Our obligation is to every past and future recipient, not to a single case.
When a society bestows its highest honours, it implicitly promises that those honours mean something — and so, when the honoured are accused of harm, the institution itself is called to account. New Zealand's Hi-Tech Hall of Fame, confronting allegations of unwanted sexualised behaviour against Sir Rod Drury, one of its most celebrated inductees, has chosen not to react but to build: crafting, for the first time, a formal framework to govern who deserves recognition and under what circumstances it may be reconsidered. The board's deliberate patience reflects an understanding that justice applied only to the famous case of the moment is not justice at all, but precedent dressed as principle. Four women's courage in speaking publicly has set in motion something larger than any single man's legacy.
- Four women have publicly accused tech entrepreneur Sir Rod Drury of unwanted sexualised behaviour, allegations serious enough to trigger a new independent investigation at Xero led by King's Counsel Maria Dew.
- The Hi-Tech Hall of Fame — which inducted Drury in 2009 and twice named him Entrepreneur of the Year — has never had formal conduct standards, a gap the allegations have made impossible to ignore.
- Rather than move swiftly under public pressure, the nine-member board is deliberately constructing consistent guidelines applicable to all past and future recipients, refusing to let urgency override fairness.
- Political parties that received Drury's donations are distancing themselves at varying speeds — the Opportunity Party returned $20,000, the Greens closed the door on future gifts, and National is waiting on Xero's findings.
- Within weeks, the new framework will be finalised and applied retroactively to Drury's standing, setting a precedent for how prestigious institutions across New Zealand handle misconduct allegations against their honoured figures.
The Hi-Tech Hall of Fame has never needed a formal code of conduct — until now. In June 2026, the trust's nine-member board convened to face a question it had never been asked before: what to do about one of its most celebrated figures.
Sir Rod Drury, inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2009 and named Hi-Tech Entrepreneur of the Year in both 2006 and 2007, has been accused by four women of unwanted sexualised behaviour. The allegations emerged publicly from mid-April onward, involving a former employee, a second ex-employee, his former private chef, and entrepreneur Jenene Crossan. Drury has denied some allegations and declined to comment on others. The disclosures prompted Xero — the accounting software company he co-founded — to launch a fresh independent investigation on April 16, appointing King's Counsel Maria Dew to lead it.
Board chairwoman Marian Johnson acknowledged the seriousness of what had been raised and the courage it took to speak publicly. But she was equally clear that the board would not be driven by the pressure of the moment. "Our obligation is to every past and future recipient, not to a single case," she said. The trustees' reasoning was straightforward: any decision made now would set a precedent for all previous and future inductees. Acting fairly required consistent standards — criteria that reflected the values of the institution regardless of which name was in the headlines. Those guidelines would take several weeks to complete, after which Drury's standing would be formally reviewed.
The reverberations have spread beyond the tech sector. The Opportunity Party returned a $20,000 donation from Drury. The Greens accepted a smaller gift but ruled out future contributions. The National Party, which received $100,000, said it would wait for Xero's investigation before deciding how to proceed.
Drury had been described on the Hall of Fame's own website as a "technology rockstar" with "an uncanny knack for spotting opportunity." Now the institution that built that mythology around him is constructing, belatedly, the governance structures to determine whether he still belongs within it.
The Hi-Tech Hall of Fame, one of New Zealand's most prestigious recognitions for technology entrepreneurs, has never needed a formal code of conduct. That changed in June 2026, when the trust's board of nine members gathered to confront a problem they had never faced before: what to do about one of their own.
Sir Rod Drury, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2009 and named Hi-Tech Entrepreneur of the Year in both 2006 and 2007, has been accused by four women of unwanted sexualised behaviour. The allegations began surfacing publicly in mid-April, starting with Ally Naylor, a former employee, followed by complaints from another ex-employee identified only as Amy, Megan Ruddle, Drury's former private chef, and entrepreneur Jenene Crossan. Drury has denied the allegations from Naylor and Ruddle and declined to comment on Amy's complaint through a representative.
The weight of these accusations prompted Xero, the accounting software company Drury co-founded in 2006, to launch a new independent investigation on April 16. The company appointed Maria Dew, a King's Counsel, to oversee the review. This was not Xero's first examination of such claims—the company had investigated Naylor's allegations back in 2017 and 2018—but the fresh wave of public disclosures made a new inquiry necessary.
Marian Johnson, the chairwoman of the Hi-Tech Trust board, explained the board's approach in an interview with the Herald. Rather than act swiftly in response to public outcry, the nine trustees—Johnson, Owen Gibson, Mike O'Donnell, Sarah Ramsay, Brooke Roberts, Amber Taylor, Frances Valintine, Sam Yu, and Sam West—decided to build something that should have existed all along: a clear framework governing who deserves recognition and under what circumstances that recognition might be withdrawn or reconsidered. Johnson acknowledged the courage of those who had spoken publicly and the seriousness of what had been raised. But she also made clear the board would not be stampeded by the moment's pressure.
"Our obligation is to every past and future recipient, not to a single case," Johnson said. The board's reasoning was that any decision made now would set a precedent affecting all previous and future inductees. To act fairly, they needed consistent standards—criteria that reflected the values of their members regardless of which case was in the headlines. Work on these guidelines would take several weeks. Once complete, the board would apply them to Drury's situation in a formal review.
The allegations have rippled beyond the tech world. Several political parties have distanced themselves from Drury's financial support. The Opportunity Party returned a $20,000 donation. The Greens accepted a smaller gift but said they would not take future donations. The National Party, which received $100,000 from Drury, said it would wait for Xero's investigation to conclude before deciding how to proceed.
Drury's career had been built on spotting opportunity and building ventures others missed. He co-founded Xero and took it public on the New Zealand Exchange before it moved to the Australian Securities Exchange. He was a director of Trade Me before its 2007 sale for $750 million. The Hi-Tech Trust's website had described him as a "technology rockstar" and "unfailingly optimistic," a man with "an uncanny knack for spotting opportunity." Now the institution that had celebrated him was building the governance structures to determine whether he belonged there at all.
Notable Quotes
We all recognised the seriousness of what has been raised and the courage of those who have spoken publicly but also wanted to avoid acting out of public pressure or opinion.— Marian Johnson, chairwoman of the Hi-Tech Trust board
Our collective opinion is that our obligation is to every past and future recipient, not to a single case. This means that any decision we make has to rest on consistent standards that reflect the values of our members no matter the public pressure in the moment.— Marian Johnson
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the board choose to slow down rather than act immediately? It seems like the allegations are serious enough to warrant a quick decision.
Because they realized that whatever they decided about Drury would become the rule for everyone else. If they removed him based on emotion or pressure, they'd have no consistent standard to apply to future cases. They'd be making it up as they go.
But doesn't waiting feel like they're protecting him?
It might feel that way, but the board chair was explicit: they're not protecting anyone. They're building a framework so that when they do act, it's defensible and fair to all past and future recipients. It's slower, but it's meant to be durable.
Four women came forward. That took courage. Does the board's measured approach honor that?
The chair acknowledged that directly. But there's a tension here: honoring their courage doesn't necessarily mean making a rushed decision. The investigation at Xero is still ongoing. The board is saying they'll apply whatever standards they create to Drury's case once those standards exist.
What happens if the new guidelines say he should be removed?
Then he's removed. But it will be because of a principle the board established, not because of public pressure in a particular moment. That's what they're arguing matters.
And if the guidelines say he stays?
Then that's the decision too. Either way, it's based on something consistent, something that applies to everyone.