What if you run a transparent process, then ignore it?

On Friday I blogged a news story about Paul Goldsmith's appointment of terf and genocide supporter Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and how it appeared that he had ignored the recommendations of the appointments panel to shoulder-tap a preferred and unqualified candidate. The Spinoff was on the story as well, and has done their own piece drawing the same conclusions. And better: they've now confirmed them with a leak:

Update: The Spinoff has viewed documents with fewer redactions that show Rainbow was specifically noted as “not recommended” by the panel following his interview. Pacheco was listed as “highly appointable”. Two of the candidates for race relations commissioner (neither of whom were Derby as she was not initially interviewed) were graded as “highly appointable” by the panel.

So, just to make this clear: Goldsmith pretended to follow the Paris Principles by pursuing a transparent and independent selection process, seeking nominations from human rights groups and civil society and appointing a highly-qualified independent panel to assess them. He then took that panel's recommendation, threw it in the bin, and appointed completely unqualified candidates for reasons which have been kept secret (likely because they are embarrassingly inadequate, and possibly unlawful). Obviously, this is not how appointments to quasi-constitutional offices should be made. And again, the next government should respond to this violation of our constitutional norms by sacking the unqualified cronies the moment they take office.