KEY POINTS:
The Veitch affair overwhelmed almost all other news for front-page attention last week. That would have annoyed the hell out of John Key and National, who were desperately trying to draw attention to Helen Clark's handling of the Winston Peters-Owen Glenn donations story.
However, the Tony Veitch affair has all the ingredients of a gripping saga with almost daily "revelations", culminating in his resignations from TVNZ and Radio Sport and confirmation from the police that his former partner had lodged a formal complaint.
Here is not the place to discuss the allegations of domestic violence against him because of the complete lack of any hard evidence, other than Veitch's own obscure reference to having "lashed out".
TVNZ's board chairman Sir John Anderson rightly said it was best to leave the police investigation to get to the truth of the allegations.
This, of course, did not stop the Prime Minister instantly coming to judgment and talking of a "moral crisis" in TVNZ management if its bosses knew of the alleged assault and did nothing.
Clark is always quick to distance herself from any Government department or SOE that is in trouble.
Sensing a stiff, cold southerly blowing in from the Beehive, TVNZ CEO Rick Ellis used every opportunity to stress that the state broadcaster "does not condone violence".
It would be remarkable if TVNZ did condone violence, other than in its on-screen dramas.
Broadcasting Minister Trevor Mallard was also in a tough, no-nonsense mood. He demanded a report from TVNZ about what had occurred, what prior knowledge its management had of the affair and who was responsible.
When TVNZ delivered a short paper, described as "literally a cut and paste" of its press statements on the matter, Mallard threw it back, saying, "not good enough, do it again". Eventually, he received a fuller briefing and was content to say he would now wait for the end of TVNZ's employment process with Veitch before taking any further action.
He is wise to do so and, in the meantime, he might like to ponder some fundamental questions that have arisen from the TVNZ managers' response to the situation. He may then want to ask those questions of his TVNZ board.
Last week, Ellis, who says he had no prior knowledge of the alleged domestic assault, revealed three of his senior managers and a company lawyer met Veitch, at his request, on December 17 last year to discuss what Ellis says was "a serious personal issue". Present were Ellis' second-in-command, the head of television Jeff Latch, the head of news and current affairs Anthony Flannery, the head of corporate affairs Peter Parussini, and an unnamed news and current affairs counsel.
The first question for Mallard must be; how did all these heavyweights come to be present when, presumably, no one but Veitch had any idea of the content of what would be discussed, other than it was a "personal issue"?
To have the head of television present for a meeting with a presenter means someone knew the discussion would be very serious indeed.
To have a lawyer present implies someone knew weighty legal issues would have to be evaluated.
To have the company's top spin doctor present means someone had to have realised there was potential reputational damage looming for the company. To have that line-up of individuals present, simply to hear an employee talk of his relationship issues, does not ring true.
Yet Ellis says while Veitch "did outline a situation that included a minor fracas two years earlier, this was not the focus of the meeting".
Mallard might like to ask, what then was the focus of the meeting? Why did the head of news and current affairs, an experienced journalist, the head of corporate affairs, who was once an inquiring journalist before he became a PR man, and the lawyer who was surely experienced in cross-examination, never ask Veitch what exactly was the nature of the "fracas"? Even the suggestion of violence should have rung alarm bells.
In his final press statement Veitch says "I have always been honest with my employers".
Yet Ellis says his managers left the meeting "with the clear view that it was a private matter of a civil nature ... Thats [sic] why they didnt [sic] elevate it to me as CEO."
He later added "the severity of the incident as outlined to TVNZ bore little relation to that described in some media allegations".
Mallard might like to ask who is right? Was Veitch honest or is Ellis right and his people were not told the whole story?
TVNZ's response to the affair is riddled with inconsistencies and Mallard might like to ponder the biggest question of all: Is the broadcaster's management as dysfunctional as ever?
