Statement on Procedural Overreach and Reputational Harm

I was formally referred to New Zealand’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTACNZ) by Parliamentary Security, despite there being no threats, no criminal conduct, no proof of sexualised communications, and no sustained psychiatric diagnosis. The referral occurred in the context of a prolonged creative and political dispute surrounding my work, particularly sustained pressure to produce a specific film project (Weeded Out) and my refusal to abandon other political projects I had written, including a cannabis documentary and a dystopian screenplay.

When the expected project did not proceed as planned, concern shifted from the work itself to me as an individual. That shift resulted in the misapplication of a threat-assessment and safeguarding framework to a matter that was fundamentally about political expression and creative direction, not risk or safety. Although the FTAC referral was framed as consultative and no adverse findings were made, I was subject to multiple follow-up contacts well beyond the initial consultation, without clear scope, endpoint, or corrective clarification.

This process had foreseeable and serious consequences. In a small and porous political and cultural ecosystem, the mere existence of a formal referral — even one that found no threat — caused significant reputational harm, professional exclusion, and a chilling effect on my lawful political expression. No mechanism existed to repair/retract the implication once it had circulated informally.

Importantly, the process failed to account for context. Prior to the referral, I had already experienced documented harassment and sexual humiliation connected to the same creative dispute. Against that background, the vague and opaque nature of the FTAC-linked interventions made me intensely paranoid about what was happening to me. Some of my beliefs at the time about intent or coordination may have been wrong, but the paranoia itself was a direct and human response to cumulative mistreatment, not evidence of irrationality or danger. Stripping out that interior experience distorts the reality of what occurred.

In summary, this was not a case of threat management but of procedural overreach:

• a safeguarding mechanism was used for an improper purpose,

• proportionality and natural justice were not observed,

• protected political expression was chilled without necessity, and

• lasting reputational harm was caused without any finding of wrongdoing.
  

The failure was procedural, not clinical, and its effects have followed me for years.