Good leadership on abuse allegations
Radio NZ reported:
Nearly three months passed from when a former political figure’s party was told he was a “sexual predator” until the man stopped working for them.
The man, who has ongoing name suppression but is not a sitting MP, has been on trial in the Auckland District Court for the last week.
After three hours of deliberations, the jury found him guilty on all eight charges of indecent assault.
It can now be reported that the leader of the party the man was affiliated with was told about the abuse nearly three months before he resigned.
The interesting thing with this story is that the first few paragraphs make it look like the party leadership did nothing, but in fact the later paragraphs show that the response from the leadership was in fact first class. Here’s my summary:
- Day 1 – wife of complainant messages Facebook page of party leader saying Person A is a sexual predator
- Day 2 – staffer asks for details, is told the victim/complainant is her husband
- Day 4 – leader personally messages wife saying they are taking matter very seriously and will propose a course of action
- Day 5 – wife thanks leader and leader responds asking them to detail the allegations to a lawyer, who will then advise the party how to proceed. Details provided of a lawyer. Wife thanks leader and says her husband will contact the lawyer
- Day 15 – leader tells wife that the lawyer has been trying to contact them with no success and they are keen to have them make contact
- Day 16 – wife says they have decided to go to the Police, and won’t be contacting the lawyer
This seems an excellent response. A staffer asked for details, and then it was quickly elevated to the leader. The leader provided a way forward within 24 hours involving a lawyer (at their expense) and even followed up after the lawyer couldn’t contact the complainant.
Now you can make a case that the person complained about should have been asked to take a leave of absence on the basis of knowing there is a police complaint. But considering the party had no actual details of the complaint, and didn’t know if the Police would find there was a case to answer, there would have been issues of natural justice for demanding a stand down on the information they did have.
In the absence of any details, it is hard to see what more the party could have done at that stage. If the complainant had provided details to the lawyer, it is quite possible he would have been stood down or resigned much earlier.
I am in no way critical of the complainant. I think they did the right thing going to the Police, and making it a judicial matter rather than a political matter. The guilty verdict means there will be (hopefully) very serious consequences for the offending. While they could have proceeded both with the Police complaint and with an inquiry by a lawyer for the party, I think focusing only on the Police complaint was commendable as there was a risk one investigation could interfere with the other. The guilty verdict is a testament to his bravery in coming forward.