End of Term Report

By David

It is a fitting time of the year to report on the current state of affairs in Swimming New Zealand; a balance sheet of where they are at right now; a snap shot into the Coulter, Byrne and Cameron swimming world.

THE INNESON REPORT

For the past month Chris Ineson has been trying to find out what various New Zealanders think about Swimming New Zealand. Well today, the 26 April 2011, is the day he’s due to report his findings to SPARC. I can’t imagine a more critical day in the lives of a generation of New Zealand swimmers. Inneson has the opportunity to put the sport of swimming back on track. I hope he is man enough to do it?

I suspect London 2012 is already lost. The damage is too great. The hurt is too deep. I’m sure SPARC understands that as well. Why else would they have commissioned a review of the sport? For the sport of swimming to make progress in New Zealand Inneson has to recommend that Cameron concentrate on her Sky Television duties and Byrne apply himself to another sport; haggis hurling in New Zealand needs a bit of a boost. SPARC then has to follow through and withhold their cash until the sport puts their house in order.

I guess the real question is how long will it take to find out what Ineson has recommended. If the Sweetenham Report is anything to go by we might hear something in a little over three years.

THE SWEETENHAM REPORT

Three years ago, Australian coach Bill Sweetenham was asked to report on the state of swimming in New Zealand. On several occasions since, including this recent attempt, Swimming New Zealand have been asked to make the Report public. On every occasion Swimming New Zealand has refused.

A month ago Swimwatch made an Official Information Act request for the Sweetenham Report. Two weeks ago Swimming New Zealand declined our request. Yesterday Swimwatch sent the following email requests to SPARC and to the New Zealand Ombudsman.

First, here is the Swimwatch letter to the Office of the Ombudsmen:

Dear Sir

Reference Number 308465

The purpose of this email is to file a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman in accordance with Section 28 of the Official Information Act 1982. In particular I refer to Clause 5:

“Undue delay in making official information available in response to a request for that information, shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (1), to be a refusal to make that information available.”

The circumstances in this case are as follows.

1. On Monday 14 March 2011 I wrote to the Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Sport, requesting a three year old Report on swimming in New Zealand, called the Sweetenham Report. The Report had never been made public and I made my request in terms of the Official Information Act 1982.

2. The Minister referred my request to the sport’s funding agency SPARC, who in turn requested the Sweetenham Report from Swimming New Zealand. On 12 April 2011 I received a letter from the CEO of SPAC. His letter refused my request and gave the following explanation.

“I am refusing your request under Section 18(d) of the Act because the information you have requested is or will soon be publically available. I have been informes by Swimming New Zealand that the report you have requested will soon be made available on Swimming New Zealand’s website.”

3. All that was nine days ago; well outside any reasonable definition of “soon”. I am concerned that Swimming New Zealand is using the immanent publication of information reason to delay and maybe even avoid providing the Sweetenham Report.

4. Right now Swimming New Zealand’s High performance Program is the subject of a SPARC special investigation. Publication of the Sweetenham Report during this investigation could influence the investigation and is something Swimming New Zealand would prefer to avoid.

5. I am of the view that Swimming New Zealand are delaying making the Sweetenham Report available in order to keep its contents secret until after the SPARC Review concludes at the end of April. Swimming New Zealand has no intention of publishing it on their website and as such they are in breach of Section 28(5) of the Official Information Act 1982.

I request the Office of the Ombudsman look into this matter urgently and would ask that Swimming New Zealand be ordered to either publish the Report on their website or forward it to me prior to 30 April 2011.

Thank you for your attention

And second the Swimwatch letter to SPARC

Peter Miskimmin

Chief Executive

SPARC

Wellington

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your letter dated 12 April 2011 replying to my request under the Official Information Act for the Sweetenham Report. Swimming New Zealand refused my request on the grounds that the Reprt was about to be published on their website.

That was eleven days ago and the Report has not been published. I have therefore made application to the New Zealand Ombudsman for Swimming New Zealand to be ordered to provide the Sweetenham Report immediatly. I have copied the Ombudsman and the Minister’s Office with this email.

However, two questions arise from your letter that I would appreciate having answered.

1. I note you that you asked Swimming New Zealand for a copy of the Sweetenham Report. Can you confirm that SPARC has never seen or read this report. Can you confirm that no copy of the Sweetenham Report is held either electronically or physically by anyone in the SPARC organization. That would be strange as the Report was referred to in the Terms of Reference SPARC prepared for the current Review of Swimming New Zealand’s High Performance program.

2. If SPARC has a copy of the Sweetenham Report why wasn’t that sent to me. After all SPARC was the organization, the Minister asked to deal with the request.

I would appreciate your clarification in order that I can obtain the Report and better understand the Review of Swimming New Zealand’s High Performance program, that you have commissioned.

Kind Regards


We will, of course post the replies to both letters on Swimwatch.

ALTERING THE MINUTES OF AN ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Most Swimwatch readers will be aware that we caught someone in Swimming New Zealand taking down the published minutes of the last Annual General Meeting from the organization’s website, removing a remit passed by the meeting requiring SNZ to obtain approval before progressing Project Vanguard and then reposting the altered minutes on their website. Since then SNZ has progressed Project Vanguard as though the original remit never existed. Fortunately Swimwatch has access to some pretty sophisticated computer brains and one of them discovered the original remit still existed. They copied the original and we posted it on Swimwatch. This may prove to be Swimming New Zealand’s Nixon Tapes. We hope so.

We have commissioned New Zealand’s leading firm of sport’s lawyers to take a look at the events surrounding the deception. They are currently collecting information and will report back to Swimwatch in a week or so. This event has more potential to expose the corruption that we suspect characterizes Swimming New Zealand than any other. It’s amazing how often bad people get tripped up by the small things. Marion Jones ended up in jail because she lied to a Grand Jury, not because she took steroids. Al Capone was caught for tax evasion, not for one hundred Chicago murders. The events at Swimming New Zealand are not of the same scale but altering the published minutes and removing an inconvenient remit may yet prove to be the Board of Swimming New Zealand’s down fall.

We will publish on Swimwatch the lawyers report as soon as it is received.

So there it is; Swimming New Zealand’s end of term report. I suspect the Dean’s report should say.

“Dear Parent: Your offspring is up to his arse in alligators and has no idea in the wide world what to do about it.”