Labour gets it all wrong

Sorry, Labour, but the age of innocence is over. It’s well and truly buried. There are no longer any excuses. Woman after woman after woman – and the odd man too – has stepped forward to declare that time’s up on sexual harassment, on assault, on staying quiet. Ignorance is not bliss. Was it ever?

So it’s quite extraordinary that a political party that has appeared to embrace the social-media surge and momentum behind the #metoo movement and the rise of young, ambitious women; that has euphorically smashed a few of its own glass ceilings in storming the citadels of power; and which offers such wonderful inspiration to wide-eyed youngsters considering their own political and business careers, should have chosen to maintain a small, closed circle around sexual assault.

Extraordinary, and possibly just a little convenient. There is an argument to be made that Labour’s hierarchy was focused solely on the wishes of four 16-year-olds allegedly sexually assaulted at one of the party’s events when it largely kept the issue ‘in-house’. That is certainly its stance.

There is another argument that the hierarchy’s considered, ‘‘victim-led’’ approach carried an element of political calibration. We’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions on that.

But it’s worth remembering one thing: 16-year-olds are, in the eyes of many, still children. Even if the teenagers objected to it being taken any further, the adults in the room should have stepped up, acknowledged their duty of care, and informed the parents. That would have been a more reasonable basis on which all parties could have made a decision around taking it further. Society sometimes struggles with this concept, but parents still have a role to play in their children’s life. Possibly a right.

Instead, Labour has left itself isolated and at least one victim feeling like they’ve not had enough support. The party usurped the role of the law enforcers in deciding what may or may not be criminal activity. Sadly, the reaction echoes the darker machinations of other previously austere bodies when faced with such issues: the transgressions have been kept behind closed doors and the transgressor has simply been moved on.

Labour has handled this poorly, at practically every step. The party’s general secretary, Andrew Kirton, wasn’t informed until four days later. He made another, possibly politically motivated, decision not to tell his boss, Jacinda Ardern. Why? It’s a simple enough question. Did he think such things below her station? Did he believe that not telling her would give her some protection against any possible media prying in future? Did he simply believe that it was contained?

Again, it’s hard not to see a political method to the madness. At the very least, under the wellaccepted political principle of ‘‘no surprises’’, Ardern should have been given a heads-up. Maybe even an opportunity to ensure the support was appropriate. If there’s one thing we have learnt, time and again, from the past few months, it’s that when it comes to such issues, it’s better out than in.

-Stuff