Former Air Marshal Tony Davies (left) is now a civilian after a letter from former flight sergeant Kate Staunton (top right) made reference to an "inappropriate relationship". Mission Homefront co-founder Hayden Ricketts (bottom right) says the impact will reverberate across the NZ Defence Force.
Former Chief of Defence Force Tony Davies has left the military after admitting an inappropriate relationship with a junior airwoman. Experts warn such breaches of trust can leave lasting damage among those who serve under military command. Katie Harris and David Fisher report.
Former Chief of Defence Force Tony Davies has formally left the New Zealand Defence Force after resigning as its most senior commander because of what he called an “inappropriate relationship”, the Herald has learned.
After his departure, those who have served and those who have studied veterans have spoken of the deep damage military personnel can suffer when their commanders fail to maintain the standards they demand from subordinates.
Davies’ departure from NZDF came a week after his resignation from the job of Chief of Defence Force and the $684,000 annual salary package that came with it.
In that role, Davies, who had served for 42 years, was the commander who oversaw our Air Force, Army and Navy and was the direct link between the Beehive and the military.
While no longer Chief of Defence Force after resigning on October 23, Davies had retained his senior rank of Air Marshal.
But when the Herald approached NZDF this week with questions for Davies, it responded saying “former Air Marshal Davies ... is no longer a member of the New Zealand Defence Force”.
The departure is unusual by NZDF standards, which generally requires members of the regular force to provide three months’ notice.
In a later statement, a spokesman said “depending on the specific circumstances” the three-month notice period “can be negotiated”.
“By mutual agreement, Air Marshal Davies’ release period was shortened subsequent to his resignation as Chief of Defence Force. He was administratively released from the NZDF on 30 October and has received normal release entitlements.”
Davies’ resignation followed receipt of a letter from former Royal New Zealand Air Force loadmaster, Flight Sergeant Kate Staunton. Her letter detailed mental health issues resulting from a belief commanders were not following NZDF rules when handling a complaint she made about an alleged inappropriate relationship.
The letter to Davies also revealed knowledge of his relationship with a much younger and junior member of the Royal NZ Air Force two decades earlier.
Staunton’s letter said: “Others who were aware of the alleged inappropriate conduct said nothing, choosing instead to stand by and allow the young woman to deal with the aftermath entirely on her own.”
The Herald understands a 2006 inquiry into the alleged relationship didn’t substantiate that it occurred, which allowed Davies’ career to progress to his appointment as Chief of Defence in June 2024.
On October 23, two days after Staunton’s letter, Davies issued a statement saying he was resigning over “errors of judgment ... contrary to the values of the Defence Force”.
“These matters revolved around an inappropriate relationship I had when in a position of unit command, and I regret not disclosing this when I had the opportunity to do so.”
An investigation by the Inspector-General of Defence Timothy Brewer into the historical allegations is likely. He has already received NZDF’s proposed terms of reference.
Brewer told the Herald that, in line with the law the Inspector-General’s office operates under, he would consider NZDF’s proposed terms of reference and whether changes were required before deciding whether to proceed with a formal investigation.
The Public Service Commission is also carrying out an internal review of Davies’ appointment to find whether there are further lessons to learn after changes that followed the scandal around screening Jevon McSkimming for the role of Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The Herald has contacted Davies for comment. He did not comment and disconnected the call. The Herald has sent him a detailed list of questions.
Military historian Dr Aaron Fox said it appeared “unique” in New Zealand’s history to have a resignation over “a historic[al] incident laid against someone who is at the highest level of command”.
For military personnel trained to obey orders and place their trust in commanders, the failure of those commanders to uphold standards can inflict harm beyond the original misconduct, the Herald has been told.
Hayden Ricketts, co-founder of NZDF personnel advocacy organisation Mission Home Front, said the reasons for Davies’ resignation made a “mockery” of the good work usually done by those in defence.
“People trying to do the right thing, trying to make the right decision, and then when they see their senior leaders saying one thing and then doing the other, it makes them ask, ‘why bother?’”
Ricketts, a retired Lieutenant Colonel, said a commanding officer was in a position of power that could influence pay, postings, promotions, training opportunities and ultimately decisions about putting personnel in harm’s way.
“For the junior person, the authority that senior person has over them exposes that junior person to accusations of favouritism at one end of the spectrum, and at the other end of the spectrum it exposes that junior person or the senior person to coercion.”
For example: “If I’m going to do something for you, then you have to do something for me, and that undermines the very fabric of trust between those two people and it has effects on the wider team and the rest of the fuller part of the organisation.”
“Every decision” was undermined when a senior leader had an inappropriate relationship, Ricketts said.
Veteran studies professor Ben Wadham, of Australia’s Flinders University, said the Davies’ situation was an “archetypal” case where a senior privileged male had power over someone younger and subordinate and “transgresses the very values they’re meant to be upholding”.
Wadham said the situation could lead to moral injury, a form of lasting psychological distress associated with betrayal or violations of deeply held beliefs and values.
“Moral injury comes down to a real transgression of your basic core values. How you understand yourself, how you understand how you feel in the world. It builds bitterness, resentment, lack of trust.
“A lot of us join when we’re 17, or 18, even 20. You’re young, you come out of home, there’s a heavy, intense period of resocialisation. We develop a real strong sense of identity, purpose and belonging.”
Moral injury could lead to substance abuse, loneliness, criminality, suicidality and involuntary discharge, Wadham, a veteran himself, said.
“The strength of our morality comes from what we learn about service and looking after our mates and doing something higher and bigger [than ourselves].”
Davies’ conduct, he said, was a behaviour that could be collectively harmful.
“Moral injury is very much a collective thing, it’s not just about individuals and individual coping mechanisms. It’s very much about how the system sets you up, gives you a lot of strength and resilience when it works, when it doesn’t, it destroys you.”
No Duff Charitable Trust co-founder Aaron Wood said the reaction within the veteran community to the news of Tony Davies’ conduct was “disgust and contempt”.
“The rather young female, probably half his age, was the one who was thrown under the bus. He got [no reprimand] ... because his career just went from strength to strength until he ended up as the Chief of Defence Force.”
Wood believed the woman involved would have felt a moral injury.
“Moral injury, in simple terms, is betrayal. It’s a betrayal of what’s right, as in, the right way of doing things by someone who holds legitimate authority in a high-stakes situation.”
Clinical psychologist Ian de Terte said when people make complaints of actions they believe transgress the rules and they are not followed up the way they believe they should, it can impact them in varied ways.
“Some people get depressed, some people just feel really angry about it. Some people think it’s a waste of time that they even made a complaint. So the outcome can be different, but they feel that they haven’t been listened to.”
For a complainant in the Defence Force, the perceived lack of action can be compounded by the fact the job could be an integral part of how a member views themselves.
“They probably feel like they’ve been wronged, because it’s part of who they are.”
An Auditor-General’s report released in August found harmful behaviour remained largely unchanged since 2022, with 17.2% of 5004 personnel surveyed in 2025 reporting they had experienced some form of harmful behaviour in the previous year.
Although most respondents said they felt safe and trusted their commanders, many who experienced harmful behaviour did not report it, citing fears of repercussions or a lack of confidence that anything would be done.
Some personnel described misconduct being swept under the carpet when those responsible were senior officers or friends of the people receiving complaints. The Auditor-General also found some commanders were reluctant to formally record behavioural issues because of concerns about damaging personnel’s promotion prospects.
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
David Fisher has worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, winning multiple journalism awards including being twice named Reporter of the Year and being selected as one of a small number of Wolfson Press Fellows to Wolfson College, Cambridge. He joined the Herald in 2004.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.