Labour dismissive of Stuart Nash criticism over gang asset seizures: 'He's got no class'

Labour MP Willie Jackson says his party's former Police Minister Stuart Nash's comments are just grandstanding and show he has no class.

After six gold-plated motorcycles linked to the Comancheros motorcycle gang were crushed last week, Nash on Monday told RNZ he had pushed for there to be no value threshold on seizing gangs' assets.

He said he had fought for any gang property to be eligible for seizure, but in the end Labour had gone with a minimum $30,000 value on assets that could be taken.

Jackson said he was disappointed at Nash's "grandstanding".

"He's got no class. Real show of no class from Stu, I thought he was better than that and really disappointed with what he's doing at the moment. He should look at himself, he's one of the reasons why things didn't go too well for us in the polls. Just really disappointed," Jackson said.

"This is just grandstanding from Stu. This is just nonsense. It's clear he's making a pitch for contracts around Wellington - I think it's obvious."

Jackson was asked if he had any proof of that, but only said it was "just my view, just my opinion".

"We can look for some proof if you like, I just think - why else would you come out with such stupidity?

"It looks like he's bidding for the contracts around Wellington at the moment, I know that the government are quite happy with him at the moment."

Jackson said he was "100 percent" behind the $30,000 lower limit to seizing gang assets, which had been backed by then-Justice Minister Kiri Allan.

"We had concerns from our communities - not just gang members, from our communities - with how this would be rolled out. And we still got criticism over the $30,000," he said.

"We were not going down his nonsensical line where you just open it up - what, you're going to go and take their cutlery away from them? I mean, goodness sake.

"What are you going to take off them? ... they going to take their shirts off? They going to take their kitchenware off them? It's just mad stuff.

"People like [Labour MP] David Parker and that - you know, he was attorney-general, knows a little bit about rights - he thought it was just nonsensical, it just would not work."

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Labour's changes had reversed the burden of proof - meaning people had to prove their innocence rather than being presumed innocent until proven guilty - so "having no threshold there would actually be a very, very big step".

He said the party initially had an open mind about the threshold, and at first he had personally supported a lower $10,000 limit.

"So when we introduced the bill it had a $30,000 threshold in it, and we actually asked the select committee specifically to look at that and the select committee came back and recommended a change to the threshold so that it became cumulative rather than per asset."

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said his government would consider scrapping the $30,000 limit - but the government had not made decisions about that yet.

"[Police Minister] Mark Mitchell and I talked about it in recent weeks and said actually he'll go back and revisit that in due course, whether it's actually lower or whether it's zero, frankly," Luxon said.

"We haven't talked that through, all we've said is that's an issue that we should revisit at some point and to make sure we get the settings right, there."

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said Labour had been divided on the matter, but "they had a pretty poor record on law and order, and, well, he's done his dash and we're focused on our achievements".

"Look, there'll be practical reasons but that's something I'd take some advice on but yeah, we thought it was probably too high."

He said they were initially focused on their 100-day plan and there was a lot to do.

"We'll work our way through it."

Hipkins said he was open to a lowering of the threshold, but pointed out the one now in place had been decided on with the support of both Mitchell and Goldsmith.

"I think the two current ministers were on that select committee as well, the select committee ultimately recommended that $30,000 threshold remain," he said.

"I had a pretty open mind on it in the first place ... if they're now changing their minds and they want to relook at it, I'm certainly open to seeing what they come up with."

He was also critical of Nash's decision to share his view, considering the decision was made by the full Cabinet.

"I think Cabinet collective responsibility has never been one of Stuart's strong points, but as a former minister he's entitled to have his views ... one of the reasons that we have collective responsibility is people will remember discussions differently."

Nash was removed from Cabinet last year after a series of missteps, which included sharing confidential Cabinet information with some of his own donors.

He told Morning Report the discussions about the threshold were not had in Cabinet, but Hipkins rejected that argument, and said Nash was breaking the rules again.

"Discussions between ministers that ultimately lead to Cabinet decisions are still covered by Cabinet collective responsibility," Hipkins said.

Allan also rejected Nash's characterisation of the discussions.

"Let me put it this way - I wouldn't waste my time or energy responding to a person seeking relevance and attention by misrepresenting facts," she told RNZ.

Jackson said he backed her approach.

"Kiritapu had to make some big decisions and I was really proud of the way she traversed this kaupapa."