Labour’s lessons from camp saga

It was the summer holiday from hell for the Labour Party. Only four months into the reign of Jacinda Ardern as prime minister, after nine long, fretful years in Opposition, Labour found itself with a sex scandal to rival those then unfolding in Hollywood or, locally, in the legal profession.

The story that emerged gave an impression of unsupervised 16-year-olds with access to a so-called ‘‘mountain’’ of alcohol at a ‘‘summer school’’ camp in the Karangahake Gorge in February. Ardern had spoken at the event but was not present when, according to reports, an intoxicated 20-year-old man sexually assaulted four victims. The camp’s supervisor had gone to bed early while the party raged on.

It was a black mark for Labour and still is, not least because of the political contradictions it exposed. On the same day the perpetrator was marched out of the camp, those remaining were treated to ‘‘a talk on feminism by Angie Warren-Clark – a Labour list MP and manager of the Tauranga Women’s Refuge’’, according to Newsroom.

The handling of the allegations also seemed problematic and media stories often failed to clarify the situation. It was clear that while its new regime promoted a fresh and progressive face, the party had a public relations debacle on its hands. There were also concerns it did not do enough to support those affected and it seemed peculiar to many that police, parents and even Ardern were not told about the allegations.

Suitably horrified, she agreed victims should have been given the option of making a police complaint.

Some closure followed when the man, said not to be a party member, was arrested in June. In July, he pleaded not guilty to six charges of indecent assault and was granted interim name suppression.

But Labour’s internal processes and soulsearching are also important. Following a review, parents of future activists will be pleased to know new parental consent and alcohol policies will be in place at Young Labour events. In what should be a no-brainer, ‘‘at least one party representative [will] attend the entire event and be available throughout’’. New complaints policies will also be introduced.

This is all unsurprising. The recommendations appeared in a report whose outcome seemed fairly obvious. But Labour may not have anticipated that at least one victim remains unhappy with the handling of the incidents and has spoken publicly, albeit anonymously, about it. In particular, the victim was upset the party still refuses to release its report and has made only the anodyne recommendations public. Identifying details would obviously have to be redacted.

This criticism is questionable. Labour’s defence is the report was intended for senior party members and would have to be entirely rewritten for release.

But it probably should have been made available at least to the victims and witnesses who contributed to the inquiry. And perhaps Labour could rethink whether it needs to make alcohol available at all at youth events that include teens, even if drinking is supervised. It should hope its ideas and guest speakers are intoxicating enough.

‘‘The recommendations appeared in a report whose outcome seemed fairly obvious. But Labour may not have anticipated that at least one victim remains unhappy with the handling of the incidents . . .’’