Has Police Commissioner Richard Chambers made his own position ‘untenable’?

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

ANALYSIS: The sirens sounding from Police National Headquarters this week may have had you believing another major police conduct scandal was afoot.

On Monday morning, Labour leader Chris Hipkins announced he’d taken a leaf out of the Aussies’ book and poached himself a Kiwi cop.

Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo, the police national partnerships manager for iwi and ethnic communities, was ranked unexpectedly high in an easily winnable spot on Labour’s list.

The reaction from the Government and police top brass has been swift and strong.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell was first on scene, raising questions about what information Naidoo may have had access to. Commissioner Richard Chambers provided back-up, expressing disappointment that Naidoo had not given him a heads-up sooner and labelling his position in the police “untenable”.

By Tuesday it kicked up a notch, with Chambers launching a review to find out whether Naidoo had been acting as some sort of mole, feeding information from “sensitive” briefings to “any third party” (subtext: the Government’s sworn enemy - the Labour Party).

No one had made that claim. There is, thus far, no evidence, or even a tip-off or allegation, that Naidoo had breached his obligation to remain politically neutral at work and to preserve police objectivity and independence from politics. But best to investigate to be certain, Chambers said.

Because Naidoo is technically still a member of the police, a public servant, he may feel restrained in being free to publicly defend his character.

It was left to Hipkins to say he is confident nothing has been done wrong and Naidoo’s “integrity is beyond reproach”.

That makes this even more political; a scrap that would usually just be between Labour and National now has a third player - New Zealand Police.

“I am very surprised to see the police commissioner making a statement that basically has no evidentiary base behind it whatsoever, and seems to be asserting that somebody is guilty until they've proven themselves to be innocent, when there is no case to answer, because there is no evidence that anyone's done anything wrong,” Hipkins said on Wednesday.

Labour’s police spokesperson Ginny Andersen, who worked with Naidoo at police, alleged Mitchell had instructed the commissioner on what to say. The Prime Minister labelled that claim “a load of rubbish”.

It is a serious allegation from Andersen. Police are operationally independent from politicians, including the government of the day, and instructing them, or being seen to, has in the past lost people their jobs. See: Stuart Nash recommending an appeal of a court decision.

Hipkins has not gone as far, but he did note that no background conversations between the commissioner and minister needed to happen, because Mitchell had raised concerns publicly and all Chambers needed to do was read the news.

Publicly announcing this review is, arguably, out of step with how police often communicate their inquiries into potential wrongdoing.

Careful not to imply guilt or undermine investigations, they are usually guarded about what the public can know. A hefty communications team carefully vets their responses to the media.

Chambers may argue that he is simply asking questions to satisfy himself of the integrity of the force. But in politics questions are sometimes as powerful as answers. In politics perception morphs into reality and even asking the question could contribute to a perception of wrongdoing.

There is an argument to be made that the act of making the review public risks undermining the very thing Chambers says he is trying to defend - the political neutrality and independence of the police.

On the other hand, there may be fault at the feet of Naidoo and Labour, too.

Naidoo has, according to Hipkins, been considering a run for Labour for months. Under police rules, he had an obligation to inform his employer at the earliest opportunity if he was intending to run for Parliament. His rank meant he had to inform the commissioner personally.

The obligation for officers such as Naidoo is to inform the higher-ups, manage any conflicts and then stand down during the official election period. Police officers, like everyone, have a right to stand for Parliament.

Chambers said he was told about Naidoo’s plans last Thursday. The minister only found out Sunday evening - under a no surprises heads-up from police. Earlier that afternoon, he’d been with Naidoo at an event. By Sunday afternoon Naidoo’s list placing was confirmed, but he said nothing to Mitchell about it.

Hipkins has acknowledged that Labour deliberately ran a shortened process for Naidoo so he could wait until two days before it was official to let the bosses know.

That suggests that Labour knew how this would play out, and that they managed and manufactured a process so Naidoo could sail close to the edge of the disclosure rules.

Mitchell’s take was that, basically, Hipkins and Naidoo decided they were better placed than the commissioner to manage police political neutrality issues.

Naidoo’s candidacy has clearly spooked the National Party.

They have campaigned hard for ethnic communities, especially Indian voters, and believed their law and order policies had that constituency sewn up.

As the first Indian officer to become a superintendent, and a respected officer who has done the legwork, Naidoo is a real threat. National’s reaction, reaching to undermine his credibility from the outset, shows just how worried they are.

Which is fine for the National Party to do.

But the commissioner’s response has raised eyebrows and questions in the opposition quarters.

Hipkins has not gone so far as to say he does not have confidence in Chambers.

“My confidence in the police commissioner is immaterial,” he said when we asked on Wednesday.

But if Labour was to lead the next government; if Naidoo was elected; if he was to become police minister (which Hipkins did not rule out), could he have complete confidence in Chambers after his public spray?

If all that were to happen (and yes, that’s a lot of ifs), the job which may become most “untenable” post-election is Chambers’.