Source: Radio New Zealand
Andrew Coster when he was in charge of the police. RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Analysis – Headline writers have had their fun calling it ‘Coster’s Last Stand’, and like the general’s doomed battle, it ended with a crushing fall.
The comparison falls apart pretty quickly after that. Yes, Andrew Coster leaves behind a mixed legacy, but the former police boss will never gain the folk-hero sheen of his near-namesake.
Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche struck a somewhat conflicted tone in his interviews on Wednesday.
Clearly he thought Coster’s resignation was the right and inevitable outcome, and named the former police chief ultimately responsible for the extensive failings set out in the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report.
At the same time, he commended Coster’s performance at the Social Investment Agency and said he respected the man.
Roche even went so far as saying he did not believe Coster was personally guilty of wrongdoing.
Jevon McSkimming. RNZ / Mark Papalii
That generosity goes a little too far. Even Coster, in his statement on Wednesday, acknowledged he had placed too much trust in deputy Jevon McSkimming and failed to properly interrogate the allegations about him.
“It was sobering to read of a number of missed opportunities which should have proceeded differently and more appropriately,” Coster wrote.
One of the most startling sections of the IPCA report described how Coster tried to shut down an official investigation, even contacting the IPCA directly to encourage a quick wrap-up.
“He sought to bring a serious criminal investigation to an unduly rapid conclusion so that it did not impact on a job application process,” the report found.
Sobering is an understatement.
Ministers, meanwhile, veered too far in the other direction. Judith Collins came close to branding the conduct corrupt, while Mark Mitchell marched across that line entirely before hastily retreating.
With rhetoric like that, it is little wonder some people may be wondering why Coster is not facing criminal charges.
The answer lies in that IPCA report. As both Coster and Roche pointed out on Wednesday, it did not uncover corruption or an intentional cover-up.
What it found was a colossal lapse in judgement and an almost inexplicable disregard for proper process. That is serious misconduct, but not criminal offending.
That nuance partly explains why the saga dragged on for three weeks. It is a fair question as to why it took so long when the conclusion felt obvious.
Roche’s explanation is that he had to tread carefully to ensure the process was lawful and defensible. It’s noteworthy that Coster’s failings occurred in a previous job, not his current one.
Certainly, the outcome would have been far worse had it ended up in the courts.
Coster leaves with three months’ salary in lieu of notice – roughly $130,000.
Roche insists the payout was required under the contract, though it’s not clear whether that would’ve been the case had Roche formally dismissed him, as he says he was prepared to do.
Again though, the situation could’ve been much worse for the taxpayer. Coster still had four years left on his contract.
In his statement, Coster began the work of repairing his reputation. There was no hedging, nor deflecting. He accepted “full responsibility” for police shortcomings and apologised both to the woman at the centre of the case and to the wider police force.
Coster ended with a simple admission: “I am prepared to take responsibility – I got this wrong.”
What we have not yet heard are those words spoken aloud. Coster has not fronted media or taken questions.
He closed his statement with a suggestion he might return to public service “at some point in the future”.
If he hopes to return to a leadership role, it will take far more than just a written apology to rebuild trust.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
