Haumaha bullying claims detailed
Women staffers stated they were shouted at, belittled
New details about alleged bullying by Wally Haumaha have been revealed in the Government inquiry which cleared the appointment process that led to his promotion to deputy commissioner.
The inquiry, led by Mary Scholtens QC, was announced after the Herald revealed in June comments made by, or attributed to, Haumaha during the Operation Austin investigation in 2004.
These comments raised concerns from survivor advocate Louise Nicholas which were understandable, wrote Scholtens, but there was no evidence unearthed in Operation Austin to say Haumaha had done anything wrong.
And while Police Commissioner Mike Bush knew Nicholas had an issue with Haumaha in the past, he did not raise it with the appointment panel, thinking it had been resolved.
This was reasonable, said Scholtens, although State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes and his deputy Debbie Power — who were on the appointment panel with Bush — thought it would have been “prudent” for him to raise it anyway.
Similarly, concerns raised by three women over alleged Haumaha bullying were not relevant to the appointment, said Scholtens. No formal complaint had been made to police.
Bush and Haumaha welcomed the report’s release.
“It has not been easy for anyone, as I know from my own weeks and months waiting for the outcome,” said Haumaha. “I am especially grateful to my whanau and the many iwi leaders who have supported me and my family . . . I have also gained personal insights from this process.”
However, neither could comment on some aspects of the inquiry because an Independent Police Conduct Authority investigation into the bullying allegations was in progress.
Three women walked out of Police National Headquarters (PNHQ) in June 2016 and refused to return. The policy analysts — two from the Ministry of Justice, one from Corrections — were working on a joint project run by Haumaha, then a superintendent.
New details were revealed in Scholtens’ inquiry which characterised the allegations as Haumaha’s adoption of a “direct, police styleapproach” to a multi-agency project, “where a more orthodox public sector approach may have been appropriate”.
There were five incidents.
“To summarise, Ms A, Ms B and Ms C felt bullied and belittled by DC Haumaha, who they say was angry, advising initiatives they did not think they had signed up to, and sought their commitment to the project/him personally by going around the room,” wrote Scholtens.
“Ms B . . . felt she had been knocked back in an overbearing and belittling way.”
The women wanted an apology but Haumaha refused.
At a team meeting the next week, the Justice manager told his staff Haumaha was unlikely to change and they needed to work out the most effective way to deal with him.
Haumaha offered to meet the women individually, but first, they would need to return to PNHQ.
Ms A later spoke with Audrey Sonerson, the acting chief executive of the Justice Ministry, and Colin Lynch, the deputy chief executive.
No one in Justice raised the matter with anyone in the police, other than Haumaha. The three women were not asked if they wanted to make a formal complaint.
About two months later, Nicholas received social media messages about the alleged bullying.
She told Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement but without revealing names. He called Sonerson and Christine Stevenson, the deputy chief executive at Corrections, but was left with the clear impression neither department wanted to take it further.
“[Stevenson] knows that at some stage she was made aware of behavioural concerns in relations to DC Haumaha, in particular that he had yelled at and belittled female staff, including Ms C, in front of others,” wrote Scholtens. “She was also told that Ms C had shouted at DC Haumaha.”
Without a formal complaint, Clement could do nothing. But he had a casual talk with Haumaha who said there was “friction and disharmony” in the group.
Scholtens asked Sonerson whether an apology from Haumaha was warranted because of the behaviour, or necessary because it would mend the rift with the women.
“She thought both — it was not okay to talk to the women the way she understood they had been spoken to and he should apologise, and it would be the right thing to do recognise the impact he had, even if he had not intended it.”
In October 2016, Sonerson joined the police as Deputy Commissioner in charge of resource management. Sonerson told Scholtens she raised Haumaha’s behaviour with Bush.
Scholtens noted: “From what she knew, DC Haumaha’s behaviour was not okay, especially towards young female staff from another agency.”
But Bush could not recall having a discussion with Sonerson along such lines.
In any event, Scholtens said it was not a complaint or raised in any formal sense. Therefore it was not considered relevant to Haumaha’s appointment.
To summarise, Ms A, Ms B and Ms C felt bullied and belittled by DC Haumaha, who they say was angry. Mary Scholtens, QC