Investigator investigated
Officials are looking into claims a Swimming NZ investigation was led by a consultant who misrepresented his credentials. National Correspondent Dana Johannsen reports.
The consultant who led a Swimming New Zealand inquiry into a coach accused of sexual misconduct is himself being investigated for allegedly misrepresenting his credentials. Governance consultant Michael Marris carried out a 2016 investigation into Auckland coach David Wright, accused of sexual harassment and improper behaviour around young people.
Marris’ report has never been released and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner ruled in April Swimming NZ had interfered with Wright’s privacy by refusing him access to it. That refusal is the subject of a complaint currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Wright is seeking more than $240,000 in damages from Swimming NZ.
Now the Ministry of Health is investigating Marris for allegedly representing himself as a psychologist during his handling of the case. The matter was referred to the ministry by the New Zealand Psychologists Board, which says Marris has never been a registered psychologist in New Zealand. Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2003) it is unlawful for an individual to use the title ‘‘psychologist’’ unless they are registered to the board and hold a current practising certificate.
Phil Knipe, chief legal adviser for the ministry, confirmed it has started an ‘‘initial investigation’’ into Marris. ‘‘The ministry is currently considering information provided, but the age of the matter means that, even if offending was established in relation to the complaint, it is likely to [lie] outside the three-year time period for laying charges,’’ he says.
However complainant Susan Turner says she had cause to question Marris’ credentials only after she was finally granted access to the report in July – three years after the findings were presented to the Swimming NZ board.
In a written statement in response to a series of questions, Marris said: ‘‘There was no misrepresentation. I totally refute that claim.’’ He attached a nine-page CV outlining his graduate and postgraduate psychology qualifications from Otago University, along with his extensive background as a practising clinical psychologist and experience as an expert witness in the New Zealand judicial system.
Marris indicated in his CV that, after completing his certificate in child psychotherapy in 1978, he had the choice of registration either as a psychologist, or with the New Zealand Child Psychotherapy Association. He chose the latter, and was a full member until 2008. He said he intended to follow up with the Ministry of Health this week.
The participants in the investigation appear to have understood that Marris was a psychologist. In interviews in May, both Turner and Wright described him as a ‘‘forensic psychologist’’.
‘‘When I met him, he told me he was a forensic psychologist, and he had been working with Swimming NZ supporting them in their governance,’’ Turner said. ‘‘In my many meetings with him on the stuff with [my daughter], he would often refer to his background as a psychologist. Then when I read the report he said he was a child, youth and family psychologist.
‘‘That’s when I became confused, because those are two really distinct disciplines and that’s when I went back to Swimming NZ to try and get clarification of [Marris’] credentials.’’
Frances Hamilton, registrar for the New Zealand Psychologists Board, could not comment on the specifics of the case, but explained holding a psychology degree does not automatically qualify an individual to use the title ‘‘psychologist’’. To become board-registered requires a minimum of a masters degree plus postgraduate diploma in a specialist area of psychology, along with a 1500-hour internship.
Swimming NZ chairman Bruce Cotterill would not be drawn on the complaint. ‘‘What I will say is Michael Marris was appointed to lead this investigation because board members of Swimming NZ had dealt
with him before and he was deemed a fit and proper person to conduct the investigation and there is nothing about the outcome that would call that judgment into question.’’
Wright also believes Marris was fit and suitably qualified to lead the investigation. His gripe is with Swimming NZ officials for concealing the full report from him.
The latest complaint leaves Swimming NZ facing further heat over its handling of the 2016 investigation, with several government agencies now dealing with the fallout. The matter has not only occupied the resources of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which in its April ruling recommended Swimming NZ undertake privacy training; the Human Rights Review Tribunal; and the Ministry of Health; but also the Health and Disability Commissioner; the Children’s Commissioner; and Sport NZ.
Turner, the former president of West Auckland Aquatics (WAQ) – the club at the centre of Wright’s alleged misconduct – and mother of one of the complainants, says she is weighing up various legal options.
‘‘There’s a credibility issue, but it is also a governance issue and whether the board is fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. Because here they are, they engaged this man and did no due diligence and then they ran a shoddy investigation.
‘‘Then once [Marris] finalised his report, they relied on his recommendations, which do not stack up against the offences,’’ says Turner. ‘‘Swimming NZ has clearly failed in their duty of care and it’s now escalated to the point where I don’t believe children are safe in the sport, because [Swimming NZ] have not upheld their own policies and there are no effective mechanisms to raising the issue across the wider sport sector.’’
Cotterill would not comment on how much the case, which is yet to reach the hearing stage, has cost the national body to date. ‘‘We have an AGM at the end of the month, I guess it will all become public information then,’’ he says.
The report
Until recently, the substance of Marris’ findings were a mystery. But after Stuff first published details of the saga in May, Swimming NZ offered both Turner and Wright the opportunity to view the report. Turner accepted. Wright declined as he says he found the terms unreasonable.
Turner believes the report findings reveal major shortcomings in the investigation. ‘‘From an investigative point of view, the report shows absolute incompetence. First of all [Marris] has not stated the facts accurately. It is not clear how he has derived his findings from those facts and then the conclusions and recommendations do not stack up to the offences,’’ she says.
‘‘I haven’t seen [Marris] measure his recommendations against Swimming NZ’s code of conduct and membership protection policies in his final analysis. There was no determination as to whether David had breached the code of conduct.’’
The alleged ill-treatment of Turner’s young daughter, then aged 12, does not appear to have been examined at all by Marris, according to Turner. Instead, Marris concentrated on claims of sexual harassment. The central complainant in the case alleges Wright was ‘‘obsessed’’ with her breasts, and his lewd comments were a major factor in her decision to get a breast reduction at 18.
There were also claims Wright took a group of swimmers – including a 17-year-old boy – to a strip club, and encouraged a practice known as ‘‘abortion doping’’, suggesting to girls as young as 15 they should get pregnant before big events to take advantage of the increase in blood volume, and abort the foetus afterwards.
Wright told Stuff in May he denies all the allegations, describing the claims as ‘‘disturbing and distressing’’.
However, Turner says according to Marris’ written findings, Wright admitted taking a group of swimmers to the White House strip club in Auckland.
Wright has confirmed this is accurate. He says he did take a small group of his squad to the White House, but it was to visit owner Brian Le Gros, at his home, on the ground floor of the venue.
Wright has a long association with Le Gros, whose adult entertainment businesses have supported many top swimmers over the years, including Toni Jeffs, Nichola Chellingworth and Wright’s daughter, Jane Copland.
Wright says when they were visiting Le Gros to try to secure sponsorship for WAQ, the swimmers asked to go into the club, which he agreed to. He says he was not aware at the time one of the boys was a week shy of his 18th birthday. ‘‘To this day, because of questions like you’re asking me now, I regret the fact that Brian and I said yes they could go into the strip club itself. It was a mistake, without a doubt.’’
According to Turner’s notes taken during a read-through of the document, Marris was concerned by Wright’s lack of insight into appropriate behaviour as a coach. His only recommendation was that Wright undertake training in appropriate interpersonal relationships. He also recommended Swimming NZ investigate the strip club incident further.
Cotterill told Stuff in May that had the investigation found any conduct that warranted further action being taken against any party, Swimming NZ would have done so. Asked why the organisation did not consider taking an underage boy to a strip club an actionable offence, Cotterill said by the time Marris completed his investigation, Wright had taken up a contract in Saudi Arabia and was no longer a member of Swimming NZ and subject to its policies.
Cotterill has defended his organisation’s handling of the case. ‘‘What I am confident about is that Swimming NZ have taken all the appropriate steps... We have gone off and had that tested by independent people with experience in this area, and everyone we talk to is very comfortable with the steps we took.’’
But the investigation, which was limited in scope and not guided by any formal framework, appears to have been flawed from the outset.
There were no terms of reference, with Swimming NZ apparently leaving it to Marris to determine the scope of the inquiry.
This has led to confusion and discrepancies between Wright’s and the complainants’ accounts of what the actual allegations being investigated were.
It is not clear how many people were interviewed by Marris. Key witnesses, including the original whistleblower, did not participate in the investigation.
Stuff has contacted the past four presidents of WAQ before Turner – three of whom stepped down in one sixmonth period in 2015. All confirmed they were not approached to take part in the inquiry.
Turner believes the sport has been ‘‘paralysed by the tyranny of litigation’’.
‘‘But their do-nothing approach has only got them the same result.’’