In the wake of the Jevon McSkimming scandal, the resignation of former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency was not unexpected. Both the criticisms of Coster's judgement on the McSkimming case when Police Commissioner that were highlighted in the Independent Police Complaints Authority report and the sensitivity of his new role at the Social Investment Agency made his continued employment in a senior public service role untenable.

Although Coster's handling of the McSkimming case was severely criticised in the IPCA report, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche and others have drawn attention to Coster's high personal integrity. His failings seem due more to bad judgement rather than improper conduct. As the New Zealand Herald put it in an editorial, "it would appear the former Police boss was bad at his job, rather than a bad man."

There has been much comment that the detrimental impact of McSkimming’s conduct on public confidence in the Police will take a long time to overcome. The Public Service Commissioner has also hinted at implications across the public sector which will need to be addressed. In short, this is the biggest blow to the reputation of the Police since the circumstances surrounding the departure of Commissioner Compton following financial mismanagement allegations in 1955.

Inevitably, this raises questions about Coster's appointment as Police Commissioner and whether he was the best person for the job. In New Zealand, senior appointments - such as the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police - are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Coster was appointed Commissioner of Police in 2020 on the personal recommendation of then Prime Minister Ardern who made it very clear that he was her personal choice because of his "positivity, inclusion and integrity." Scuttlebutt at the time implied he was not the preferred candidate of the Public Service Commission but was appointed because he was known to Ardern and she liked his softer "policing by consent" approach to law and order issues. McSkimming was appointed Deputy Commissioner three years later, on the advice of Prime Minister Hipkins, following a strong recommendation from Commissioner Coster. These two appointments go some way to explaining Labour's comparative silence on the issues disclosed in the IPCA report.

In the wake of the fallout from the Coster and McSkimming appointments, it should be considered whether the process for such important and sensitive appointments remains fit for purpose or whether some greater independence and transparency is required. On the face of it, it is difficult to see how this might occur since the current processes for appointing senior public servants are set out very clearly in the Public Services Act and the Policing Act, as far as the Police are concerned.

Where the system failed in both the Coster and McSkimming cases was simply that at the end of the process, the wrong person was appointed. Both were more cases of human error, rather than systems failure. It is possible, however, that a more robust role for the Public Service Commission might have countered Ardern’s preference for Coster and Coster’s advocacy of McSkimming. But, at the end of the day, it is very difficult to overrule the authority of a Prime Minister set on a particular course of action, or a Police Commissioner urging a certain appointment.

Nevertheless, there could be changes around the interaction between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General when making such statutorily based appointments. Although the appointments are nominally made by the Governor-General, the reality is that the Governor-General merely signs off the name put forward by the Prime Minister. Perhaps in the future, the Prime Minister could be required to present all the names on the short-list, including a preferred option, to the Governor-General, for consideration over a period of some days before the appointment is finalised. That would allow time for more background checks to be made and further questions to be asked, especially in cases where the Prime Minister’s recommendation differs from that of the Public Service Commissioner.

This “cooling off” period would be a protection for both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, to prevent potential embarrassment down the track. Were it in place, it would have almost certainly prevented the McSkimming appointment. And a more formal process like this would not cut across the constitutional requirement that the Governor-General should act on the advice of Ministers.

There is no doubt that the Coster and McSkimming cases have shaken confidence in the core of our public service system. Public Services Commissioner Roche effectively acknowledged that in his observation that he was aware that chief executives across the sector were watching his actions on Coster very closely. He fully understands that his response to Coster establishes a precedent that will from now on apply across the public sector in such circumstances. In that regard, he has put an important marker in the ground.

The reality is that in large public and private sector organisations there will always be individuals who will act improperly or inappropriately. That is the nature of the human condition. The legacy of the McSkimming case is not that it will have stopped future occurrences of its type – it will not have. But hopefully it will have made Ministers, chief executives and senior managers more aware of the possibility of such situations, and the early warning signs that accompany them.

The failures of leadership at so many levels and the consequent catastrophic impact on victims, individuals and organisations that this case demonstrated were utterly unacceptable. Therefore, the focus for the future needs to be on identifying potential similar situations early, whether they be in the Police or any other public sector agency. Once identified, it is in everyone’s interests that they be resolved as fairly, quickly and thoroughly as possible.