It is almost impossible to form a view on whether National leader Christopher Luxon made the right call reinstating Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell back into his caucus.
While the independent report conducted by KC Maria Dew over the past five weeks concluded Uffindell “did not engage in the serious behaviour alleged in the media”, there’s no way to know what other behaviour may or may not have been raised during the investigation.
The investigation came about after a former flatmate of Uffindell’s made serious allegations of bullying and intimidation against the Tauranga MP dating back to their days at Otago University.
Uffindell had already acknowledged he was a “school bully” after he disclosed during his selection for the Tauranga seat that he physically beat a younger student at King’s College, prompting him to be asked to leave the school.
While the National Party selection panel and some board members decided the behaviour didn’t need to be revealed to the voters of Tauranga ahead of the by-election, when it surfaced in the media last month Luxon was quick to say he and the public should have been told.
Luxon nailed it when he told media, “We really are trusting Maria Dew and her independent investigation”.
After accepting Uffindell’s remorse over the school incident, Luxon decided to suspend Uffindell from caucus and launch an independent investigation after fresh allegations of his university days surfaced.
The National Party received Dew’s report on Thursday night, more than two weeks after it was scheduled to conclude, and the board and senior leadership team digested it over the weekend.
A meeting of the full caucus was called on Monday and the decision was made to welcome Uffindell back into the fold.
According to Luxon, 14 people were interviewed by Dew and other written statements were also provided.
But Luxon and Uffindell wouldn’t answer questions about who agreed to an interview, although Uffindell acknowledged he passed on the names of his former Otago University flatmates to Dew.
Two weeks ago Luxon told Newsroom the scope of the report covered any allegations from Uffindell’s past dating back to his school days, through to university, and beyond.
It is unclear how many of the 14 interviewed were witnesses or victims from Uffindell’s school or university days, or from his life since leaving Dunedin.
It would be a big call for Dew to conclude Uffindell didn’t do anything wrong at university if the only people she spoke to were friendly allies who support the MP’s version of events.
It’s also unknown whether any other allegations surfaced about his time at King’s College or St Paul’s Collegiate, Hamilton, the school he moved to after being asked to leave King’s College.
Uffindell told media he was “genuinely shocked by the allegations of a former female flatmate”.
“I’m not able to go into details but I want to acknowledge there was a genuine breakdown in the flat relationship and things were said that I now realise my flatmate overheard.”
Uffindell appears to be saying the allegations made by his former flatmate – that he yelled obscenities and insults at her while slamming on her door causing her to flee by jumping out her bedroom window – were actually comments he made to others that she overheard.
With no report findings, not even a redacted executive summary, it’s difficult to conclude who said what.
Luxon nailed it when he told media, “We really are trusting Maria Dew and her independent investigation”.
There are several precedents for these sorts of reports being redacted and then released – the bullying allegations against Labour Minister Meka Whaitiri and the Labour youth summer camp scandal both resulted in at least some of the timeline and findings being publicly released.
Luxon seems to think the National Party is above that sort of transparency and given the world’s attention is mostly focused on London right now, he’ll be extra pleased he’s escaped capturing much bigger headlines too.
If the National Party truly believes Tauranga voters should have known about Uffindell’s past before casting their votes in June, then surely logic follows that they deserve to know why his name has now been cleared by the party.
