Earlier in September, Stuart Nash was asked what a woman was on the fringe media, The Platform. His response made quite a scandal, even New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters had to defend him after Nash had unreservedly apologised. Despite the apology, Nash and his employer, the recruitment firm Robert Walters decided to part ways, and Nash had to resign from his role on the board of the Taxpayers Union, too. Moreover, as recent news suggests, the Government also believes that it is better to distance itself from Nash, as the Government's responses to Radio New Zealand's questions about Stuart Nash's dumping from a trade trip to the US reveal.
This piece comes more than a week after the news hit the public. However, I felt seriously outraged, and I wanted the topic to cool down so I can prepare a more objective analysis. This extra thinking time also allowed to see if the emerging scandal after Nash’s comments were going away with the news cycle or will stay for longer. It was worth waiting for the more recent news.
With the extra time, it became possible to realise that the gravity of the situation is larger than it may appear in the mainstream media. Regarding Nash’s comments on the Platform, it is relevant to quote his entire answer when Sean Plunket asked him about what a woman was (unfortunately, Nash’s phone line was not clear, so the transcript might not be fully accurate):
Oh, last time when I said to him (not sure who?), I got into trouble. A woman is a person with a p…y and a pair of t..s.
The quote reveals that Stuart Nash faced negative consequences for his views earlier, so he had had the opportunity to improve. Still, he kept his approach to the question, and towards women.
Couple of hours later, Nash attempted to ask Platform founder Sean Plunket to delete the uncomfortable comment so the narrative about Nash could be changed. Plunket refused to delete it, he neither cut anything out. Therefore, we had the opportunity to learn about the situation. As a sidenote, it is also telling about the Platform founder that he did not start questioning Nash’s views after the comment, Plunket was practically laughing with Nash, so it is easy to conclude that Plunket might sympathize with those views as well.
Nash noted the gravity and apologised unreservedly.
This apology did not save his jobs. Moreover, the Government asked him not to join a trade trip to New York to advertise the Government’s new “golden visa” to investors. As Radio New Zealand revealed, a spokesperson to Trade Minister Todd McClay informed them about the decision in a written statement.:
"The Minister decided that Mr Nash's participation in the mission would be a distraction," the statement said.
"He thought it would be unfair to other members of the delegation to have to respond to questions from potential US investors, especially women, about Mr Nash's comments. Mr Nash was therefore informed he was no longer on the delegation."
Despite this clear statement, Nash said a different story, namely, he just delayed his travel by three weeks owing to his son’s broken leg. Therefore, it is fair to say that Nash is still fighting the apparent narrative about his character. Unfortunately, this intention to appear as flawless is an organic part of Nash’s profile. Journalists asked him after Nash made a speech at the New Zealand First conference earlier in September. As Nash highlighted, Labour leader and Prime Minister Hipkins did not support him in the controversy around the revelations of confidential emails to his donors.
Contrary to Nash’s claims, Hipkins held him as minister after it was revealed that he attempted to circumvent the rules in an immigration case, however, Nash was demoted to the bottom of cabinet rankings. And, it was Hipkins who got under pressure to look into Nash’s dealings in a longer period, and this investigation revealed Nash’s emails to donors. Therefore, Nash cannot claim that Hipkins “stabbed him in the back” – it was Nash who made the disappointing mistakes.
Naturally, there are questions about Stuart Nash’s political future. Even though in various podcasts he made insightful and informative arguments, the mess created by his comments on “what a woman is” will not be easy to clean up. This is also aggravated by his former departure from Labour’s Cabinet.
Both problems create dark shadow on him. Although it was predictable that Nash would join New Zealand First because right after his departure from government, the idea was floated. In 2023, that might have been a good step because at that stage we didn’t know how lobby groups (primarily the tobacco lobby) influenced New Zealand First’s policies. For Nash with his questionable history, joining New Zealand First after the revelations about their relationships to lobby groups does not provide a good look. Any voter might ask how likely it is that he would continue to serve lobby groups in the future?
The larger problem, Nash’s political suicide, his comments on the Platform about women with his prior experience when he could have learnt to change his views will hardly go away despite his apology. The comment in public is unacceptable. Even though some people may say that he is just a big macho, and in private circles the comment may be still okay, many people disagree that men can treat women like what the comment suggests. Similarly to David Clark’s lockdown breaches in 2020, Nash’s comments revealed part of his personality that is unacceptable for the large part of the public.
This is why the media kept asking New Zealand First leader Winston Peters after Nash apologised. Similarly, the unacceptable personality trait that the comment showed is the reason why Nash’s employers felt that Nash has become a reputational risk. It may take some years for Nash to reinstate his credibility. In 2026, it would be best if he stayed away from candidacy in the case when he intends to help New Zealand First. Later, he may still return, however, similarly to National’s Sam Uffindell, Nash will also be forced to hide as much as he can, so his appearance does not damage New Zealand First’s public image.