his decision.
“My colleagues have been very excited because they see it as I see it: as a continuance of my service to our communities and to our country.”
Naidoo was the ethnic, iwi and communities relationship manager for police.
As Labour’s 13th ranked candidate he is reported to be virtually guaranteed of a seat in Parliament.
RNZ didn’t ask if he fancied becoming Prime Minister.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog 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.