Comparisons between Christopher Luxon's handling of National MP Tim van de Molen and Chris Hipkins' response to various ministerial improprieties will be made but aren't quite fair
Opinion: Christopher Luxon wants to "be pretty clear about it" – Tim van de Molen's threatening behaviour towards Labour MP Shanan Halbert is "utterly unacceptable".
While the drama is an annoying distraction for an Opposition Leader who wants to focus on the campaign, it's also an opportunity for him to display an iron-fisted approach to caucus impropriety.
READ MORE:
* Bullying and harassment in Parliament - one year on
* Union frustration as work on MP behaviour watchdog stalls
* Rules on political conflicts of interests must be updated urgently
After an independent review commissioned by Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee found Van de Molen was "objectively threatening" in a confrontation with Halbert after a select committee meeting, Luxon has stripped the Waikato MP of all of his portfolios.
Some commentators may draw a connection to the tortuous handling of ministerial indiscretions by Chris Hipkins, but this is unfair. With Stuart Nash, then Michael Wood, then Kiri Allan, Hipkins took a softer approach at first before circumstances spiralled out of control.
Throughout most of those sagas, the Prime Minister faced relentless pressure from National to sack his wayward ministers but chose to offer them a lifeline. Each time, that decision was rewarded poorly.
Stuart Nash stepped down first as police minister for commenting inappropriately on judicial decisions. Then a couple of weeks later he was sacked from all his ministerial roles after it was revealed he discussed Cabinet decisions with his political donors.
Michael Wood was suspended from his transport role over a failure to declare shareholdings in Auckland Airport. Hipkins suffered through weeks of mockery from National over the 16 times Wood was asked to sell those shares by the Cabinet Office. Then, in the end, a review turned up other shareholdings and Wood resigned from all his ministerial portfolios.
Kiri Allan faced allegations of bullying in a series of media articles in June, but Hipkins stood by her. He supported her taking mental health leave during Parliament's recess in July and took her at her word when she said she was ready to return to work. Then, of course, she quit Parliament after she was arrested for careless use of a motor vehicle and was found to be above the legal limit for alcohol consumption.
Luxon made a point during at least the first two instances that he would take a tougher line with any problems in his caucus. Van de Molen gave him the opportunity to prove it – but passing this test was easier than the ones Hipkins faced.
Van de Molen's behaviour was clearly out of line almost from the get-go. While there was some dispute at first as to the specifics of the incident, the independent report and Privileges Committee findings were extremely clear. The National MP's conduct "was aggressive in the sense of being hostile, unprofessional and... with an element that was objectively threatening, but not in the sense of physical violence".
This isn't a minor indiscretion, nor an unsubstantiated allegation. Van de Molen will face censure for contempt of Parliament, the first member to do so since Winston Peters in 2008 (for "knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests").
From that perspective, Luxon was never going to take a soft approach with his wayward MP.
Moreover, Van de Molen is a backbencher, ranked extremely low on the party's list. He's in a safe seat so will be returned to the House this election, but he's relatively disposable as MPs go. Compare that with the situations Hipkins faced, where Nash was a party veteran and Wood and Allan were both highly commended up-and-comers in Labour's caucus – each tipped at times for a future job on the ninth floor.
So while comparisons may be made between how the two party leaders handled their caucus problems, this still has shed relatively little light on what Luxon would do in a situation like Hipkins had to deal with. If a shoe-in for Cabinet such as Chris Bishop or Erica Stanford had made a borderline mistake, how would Luxon have responded? We still don't know and can't use the Van de Molen incident to say with certainty that National's leader will take as tough an approach next time.
The circumstances here are unique and can't be ported on to past or hypothetical future incidents.
