But Do They Make Sense?

The Stuff article discussing my efforts to obtain the Marris Report contains the opinions of several parties. My views are reported. Nikki Johns and her father are interviewed. Susan Turner chips in with her opinions. And Bruce Cotterill, the Chairman of Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) takes 451 words to express his thoughts.

My views have been beaten to death on Swimwatch. I want to read the un-redacted Marris Report. Why? Two reasons. To clear my name. And because the principle feature of the Privacy Act is to protect the access New Zealanders have to private information held by agencies like SNZ. Of the thousands of words written on Swimwatch about this issue those forty-one words tell you everything that’s important about my views, my opinions and my case.

Obviously my opinion is that the views of Johns, her father and Turner are suspect. Not that my opinion of those three is important any longer. I have consistently said that what Johns and Turner say now is of little interest to me. Their issues were resolved three years ago by a competent and thorough investigation. I will not participate in their attempt at re-litigation now. Double jeopardy is a well-protected safeguard in New Zealand.

What is important though is the view of SNZ Chairman, Bruce Cotterill. My case before the Human Rights Tribunal deals with access to my personal information. That is between SNZ and me. It has nothing to do with Johns, her father or Turner.

So let’s look at what Cotterill told Stuff. Because his thoughts are scattered through the Stuff report it is difficult to view them as a logical whole. So what I have done is copy text from the Stuff report each time it mentions a Cotterill comment. I have then posted it below as one statement. So here is the Stuff report of what just Bruce Cotterill has to say.

I will now highlight key points made by Cotterill and respond with my counter opinion.

“Could not comment on the specifics of the case while the matter is before the tribunal.”

This is nonsense. There is no rule or law that prevents Cotterill discussing his opinions on the case. Cotterill doesn’t want to come clean so he uses the Tribunal as a convenient excuse to avoid the reporter’s questions. It is ironic that for someone who couldn’t comment Cotterill then takes 451 words to tell the world his opinion. If that’s Cotterill’s silence, what’s he like when he does want to talk?

“There are a lot of issues at play”

This is a hugely important concession by SNZ. You see one of the reasons given by SNZ for refusing to provide my personal information was that it was, in the words of the Privacy Act, “evaluative material compiled solely” for one of the purposes allowed in the Act. And here we have Cotterill admitting the Report covers “a lot of issues”. The exception allowed in the Act simply does not apply. Thank you Chairman Cotterill.

“David has asked for a copy of the entire report”

Cotterill is right. I am asking for the entire Report now. However he is also twisting the truth – a not uncommon characteristic. The version of the Report recommended for release by the Privacy Commission contained significant redactions. It was not the “entire report”. Still SNZ refused to comply. The “entire report” maybe Cotterill’s excuse now but it does not explain his decision to defy the Privacy Commission.

“Cotterill strongly rejects Wright’s assertion that the outcome of the investigation was not shared with him. He says Wright, through his lawyer, was given “feedback” on the findings of the review.”

Let’s be clear. I have received four promises that I will be given the Marris Report. The CEO of SNZ verbally promised me the Report when the investigation was being planned. Marris promised me the Report in writing. SNZ’s disputes procedures promise me the Report. The Privacy Act promises me the Report. I’m not interested in some Cotterill alleged feedback telephone call to my lawyer. I was in Saudi Arabia and was never told about it. A casual conversation of that nature is an inadequate joke. I have applied for the Report. The law says I am entitled to the Report. Cotterill’s pathetic excuses about a phone call, no matter how strongly it is asserted, count for nothing.

“That involved going back to each of the people that participated in the review, and sharing the outcome of the review. If you’re talking to people that are saying that hasn’t happened, then those people haven’t talked to me, and I’m not aware of it.”

All that is rubbish. I’ve said this before but it is worthwhile repeating. Thousands of words have been written on Swimwatch, emails have been sent by me to SNZ, a year-long government enquiry has investigated my application and we are a month into a tribunal case and Cotterill expects us to believe he is “not aware of it”. Either that’s not true or Cotterill is incredibly stupid.

“If there was anything in that report which justified Swimming NZ taking action against any party involved in the review, we most certainly would have done so.”

Thank you Chairman Cotterill. That is clearly saying there was nothing in the Marris Report that “justified Swimming NZ taking action against” me. While that is comforting I still want access to my personal information in the Report to see what, why and how the investigator came to that opinion. And also to clear my name. And if I’m innocent Johns and Turner are as guilty as sin of making false and malicious accusations. They need to be sanctioned accordingly. New Zealand coaches should not be hung out to dry as I have been on this occasion.

“The most important thing we did was get a suitably qualified person to come in as an independent and deal with it. [Marris] took a lot of time and effort to the investigation and did a very thorough job.”

On this I agree 100% with Chairman Cotterill. The questions Turner and Johns are raising now are typical. They don’t like the result so the investigator is to blame. Like me, they accepted the rules before the game began. It is far too late to change that now the game is over and the score is known. Turner and Johns are in no position to question the competence of Michael Marris.

“One of Marris’ recommendations in the report was that the findings remain confidential to the board of Swimming NZ.”

Because I haven’t seen the Marris Report I have no idea whether this is true or not. Given that Marris twice promised me a copy of his Report I doubt very much whether any recommendation of confidentiality made to SNZ included me. That sort of duplicity is not the way I read Michael Marris. My guess is that Marris meant confidential from the general population – but available through the SNZ “conduit” to me. No other confidentiality promise was possible, permissible or legal.

It will be interesting to determine how the Human Rights Tribunal rules on these and other questions. One would have to say that after the negative finding of the Privacy Commission, if the Tribunal also rules against SNZ it might be time for the Board to seriously consider whether they are up to the job. Directors have a legal responsibility to manage the company well by acting honestly in the best interest of SNZ. That appears to have not happened on this occasion.