I know there is a review going on, but then there is a review going on into everything, isn't there? But despite that, Wally Haumaha and Mike Bush can do themselves a world of good by simply fronting up and telling their story.
The Haumaha appointment is turning, or has turned into, a vastly bigger deal than it ever should have been. And all because Louise Nicholas got upset at the appointment. She is, of course, allowed to be upset at the appointment. She can be upset at anything she likes.
But the way the whole thing has unfolded appears to be, a bloke who none of us have ever heard of, may or may not have said some things a long time ago around three fellow officers, who were involved in what is now referred to as the Nicholas case.
Louise Nicholas, who has gone on to high profile and a very high reputation through some excellent work in the victim support area, has a problem with Haumaha getting the 2IC job at the police force. As a result of said upset, an inquiry has been launched into who knew what, what they did with that knowledge, and whether, if all facts had been on the table,anything different might have come to pass.
The Police Minister, Stuart Nash, has spoken only once on this and it was on this programme. He inferred he might have done stuff differently if he had known.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't have appointed Haumaha. It just means the process might have varied. He also confirmed he wasn't told of the "Haumaha issue".
I had, as I have said before, assumed the Commissioner, Mike Bush, knew all this given Bush has been around for years. It appears he did. What he appears not to have done is tell the Minister. Does that mean he didn't think it was an issue, or he tried to hide it? I doubt the latter.
So as we sit here, with chapter, after twist, after turn slowly, and painfully unfolding, I would have thought the best course of events is for Bush and Haumaha to simply front. Tell us what they knew, tell us what they said. In Haumaha's case confirm or otherwise whether the things he said are accurate or out of context, and whether he apologised.
If he did, why he's different now? And what's different about the force now? The commissioner can chip in here and fill us in on what he undoubtedly sees as a vastly different service and presumably tell us why he thinks Wally is good for the job.
By saying nothing they've made this worse than it appears it ever needed to be. We are not talking about crimes here, or breaking of the law, just some comments and perhaps an attitude.
Is that in and of itself reason to one, hijack a career and any advancement; and two, to take what is in the grand scheme of things hardly the scandal of the age and drag it out for what looks to be an increasingly ludicrous amount of time?
Front up, tell your story, and let's sort it. Upfront, clarity, honest and, if appropriate, remorse is a powerful medicine.