Police watchdog reveals nature of investigation into former deputy commissioner
Jevon McSkimming resigned as the country's second most powerful cop on Monday.
Photo:
Getty Images
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has shed light for the first time on details of its investigation into former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
It comes after
RNZ revealed
pornography found on McSkimming's work computer is being investigated as alleged objectionable material.
He declined to comment on the allegations through his lawyer.
McSkimming resigned as the country's second most powerful cop on Monday amid a four-month investigation by the IPCA and police.
In response to questions from RNZ on Wednesday, IPCA investigations manager Stu Graham said in a statement it was conducting an investigation "into the way police handled allegations made against former Deputy Commissioner McSkimming".
"We therefore have no further comment at this time."
It is the first time the IPCA has commented on what its investigation was focused on. The investigation was launched before McSkimming was suspended.
Police declined to comment on the investigation on Wednesday.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers said in a statement on Tuesday that he appreciated that the resignation of McSkimming raised questions, but said the criminal investigation couldn't be "compromised by commenting on the circumstances of it at this point".
"However, I can say that I have always made it very clear that trust and confidence in police is a top priority for me as commissioner," Chambers said.
"I take very seriously anything that puts trust and confidence and the reputation of police at risk and will act to address it.
"I have high expectations of all police staff and will address it if those standards are not met, irrespective of rank or role."
Police Minister Mark Mitchell on Monday said McSkimming resigned before he could be dismissed.
In a statement released on Monday he said: "I can confirm a process had been underway for the Prime Minister to consider recommending the Governor-General immediately remove the Deputy Commissioner of Police from office.
"I instructed the Public Service Commission to commence the process to remove Mr McSkimming from office after allegations of a very serious nature recently came to light, separate to the investigation that led to him being suspended."
He did not say what the allegations were. Mitchell said the Policing Act was "very clear".
"A deputy commissioner of police must be a 'fit and proper' person. They are rightly held to the highest standards of conduct and this new information called into serious question Mr McSkimming's fitness for office.
"When Mr McSkimming was invited to respond to these allegations he chose to resign. Mr McSkimming's resignation has confirmed my view that his continuation in the role was untenable."
Police advised Mitchell that their investigations into McSkimming would continue, notwithstanding his resignation.
"As the latest information remains subject to ongoing police investigation, I am unable to provide further comment at this time."
In January, McSkimming released a statement through his lawyer confirming he had been suspended since before Christmas.
"He remains on full pay, pending a criminal investigation. When any police officer faces an investigation of this nature, they are typically suspended from duty," the statement said.
"Mr McSkimming is co-operating fully with police and looks forward to the investigation being concluded swiftly, after which he expects to resume his duties as deputy commissioner."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has not said why McSkimming resigned.
Luxon was asked multiple times by the media on Monday afternoon for comment, but did not offer any explanation.
"I'm not going to get into any of this," said Luxon.
"The reality is I'm aware of the resignation, aware of the circumstances around it.
"We can say as much as we can say at this point... ongoing investigation, nothing further to say."
He said there will be more to say later on.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said there were no red flags raised about McSkimming when he was appointed deputy police commissioner under the previous government.
Hipkins said both the police commissioner and the public service commissioner recommended McSkimming's appointment at the time.
"Things have obviously subsequently come to light. I can't comment on those because I don't know anything of the detail of any of those, but I can say categorically none of them were raised during the appointment process," he said.
Hipkins said he had not been told anything about what the allegations were against McSkimming.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
18 minutes ago
- Scoop
Parliament Rejects Proposal To Address Critical Workforce Shortages
Over 20,000 New Zealanders signed a petition calling for paid training in healthcare, teaching, and social work to address critical workforce shortages. In June 2025, the Education and Workforce Select Committee dismissed the proposal. Despite being presented with an evidence-based solution and widespread public support, the Select Committee concluded: 'the issue is complex, and we do not consider there is an immediate solution to it.' 'Yet again, female-dominated professions are dismissed and devalued,' says Paid Placements Aotearoa's Campaign Lead, Bex Howells. 'This government talks about fiscal constraint but can find $1.9 billion for a mega prison to hold 800 people. The same funding allocation could see over 17,000 people paid to train in essential services. Paid training would deliver excellent return on investment – at a time we desperately need resolution for staffing shortages.' The Select Committee acknowledged the need to grow New Zealand's essential workforces, noted Australia's introduction of paid training schemes, and referenced the European Parliament's vote to ban unpaid internships (on the grounds of exploitation). Howells adds, "This is a deeply disappointing outcome - albeit unsurprising - in the current political climate. Our proposal is not about an 'immediate' fix. It's about laying the groundwork for long-term workforce growth and access to services." The Government's refusal to act means staff shortages will persist - affecting both those who deliver these services and those who rely on them.
RNZ News
22 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Why opponents and supporters of the Regulatory Standards Bill are so far apart
Versions of the Regulatory Standards Bill have been introduced the House three times, all have failed to become reality. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins A moment years in the making arrived with a grin from David Seymour. The ACT Party leader stood in the house to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill for its first reading in mid-May. It's legislation that Seymour has long championed, the origins of which date back to the early 2000s. Now he hopes it will finally pass into law and reshape how governments create legislation in Aotearoa. Declaring himself "extremely excited", he framed the bill as a much-needed removal of red tape and a win for transparency. "This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. But the political left have got themselves in quite a lather about the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. He was right: the left is mad. Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson described the bill as the most dangerous piece of legislation that the House of Representatives has seen. "It seeks to destroy the very foundation of who we are. It seeks to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from lawmaking … It would put private property above protecting the environment or public safety or indigenous rights." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out Te Tiriti was not mentioned once in the bill. "The silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law, but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." On one side, Seymour's supporters see a bill about better law-making and transparency. On the other, critics are calling it the "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0" and warn it could gut treaty protections. How can one bill on such a seemingly bland topic have two such drastically divergent interpretations? According to the Ministry for Regulation, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) seeks to "establish a benchmark for good legislation" by introducing a set of principles of "responsible regulation". Essentially, the bill creates a set of rules that all lawmakers must consider and follow in regulation design. The rules or principles laid out in the are grouped into six different sections: the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, tax, fees and levies, the role of courts, and good law-making. The key omission, for critics, is that there are no references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi or its principles. The law would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, which would respond to concerns raised around the consistency of regulation. Appointed by the Regulation Minister (currently ACT Party Leader David Seymour), the board would be able to make non-binding recommendations, much like the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill took its foundations from a report written by Dr Bryce Wilkinson in the early 2000s. The report was commissioned by the Business Roundtable (now merged into the New Zealand Initiative), a public policy think tank and business membership organisation. Wilkinson was tasked with examining the quality of government regulation in New Zealand. Inspired by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of the early 1990s, a transparency mechanism designed to prevent another public debt blowout, he drafted an initial "Regulatory Responsibility Bill". He describes his original concept as a way to prevent regulatory abuses by focusing on making "government laws and regulations more principled and more respectful of personal autonomy and property." Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. Photo: Supplied Various different versions of the bill have been introduced to Parliament on three separate occasions, each time failing to become law. First, by the ACT Party under Rodney Hide's leadership in 2006, then again in 2011, and then by Seymour in 2021. The RSB was once again resurrected in 2023, this time as part of the coalition agreement signed between National and ACT, which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a Regulatory Standards Act "as soon as practicable." The bill defines what it sees as good law-making, but some legal experts warn that this definition reflects only a single political viewpoint. Everyone is in favour of good lawmaking, suggests Andrew Geddis, Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago. "The question is, how do you define what a good law is, and what principles should good law follow?" Geddis argues it would elevate one party's political ideology, namely ACT's libertarian views, into a framework future governments would have to follow. "By choosing a few principles and saying these are the really important principles that matter. These are the ones that must be complied with. It kind of bakes into our law making system an idea that this is what the ideal society ought to look like" he says. Dr Carwyn Jones, Kaihautū Te Whare Whakatupu Mātauranga at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, says the bill is a constitutional overreach which focuses on property rights and wealth. "Those come at the expense of things like environmental protection, protection of human rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights Act, or rights under te Tiriti." Dr Carwyn Jones gave evidence at the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal into the RSB. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Of the more than 10 principles which will define good lawmaking, there is no reference to considering the Treaty or its principles. Geddis, an expert in constitutional law, says this puts the Bill at odds with the Treaty, and the principles enshrined in the RSB would constrain the Treaty's impact. "The principles it contains, and the way those principles constrain lawmaking, means that lawmaking in New Zealand can't really respond to the needs or the demands of te Tiriti. It puts a constraint on how our system of government can operate in a way that is treaty compliant, and that in itself, undermines or undercuts what effect the treaty can have." Another key sticking point in the bill is the principle, "every person is equal before the law". That almost identical phrase was featured in the now dead Treaty Principles Bill, also backed by ACT. Whilst seemingly neutral, lawyer and Special Counsel at Tāmaki Legal, Tania Waikato fears the clause could be used to dismantle existing laws designed to address historic inequities. "Every single piece of legislation where it treats Māori differently, they can assess it against that principle and say that doesn't comply. And if that doesn't comply, they then have the ability to review it. It can be repealed." For this reason, Waikato says it is the most dangerous piece of legislation she has seen in the 20 years she has been a lawyer, dubbing it "Treaty Principles Bill 2.0". "It can take away every single right that Māori have under te Tiriti that's in legislation already, and it can stop any new rights being recognised in any incoming laws." It's estimated over 40,000 people marched on Parliament to protest the Treaty Principles Bill in 2024. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Waikato, who also acts as the legal representative for Te Pāti Māori and activist group Toitū te Tiriti, says the legislation will impact the revitalisation of te reo Māori. "If you've got a piece of legislation for te reo Maori that gives funding support, for example, to te reo Māori, that's not treating everyone the same, that's treating Maori differently." Carwyn Jones suggests the RSB will create a "filter" or "control gate" for all existing and new legislation, providing a mechanism to diminish the legal standing of te Tiriti from New Zealand law. "The Treaty Principles Bill was about removing the legal impact and meaning, and effect of te Tiriti from our law... What it will do is provide an opportunity to remove te Tiriti from our law with exactly the same effect, I think, as the Treaty Principles Bill would have." Jones also sees the creation of a Regulatory Standards Board as a kind of 'anti-Waitangi Tribunal'. "The [Waitangi] Tribunal is about protecting those rights under te Tiriti and giving effect to treaty principles, finding practical ways of giving effect to those. The regulatory standards board will be about removing those rights under te Tiriti, finding ways of ensuring that te Tiriti does not have any legal effect or meaning in our law." Wilkinson says he's spent hours trying to understand treaty concerns, but can't see what the problem is. "At the moment I'm just seeing an assertion that somehow these principles are in conflict with the treaty, but I can't see how they would be." He describes the bill as a minor transparency measure, which won't restrict parliament in its lawmaking, more than it will encourage pause for thought. "The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a much more serious sort of constitutional beast. It doesn't have a treaty clause in it either. So why isn't the eye being directed at the Bill of Rights Act rather than this little transparency measure." Responding to concerns the bill is "dangerous", Wilkinson says he doesn't understand that point of view either. "There's so much public misunderstanding and distrust of this." "Māori are seeing it [the bill] as anti-Māori but people are assuming motives which aren't there, and then they're getting really uptight about it, because they think they're going to be screwed, and that this is about screwing them." In a written statement, Seymour said the RSB will help Aotearoa get its "mojo back". "It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve? What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property? Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER He said it is about transparent lawmaking and that all New Zealanders benefit. "This bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence.' So if a politician wants to tax you, take your property, or restrict your livelihood, they should be able to show you their work." Seymour said misinformation about the bill was being spread by social media campaigns. "Clearly some groups see this sort of fearmongering and manufactured outrage as a good way of fundraising. Thankfully, I think most Kiwis can see right through this." Critics also argue that the RSB process itself hasn't followed good lawmaking practices, including consultation with Māori. Andrew Geddis says that lack of consultation amounts to a breach of treaty principles. "A principle of te Tiriti is that when a new law is being made by the government that affects Māori, Māori should be consulted and have their views taken into account. That just hasn't really happened at all with regards [to this] legislation… Māori just haven't been talked to about it." The Ministry for Regulation did seek public input on a discussion document about the bill in January, which garnered about 23,000 responses, 88 percent of which opposed the bill. But Jones agrees there was no meaningful consultation with Māori. "Māori who submitted were opposed to the bill, and the particular concerns they raised were around its impact on te Tiriti, and yet the government still didn't identify that there were any particular issues that they ought to be consulting with Māori about." Tania Waikato says it gives a disproportionate amount of power to the ACT Party, allowing them to create "long-lasting intergenerational change without the consent of the people." "Eight percent of the vote does not entitle you to change our constitution, and they were devious and deceptive in terms of how they described this bill and how they failed to consult on this bill." But in an interview on RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , Seymour insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 iwi-based groups who submitted … if that's not enough, then I don't know what is," Seymour said. After an urgent inquiry was launched, the Waitangi Tribunal found that if the RSB was enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would "constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. Jones also points out that the Bill isn't even something the Ministry for Regulation thinks will encourage good lawmaking. "The Ministry of Regulation, David Seymour's own ministry, their advice to the government was that not only is this not needed, but this is not a very effective way to encourage good law making, and neither is it a very efficient way of doing it," he says. The RSB is currently open for public submissions with the select committee due to report back on 22 November, although Seymour has asked that it be moved up to 23 September. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026.
RNZ News
33 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Six-year-old believed among two killed after boat capsizes off Taranaki
File photo. Photo: Supplied One of the two people who died when a boat capsized off the coast of South Taranaki is believed to have been a six-year-old child. Three people were on board the boat when it got into trouble off Pātea on Sunday morning . Two people died and their bodies were recovered about about 11.30am. A third person was taken to hospital. The coastguard said on Sunday the vessel had logged a bar crossing trip report with Coastguard South Taranaki, notifying the radio operators that they were crossing the Pātea Bar, which placed the vessel on a bar watch. "Coastguard South Taranaki radio operators were watching the bar cameras and raised the alarm, after witnessing the vessel capsize." Volunteers from Coastguard South Taranaki supported police from land and Coastguard Wanganui launched its rescue vessel but was stood down by police shortly after. "The two people who sadly lost their lives - as well as a third person, who was taken to hospital - were brought to shore by nearby boaties, who responded quickly to the call for help. Some of those on board happened to be off-duty coastguard volunteers, who were out fishing in a private capacity," the coastguard said."
