New probe on bully allegations
A third government probe into how bullying allegations against Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha were handled is under way
The State Services Commissioner, Peter Hughes, has confirmed he will review how the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections responded to three staff working on a joint project with the police.
Three women — two senior policy analysts from Justice and one from Corrections — walked out of Police National Headquarters in June 2016 and refused to return because of Haumaha’s alleged verbal bullying.
Two of the women laid formal complaints this year, which are being investigated by the Independent Police Conduct Authority, after the Herald broke the story in August.
The IPCA investigation was expected to be released this week but general manager Warren Young confirmed there had been “some delays”.
A draft report was given to the Police several weeks ago to give an opportunity to respond to the IPCA findings.
Young could not give a precise date but was “hopeful” the report would be published before Christmas.
The new SSC review will not consider the response of police management, which is part of the IPCA investigation, only Justice and Corrections.
The decision by Peter Hughes jars with the findings of the Government Inquiry, in which Mary Scholtens QC cleared Justice and Corrections for not making a complaint with police.
“On my understanding of the facts of the various allegations, I consider their approach was reasonable,” wrote Scholtens.
In confirming the SSC review, Hughes said he was responsible to provide assurance that “allegations of wrongdoing” in the public service are dealt with appropriately and quickly.
“I said I would consider the findings of the Scholtens inquiry and, if necessary, take appropriate steps to satisfy myself that the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice responded appropriately to complaints of bullying,” said Hughes.
“I am having a look at how the complaints were handled.”
The SSC review was welcomed by National MP Chris Bishop who wrote to Hughes asking him to investigate conflicting statements issued by the Justice Ministry, Corrections and Police following the NZ Herald story in August.
“The issue of how the bullying complaints were dealt with has not been satisfactorily resolved by the Scholtens Inquiry,” said Bishop.
“There is clear public interest in getting to the bottom of this very worrying matter.”
The two women who made formal complaints about Haumaha, referred to as Ms A and Ms C in the Government Inquiry, were disappointed with Scholtens’ comments about their allegations.
In clearing the process which led to Haumaha’s appointment as Deputy Commissioner in May this year, the QC found there was no formal complaint to police.
Even if there had been, Scholtens found the likely consequence would be the concerns would have formed part of Commissioner Mike Bush’s assessment of Haumaha’s leadership style.
And Bush already knew Haumaha could “forceful” and “demanding”, said Scholtens, because of a blunt appraisal of his strengths and weaknesses for a previous promotion.
Scholtens characterised the bullying 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”.
Her findings disappointed the two women who made complaints.
“We want to be clear; we complained,” they told the NZ Herald.
“We struggled to get our complaints about Deputy Commissioner Haumaha’s behaviour taken seriously. We came up against impenetrable systemic barriers.”
The review by State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes comes at a time of greater scrutiny of workplace behaviour in government agencies and Parliamentary Service.
New details about the alleged bullying by Haumaha were revealed in the Scholtens Inquiry and cover five incidents including the “final straw” in a project meeting.
“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 was primarily upset because she raised an issue with DC Haumaha and felt she had been knocked back in an overbearing and belittling way.”
The women wanted an apology but Haumaha refused.
“He was passionate about what might be achieved if they could just work together,” wrote Scholtens. “He says it was just a straight request to everybody: are you in the game or not?”
At a team meeting the following week, the Justice manager told his staff Haumaha was unlikely to change his behaviour and they needed to work out the most effective way to deal with him.
“In particular, he noted that the way that the way they behaved with him would be critical, and that they needed to be conscious of things like body language and language used [ both factors that had been raised with him by DC Haumaha],” wrote Scholtens.
“He spoke directly to Ms B about this, and she was upset by his comments and left the room.”
In a later meeting, Haumaha said the Justice manager could apologise on his behalf if he thought it necessary.
Ms A later spoke with Audrey Sonerson, the acting chief executive of the Justice Ministry, and met with Colin Lynch, the deputy chief executive.
He believed it was an employment matter for the police, not for Justice.
There is clear public interest in getting to the bottom of this very worrying matter. Chris Bishop National MP