21 NOVEMBER 2024

CLARIFICATION ON ERA PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION

Further to my statement of 20 November 2024 and reporting on the matter today, I would like to clarify exactly what the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has decided in its Preliminary Determination.

In reaction to the determination, TVNZ has said “The Employment Relations Authority has found comprehensively in TVNZ’s favour on two of the three claims in front of it.”

To be clear, the ERA was considering a preliminary matter only, as to whether it had jurisdiction to hear two of my nine claims against TVNZ.

This was a procedural matter, and in its determination, the ERA decided that it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear those two claims. It did not rule on the substance of the claims themselves.

These two claims are separate to the other seven claims I have brought, which are related to the Record of Settlement signed between the two parties.

Those seven claims are still before the ERA, and I will be appealing against the Preliminary Determination on the other two.

ENDS

20 NOVEMBER 2024

STATEMENT ON 2022 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH TVNZ; PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION FROM ERA

One year ago I began my legal action at the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), both to hold TVNZ to account for its actions, and to get the facts out in the open about what actually happened between myself and TVNZ.

Now that the ERA’s Preliminary Determination of 18 November has publicly disclosed the existence of a settlement agreement which TVNZ entered into with me in May 2022, I can now confirm that this is what my case relates to. 

While I was gagged by this agreement, TVNZ went on to immediately and repeatedly breach the terms of the agreement, and my ongoing legal rights as an employee, to formulate a narrative that was not based in fact.

And it did this at almost every level - from its newsroom, management, and executives, right up to its Chief Executive and Board.

That an employer would do this to an employee is both unethical and contrary to legal principles. 

THE ERA’S DETERMINATION

Broadly speaking, my claims concern whether TVNZ complied with the legal obligations it owed me.  TVNZ raised a procedural question about whether I could bring all of my claims or not, and the ERA has now made a Preliminary Determination - on that question only.

It has not decided any substantive issue about whether or not TVNZ breached any of my rights or the terms of our settlement, and this decision only considers two of the claims I have brought, out of a total of nine.

The determination itself comes as no surprise to me and my legal team, given the ERA released its “preliminary view” to the parties on this issue back in April - before receiving any legal submissions or evidence from either myself or TVNZ.  That view showed me that the complexity of the legal issue may not have been well understood at that point.

What is surprising now is that an extremely relevant legal precedent presented by my legal team appears to have been overlooked; and is, indeed, not mentioned at all in the determination.

The ERA also got a number of facts wrong - among them, an assertion that I knew about my so-called “new claims” against TVNZ at the time of my resignation.  This is not true.  The claims subject to the Preliminary Determination relate to TVNZ’s actions AFTER my resignation had been announced on 28 May 2022, but before my employment ended on 31 May 2022.

The determination also says I gave no reason for waiting 18 months to make my case to the ERA.  In fact, in my affidavits filed with them, I was very clear that my mental state and that of my family (particularly my teenage daughter) meant I was in no position - physically or mentally - to take any action any sooner than I did.  It was only when my daughter told me she felt strong enough mentally to deal with this new phase, that I started proceedings.  I’ve always said that, including in an interview I gave a year ago.

All of this reinforces my belief that this case needs to be moved to the Employment Court, where the relevant law and facts can be fully and properly examined.

RECORD OF SETTLEMENT

TVNZ entered into a Record of Settlement (RoS) with me as a means of terminating my employment, whilst also managing my exit from the company.  I did not propose such a settlement.

I have not, until now, been free to disclose the existence of the RoS.  

The ERA’s Preliminary Determination now refers to the bargain contemplated by the RoS.  This included a payment which TVNZ was to make and I was to accept, and a host of conditions to ensure a “clean break” that would “draw a line under the matter” and “reduce/stop the media attention”.

Such conditions, as the Preliminary Determination sets out, included:

  • a mutual non-disparagement clause;

  • an agreed message that would be released about my resignation;

  • release from the restraint of trade clause in my employment contract;

  • an agreed comment the parties would make in response to media queries;

  • the ability to discuss and agree a public statement regarding the events leading to my resignation, if media queries continued;

  • an obligation for TVNZ to direct employees with relevant knowledge to keep all matters strictly confidential; and

  • a general confidentiality clause regarding the existence and terms of the RoS.

  

I’m sure the existence of a settlement agreement and payment will be a source of disquiet for many people, given the picture of me that was painted by the media - including by TVNZ, its executives, and its newsroom. 

But whilst it gagged me, TVNZ did not uphold its side of the bargain.  And so my claim relates to its behaviour after signing the RoS, and how it went on to systematically destroy my reputation and career through a misleading narrative - to which I was not able to respond. 

As a public entity, TVNZ and its Chief Executives are obligated to account for its decisions.  This includes the decisions it made to facilitate breaches of the settlement agreement.

NEXT STEPS

  • I will be appealing this ERA Preliminary Determination through the Employment Court.

  • I have also filed my application for the whole proceedings to be removed to the Employment Court as per my previous statement.  The ERA will consider this application in the first instance.  It hasn’t yet confirmed next steps for how and when it will do so.

  • Regarding the seven other claims which make up my case (which I’d like the Employment Court to decide on), no evidence has yet been filed on the substantive questions of whether the settlement was breached, as this preliminary matter needed to be addressed first.  These questions will include issues relating to the so-called independence of TVNZ’s newsroom.

I am looking forward to the opportunity for the Employment Court to consider the relevant law and facts, to ensure transparency and accountability, and to possibly consider the entirety of my claims.

The real facts have never matched the narrative that TVNZ and other media portrayed about me, and the record needs to be set straight.  I am committed to doing so.

ENDS

4 NOVEMBER 2024

NEW DIMENSIONS IN LEGAL ACTION AGAINST TVNZ; ADDITION OF KC TO LEGAL TEAM

My ongoing legal action against TVNZ is now taking on several new dimensions, as I look to move forward the process currently before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

While the ERA has been deliberating on a preliminary jurisdictional issue since May 2024, I have discovered yet more information about my time at TVNZ, and how it shaped the situation which surrounded my departure.  

I’ve also taken further legal advice, which has resulted in the addition of Daniel Kalderimis KC to my legal team.

Daniel brings 25 years of international experience to these proceedings with a focus on advocacy and dispute resolution, to complement employment law specialists Emma Butcher and Charlotte Joy of BE Employment Law, who have been with me since the start.

Today, we have:

  • widened the scope of my claims against TVNZ to include additional employment-relationship issues; and

  • applied for the case to be heard directly by the Employment Court, rather than the ERA.  My claim involves several complex legal issues which I believe are better suited to the Employment Court forum.

TVNZ characterises its newsroom as entirely distinct from its corporate operations and suggests that it cannot be held responsible for the words and actions of its newsroom.  I say this is wrong, both factually and legally. 

If the case is moved as requested, I will be utilising the structured discovery powers of the Employment Court to uncover more of exactly what was going on at TVNZ during the relevant time.  This includes what occurred within its newsroom, between its newsroom and relevant executives, and also the conduct and decision-making of its executives and chief executive overall.  

As ever, I return to the words of the Chief Ombudsman, who said previously:

“… the public has a legitimate and compelling interest in transparency and accountability for how TVNZ handled and investigated alleged workplace misconduct by a high-profile figure. Public agencies, and their Chief Executives, are obligated to account for decisions.”
— PETER BOSHIER, August 2023

I fully agree with this.

ENDS

25 JULY 2024

STATEMENT REGARDING NEW ACTION AGAINST TVNZ IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

This week, I have taken a new step in my ongoing legal action against TVNZ.

After being repeatedly denied access to the Robins Report - first by TVNZ, and then the Privacy Commissioner - I have now filed a statement of claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT).

This is to seek access to the full report (not just the summary, which I was only able to obtain from the media) as it contains my personal information. My claim also raises the issue that I should have been involved with and interviewed for the Robins investigation, and that facts and matters related to me should have had my comment on (for accuracy, if nothing else) before recommendations and findings were made.

THE ROBINS REPORT

TVNZ commissioned the Robins Report in the wake of my resignation from the broadcaster in May 2022. As well as reviewing TVNZ’s recruitment procedures, it was to look specifically at my hiring.

What has always surprised me - and indeed I think it completely absurd - is that the scope of the investigation never included contacting or interviewing me to gain my first-hand perspective, or to provide any information about my hiring. Nor was I given an opportunity to verify or correct the information that others had given, and on which the report was built.

I took my complaints to the Privacy Commissioner. In January of this year, I was told by the Privacy Commissioner that the key information sought for the Robins Report was the “personal perspectives” of those people at TVNZ who were interviewed.

Apparently, I “could not have offered insight into the relevant aspects of [my] own recruitment to the extent that other TVNZ staff could.”

NEW INFORMATION

However, what I now know - through an ongoing Privacy Act request to TVNZ for all of my personal information held by them - is that a considerable amount of that information was materially inaccurate. What is also clear is that a lot of the opinions people had about me, including from before I had even accepted an offer of employment, were false.

The information I have received so far tells me that the “personal perspectives” of those interviewed for the Robins Report were motivated by different factors - not just the inaccurate information, but internal issues which were only exacerbated by my hiring.

And through OIA requests to the Minister of Broadcasting and related government departments, I have also discovered that the then-Minister Kris Faafoi was provided with crucially inaccurate information about me and events at TVNZ from the very outset.

All of this adds up to a misinformed picture about the facts and circumstances of my recruitment and resignation - a picture to which I was not asked to contribute, and am still being denied access.

HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL ACTION

The issues I have outlined here and to the HRRT may appear minor or technical - certainly when compared with the media storm which followed my resignation. But they are fundamental issues, and the fact that I am still challenging them 26 months later shows how important they are to me and my family. Misinformation has characterised everything to do with my time at TVNZ, and I am not willing to let that stand.

I continually go back to the words of the Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier, who said “the public has a legitimate and compelling interest in transparency and accountability for how TVNZ handled and investigated alleged workplace misconduct by a high-profile figure. Public agencies, and their Chief Executives, are obligated to account for decisions.”

With this latest HRRT action, as well as my ongoing proceedings against TVNZ at the Employment Relations Authority, I am following correct procedure to make sure the record is set straight, and the facts are reported accurately and fairly to all parties.

ENDS

12 JULY 2024

STATEMENT REGARDING CHIEF OMBUDSMAN’S NON-PUBLICATION OF SANTAMARIA/TVNZ CASE NOTE SUMMARY

When I announced my decision to launch legal proceedings against TVNZ through the Employment Relations Authority in December 2023, I was extremely mindful of a decision made four months earlier by the Chief Ombudsman.

In that decision, which came about following an OIA request from Stuff to TVNZ involving myself and events which took place at TVNZ in 2022, the Ombudsman said:

“the public has a legitimate and compelling interest in transparency and accountability for how TVNZ handled and investigated alleged workplace misconduct by a high-profile figure. Public agencies, and their Chief Executives, are obligated to account for decisions.”
— PETER BOSHIER, August 2023

I agree.  Following the decision about whether or not TVNZ’s response to Stuff’s OIA request was appropriate, the Ombudsman’s Office sent me a draft Case Note Summary of that decision in December 2023.  It said the Chief Ombudsman was “minded” to publish such a case note as he considered that:

“some of the issues/themes have national relevance and are in the public interest.”
— OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE, 13 December 2023

This wasn’t surprising – the Ombudsman’s website has a page where case notes and other resources are published for public use.  However, last week my lawyers received an email from the Ombudsman’s Office simply saying that:


“after careful consideration the Ombudsman has decided not to publish the case note.”
— OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE, 2 July 2024

 

BACKGROUND

The Ombudsman is empowered to publish reports on cases which are in the public interest, under rule 2 of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989.

And for the record, I have always agreed with his view on the necessity for full transparency and accountability in all matters relating to my employment with TVNZ.  I did not object to the publication of a Case Note Summary.

However when his office sent me its draft of that summary, I discovered that it was factually inaccurate in a number of material respects - for example, in relation to what happened during my time at TVNZ.

I also had significant concern with quotes from the Privacy Commissioner that were included in the draft summary.  I hadn’t seen any of the consultation or correspondence between the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner during the Ombudsman’s investigation, and the quotes included in the draft summary were never included in the Ombudsman’s opinions to either myself or TVNZ (which were shared with me).  As a result, I could not verify their accuracy.  But, more importantly, I discovered that the Privacy Commissioner’s assumptions - which appeared to inform his quotes - again contained a number of material inaccuracies.

My legal team pointed out these inaccuracies to the Ombudsman who had specifically invited me to raise “any issues or concerns with the proposed case note” and said that “all comments will be considered.”  Given the significant impact the reporting of these events has had on me and my family, and the compelling public interest in transparency and accountability, I felt it was incredibly important that any reporting of the facts should be accurate and fair to all parties.

 

NON-PUBLICATION

In the seven months since receiving the draft Case Note Summary and raising my concerns about the material inaccuracies in it - and having provided suggested amendments for the case note to be published accurately - I have had no response from the Ombudsman’s office. 

Similarly I have had no explanation as to why an accurate Case Note Summary will now not be published.

I am intrigued as to how this non-publication fits in with what the Chief Ombudsman has consistently called a “legitimate and compelling interest” in both transparency and accountability.

ENDS

1 MARCH 2024

UPDATE ON LEGAL ACTION AGAINST TVNZ


As part of my proceedings against TVNZ at the Employment Relations Authority, the two parties were directed to mediation by the end of February.

That period has now lapsed without resolution, therefore I am continuing with my legal action against TVNZ.  The more that is discovered during this process, the more I believe this action is necessary.

My understanding is that the media will be able to attend the substantive investigation meeting when that occurs, and that all determinations issued for these matters will be publicly available on the Authority’s website.

As I’ve always said, I want transparency in respect of TVNZ’s actions after I resigned.  I still seek that and believe that it is fair and just. 

And, to be clear, my proceedings are against TVNZ regarding ITS actions.   It is about TVNZ, not the complainant - who is not, and never has been, the subject of these proceedings.

ENDS

9 FEBRUARY 2024

RESPONSE TO STUFF.CO.NZ ARTICLE REGARDING THE SALE OF MY FAMILY HOME

Today, Stuff published an article about the sale of my family home.

I was emailed by Edward Gay at 1:07pm for a comment, but the article was published at 2:40pm anyway - before I had even seen the email. I would question if they were even interested in a response. I also note the New Zealand Herald has since published its own story, without even bothering to contact me.

How this is considered newsworthy is truly beyond me - given I said in an interview more than two months ago that I would be selling my house to fund my legal case against TVNZ. It is because I am so serious about that legal action that I am taking this step.

Gay has made it very easy for anyone to find the details of my home address. Whilst he and Stuff are apparently allowed to publish these sorts of articles, I find their actions professionally and morally reprehensible.

I have spoken openly about the effects that media intrusion and social media abuse have had on my mental health, as well as on my wife and our daughter (who is very vulnerable and has been considerably harmed by the levels of media intrusion). I have revealed that there have been threats of physical harm against us. Articles like this only perpetuate that. Already, since Stuff published this latest article, I have had abusive messages sent to me on social media.

This is nothing more than an opportunity for Stuff to re-publish and link to old, inaccurate, and misleading stories about me.

It is - in my view, and in view of the factors above - pathetic, gutter journalism.

ENDS

26 JANUARY 2024

STATEMENT REGARDING ROBINS’ REPORT, AND COMPLAINT TO THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

More than one year ago, I made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner about the Robins’ Report and what I consider to be breaches of my privacy by TVNZ pursuant to the Privacy Act.  After 13 months, the Privacy Commissioner has now issued his final view on my complaint.

The Robins’ Report was described by TVNZ as an independent report into my hiring and the recruitment processes at TVNZ.  It was commissioned by TVNZ while I was still an employee.  TVNZ set the terms of reference and issued a summary of the review’s findings and recommendations to the media (which contained defamatory speculation about my character and integrity).  The full Robins’ Report itself was never made public.

I was never contacted, questioned, or interviewed as part of it.  I was never given an opportunity to respond to, or to correct anything in the report, and was never given either a copy of the full report or of my personal information included in it.  I only received the three-page summary of the report late last year, from a journalist who’d obtained it directly from TVNZ.  

Despite the fact that the report clearly contains my personal information - as well as information that people within TVNZ have been able to say about me - my right to access and seek correction (if needed) of that personal information and to see the full report has, once again, been denied.

The Privacy Commissioner has also rejected my contention that I should have been able to give my own personal information and perspective on the process of my hiring - despite the fact I have considerable direct evidence relating to my recruitment in the form of text messages and knowledge of phone calls with the person who recruited me.  However, according to the Privacy Commissioner, the key information sought by Ms. Robins was the “personal perspectives” of those people at TVNZ who were interviewed.  Apparently, I “could not have offered insight into the relevant aspects of [my] own recruitment to the extent that other TVNZ staff could.”  

And so these “personal perspectives” went unchallenged, as did their version of events regarding my recruitment.  However, presently, I am reviewing 1,565 documents that TVNZ has released to me, pursuant to a general privacy request for the personal information TVNZ holds about me.  I am now seeing the volume and breadth of some of those “personal perspectives” and it has been enlightening to say the least!

It still surprises me - in fact, one might even think it absurd - that a review conducted for TVNZ, which arose purportedly in respect of my recruitment, was undertaken without the reviewer ever attempting to interview me and get my perspective! 

In light of the earlier decision by the Chief Ombudsman, I unfortunately had little confidence that my rights would finally be acknowledged, so this decision is not surprising.  However, I do find it both WRONG in law and on the facts and I intend to pursue my complaint further by bringing proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal - the next course of action to challenge the Privacy Commissioner’s decision.

More importantly, I look forward to my case against TVNZ before the Employment Relations Authority - and to defend TVNZ’s own claim against me -  where both the proceedings and presentation of evidence should be done in an open and transparent manner.  

ENDS

21 DECEMBER 2023

END-OF-YEAR UPDATE

Further to my last update on December 3, TVNZ has lodged a counter-claim to the proceedings which I initiated at the Employment Relations Authority.

I have now filed a ‘statement in reply’ to that claim, and proceedings will continue in the New Year.

In other developments:

  • As The New Zealand Herald reported on December 3, I also have an ongoing request lodged directly with TVNZ for all personal information and communications regarding myself.  I was initially sent some basic personnel files, but now - after 11 weeks - I have received the first tranche of these communications, totalling 1,565 documents.  My legal team and I will be going through every single one of these, and any subsequent documents, to ensure all relevant information is obtained;

  • Additionally, my complaint to the Privacy Commissioner over the Robins Report and associated breaches of my privacy is ongoing - as it has been for the past 14 months;

  • And I am now also making an OIA request to the Minister for Media and Communications for all communications concerning myself.  There have been three different ministers since I left TVNZ, who will have all been kept informed of developments under the ‘no surprises’ principle.  I would like to know what they have been told.

As I have said over and over, all of this is being done to provide the transparency which the Chief Ombudsman said the public had such a “legitimate and compelling interest in”.  

In doing so, my desire is for the record to be set straight - officially - on the events surrounding my departure from TVNZ.  There has been more than a year and a half of media speculation and misreporting, so getting the facts out has become of the utmost importance to me and my family.

And on that note, I would like to thank those of you who’ve taken the time to send and leave messages of support for us, especially over the past four weeks.  This continues to be a long and taxing process for us all, so we are thankful for your support.

Merry Christmas.

ENDS

3 DECEMBER 2023

STATEMENT ON LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TVNZ AT THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY


As I announced on Monday 27 November, I have commenced proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority against TVNZ relating to my employment.

On Tuesday, TVNZ sought interim and permanent non-publication orders and an order to seal the Authority’s file.  Those orders have not been granted.

Matters can be reported on in the usual course as it is in the public domain and is of public interest.

I have been continually told that transparency in this matter is ‘in the public interest’ - in August, the Chief Ombudsman said in his decision that “the public has a legitimate and compelling interest in transparency and accountability for how TVNZ handled this high-profile incident”.  

By taking action before the Employment Relations Authority, I am ensuring there IS transparency, and that the record is set straight.

The New Zealand Herald has written about this action, and my request to TVNZ for all the personal information it holds about me.

 

ENDS

30 AUGUST 2023

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION TO AUGUST 27 STATEMENT

Further to my statement of 27 August 2023, and in light of the continuing abuse I’ve received since releasing it - including threats of physical violence against me and my family - it seems some more clarification is needed.

I have always wanted to tell my side of the story but have been contractually prevented from doing so.  

So - to clarify - the “touching” referred to in my statement was just above the knee, while thanking a colleague for helping me with a story.  It was never reported or referred to at any time as being of a sexual nature or harassment.

It was an instinctive and reflex gesture during a conversation where we were seated side-by-side in the newsroom, around other colleagues.  It was done with no ill intent.  I was not aware at the time that it had caused any discomfort - and when it was brought to my attention, I immediately acknowledged and apologised for it.  

That was the extent of it.  How this complaint resulted in my employment being terminated is a question for others to answer.

It was in light of the Chief Ombudsman’s desire for transparency and accountability that I released my statement - to acknowledge ACCURATELY what happened in the lead up to my forced departure, including the process used to remove me.

One-sided reporting has resulted in and continues to fuel defamatory online abuse, racist comments, and threats of violence against me and my family.

The events reported in my statement are backed by documentary evidence, which my lawyers are under instructions to release in full, should the need arise.

ENDS

27 AUGUST 2023

STATEMENT REGARDING DEPARTURE FROM TVNZ IN MAY 2022

For more than a year - and as I’ve repeatedly said, for legal reasons - I have strictly maintained my silence over the reasons for and events surrounding my departure from TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.

This was not my choice.  I have always wanted to tell my side of the story, but have been prevented from doing so - both during my last few weeks at TVNZ, and after my resignation.

This has allowed the narrative to be controlled by others.  On top of that, a recent decision by the Chief Ombudsman regarding an OIA request and a decision last year by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, have made it abundantly clear to me that the perceived “public interest” will always override any right to privacy for me and my family.  I disagree with this vehemently, so now, with the issue still not going away more than a year later, I have decided to tell my side of the story.

I have said before that in a story characterised by leaks, it is extraordinary that there was not a single leak about my side of the story.  Those with actual knowledge remained tight-lipped, while anonymous “sources” armed with hearsay and theories leaked what they thought they knew.  It is even more extraordinary that in a story which had so much media attention - and is still being pursued by some members of the media - not one of them actually got the full story.

The rumour and speculation can stop now. 

Here is my story.

RECRUITMENT & ARRIVAL AT TVNZ

Much has been said about how I got the job of Breakfast presenter at TVNZ.  There was even a formal investigation into it - known as the Robins’ Report - which I will address later.

For the record, I was first approached for the job on 6 December 2021.   There were seven days in between me being approached about the job and being verbally offered it, and a full 40 days between me sending a signed contract back to TVNZ and receiving a fully countersigned version.  During those 40 days, I was being pressured by TVNZ to formalise my resignation from my current job - however I refused to do so until I received a legally binding countersigned contract from TVNZ.

I was excited to accept the job at Breakfast as I was told there was a desire to ‘harden’ the show from its current state - hence my hiring from a stronger news background.  I saw the format of Breakfast as a good opportunity to utilise my broadcasting skills and news knowledge.  (I was also told there was an aspiration to replace one of the other existing presenters at the same time.)  

After arriving in New Zealand in early April, my first day in the TVNZ building was Wednesday 13 April.  I began my employment on Tuesday 19 April and I eventually had my first full day on-air on Wednesday 27 April.  What ended up being my final day on-air was Wednesday 18 May, and I resigned on Saturday 28 May.  My actual employment with TVNZ, however, officially ended on Tuesday 31 May.  

While I was made to feel welcome by the bulk of the Breakfast team, it also very quickly felt (to me) that not everyone involved with the programme and beyond were happy with my appointment.   I completely understand that.   TV is a cut-throat business, presenting jobs are highly-prized, and the recruitment of an outsider who’d been brought in seemingly unilaterally may not have gone down well with everyone:

  • The first communication I received from a news manager about my role on Breakfast informed me that my start dates for the office and for on-air were being left to the other presenters to take the lead on.  I completely respected that I was joining an existing team, but it really did feel like I was being put in my place from the outset.

  • I was twice loudly admonished in the newsroom, in front of others, by a non-Breakfast manager for some minor mispronunciations of Maori words.  This felt completely inappropriate at the time.

  • When I pitched an idea to a Breakfast editorial member about using some existing resources in a potentially more relevant way, they told me in no uncertain terms “we don’t do that here” and the ‘discussion’ was ended.  It was perhaps not the biggest of issues, but the attitude was indicative right from the start.

  • In the course of a conversation, a senior presenter (outside of Breakfast) called me an offensive term to my face when I first met them in the newsroom.  I was uncomfortable with this and was taken aback, and when they saw my reaction they immediately apologised.  I was happy to accept that apology because I could see there was no real ill-intent.

The fact that other staff members felt they had not been sufficiently consulted prior to my appointment was confirmed by the information that TVNZ has released about the findings of the Robins’ Report.

THE ROBINS’ REPORT

This was described as an independent report into my hiring and the recruitment processes at TVNZ.  It was TVNZ which set the terms of reference, and which issued a summary of its findings to the media.  The actual report was never made public.

  • I have never seen the report, despite it containing my personal information;

  • TVNZ refused (and still refuses) to provide me with a copy of the report;

  • I was not interviewed for the report, at all;

  • I was never contacted or questioned by the author of the report, at all;

  • I never received a copy of the report prior to it being finalised;

  • I was never given an opportunity to comment on what people had said about me in the report before it was finalised;

  • I have also never received the summary of the report prepared by TVNZ that it released to the media.

Ultimately, I only found out what the report contained when TVNZ released its summary to the media, and the media reported on it.

Despite the fact that the report contains my personal information - as well as information that people have been able to say about me - it seems that my right to access and seek correction of my personal information (as per the Privacy Act 2020) has been denied.

It still surprises me to this day that an investigation into my own hiring didn’t feel it pertinent to hear my side of the story, or to let me see and respond to what others had said about me.  

I am still currently taking proceedings to try to obtain a copy of the report.  However, in light of the recent decision by the Chief Ombudsman, I am not confident that my rights will finally be respected.

CLARIFICATION OF ‘FAMILY EMERGENCY’

That recent decision by the Chief Ombudsman was in relation to an Official Information Act (OIA) request from Stuff NZ.  They asked TVNZ to release documents and information regarding the decision to describe my resignation as being over a ‘family emergency’.

To be clear, this term was only ever used to describe my absence from Breakfast, and not my actual resignation (despite incorrect media reporting to the contrary).

In response to that request, the Chief Ombudsman has decided that there is “a significant and prevailing public interest” in TVNZ explaining its decision to describe my absence as being due to a family emergency.  

I should also note that the Chief Ombudsman recommended the release of a summary statement - which would include a timeline of events from my first day of employment, up until the release of the Robins’ Report.  This timeline was, however, only communicated to TVNZ and Stuff NZ, and not to me.  Like the Robins’ Report, I only found out about it through a media report, and I believe it falls outside the scope of the original OIA request.

The bottom line it seems - once again - is that the public interest in disclosure outweighs my privacy interests.

I am happy to clear up the ‘family emergency’ issue right now - it was ME who made the request.

TVNZ had already unilaterally decided to take me off-air and (internally) frame this absence as being due to ‘personal reasons’.  I subsequently received numerous messages from colleagues asking about it. 

When asked by TVNZ to give feedback on my continuing on-air absence, I suggested it be described as a ‘family emergency’ because to me and my family, that is exactly what it had become.  TVNZ agreed to this.  

This phrase seems to have been a continuing point of contention for some members of the media - even after it was reported that the then-CEO told the TVNZ newsroom on Thursday 2 June that it was a mistake to use the phrase, and that they apologised for it.

DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT

There has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation regarding what occurred at TVNZ.

And as I was prevented from speaking out and telling the facts, a certain narrative took hold.

Various claims were made in the media about “at least one allegation” and in some reporting (including TVNZ’s own reporting, while I was still an employee) of “multiple allegations of inappropriate behaviour”. 

Again, I can clarify right now that ONE complaint was made against me at TVNZ. 

This involved an allegation of touching a colleague in the newsroom.  For the record, it was never alleged by anyone at any time to be sexual and/or harassment.

When the allegation was brought to my attention verbally in a meeting with a senior HR member and the then-Head of News and Current Affairs, I immediately recalled the interaction and made it clear that any touching had been an instinctive action on my part, with no ill-intent.  I was not aware of any power imbalance at the time of the interaction or that the colleague felt any discomfort.  

However, based on what I was being told at that time, I did accept that it had made my colleague feel uncomfortable and I immediately apologised for that.

I also completely acknowledge - then and now - that the colleague was absolutely correct to make a complaint if any actions had made them feel uncomfortable.

However, there is always a context.  

Importantly, it happened in the newsroom environment where expressiveness and tactility were commonplace.  Breakfast staff would hug and touch each other, some guests would be hugged after they finished their interviews, and in one instance, a co-host touched me on-air during a difficult moment of broadcasting.  While that could have potentially made someone feel uncomfortable, I recognised that it was an instinctive act with no ill-intent and had no issue with it.

I was told in that meeting that TVNZ had a “100% no-touching policy”.  Ironically, when I walked back to my desk to collect my belongings, a male member of staff was giving a female member of staff a shoulder massage in full view of the newsroom.  

So in light of my behaviour being brought into question, I also wonder if the apparent culture of the Breakfast team which I witnessed is relevant:  

  • A staff member posting a picture on the internal messaging platform of a returning guest, with the name caption changed to ‘CERTIFIED BREAKFAST HOTTIE’;

  • A suggestion during an editorial meeting that there should be a ‘Breakfast Hotties’ whiteboard in the office, with a list ranking the attractiveness of guests;

  • Two producers literally rolling around on the floor outside the studio door, laughing loudly and uncontrollably, while I tried to escort a guest out of the studio.

I know as well as anyone that newsrooms can be less formal workplaces than most offices - but in this case, the reality of the Breakfast culture that I experienced in the short time I was there did not match with what I was being told was TVNZ policy.

When asked, I offered to make a full apology to the colleague in whichever way Management deemed appropriate.  I was told to leave the premises, and as it transpired I never returned to Breakfast or to the TVNZ building.

I was instructed by TVNZ to keep the matter strictly confidential, and not to discuss it with anyone at TVNZ or elsewhere.  I did this, and only informed my wife and daughter immediately when I got home that afternoon.

It is what happened next that led to my resignation from TVNZ, my silence since then, and the resulting media storm.

COMPLAINT/DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

In a situation like this, it is important that employers have a clear process in place to deal with complaints fairly for all parties involved, and that this process is followed by all employees involved.

As a follow up to the first meeting, there was a video meeting the next day with the same people present.  During that video meeting, TVNZ’s disciplinary process was explained to me and I was explicitly told that this was “nowhere near the level of dismissal”.  I was asked to make a formal written apology which I agreed to do.  I sent a draft of that to those managers later that afternoon.

I received no further communication from them until 5.30pm the following day, which was a Friday, when I was told that the Head of HR and the then-CEO had been briefed on the situation and had decided to escalate it to a formal disciplinary process.  

This was set down for Monday 23 May, which I considered unreasonable given it was now Friday evening and that I would need to bring in legal representation.  In the event, TVNZ delayed the hearing by 24 hours.  

The day before the disciplinary hearing, it was confirmed that at least EIGHT members of TVNZ staff (including non-managers) had knowledge of the complaint before it was even brought to me.  Some were journalists and camera operators from two separate newsrooms.  

By the time of the disciplinary hearing, this number had increased to at least THIRTEEN - not including all those staff members who had heard and been discussing the rumours.

It was in this context that I attended the disciplinary hearing with my lawyer.   In attendance were the ‘decision-makers’ - that is, the then-Head of News and Current Affairs and the Head of HR, as well as the then-CEO (who was not physically present, but was consulted over the phone when it concluded).

It is what transpired at this hearing and after which, I believe, is absolutely crucial:

  • During the disciplinary process, it was revealed that NO ONE had ever taken a formal statement directly from the complainant;

  • The decision-makers who had escalated the complaint to a formal disciplinary proceeding had done so based on hearsay, and second and third-hand accounts of events;

  • A written statement from the complainant was only requested and obtained the day AFTER the hearing, at which I had been told that TVNZ was proposing my dismissal;

  • This written statement actually differed in certain key respects from the version of events that the decision-makers had all acted on.

During the hearing it also became clear that:

  • The complainant had first discussed the issue with several colleagues - none of whom were part of the complaints process;

  • The complainant then made the complaint to their line manager; (the complainant was subsequently promoted after my resignation).

  • The complainant’s line manager:

    • did not take a written statement from the complainant; 

    • did not file a contemporaneous file note of the complaint;

    • did not keep the complaint confidential to only those who would be charged with dealing with it - instead, telling a reporter and a camera operator, before calling their manager in the News Executive Team; (this line manager was also subsequently promoted).

  • A written statement from the line manager was only requested and taken after the complaint had been escalated to a formal disciplinary proceeding, and the day before the hearing itself;

  • When the line manager did report it to their manager in the News Executive Team, it was based on their version of events - with their upset and anger informing that;

  • The manager in the News Executive Team, in turn, reported the line manager’s version of events to those who called me in for that initial meeting;

  • I did not know it at the time, but it was from this version of events that I had been informed of the complaint in the first place - it never came from the complainant themselves.  And again, I was not provided with this manager’s written account until after the formal hearing; (this manager in the News Executive Team was also subsequently promoted).

To reiterate, this entire process was launched, escalated, and decided without ever requesting or obtaining a formal statement from the complainant themselves.

When the formal statement was finally obtained, it did not line up with the hearsay information that had been presented to me, and was different in several material respects from the line manager’s statement and the written account of the manager in the News Executive Team who had escalated the process to HR.  

And again, for the record, it was never alleged at the time by the complainant to be sexual and/or harassment.

The complainant was, at that stage, offered a direct line to the three decision-makers (including the then-CEO)  to “chat” if they wished.  I had been offered details of a general, staff-wide, confidential 0800 employee support service.

I should also note that, despite being the ones to escalate the process and to ultimately make the call to end my employment, the Head of HR and the then-CEO never once spoke to me or sought my side of the story.  In fact, during my time at TVNZ, I never once met or spoke to the then-CEO.

‘RESIGNATION’ 

As a result of all of this, and my desire to challenge the decision and tell my side of the story, TVNZ proposed a managed exit which would allow me to ‘resign’ but which also prevented me from speaking about the actual events that had taken place.  

On Saturday 28 May, my resignation from TVNZ was announced.  

Despite all the media pressure and harassment on me to speak publicly, I always maintained my silence - even when TVNZ (my own employer) was leading its 6pm bulletin on Sunday 29 May with the story about me.  

That story was in essence a re-reporting of an article printed that morning, but it made a point of highlighting the editorial independence of the TVNZ newsroom - that the news team was being kept at arm’s length from TVNZ Corporate, and so was as in-the-dark as anyone.  But the reality was that multiple editorial staff, reporters, and camera operators already knew of the situation, and rumours in newsrooms spread extraordinarily quickly.  

And to reiterate, this was all happening while I was still a TVNZ employee - my employment only officially ended on Tuesday 31 May.

Since then, I have maintained my silence - until now.

What became apparent in the months since my departure - and was confirmed by what TVNZ did release about the Robins’ Report, as well as media reporting of anonymous “sources” within TVNZ - was that there was a strong cohort of people who were unhappy with my appointment from the outset.

It also became apparent that there was already opposition to the way the then-Head of News and Current Affairs was running the newsroom - well before I arrived.  As reported by the media, the newsroom had registered one of the lowest staff satisfaction surveys in recent memory.

I realise this is an extremely long statement, but maintaining my silence for over a year has left a lot unsaid and unchallenged.  There may well be ramifications for me, having now divulged what actually happened when I left TVNZ.  

I am constantly told of the “prevailing public interest” in this story - but my family and I have a prevailing sense of justice, and trial by media is not justice.

Further details and all documentary evidence relating to these events are with my lawyers, with instructions to release them should the need arise.

ENDS

12 OCTOBER 2022

STATEMENT REGARDING FORTHCOMING BBC STORY; ALLEGATIONS

A lot has been said and written about me in the past four or so months - some of it true, some missing crucial context, some outright lies and a rewriting of history - and according to an email I received on Monday evening, more is on the way.  

So far I have chosen not to comment, partly due to my own physical and mental wellbeing, and - in the case of my departure from TVNZ - for legal reasons.  

The only time I did respond publicly, the countering evidence which I supplied was largely ignored, and comments were edited out of my written statement.  What became apparent was that stories were going to be written regardless, mostly with quotes from anonymous sources, and so I chose not to counter them.

Now, a Singapore-based journalist with the BBC (who was formerly an Al Jazeera producer in Doha) has emailed me with a number of allegations from my time at Al Jazeera, which would be published after 72 hours if I gave no response.

The allegations are broad and with no particulars - making it difficult for anyone to respond to - so I will be as interested as anyone to read the article when it is published.  The fact however that it is “a story which includes several allegations” against me makes me wonder if the alleged behaviour of other people at Al Jazeera will finally be attributed to named individuals, or if I will remain the apparent face and name behind every alleged wrongdoing that happened there.

None of this, of course, supersedes the fact that there are allegations to address, and that will be done through the proper channels in due course.

More importantly however, and as I am now finally speaking publicly, I want to apologise for any and all behaviour that may have made anyone feel uncomfortable at any time.  It has been mortifying to discover that my actions have caused people to feel uncomfortable around me.  It has never been my intention to make people feel that way, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them and anyone else affected by my behaviour.

What I’ve come to understand is that what I previously considered to be flirtatious, over-friendly, ‘just a bit of banter’, or simply within the bounds of acceptable in the prevailing newsroom culture was, in fact, not.  As a journalist, and a person, I should have done better.  I should have been better.

These past months have been humbling.  I’ve had to confront a lot of uncomfortable things about myself, and my family has been forced to look at me in a different light.  They have also had to endure a lot of invasive and unwanted attention from members of the news media.  

At this stage, I have no further comment to make and would ask that members of the media stop coming to my home, and the homes of my family members.

ENDS