Haumaha appointment inquiry head named
WELLINGTON: The new head of the inquiry into the appointment of Police Deputy Commissioner Wally Haumaha has been named.
Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin announced yesterday Mary Scholtens QC would lead the inquiry.
The inquiry was sparked when it emerged Mr Haumaha made comments in 2004 defending police officers accused of raping Louise Nicholas in the 1990s.
Allegations he bullied three women during a project involving police, Corrections and the Ministry of Justice were also raised in Parliament on Thursday.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has refused to say whether she has confidence in him.
The inquiry was already delayed after the original head, Pauline Kingi, stepped aside following National Party questions about whether she had a conflict of interest.
Ms Kingi was found to have endorsed Mr Haumaha’s skills on the professional networking platform LinkedIn.
Ms Martin said the inquiry’s purpose was to examine, identify and report on the adequacy of the process that led to Mr Haumaha’s appointment.
She said Ms Scholtens had worked in public and administrative law for 36 years. She was Crown Counsel at the Crown Law Office for 10 years and was made a Queen’s Counsel in 2002.
Ms Scholtens has previously worked as a solicitor privately and in several government departments.
The inquiry will start on August 20 and last for six weeks.
Ms Nicholas said yesterday several women had approached her over the years complaining about Mr Haumaha’s attitude towards women and his bullying behaviour.
‘‘One in particular said to me ‘how the hell did he get to where he is with the way he treats women? It’s not right’.’’
They were airing their concerns about his appointment as assistant commissioner, she said.
The women told her Mr Haumaha was a bully, she said.
‘‘They felt they weren’t listened to . . . It was kind of like he was slam dunking them.’’
She hoped the inquiry was wide enough to cover these concerns, Ms Nicholas said. — RNZ
THE Wally Haumaha fiasco was not top of Jacinda Ardern’s agenda when she returned to work after maternity leave.
But by the end of the week, it certainly was and she has moved swiftly to get it back under control by getting a new reviewer approved and named.
Reports by The New Zealand Herald journalist Jared Savage, astute political work by National rising star Chris Bishop and Government owngoals have ensured the issue was kept alive.
It is a much more challenging problem for Ardern than just identifying someone suitable to find out whether the appointment panel and ministers had all relevant information — that much is known already.
It is mired in complexity and even a resignation by Haumaha, which does not appear imminent, would not cauterise it.
Underlying it is the public’s confidence in police and in the Government to deal with challenging issues.
It involves Ardern’s confidence in Police Minister Stuart Nash, and Nash’s confidence in the judgement of police commissioner Mike Bush who sat on the panel.
It was meant to be a fast inquiry — no more than six weeks — to establish whether the interview panel including state services commissioner Peter Hughes and the Cabinet should have known about Haumaha’s expressions of support in 2004 for former colleagues who had been accused of raping Louise Nicholas.
There were signs of trouble at the outset when Winston Peters was dealing with it as acting prime minister. The delay was in finding a suitable reviewer that would have the confidence of police, Maori and feminists.
That in itself is a reflection of the identity politics that is more important in this Government configuration.
National would have quickly found a retired judge or QC, which is what Ardern did last night in getting respected QC Mary Scholtens to undertake the inquiry.
Scholtens was counsel assisting the 2004 commission of inquiry into police conduct, and has conducted an inquiry for the last Labour government into how the whistleblowing laws have operated. Scholtens is not considered a political risk at all — she is the wife of former National minister John Luxton and has worked for governments of both hues.
The Maori dimension in the Haumaha problem is large. It involves Labour’s relationship with its Maori caucus and its relationship with iwi leaders. The Haumaha issue was raised privately with the Government at last week’s iwi leaders’ forum at Turangawaewae with highlevel representation to keep him in place.
A group of Maori leaders campaigning for Haumaha have essentially framed it as an issue of Maori leadership and aspiration.
At present only 11% of police are Maori. It has a goal of 25% of each recruit wing being Maori in order to get to about 14% by 2020. Having Haumaha as deputy commissioner was an affirmation of that priority for Maori.
Ardern did not know much about Haumaha back in May. Nash recommended him from a field of two recommended by the selection panel.
Nash’s cabinet paper recommending him accentuates his role in addressing the overrepresentation of Maori in criminal justice system which is right in line with the Government’s key priorities for reducing offending and the prison population.
Haumaha was already very wellknown to Nash as an assistant commissioner — evidenced by Nash’s chummy reference to ‘‘Wally’’ when he posted a humorous weightlifting video on Facebook suggests. Haumaha is also close to Mike Bush and that would have carried some weight with Nash.
Bush had been viewed with some suspicion in Labour. He was appointed under Judith Collins’ tenure as police minister and had runins with Labour in opposition including a stoush with Trevor Mallard at a select committee over Bush’s decision to give the eulogy at Bruce Hutton’s funeral — an officer who planted evidence in the Arthur Allan Thomas case.
But Nash formed a good working relationship with Bush — whose term expires at the start of 2020.
The inquiry could well test existing loyalties. And the spotlight could fall on Bush as much as Haumaha.
Nash has said publicly that Bush told him he did not know about Haumaha’s statements dismissing the allegations against his friends of rape. But he certainly knew Louise Nicholas strongly objected to his promotion.
Scholtens will probe that. But she also has licence to probe whether Bush knew and should have told the selection panel (and ministers) about more recent complaints by officials about alleged intimidating behaviour. Crucial in Nash’s recommending Haumaha was that he had the backing of New Zealand First.
It is unlikely Nash knew how close Haumaha’s connections are to members of the Coalition partner, as revealed by Jared Savage.
Scholtens should be considering whether the extent of those connections also constituted ‘‘relevant information’’ that should have been disclosed to Nash, Ardern and the rest of the Cabinet.
Ardern’s confidence in NZ First minister Tracey Martin may have dimmed. Martin’s officials failed to do the necessary checks on potential conflicts of interest on the first reviewer, Pauline Kingi, who resigned after revelations by Savage. Martin let herself down by suggesting that Kingi’s endorsement of Haumaha was of no consequence.
It has been a mess. It is a small stain on Peters’ six weeks as acting PM that he did not get it under control. Ardern is back in charge.