Key Takeaways
- Police Commissioner Andrew Chambers has formally requested that former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming reimburse the NZ Police for hotel stays that were found to be misspent.
- Chambers warned that if no reimbursement is received by 8 May 2026, he will pursue other avenues to recover the funds, while avoiding additional taxpayer expense.
- The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) identified an adverse finding: McSkimming stayed in Wellington hotels 8‑10 times with a woman (referred to as Ms Z) with whom he was having a sexual relationship, at police expense.
- McSkimming did not inform his senior manager that Ms Z would accompany him, breaching both travel policy and the Police Code of Conduct.
- Chambers stressed that any recovery effort must not impose further costs on taxpayers and emphasized the importance of upholding standards to maintain public trust.
Background
The controversy centres on a series of hotel stays in Wellington during 2016‑2017 undertaken by Jevon McSkimming, then Deputy Commissioner of Police. McSkimming lived roughly 60‑70 kilometres from Police National Headquarters, necessitating overnight accommodation when attending late meetings, early‑morning flights, or social functions in the capital. His executive assistant routinely booked rooms on his behalf, charging the expense to police funds.
Chambers’ Recent Letter
In a letter released to RNZ, Commissioner Andrew Chambers expressed disappointment that McSkimming had not responded to a prior request for reimbursement. Chambers noted that the NZ Police is obligated to ensure public money is spent prudently and in accordance with internal policies. He warned that, absent repayment within four weeks (by 8 May 2026), he would consider “other options” to secure the funds, while striving not to incur additional taxpayer costs.
Policy Framework and Accountability
Chambers reiterated that any breach of spending policies must be remedied, both to reassure staff that standards are upheld and to preserve public confidence in the police service. He emphasized that repayment is warranted irrespective of the amount involved, the surrounding circumstances, or the individual involved, underscoring the principle that public funds should not be used for personal benefit.
Details of the Hotel Stays
The IPCA investigation could not examine McSkimming’s credit‑card statements directly and instead relied on testimonies from McSkimming, his former executive assistant, and a supervisor. They confirmed that McSkimming stayed in Wellington hotels on eight to ten occasions, with the stated rationale being to avoid a lengthy drive home after work events or to prevent drinking and driving when attending social functions.
Involvement of Ms Z
McSkimming told the IPCA that Ms Z accompanied him on those stays, estimating eight to ten nights—a figure corroborated by Ms Z herself. Crucially, McSkimming failed to notify his senior manager that Ms Z would be sharing the room. The IPCA concluded that, had he disclosed this, approval would likely have been denied, given the intimate nature of the relationship.
Code of Conduct Violations
The IPCA determined that McSkimming breached the Police Code of Conduct by allowing a person with whom he was having a sexual relationship to stay at police expense. Even if he had personally covered the hotel costs, the act would still have raised concerns, but the use of taxpayer money intensified the perception that public funds were being used to facilitate a clandestine affair, thereby bringing the police service into disrepute.
Reimbursement Request and Chambers’ Stance
Chambers’ earlier correspondence, obtained via the Official Information Act, explicitly asked McSkimming to repay the cost of the eight‑to‑ten hotel stays “as soon as possible.” He acknowledged McSkimming’s “swift reimbursement” in response to the first request but lamented the lack of follow‑up on the second. Chambers maintained that any recovery effort should not create further financial burden on taxpayers, framing the issue as one of principle rather than punitive finance.
Implications for Public Trust
By insisting on accountability, Chambers aimed to reinforce the idea that no officer—regardless of rank—is exempt from financial stewardship expectations. The episode highlights the delicate balance between legitimate work‑related accommodations and the potential for misuse, reminding both police personnel and the public that transparency and adherence to policy are essential to sustaining trust in law‑enforcement institutions.