Police Minister had concerns about sensitive briefing before Naidoo's Labour candidacy was known

Police Minister Mark Mitchell says he had "pre-existing concerns" about a sensitive briefing that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo attended — concerns that predate Naidoo telling anyone at Police he was considering standing for the Labour Party. Mitchell's disclosure, reported on 13 August 2026, adds another dimension to the controversy around the senior officer's move into politics RNZ.

Naidoo works as an ethnic, iwi and communities relationships manager for New Zealand Police. He was confirmed on 8 June as a list-only candidate for Labour — meaning he would enter Parliament through the party vote rather than contesting an electorate seat. Ranked 13th on the list, he was almost guaranteed a place. Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has since said Naidoo's role in police is now "untenable," with questions remaining about his involvement in sensitive briefings RNZ; Stuff.

An internal review is under way into the period when Naidoo was engaging with the Labour Party. The timeline, established by Police's chief assurance officer Mike Webb, begins in the week of 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 gave Anderson printed copies of police policies, Public Service Commission guidelines, and extracts from the Electoral Act 1993 — the law covering how elections work in Aotearoa — relevant to steps he might need to take if he stood for office RNZ.

Anderson has confirmed Naidoo first spoke to him a week before notifying the commissioner, saying he had been approached to stand as a candidate. Anderson treated that initial conversation as confidential because Naidoo had not yet decided whether to stand, and so did not tell the commissioner. When Naidoo spoke to him again the following week to say he would put his name forward for the party's list ranking process, Anderson immediately notified the commissioner. Anderson has apologised for not informing the commissioner that Naidoo was considering standing for Labour until a week after their first 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 raise concerns about Naidoo after Labour's list announcement, because 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 about the sensitive briefing, citing section 6(c) of the Official Information Act. That provision allows the government to withhold information where releasing it would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law — including preventing, investigating, and detecting 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 tension between two things that normally stay separate: the political neutrality of public servants — especially those in uniform with access to classified information — and the political process. Naidoo's seniority and his role across ethnic, iwi, and community relationships put him close 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 within Police raises the stakes of the review beyond a question of when disclosure should have happened. It points to possible questions about how sensitive information was handled during the weeks Naidoo was engaging with Labour while still working in his police role.

For those who follow politics in and around the Beehive, the minister's decision to invoke section 6(c) of the OIA is worth noting. It is a withholding ground used where releasing information could compromise law enforcement or fair trial rights — not one typically reached for in routine political appointments. That places this matter in the territory of operational police integrity rather than a straightforward 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 period Naidoo was engaging with Labour while still operating in his police role.