Make Good Choices SNZ

October 14th, 2019

Copied in the table below is the official result from the Capital & Coast District Health Board elections held last weekend. What has this got to do with swimming, I hear you ask? Well, if you skip to the last result; the person who secured the lowest number of votes, the name that polled fewer votes that 22 other candidates, the name I have highlighted in bold print is Susan Turner.

The people of Wellington have spoken. Susan Turner is their last possible choice – bottom of the pile. But why is that significant to Swimming New Zealand (SNZ)? Well Susan Turner was the ex-President of West Auckland Aquatics who along with Nikki Johns, is the person who complained about my coaching at the club. She is also the person who was central to a $AU1.4million judgement against Queensland Health because of her “mismanagement”. But most important of all Susan Turner and Nikki Johns are the two people that SNZ has decided to spend $100,000 protecting from publication in the Marris Report.

Talk about, “make good choices”. Clearly Wellington voters have more brains that the Board of SNZ. In Wellington the voters would not even give Turner their vote. SNZ on the other hand are in the process of giving her privacy $100,000 of your money. Is that good use of your money? Certainly the voters in Wellington do not think so. I suspect Queensland health and their Court would agree. But not the Board of SNZ.

To SNZ the person who cost Queensland Health $AU1.4million and came last in a 23 person District Health Board field is well worth an investment of $100,000. It really is crazy stuff. As I have asked a dozen times what is in that Report that links Susan Turner to SNZ and Bruce Cotterill? What are they trying to hide? Why is protecting something about Turner more important to the SNZ Board than investing $100,000 in New Zealand’s youth? Why is your child’s swimming 100,000 times less important to SNZ than Susan Turner? What are SNZ scared of you finding out?

In Wellington, at least the people have spoken and, in my view have made a good choice. I can only wish the Board of SNZ had half the wisdom of the Wellington electorate.

Here then is the Wellington result – made by people who do know the right thing to do. The Board members of SNZ should read it well and ask themselves – why?

Capital & Coast District Health Board

2019 Triennial Elections


The preliminary result for the election of seven members of the Capital & Coast District Health Board is as follows.

Capital & Coast District Health Board (7 vacancies)

KEDGLEY Sue Green Party elected

KALDERIMIS Chris Independent elected

ADAMS Kathryn  elected

COFFEY ‘Ana Independent elected

VERRALL Ayesha Labour elected

BLAKELEY Roger Independent elected

SIMPSON Vanessa Independent elected

BROWN Eileen Labour excluded

HUGHES Glenda The Wellington Party excluded

FISO John Access, Action & Accountability Group excluded

MITIKULENA Alvin Independent excluded

HOLBOROW Janet  excluded

MARSH Simon (Swampy) Independent excluded

APANOWICZ John The Wellington Party excluded

GRICE Stephen Access, Action & Accountability Group excluded

ISA Letitia Independent excluded

CLARK Marion Independent excluded

SHAND David  excluded

CLARK Nathan  excluded

NG Shan Independent excluded

O’DWYER Letitia Independent excluded

PETERS John  excluded

TURNER Susan Independent excluded

The final absolute majority of votes (final quota) as determined at the last iteration was 9,030.45. There were 2,319 informal votes and 7,976 blank votes.

Warwick Lampp Electoral Officer Capital & Coast District Health Board

13 October 2019


Sadly We Are Not Alone

October 11th, 2019

In the “Swimming World” magazine you can read an interesting account of poor swimming administration. Here is the link.

The table below summarises the main points made in Craig Lord’s article. However reading the whole thing is well worthwhile. As the title to this Swimwatch report says, “Sadly we are not alone.” What that means is that poor old Swim England seems to be afflicted by the same grumpy old buggers we have in New Zealand. Colonisation was never meant to involve sending that lot out here to run swimming in New Zealand. Sure looks like that’s what’s happened. We asked for the Beatles and got Bostock.

Swim England Governance In Spotlight – Three Masters Complaints Upheld

Chris Bostock, former Chair of the Swim England Sport Governing Board, has been found guilty in a third misconduct case. An independent panel concluded that he was guilty of “rude and aggressive” behaviour in violation of the association’s Code of Ethics in a case brought by Professor Sue Arrowsmith, a masters swimmer and expert in law, over events that took place at a meeting she was to have delivered a presentation at.

Bostock has not issued an apology to Prof. Arrowsmith, the third of the three women whose complaints against him were upheld.

Many felt that poor governance had underpinned the crisis-striken 2016 London European Masters Championships: the event was a commercial and sporting fiasco, with huge financial losses, according to official figures and reports.

Close to 10,000 swimmers were crammed into facilities designed for 5,000, while organisers faced accusations of sex discrimination after the women’s races were allocated mainly to the “warm up” pool at the London 2012 venue, while the men, for the most part, got to race in the Olympic pool.

The governance problems were to have been discussed in a session led by Professor Arrowsmith, a Law Professor who is also an expert to the International Partnership Against Corruption in Sport. However, with less than 48 hours’ notice, the session was cancelled by Jane Nickerson, Swim England CEO. The reason: Professor Arrowsmith’s paper was “too critical”, according to Verity Dobbie, who represents the federation in dealing with Masters.

According to the disciplinary findings, Nickerson then gave Bostock the job of shutting down any governance discussion, telling him that Professor Arrowsmith was seen as a “trouble maker”.

When angry delegates – many of whom had travelled hundreds of miles – asked to hear Professor Arrowsmith, Bostock intervened in a manner delegates described as “abusive”, “aggressive”, “intimidating” and “threatening”.

Many weeks have gone by and there has been no apology from Bostock. Should that change, we will bring you news of his apology.

Meanwhile, Prof. Arrowsmith has told Swimming World that she is not at all surprised that Bostock has not apologised but is disappointed at what she believes is evidence that Swim England is not taking on board the need for serious cultural change. She added:

“The board’s statement includes no expression of regret or even any indication that it accepts the criticisms. It is incredibly disappointing that three years after London our swimming federations continue to display the same contempt for stakeholders as before and still react to all criticism by trying to squash it rather than engaging with it.

How do these guys get these jobs? They clearly don’t do it for the personal enjoyment. They walk around with faces as long as a wet week. Perhaps it’s a power thing. Having failed to replace Boris at No.10 or Jacinda in the Beehive they turn the swimming world into their personal Third Reich.

Yesterday I sent the Swimming World article to a friend of mine. This is her reply.

“There is a photo of Chris Bostock – the Swim England moron – on Craig Lord’s article.  OMG – was he ever young? Did he ever climb trees for the hell of it? I haven’t found a bio of him – but – I will judge this book by the cover :)”

Isn’t that the truth? I guess Mr. Bostock must be about my age. What that means is he, like me, is a product of the 1960s – you know the decade? Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, flower power, going to San Francisco with flowers in your hair, leaving on a jet plane, California girls, good vibrations, peace brother, all the good stuff. Did all that pass Mr. Bostock by?

Did he miss the bit where our generation was supposed to lift the world into a chill and peaceful, fair and honest place? What happened to “a whole generation
with a new explanation” Sure seems like Bostock missed that message. Instead a younger generation, represented by Lord and Arrowsmith, have to fight the good fight. Well done you guys.

And as for Bostock, I have some advice that should help his sour temperament. Pick some flowers and go climb a tree for the hell of it.


October 9th, 2019

The internet tells me corruption is defined as “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power”. Sadly the word has become debased as politicians like Donald Trump wander about trying to pin the corruption label on good politicians like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren. It is typical Trump. Divert attention on to others to hide his own plan to have the Vice President stay at a Trump resort in Ireland, or arrange for the FBI to build its headquarters across the road from the Trump Washington DC hotel, or order US aircrews to overnight in a Trump property in Scotland. All that is corruption.

But corruption can occur at much more modest levels and for non-financial reasons. Take the effort Cotterill and Johns have gone to in order to hide the Marris Report from me and the membership of Swimming New Zealand (SNZ). Is that corruption?

Let’s look at some facts.

  • Cotterill and Johns know the previous CEO of SNZ promised that I would receive a copy of the Report

  • Cotterill and Johns know the Report’s author in writing promised me a full copy of the Marris Report

  • Cotterill and Johns know that the SNZ rules require the Marris Report be given to me.

  • Cotterill and Johns know the law, the Privacy Act, requires the Marris Report be given to me.

  • Cotterill and Johns were told by the Privacy Commissioner to give the Marris Report to me. They turned him down.

  • Cotterill and Johns told me they had made a promise to Marris that his Report would be kept secret from me. At the same time I received an email from Marris promising me his Report. Someone was lying and it wasn’t Marris.

  • Cotterill and Johns told me they had promised Susan Turner the Report would be kept secret from me. At the same time Susan Turner was reading the Report and discussing its contents with 68,000 Stuff readers.

  • Cotterill and Johns told me that publicity associated with the Report would damage Nikki Johns’ health. At the same time Nikki Johns was discussing the contents of the Report with 3000 followers on her personal Facebook page and posting pictures on Instagram of her topless team mate taken in the women’s changing room at a SNZ national swimming championship.

There is more, but I’m sure you get the idea. There is a Niagara Falls of reasons why the Marris Report, four years ago, should have been given to me to read. But Cotterill and Johns decided no, it wasn’t going to happen. Instead they would conduct a four year war and spend more than $100,000 on legal fees preventing something in that Report being read. What on earth is it that is so important to them that it is worth $100,000 of the government’s money to hide?

And it will be our taxation money that pays for this. Without the help of finance from the government SNZ would never earn enough to fund this ego protection campaign. And if the government is paying for it, the CEO of Sport NZ knows about it. And if that’s true – that’s collusion in corruption.

Clearly there is something in there that they want kept secret. But what is it? One day full access to the Report will reveal what Cotterill and Johns (and Miskimmin maybe) are so intent on keeping secret.

  • Are they scared of Susan Turners’ litigious reputation? That’s a joke given her recent involvement in a $1.4million dollars damages award based on her poor management of a health district in Australia.

  • Was Marris critical of SNZ?

  • Was Marris critical of Cotterill?

  • Was Marris lied to by SNZ?

  • When their secrecy makes SNZ and Sport NZ look so bad why do they continue on? What is it that makes this all worthwhile?

  • Do they want to keep the Report secret because that hurts David Wright?

Who knows? But there has to be something. Which brings me back to the definition of corruption – “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power”. Because, if the reason that Report is being hidden, if $100,000 is being spent on legal fees in order to protect the personal reputations of Cotterill or anyone else, in my opinion, that is close to the definition of corruption.

And does all this intrigue have anything to do with the decision to replace Cotterill as Chairman of SNZ with Nick Tongue. Why was that done? Cotterll is still on the Board but Chairman no longer. Is he trying to hide as this privacy issue draws to a conclusion? Is Tongue a convenient mouth-piece in what Coterill and Johns expect will be a difficult legal time? Is Tongue the selected fall guy, set up to take the rap for a Cotterill disaster? Has Tongue fallen for a Cotterill duck and dive?

Certainly the whole transfer of power was made in unseemly haste and amazing silence. In the dark of night is barely an adequate description. One minute Cotterill was the boss and the next Tongue was in his place.

In my experience corporate types like Cotteril only relinquish power when personal survival is at stake. Has Cotterill seen the writing on the wall and decided to bail out. It would not be the first time corporate types have fled a sinking ship. They do it all the time. Directors are forever fleeing from Boards six months before their company calls in the receivers. Remember how Nixon fled before he was impeached. Is this a Cotterill version of the same thing? Is he hiding while Tongue takes the rap? I don’t know, is the answer. But if that is what is happening I certainly would not be at all surprised.

Of course Cotterill will have his spin ready. He has to spend more time with his family; his paying directorships require more attention; he has a growing number of speaking engagements. Spin, spin, spin. But is the real reason to avoid the personal stain of corruption? Be careful Nick I think you are being set up.

In twelve months all this privacy thing will have run its course. David Wright or SNZ will have been found right or wrong. Nick Tongue will be a hero or a villain. If, as I expect, Tongue is the villain, the way will be clear for Cotterill to bounce back, as clean as driven snow, and take control again. The swimming guy, Tongue, screwed up. You need a corporate expert to keep you out of trouble. Cotterill is available to save the swimming world again. Is this an exercise in Cotterill telling future corporate gatherings that things went off the rails when he stood down but he returned to put things right. It would not surprise me one little bit if that was the master plan. As I have said, if it is, my guess is Miskimmin, the CEO of Sport NZ, is in on the scheme.

It’s Obscene

October 4th, 2019

I was discussing the Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) Annual General Meeting tonight with a friend – believe it or not I do have some, friends that is. We were talking about the SNZ decision to set aside $100,000 to pay New Zealand’s best privacy lawyer to fight me in a privacy case. My friend dismissed SNZ’s behaviour with a curt, “It’s obscene.”

What on earth did she mean? What was obscene? Well it is simple really. Two things.

First, here we have SNZ spending $100,000 paying two lawyers. This has nothing to do with swimming. This is a legal bill to sort out a problem that a phone call could have settled for free, four years ago. Even today it could be sorted out, not for free any longer, but for a lot less than this is going to end up costing. Another friend of mine – yes that’s at least two – was talking about the same subject this afternoon and offered the comment that sometimes a dispute goes past the point of being resolved between the parties. Sometimes a Court or Tribunal is needed. He is right. Sometimes that does happen. But not on this occasion.

SNZ has a new Chairman. Nick Tongue has replaced Bruce Cotterill. That is a step in the right direction. At least Tongue knows a bit about swimming. The bad is – he has been a member of the SNZ Board while they have been making some catastrophic decisions – like the one to spend $100,000 making a Christchurch lawyer rich.

But let’s give Nick the benefit of the doubt. He is a new broom. If ever a place needs a clean sweep, it’s SNZ. At least one item of the garbage needing removal is this privacy issue. Perhaps Nick is a better manager than his predecessor. Give me a call Nick. It would be nice to have a crack at sorting out your predecessor’s shambles.

But all that is not the obscene part. What is obscene is the SNZ AGM was held last weekend and the topic of the $100,000 being spent on lawyers was not even discussed. What on earth has to happen before the SNZ delegates act? Cotterill sets aside $100,000 to pay lawyers and the delegates at the AGM say nothing. Bloody unbelievable. Bloody obscene.

What on earth are the delegates at the AGM to do? If spending $100,000 on lawyers isn’t worth a mention, what would need to happen to get the delegates attention? Would blowing up the Millennium Pool count? Banning South Island teams from the National Championships? Perhaps someone would ask questions about that. Not the delegates from Auckland of course. It was their idea. But what would really upset these delegates is the decision to save money by stopping the AGM tea and savouries. Pay lawyers $100,000, no problem, but do not for any reason, meddle with our tea and sausage rolls. It’s obscene.

And the second obscenity surrounding the $100,000 is the announcement today of the qualifying criteria for three SNZ teams. Teams will be selected to attend the          Junior Pan Pacific Championships, the Oceania Championships and the LA Invitational. At the conclusion of the qualifying criteria is the following wonderful sentence.

“This is a user pays event which means that Swimmers are required to fund their own expenses.”

Can you imagine that? The SNZ Board and management think it is fine to spend $100,000 on lawyers and charge swimmers to represent the country. Three teams sharing $100,000 is $33,300 that could be allocated to each team. Seems like no choice to me. But to the SNZ Board the lawyers win every time. Sting the membership and pay lawyers to defend Cotterill’s ego. Of course that’s a good idea.

Put another way – the three meets are taking place in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and Fiji. The cost of a trip to Los Angeles and back is $1500, to Hawaii $1200 and Fiji $1000. Divide the average of $1233 into $100,000 and 81 swimmer’s airfares should be fully funded for the money SNZ has decided to send to a lawyer in Christchurch. That’s the priorities your Board has in life. That’s what your Board think is important. As my friend would say – IT’S OBSCENE.   

Swimming New Zealand Annual General Meeting

September 27th, 2019


Be A Lion – Ask The Tough Questions

This Sunday, 29/9/19, the Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held. If ever there was an occasion for the delegates to exercise their duty of oversight, this is it. After all, why are delegates at the meeting? What is their function? Well, one of their functions is to examine the performance of the six Board members. Have the affairs of the organisation been honestly and properly managed through the past 12 months? Is there anything in the performance of SNZ that is of concern? Is yet another drop in membership the product of management shortcomings? Is action being taken to address poor international results?

BUT on this occasion there is one item in SNZ’s Annual Report that demands the attention of every delegate in the room. This year’s accounts include a contingency amount of $100,000 to pay for legal fees in 2020. The reason this Board is planning to spend a huge sum on legal fees needs to be examined in detail. Proper oversight demands this amount is subject to the closest scrutiny.

Questions that must be asked are:

  1. What is the Board planning to spend $100,000 paying for? The answer is on legal fees paid to fight my application for a Report into complaints about my coaching.
  2. Is the $100,000 allowance set aside enough? No way in the world. The legal fees cost will be in the order of $100,000. But if I am awarded anything in damages the amount will be well in excess of that figure. The Tribunal hearing alone is set to take a week. $100,000 is not even close.
  3. Is spending 3% of the organisation’s income on legal fees justified? Absolutely not. If SNZ had handed over the Report four years ago any fallout would have been long gone at absolutely zero cost. $100,000 would have been available to pay for swimmers to attend a World Championship with $20,000 in change.
  4. What are SNZ so set on hiding in the Report? It can’t be the identity of the complainants or the Report’s author, Michael Marris. Everyone knows Susan Turner and Nikki Johns made the complaints. Hiding their identity when both of them rush to announce their involvement in Stuff, on Facebook and Instagram is a pointless exercise. Ask Cotterill if he can explain why he is hiding their identity from 15,000 SNZ members when Turner and Johns advertise themselves to 140,000 Stuff, Facebook and Instagram readers.
  5. Is there a way to settle this without making lawyers rich at the member’s expense? Yes of course. In four years SNZ has made no effort to negotiate a resolution. None at all. In my opinion it should still be settled “out of court”. Cotterill needs to be asked, at the AGM, why he hasn’t picked up the phone to talk about a solution. Why has spending the member’s money been a higher priority that reaching a solution?
  6. Is Cotterill wasting money in order to fight a well-known critic? Yes, and that’s as pathetic as it sounds.

So, there are five questions Chairman Cotterill needs to answer. Watch him duck and dive. Watch him avoid the issue. Hear him say things to the members like – because the case is before the Tribunal he can’t talk about it. Any excuse in order to avoid the problem. After all, he’s been talking at a 100kph to the media, why shouldn’t he talk to the members?

If he does try those tricks read him this statement.

I, David Alexander Wright, hereby give my approval for SNZ or any delegate to the AGM to discuss any aspect of the case and/or my involvement and/or the plan to spend $100,000 on a legal case at the AGM.

And so delegates, have a good meeting. Exercise your oversight duties well. I’m interested to hear how you get on. If you have a minute after the meeting send me an email to