The only word that I can think of is clusterfuck.
I cannot understand how badly Christopher Luxon has handled the Maria Dew report into what Sam Uffindell may have done when he was a younger person.
I said previously that I thought a finding about the allegations from the former Dunedin flatmate could be career ending. Being a bully and a dick at the age of 15 is something that most of us could forgive. Being a sexist arsehole and a bully while at University would cause many of us to think twice.
Let us review what was said about his behaviour at the time. From Craig McCulloch at Radio New Zealand:
Uffindell’s former flatmate, who RNZ has agreed not to name, lived with the man and three other Otago University students for several months in Dunedin in 2003.
She told RNZ Uffindell engaged in a pattern of bullying during their second year at university, describing him as “verbally aggressive”.
Uffindell would trash the house after “excessive” use of alcohol and drugs, she said.
“This was intimidation. This was bullying. I didn’t feel safe,” she said.
The woman said she eventually moved out of the flat after having to lock herself in her bedroom to avoid a drunken outburst one night.
“He was smashing on my door and yelling obscenities and basically telling me to get out – ‘hit the road, fatty’.
“I ended up climbing out of my bedroom window and ran to a friend’s house to stay the night. I feared for my safety. I was scared.”
The woman said it was not an isolated incident: “it was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Her father travelled to Dunedin the next day to help her move out, she said.
Speaking to RNZ, the woman’s father corroborated his part in the story and said his daughter had been “seriously upset”.
“The flat itself was completely trashed. There wasn’t a stick of furniture left. There was no crockery left. There were no handles left on anything. It had all been broken.”
He said he gave Uffindell and two of the other flatmates “a serious piece of [his] mind” at the time.
“It was clear… [Uffindell] had real issues, real problems… he was out of control.”
The woman said she was traumatised by the event and did her best to avoid Uffindell from then on: “my stomach would absolutely flip and drop if I saw him.”
Looking back, the woman said she should have spoken to someone or taken some sort of action, but she was too scared. Uffindell never apologised for his actions, she said.
She said people may try to excuse Uffindell’s actions because of his age, but the pattern of behaviour revealed his character.
Then fast forward to the announcement of Maria Dew’s report where Luxon talked about the report but released no part of it.
The presentation of the conclusion is interesting. The report apparently conceded that the complainant suffered harm but in what appear to be very carefully crafted words Luxon said “there are differing accounts of what occurred and Ms Dew concluded the event was not as it was described in the media”. Which part of the description was wrong? All of it or just parts of it?
The only aspect of the description which has some detail is the allegation that Uffindell said “hit the road fatty”. National’s statement said “Mr Uffindell has acknowledged that things were said that he now realises his flatmate overheard, which he regrets.”
If this is the only difference then the claim that he is a bully should have been upheld.
National’s is treading a very narrow line in its handling of the matter. On one hand it is essentially accusing the complainant of not telling the truth, although this is why the terms of reference are so important. The standard of proof to be applied is critical and we don’t know what standard of proof Maria Dew used in making her conclusion.
On the other hand National claims that the reason for the cautious release of information is to respect the rights of privacy of others including the complainant.
To imply that she is not telling the truth and then refuse to let us understand the context and how that conclusion was reached is appalling.
The complainant has just made the whole incident really messy for National by asking that a redacted copy of the report be released.
From Radio New Zealand:
National MP Sam Uffindell’s former flatmate and her father are happy for Maria Dew KC’s report to be publicly released, in redacted form.
Uffindell was returned to his party’s caucus this week after leader Christopher Luxon said the inquiry cleared him of bullying behaviour beyond his boarding school years.
The Tauranga MP was stood down after a former flatmate told RNZ he was an aggressive bully at Otago University; once pounding on her bedroom door, yelling, until she fled through her window.
Dew’s independent inquiry into the incident “did not substantiate any allegations of bullying outside of Sam’s time at King’s College”, party president Sylvia Wood said on Monday.
National says the report found Uffindell “did not engage” in the behaviour his former flatmate detailed on RNZ last month – which prompted the inquiry.
That included dismissing her claims he bashed on her door yelling obscenities and smashed up the flat through violent behaviour.
But the woman and her father stand firmly by her account of what happened at the flat, and are deeply unhappy Uffindell’s word was taken over hers.
She had originally said she fled to her friend’s house but later said she ran to the library where she called her father, who put her up in a motel for the night.
The woman gave a written statement during the inquiry but did not participate further, believing it to be a political snow job – bought and paid for by the National Party.
The last sentence is probably the reason why Maria Dew KC made the finding that she did. It is really hard to determine what is true when comparing a written statement to a verbal statement. Especially if the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
National’s hope that it could bury this matter by releasing it on the day of the Queen’s funeral has not worked out.
And there is no justification for it to withhold at least a redacted copy of the report.
There are other interesting aspects to to this story.
Like the National Party Caucus did not see a copy of the report but decided to accept the recommendation that Sam be part of their happy family again.
Or an initial report that Sam did not receive a copy of the report. The lawyer in me yelled what about natural justice?
But then it appears that Sam did receive a copy of the report. The lawyer in me yelled can you make your freakin mind up.
Can I invite the media to reflect on where we are now. There is a KC report that we have not seen, not even the executive summary. We do not know what the terms of reference are. We do not know who the KC interviewed, or what they said.
We are being asked to believe that the Complainant’s statement is not correct. Yet there is an acknowledgement that she suffered harm and Uffindell has not denied saying something really gross about her but has come up with the defence that he did not intend her to hear what he said.
Luxon’s handling of this is a disaster. Judith must be grinning from ear to ear.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress