Mitchell reveals pre-existing concerns over Naidoo sensitive briefing; Police role untenable
Police Minister Mark Mitchell says he held "pre-existing concerns" regarding a sensitive briefing attended by Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo, prior to Naidoo advising anyone at Police that he was considering standing for the Labour Party. Mitchell's disclosure, reported on 13 August 2026, adds a new layer to the ongoing controversy surrounding the senior police officer's shift into politics RNZ.
Naidoo, an ethnic, iwi and communities relationships manager for New Zealand Police, was confirmed on 8 June as a list-only candidate for Labour. Ranked 13th, he was almost guaranteed a seat in Parliament. Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has since stated that Naidoo's role in police is now "untenable," with questions remaining over his actions given his involvement in sensitive briefings RNZ; Stuff.
A review is under way into the period during which Naidoo was engaging with the Labour Party. The internal timeline, as established by Police's own chief assurance officer Mike Webb, begins in the week commencing 25 May. Naidoo told his manager, assistant commissioner Tim Anderson, he was considering standing as a Labour candidate roughly two weeks before his 8 June confirmation. On Thursday 28 May, Naidoo provided Anderson with printed copies of police policies, Public Service Commission guidelines, and extracts from the Electoral Act 1993 relevant to steps he might need to take if he decided to stand for elected office RNZ.
Anderson has confirmed Naidoo spoke to him a week prior to his notification to the commissioner, advising that he had been approached to stand as a candidate. Anderson treated that initial conversation as confidential because Naidoo had not yet reached a decision on whether to stand, and therefore did not inform the commissioner. Anderson said that when Naidoo spoke to him again the following week to advise he would be putting his name forward for a list ranking process, Anderson immediately notified the commissioner. Anderson has apologised for not informing the commissioner of police that Naidoo was considering standing for the Labour Party until a week after their initial conversation RNZ.
Mitchell confirmed he had two phone calls with Commissioner Chambers on 8 and 9 June to discuss the situation, including the response to media queries and concerns the Minister held about the disclosure timeline. Mitchell was the first to voice concern about Naidoo after Labour's list announcement, given Naidoo's role meant he was included in sensitive briefings NZ Herald. He has said he was disappointed that Naidoo had not declared his conversations about standing for Labour earlier RNZ; NZ Herald.
The minister has declined to release information relating to the sensitive briefing, citing section 6(c) of the Official Information Act. That provision allows withholding information where making it available would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial RNZ.
Naidoo had been attending events with Mitchell as recently as the day before the minister's 13 August statement. Mitchell has also accused prominent community leaders of attacking his character after they rallied behind Naidoo RNZ; RNZ.
The broader context here is a collision between the operational neutrality of the public service, particularly uniformed roles with access to classified information, and the political process. Naidoo's seniority and functional remit across ethnic, iwi, and community relationships placed him in close proximity to both policy development and the minister himself. The fact that Mitchell held concerns about a specific briefing before Naidoo's political intentions were known internally raises the stakes of the ongoing review beyond a simple disclosure-timeline issue. It points to potential questions about the handling of sensitive information during the pre-candidacy period.
For those working in and around the Beehive, the minister's decision to invoke section 6(c) of the OIA is notable. It is a withholding ground used where releasing information could compromise law enforcement or fair trial rights, not one typically reached for routine political appointments. That places this matter firmly in the territory of operational police integrity rather than merely a public service employment dispute. The review's findings will be closely watched for what they establish about who knew what, and when, within the police executive, and whether any information boundaries were crossed during the weeks Naidoo was engaged with Labour while still operating in his police role.
