MEDIAWATCH: Q+A Coster bombshell allegations against Hipkins & Mark Mitchell
Jesus wept, that escalated quickly…
Exclusive: Coster claims Hipkins and Mitchell told about McSkimming
Former police commissioner Andrew Coster has made explosive claims that senior figures knew more about the Jevon McSkimming case than they have previously said.
Perhaps the most explosive claims in Coster’s interview concern what he says he disclosed to senior politicians and oversight bodies — and what they now say they remember. Tame asked him: “Your contention is that all of those parties knew more than they have publicly admitted in recent weeks?”
“Yes,” Coster replied.
Last month, Labour leader Hipkins denied anything was raised about McSkimming “during my time as police minister or prime minister or during the vetting process for the deputy commissioner role”.
Coster’s version is different: “I told him that Jevon had told me that he had an affair. That it was with a much younger woman that went badly wrong, and that email allegations were now flying as a result of it.”
He described briefing Hipkins while they travelled together in the South Island in July 2022: “As we were travelling, sitting in the back of the car together, I gave him that briefing. It was a casual conversation, it wasn’t a formal thing, but it did happen.”
…IF what Coster is saying is true, it’s career ending for Chris Hipkins and Mark Mitchell.
IF.
Firstly, congratulations to Jack Tame and the Q+A team for securing the most sort after interview of the year.
It is clear from the interview Jack did with Coster over te Parliament Lawn protests that there is a trust and respect between them for Jack to get the interview in the first place.
Secondly, is this true?
Is it true that Chris Hipkins and Mark Mitchel were warned prior to the IPCA report and did they subsequently lie to cover up knowing?
Who is lying? The Former prime Minister? The former Police Commissioner? The current Police Minister? Because if Coster is telling the truth, it’s over for Hipkins and Mitchell.
Here’s why I don’t believe Coster.
One.
Coster is a desperate man who has just been made public enemy number 1 for covering up a mates affair that turned sour and then used his position to hide it and influence the ongoing investigation. At this stage he’s a drowning man who will throw mud anywhere. He himself admits he has no record or any evidence to back up his claim that he told the Police Minister and Former Prime Minister earlier.
Two.
Chris Hipkins is super fucking straight. He’s a person who has actual moral fibre, if he had known this from Coster before hand, there is no way that he would have appointed McSkimming. Remember how Jacinda responded when she found out Iain Lees-Galloway was having an affair? She sacked him immediately. Chippy is cut from the same cloth.
Three.
I’ve already argued that I don’t believe Mark Mitchell knew before hand. I’m sure emails were sent, but I don’t believe he read them or knew about them, Mitchell loathed Coster and ran his entire election campaign against him, if he had found out something that would damage Coster, he would have used it immediately. he sure as Christ wouldn’t have covered for him.
Four.
The remaining allegations that Coster manipulated and influenced the investigation which Jack delves into, just don’t stack up…
One of the most contentious findings in the IPCA report centres on a meeting held on October 30, 2024, to discuss the criminal investigation into McSkimming.
According to the report: “All attendees at the meeting recall Coster placing the utmost importance on the timeliness of the investigation, so it would have minimal impact on deputy commissioner McSkimming’s chances of becoming the next commissioner. One made notes that said: ‘Time is of the essence. A week’s delay isn’t basically acceptable.'”
Officer K told investigators: “I was gobsmacked at the idea that [Andrew Coster] wanted to take some sort of shortcut to a resolution.” Officer M reportedly said: “We’ve basically been asked to do an adult sexual assault investigation in a week.”
Coster disputes this characterisation. “I was keen to make sure that the right resources were applied and the investigation was moved forward in a timely fashion.
“I certainly never required that it be done in a week. That’s not realistic.”
Coster added: “The people that we’re talking about in that meeting are not my direct reports. They were not my direct reports’ direct reports. They were direct reports of my direct reports’ direct reports.
“So it just gives you a bit of a sense of the hierarchical aspects of this… I accept their perception was what it was. But my intention was for this to be done properly, but balancing the competing interests.”
He added when pressed: “I’m not arguing about recollections here. I’m arguing about intent. And my intent in that situation was to balance the various interests.”
…why would senior officers tasked with the investigation feel utterly betrayed by the process in the way they clearly were if that wasn’t really the intent? Coster argues that characterisation isn’t fair, but fair or not, that sure as hell is how those asked to investigate it felt. If that wasn’t his intent, then why didn’t he spell that out?
Five.
His defence for sending the IPCA that letter just rings very hollow, as Jack himself points out…
“But nevertheless, why would a commissioner in writing try and influence the IPCA? It’s just so improper,” Tame asked.
…Coster’s claim was the was merely trying to put the issues as he had in front of him to the IPCA so that they were ‘on the radar’, but that’s the bloody problem! By ‘putting it on the radar’ he is immediately influencing the process!
Six.
He’s the part I find most corrosive to coster’s credibility. He claims that he briefed the Deputy Public Service Commissioner about his discussion with Hipkins, the problem with that is she wasn’t in that role at the time Coster claims to have briefed her.
I don’t believe Coster told Hipkins, Mitchell or the Deputy Public Service Commissioner because all of them would have had legitimate reasons for not progressing McSkimming’s had they known. In Mark Mitchells situation, he had every reason to use the information to sink Coster.
I think we saw a man who has fallen far from grace drowning while trying to shift blame for what the public sees as Police covering for other Police.
The bigger issue here is that there is not enough oversight of the Police, and that we desperately need an anti-corruption check and balance that has the resources, the investigative powers and real political muscle to ensure that the NZ Police are not misusing their enormous powers.
Who is watching the gatekeepers and ensuring they aren’t abusing their powers.
That is the issue beyond all issues.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
chippy would have sacked both Coster and McSkimming on the spot .
Mitchell and Luxon have escaped because no one in the media including Jack have failed to link the emails last year to them covering up .
I have no doubt Chippy would have taken action had he known just look at what happened to Micheal wood over a few airport shares .His shares pale into insignifcance compared to Luxons tax dodge and rates rebate along side his 1000 per week rent top up .
You are letting your bias show it is not a nice thing. Unlike you I am happy to accept Hipkins is telling the truth despite not agreeing with his politics.
I hope Hipkins doesn’t go he’s the Rights trump card.
He said !she said !they said !?????
Who checks the checkers who check to see if all the checks have been checked
Coster’s claims put a new spin on the McSkimming case. If Hipkins and Mitchell were aware of more than they let on, it could have huge implications for the public’s trust in both their leadership and the broader political system.
It’s sure like the pot calling the kettle black! For Coster to ‘finger’ Hipkins this late in this sorry sage, is suspect and one has to wonder whether bribery and corruption, all seemingly acceptable under this CoC, are rampant out there! Was Hipkins’ “briefing” a “warning” in such detail that it rang bells, or was he given a quick ‘watered-down’ version? But IF Hipkins was briefed, then so was Mitchell – whose bells will be being subdued by his leaders. Again, smoke and mirrors and ‘he said, she said’ mentality. Show us the proof Coster, re both of them, and if you don’t have any, then shut the Hell up – your desperation and lack of integrity has taken over your common-sense. Having an affair is not a criminal offence so there was no need to disclose it. I also have a horrible feeling McSkimming had ‘somthing over’ more than a few associates / colleagues etc! A real, but clever, scum-bag.
By the way it wasn’t a fucking ‘affair’ according to Ms Z it was grooming and abuse of the worst kind. Nobody believed or listened to the poor girl, from her early twenties on, and who was due at least an investigation of her claims as per fucking usual for these sort of claims.
She didn’t get that and when finally someone did take her seriously what the hell did they find under the rock they lifted???
And as for her she still has a criminal complaint against her. Kicking against the pricks.
Bloody amazing how main stream media perk up when the finger is pointed at Chippie but are happy to cover up the fact that Luxon was in the loop 12 months ago .
In MB’s report in the TDB on 5 December 2025 – “Top Cop claims there is no corruption in NZ Police” – I said “One aspect of the IPCA report that causes real concern is reference to one of the senior police officers involved in this scandal. He is/was an assistant commissioner in charge of criminal investigations, who was involved in this matter by intentionally putting a halt to any investigations into the young woman’s allegations. According to the IPCA report, he told the IPCA that he was new in the role, that his “head was spinning,” and that if he had his time again, he would do things differently. This explanation is nonsense because it sits uneasily with the fact that he was the assistant commissioner responsible for criminal investigations—someone who, at that level, would be expected to know precisely how and when to commence an investigation, including the basic step of speaking directly with the person bringing the complainant – in this case the young woman, referred to as Ms Z, and direct that this be done. He did not. Instead, when a senior and very experienced detective inspector said that she was concerned that the terms of the investigation did not include speaking with Ms Z, the assistant commissioner demanded to know from her, where in police investigative protocol does it say that the victim has to be spoken to.
I think the IPCA was wrong to mitigate the assistant commissioner’s conduct on the basis of being new to the job. In my opinion, the assistant commissioner’s actions illustrate that his decisions were not the result of inexperience but of deliberate choices that he made to protect McSkimming and, in so doing shore up his own current and future position in the police.”
I watched Jack Tame’s interview of Coster on Q & A this morning and it is clear from that interview that under the guise of clarity Coster is in fact obfuscating the truth of the matter. He made it clear that her thought McSkimming was the best man for the role of Commissioner. He was also at pains to say that the IPCA said there was no deliberate cover up. But that does not make sense given what I said above and Coster’s own involvement in this.
Hmm. All pretty stinky but Coster is not looking good when both the guys Mitchell and chippy denies the informative backseat side mouth info. WTF???? is Coster even badder than his close-by-a-whisker cover up would suggest? Mind you, they would deny wouldn’t they. However it begs the question of why Coster would imperil himself and the police force to defend McSkimmings? Apparently not his friend?! Also what about the poor still in her twenties Ms. Z, no doubt not the most savvy or mature of persons because she was so fuckin YOUNG. Nobody even hardly mentions her. No wonder she was going ape shit. And, you know, it was Coster that said she should be prosecuted. Wow that guy is burying himself under a huge sack of shit he will never be able to get out from under. So. Fuckin. Weird.
….He [Coster] described briefing Hipkins while they travelled together in the South Island in July 2022: “As we were travelling, sitting in the back of the car together, I gave him that briefing. It was a casual conversation, it wasn’t a formal thing, but it did happen.”
…IF what Coster is saying is true, it’s career ending for Chris Hipkins and Mark Mitchell
Most people would struggle to recall what they were doing on a specific day in July 2022. I know I would.
I conclude that Coster is referencing his diary.
Both Coster and Hipkins need to hand over their diaries for the day in question.
How much time did they spend together in the back of that government limo?
If they didn’t talk about McSkimming, as Coster claims, then they should both be asked to recall what they did discuss.
Andrew Coster needs to corroborate his version of events.
So does Chris Hipkins.
Concerned enough to brief three officials informally but not enough to brief them formally doesn’t wash.
I thought highly of Coster when he became commissioner, when he was commissioner, when he finished as commissioner, and still even now, though he has made mistakes in regard to all this, I believe he is speaking honestly.
To me the most serious allegation, amongst many allegations in this matter, that for some reason Mitchell just doesn’t want to get to the bottom of, hence his use of the “re litigating” language – is that complainant “z” was coerced or blackmailed by police to drop all of it. Yet there has been virtually nothing about this aspect in the media, nor those that did the threatening identified.
If they thought they were acting properly, then there should be no issue with them being identified. Mitchell should look like he is wanting to do the right thing, by immediately directing police to drop the harmful digital communication charges against complainant “z”, since police more or less caused her actions in that regard, and if the judge doesn’t throw it out, there’s something very wrong with the whole justice system.
And then Mitchell should be appointing an independent top legal mind, to investigate the allegation about police trying to blackmail complaint “z”. This is not re-litigating, this would be acting sensibly, and upholding the rule of law. It is the police who need to be investigated here – not complainant “z”.
And if NZ political journos had any teeth, they would have already interviewed the police staff emplaced in the ministers office, to find out whether they can in fact prevent emails coming in on the minister’s email address, from being seen by the minister. And see who is telling the truth about this, out of Mitchell and Coster. There seems little reason to lie about it by Coster, but every reason to lie about it by Mitchell.
Meanwhile, there are several hundred thousand abuse in state care investigations, that needed to happen, but won’t. While the average citizen cannot even get off a speeding ticket. And historic teenage convictions still impede a persons ability to travel and work. Thank goodness ubiquitous state surveillance is making us so safe that we have one of the highest child murder rates in the developed world and meth usage has doubled in a couple years, and ccp police and the fbi operate on our soil. But nothing to see here according to “build more prisons” Mitchell, lets all move along before we discover further evidence of wrongdoing by those in charge, and find out what’s really going on. We wouldn’t want that, would we?
Someone from the media needs to investigate mercenary mark mitchell’s ministerial diary around the time coster says he informed mmm. That will show they were together at the time, at least. But not what was said – or not!