Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier is reopening his investigation into the complaint laid by a journalist after former minister Stuart Nash did not disclose an email he wrote to a donor that led to his recent sacking.

In a statement this afternoon, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier explained that while the initial inquiry into Nash’s response to an Official Information Act request in 2021 was discontinued in May last year while in discussion with the complainant - a Newsroom journalist - the complainant had since requested Boshier recommence the investigation.

“The original complaint was about the former minister’s decision to refuse a request for information about his communications with a named group of individuals on the grounds the information was out of scope,” Boshier said.

“Mr Nash withheld the information under the OIA on the grounds he was not communicating with them in his capacity as a minister.

“I will start by carefully examining Mr Nash’s original response to me including the material provided by his office at the time.

“I will consider whether or not the information in question was held in his capacity as a Minister, which is subject to the OIA, or as an electorate MP that is not subject to the Act, and whether there was a basis for withholding the information.”

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier. Photo / NZME

The email, sent to Nash donors Greg Loveridge and Troy Bowker, included Nash revealing information about Cabinet conversations and perspectives of Cabinet colleagues - a clear breach of the Cabinet Manual.

Boshier said he planned to complete his investigation “as soon as possible” and would not give further comment until he had done so.

PM apologies, National suspects a cover-up

Nash’s actions concerning the 2020 email to his donors and the OIA response have prompted Nash’s sacking as a minister, an apology from Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and the Opposition to accuse the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her office of covering up the email.

Hipkins this week revealed the email had been brought to the attention of Ardern’s office during her time as PM, viewed by deputy chief of staff Holly Donald and a senior adviser but was not elevated to Ardern.

He said both staff members had apologised for their “error in judgement” for not recognising the significance of the email when they saw it as part of Newsroom’s OIA request in 2021. Both staff currently work in Hipkins’ office.

“I have accepted the apology of the staff involved and believe this was an oversight,” he said.

“Staff in the Prime Minister’s office deal with large volumes of information every day and errors of judgment do occur. However, I’ve made my expectation clear and don’t expect such an error to occur again.”

Hipkins and other ministers have been quick to shift the blame to Nash, however - saying the ultimate authority to sign off OIA request releases sat with the minister.

“I asked him on two occasions to provide an assurance there were no further actions I should be aware of where he may have breached the Cabinet Manual. He had the responsibility to alert me to this email and he did not.”

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, seen here with Minister Meka Whaitiri and Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, placed further blame on Nash for the email OIA scandal. Photo / Alex Burton

The original OIA request was from Newsroom and had asked for all communications between Nash and a named list of his donors.

The email in question was from one of Nash’s Parliamentary email addresses and was to Troy Bowker and Greg Loveridge, telling them about Cabinet discussions on a rent-relief scheme.

Newsroom had complained to the Ombudsman about the rejection of the request, but it was dropped. Only the senior adviser had known about the complaint to the Ombudsman.

After the email was revealed by Stuff on Tuesday, Hipkins has ordered a review of all of Nash’s communications with his donors to ensure there are no other similar instances – it is expected to take two months.

National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis is accusing the Government of operating a “culture of cover-up”.

“Not only did they know about Stuart Nash’s letter ... they broke the law to keep that letter from the New Zealand public. The minute the Prime Minister’s office became aware of Stuart Nash’s letter, they should have released it.

“That they did not do so, that they broke the Official Information Act to cover it up, shows an arrogant, entitled Government that no longer has respect for the acts of this Parliament.”

The backstory

2020

June 3: Cabinet Committee agrees to amend the Property Law Act to include an implied clause into leases, with criteria including businesses having 20 or fewer FTE per lease site. Also agreed to government support for arbitration.

June 4: PR from Minister Little announcing the Government will temporarily amend the Property Law Act to insert a clause in commercial leases requiring a fair reduction in rent, and $40 million support for arbitration.

June 5: Stuart Nash sends email to Greg Loveridge and Troy Bowker.

June 30: Property Law Act changes do not proceed after NZ First withdraws support. $40m in arbitration still proceeds.

2021

June 8: Stuart Nash’s office receives an OIA asking for all written correspondence between himself and a list of individuals. This is discussed with staff in the Prime Minister’s Office three times.

July 30: Stuart Nash’s office emails deputy chief of staff Holly Donald and a senior adviser with the emails found in relation to the request noting that in their view they were out of scope as they weren’t received by Nash in his capacity as minister. This includes the email of June 5, 2020. The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply.

September 27: Cabinet agrees to a Bill amending the Property Law Act.

September 28: PR from Ministers Faafoi and Williams announcing changes to the Property Law Act to help those affected by Covid-19 restrictions.

November 2: The Covid-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill received Royal Assent, This includes changes to the Property Law Act.

2022

March 1: Nash receives a letter from the Ombudsman regarding an investigation into his response to the OIA request.

March 17: Nash’s office drafts a response to the Ombudsman and shares it with the Prime Minister’s Office. This did not include a copy of the June 5, 2020 email but did include a reference to withholding documents under s9(2)(j). The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply.

March 29: Nash replies to the Ombudsman including a redacted and unredacted version of the June 5 email. Includes an explanation that the email was in his capacity as a Labour Member of Parliament rather than in his capacity as minister.

March 30: Office of the Ombudsman responds to Nash’s office, acknowledging receipt of his response.

May 25: Office of the Ombudsman emails Nash’s office saying it would not be pursuing the complaint and the investigation was closed.