As the Jevon McSkimming continues to take dramatic leaps forward, government executive are making slips of the tongue. These careless and harming slips of the tongue can have detrimental impact upon a private individual and their right to protect their reputation from public slants.
This is why persons in high places within New Zealand executive should take more care to ensure they comply with expectation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
In the Jevon McSkimming and now transitioning into the Andrew Coster saga, government executives are working real fast and real hard to convince the public the errors of the issued identified in the IPCA Investigation Report can be directed towards private individuals and not ‘the system’.
Well, I beg to differ. Not only do I beg to differ, but I keep getting astonished at the number of top government executives that are slipping the tongue whilst on recorded television interviews. The ‘slips’ of the tongue are breaching the course of natural justice afforded to both Mr Jevon McSkimming and Mr Andrew Coster.
Mr Brian Roche, Commissioner of the Public Services Commissioner, slipped his tongue when he referred to Jevon McSkimming as being a “devious liar”. However, when I refer to the IPCA investigation report, I do not see any reference to the IPCA making the determination that Jevon McSkimming was “devious” and a “liar”. A response from an Official Information Act request is seeking clarification on who did Mr McSkimming lie to? His wife during the extramarital affair or during an interview when allegations were point to him?
Confirmed at paragraph 25 of the IPCA report, is that Jevon McSkimming confessed to his wife his sin of engaging in an extramarital affair. So I am not sure what Mr Roche was referring to and I am hoping he hasn’t conducted himself in this possibly bias fashion. This would not be good for Mr Coster whilst Mr Roche is considering Mr Coster’s employment contract.
Then we have the Minister of Police, Mr Mark Mitchell appearing on the Q&A TV1 programme for an interview with Jack Tame. Police Minister Mitchell called one of the private individuals “corrupt”. Mr Mitchell used that word twice. The IPCA never found that finding upon the private individual that Mr Mitchell named. Remarkably, Mr Mitchell in the same interview acknowledge that the private individual he spoke to had rights to natural justice and that the Police Minister should refrain from interfering with those rights. Hence, a slip of the tongue obviously by not doing as you preach.
Let the facts speak – not journalists using innuendo and obtaining sources of information by relying on acts of deceit to source the information.
Let senior government executives with extremely persuasive powers to sway public opinion zip their beaks if it means they breach the Bill of Rights of another. Once a false allegation is said on the web – the false allegation is forever and ever.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Mr Luxon has recently returned to New Zealand after attending various events where the world’s most important leaders gathered.
No doubt desperate to quell public whispers and not international reporting arising from the NZ IPCA Investigation Report, Mr Luxon is keen to tell everyone that the issues identified in the IPCA Report have now been fixed by one person – an Inspector General.
Nope – it was systems that failed – not people. To fix the problem the NZ Police needs systems operating that can demonstrate transparency and accountability. Until that happens, this issue will continue to be repeated and great harm will continue to happen to occur by police losing the public’s trust and confidence.
No doubt as Prime Minister for New Zealand, Mr Luxon is hoping all these issues disappear. In addressing the public’s concern he attended an interview by TV1 Breakfast. This was on the morning of Monday 17 November 2025.
The following was noted from this interview which seems to indicate the Prime Minister is speaking on a matter which he should not as he is presenting misleading information. This innuendo and/or misleading information has high probability of harming the reputation of another. This includes perpetual harm and loss of employment opportunities that they may loose from use of persuasive politicians stating misleading information.
The timelines of the interview are highlighted in bold:
00:49 – confirmation Mr Luxon’s office and a number of other government offices, received anonymous information in late December 2023 and early January 2024. These emails were sent to the NZ Police, to the NZ IPCA and to the media.
01:00 – Mr Luxon explains the IPCA (the Independent Police Conduct Authority) reached out to the sender of those emails and spoke to them. Mr Luxon believes this happened on the 4th of January.
01:14 – so the reality was there was some email correspondence and that needed to be handled by police and IPCA and they started to make contact with the individual in early January.
01:25 – Mr Luxon states he was made aware of the investigation in late November so started putting in place McSkimming’s suspension, which took place in December. The Prime Minister was then informed of the objectionable material investigation in May. “And of course this then lead to his resignation. And then I read the full report about a week before we had the announcement.”
At around this time of the interview, a hard question is put to Prime Minister Luxon.
The TV1 interviewer wants to know, as all New Zealanders want to know, are the failures linked to a few individual NZ Police Officers or to other government offices? Mr Luxon responds –
01:55 – Well the emails were sent to a whole range of people and as I said, the IPCA was in contact with the individual concerned. The Prime Minister then makes a terrible error and a misleading statement when he says, “I think it is a pretty terrible, appalling and confronting, shocking, disgusting treatment of what happened to a young woman there. And at the heart of it is a woman who was terribly led down by the police system. You know, that is why we have gone as hard as we can, as early as we can – we are going to go to the highest possible oversight of the police. Moving forward we are going to have an Inspector-General.
04:28 – The Prime Minister then refers to the alleged victim being a brave person in coming forward and that the NZ government is doing everything they can to support her. However, it does not seem the Prime Minister is aware the Police have the alleged victim under a charge on the allegation she was the sender of repetitive emails.
Is the Prime Minister not aware that throughout the IPCA Investigation Report, the IPCA consistently refers to an “anonymous” complaint or “anonymous” email. Has the Prime Minister asked how can you say on one hand a communication was anonymous and on the other hand, that the communication was from the alleged victim, Ms Z?
Has the Prime Minister or Minister of Police clarified with the IPCA what was the electronic evidence or digital evidence that confirmed Ms Z was the sender of the ‘anonymous complaints’.
Has the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police asked the question – “Is it possible the complaints were orchestrated and purported to be arising from the alleged victim, Ms Z, when in fact they were being sent by a disgruntled police officer who preferred McSkimming not get the top job?
Though the Prime Minister confirms in his interview the government are taking good care of the alleged victim, he may not be aware that the IPCA report outlines that they treated the alleged victim of the anonymous complaint with contempt and in November 2024, used powers for a “Fixated Threat Assessment” at the “Fixated Threat Assessment Centre”.
At paragraph 18 and on page 4 of the NZ IPCA Report, it confirms this took place on 1 November, 15 November and 27 November. Most importantly paragraph 18 then states these forensic interviews with Ms Z (the alleged person who sent the anonymous email communications) found “there was insufficient evidence to establish the offences to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, so no prosecution was commenced.”
From this point forward, being on or around 27 November 2025, the IPCA investigation arising from the anonymous complaints that alleged sexual violence by Mr McSkimming should have been put to rest. Why instead did the NZ Police continuing to treat Mr McSkimming as an offender and deny him the role of Police Commissioner?
At this point and time in the IPCA investigation, confirmed at Para 18, there was no grounds or foundations to suggest any wrongdoing doing or sexual violence by Mr McSkimming.
Not only did forensic interviews with the alleged victim confirm she had no grounds of complaint for such allegations, but it is also verified in the IPCA Investigation Report, at page 127, that on 9 January 2024 the IPCA opened a case after receiving one of the anonymous emails from Ms Z. The IPCA report then sets out that on 10 January 2024, they had contact with Ms Z who was allegedly the victim and allegedly the source of the anonymous complaint. The IPCA report then confirms that Ms Z confirmed to the IPCA she did not wish to lodge a formal complaint.
Therefore in summary, on 10 January 2024 the IPCA contact Ms Z who confirms she does not wish to pursue a formal complaint. However, at page 18, it states that in November 2024, the NZ Police investigators of Ms Z’s complaint (which she did not wish to have pursued in January 2024) – has now used powers of a “Fixated Risk Assessment” upon Ms Z, an alleged victim who had already confirmed she did not want to formalise a complaint.
Given that the power of a Fixated Risk Assessment is used for persons who annoy government with ‘persistency’ and a “fixation” – it is designed to penalise and not “help” those who are “fixated”. In this case the NZ Police also proceeded to criminally charge the alleged victim for her alleged fixation in complaining.
Given that on one hand the Prime Minister in his interview above has stated New Zealand government is taking good care of the alleged victim, but on the other hand the victim still faces criminal charges brought by a separate police officer – there seems to be an imbalance between how the Prime Minister described they are taking good care of the alleged victim, yet seem to understand the victim has been victimised further.
So there is still a lot yet to be unravelled by the Executive of New Zealand. This is why they should hold comment until all facts are known. Most certainly, statements should not be made unless it is a fact.
So members of the public, don’t believe all that politicians state – check the truth and the sources of truth before deciding to join the bandwagon of belittling others with misleading statements. Failing to do so can interfere with the natural course of justice to persons who hold those rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
