Process to appoint Haumaha was ‘sound’
Scholtens releases report after inquiry
The report into the appointment of Wally Haumaha does nothing to discredit the view that Haumaha should not be the Deputy Police Commissioner, the National Party says.
But State Services Commissioner Chris Hipkins said the report, which cleared the decision to appoint Haumaha, was right to focus on issues of due diligence — and not “rumour and innuendo”.
The inquiry, led by Mary Scholtens QC, was released yesterday and found that the process in appointing Haumaha was sound.
It found allegations of workplace bullying against him and the concerns raised by Louise Nicholas — the “unknown unknowns” — were not relevant to the appointment process.
The report revealed Police Commissioner Mike Bush knew Nicholas had raised concerns about Haumaha but did not raise it during the appointment process, as he thought it had been resolved.
It also revealed that Police Minister Stuart Nash was told of Haumaha’s NZ First connections, but did not take it further despite saying the role should be politically independent.
Hipkins said yesterday the Government had full confidence in the appointment process. On the alleged workplace bullying, he said the appointment process could not consider complaints if none had been made.
Nash would not express confidence in Haumaha because he did not want to “prejudice” the outcome of the Independent Police Conduct Authority review looking into the bullying allegations. But he said the process had been appropriate.
National Party police spokesman Chris Bishop said the inquiry was too narrow and only about the process.
“The real question is about the appropriateness of Mr Haumaha for the role,” Bishop said.
National wants Haumaha stood down.
Bishop
said Bush should have raised Nicholas’ concerns with the appointment panel and Nash should have raised Haumaha’s connection with NZ First.
Nash would not say if he had raised the NZ First link with Cabinet colleagues.
He would only say that the Scholtens report showed all the relevant information was considered. Scholtens found “no available and relevant information” was omitted.
The report said Bush knew of Nicholas’ concerns: “Had the Commissioner thought the concerns . . . were still an issue for Ms Nicholas, he said he would have raised them with her. They were not matters he considered to be relevant to the merits of the appointment.”
On this, State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes and deputy Debbie Power — appointment panel members — disagreed with Bush.
“Both Mr Hughes and Ms Power thought it would have been prudent for the Commissioner to have advised the appointment panel, even if he understood Ms Nicholas’ concerns had been resolved,” wrote Scholtens. “That is not to say it would derail an appointment . . .”
The allegations by three women of bullying by Haumaha were not relevant to the appointment, said Scholtens. There was no formal complaint to police, and even if there had been, Scholtens said they might not have formed part of Bush’s assessment of Haumaha’s leadership style.
The allegations are now the subject of an IPCA investigation.
The report said it was difficult to answer what information should be made available for such appointments, and made a number of recommendations including:
● That State Services Commission seeks information widely from candidates and referees, including matters that might be seen as irrelevant.
● That SSC ensure that references were sought from a significant number and diverse mix of referees, appropriate to the role.
● That SSC approach people other than nominated referees, where appropriate, to seek anonymous, confidential views from employees and other persons whose perspectives may not otherwise be reached.
The inquiry was announced after the NZ Herald revealed comments attributed to Haumaha during the Operation Austin investigation in 2004 into rape allegations by Nicholas. The investigation spoke to an officer who said Haumaha had described Nicholas’ allegations as “a nonsense” and that “nothing really happened and we have to stick together”.
Haumaha told Scholtens he doubted he would have said that.