Haumaha and the politics of perception
On the political stage, perception is the backdrop curtain that hangs over everything.
The ‘‘nothing to see here’’ report on the appointment of Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha makes interesting reading – it’s not the typical whitewash.
Inquiry head Mary Scholtens QC found the process to appoint Haumaha was ‘‘sound’’.
Scholtens’ investigation into Louise Nicholas’ concerns over Haumaha suggests he appeared to have her support – at least in the absence of outright opposition. It also cleared the appointment process of any conflict of interest, with regards to his past relationships with NZ First and its MPs, and it absolved the police commissioner and state services commissioner of putting forward subsequent allegations bullying, because they did not know about them.
Scholtens goes so far as to downgrade her recommendations to ‘‘suggestions’’ for the State Services Commission. And through these, Scholtens indirectly raises some important questions around public perception of such appointments. It’s clear police ‘‘perceived’’ they had Nicholas’ reluctant support for Haumaha’s appointment. Scholtens comes close to suggesting Nicholas should have raised her concerns with police before voicing them to the media. Meanwhile, it would be understandable if Nicholas perceived police to already be aware of her concerns; why she would mistrust a man who spoke positively of two of her alleged attackers in a high-profile investigation is reasonably obvious. The police minister characterised Haumaha’s comments in support of convicted rapists Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum as ‘‘disappointing’’.
The public perception likely to form, after an advocate of Nicholas’ standing publicly spoke out against him, was probably enough to empower some people to lay their own complaints of negative treatment, and it was.
Government coalition party NZ First, with MPs who historically had close ties to Haumaha, adds further fuel to the fire of public perception.
In fairness to Haumaha, he has had, at least outwardly, an exemplary career. On paper, he should be a prime candidate for the role.
The allegations, to which he has had little opportunity to answer, are found to be unsubstantiated in this report – but public perceptions about him will remain.
Police, Government and the SSC may feel vindicated that the report has found no wrongdoing, either by Haumaha or in the appointment process. But it may not be that simple. The police are now in a position where their deputy commissioner has had his authority stymied, by dint of negative public opinion. And, given the results of the inquiry, police could not shift him along with ease even if they wanted to.
Haumaha now has this blemish on his record, arguably disproportionately dominating a career that has brought top public service honours, and no reports will clean that away.
And so Scholtens makes one important suggestion: to focus any impending best-practice review on ‘‘identifying and managing the risks around unexpected publicity’’.
When faced with the facts, there are many decisions in politics that seem like ‘‘no-brainers’’.
But the Haumaha inquiry might be a case in point: perception is every bit as important.