Uffindell scandal a true test for Luxon's leadership skills

By Brigitte Morten*

Opinion - Backbenchers are an expendable commodity. They may not like to hear it. But unless they are bringing in distinct value to the party, through a particular support base or promise of a shining career as a minister, they are just a widget in the political machine.

Therefore, most political parties will happily let a few backbenchers go if it looks like they are damaging the party brand.

So why was it worth the fight for National Party leader Christopher Luxon to first defend new Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell against the Kings College bullying incident, and then launch an investigation into new allegations surfacing from his Otago University days? Why didn't he just sack him?

First, he can't. He is not his employer. Luxon just commands the loyalty of caucus to act unilaterally. You can only do that if you are seen as fair. It is not long ago that Judith Collins destroyed her leadership by acting unfairly towards Simon Bridges.

This is not a path Luxon wants to replicate. All MPs, in fact anyone in the public eye, are at risk of allegations being made and determined guilty by media. And just like all of us, we want to know our team leader has our back.

Comparisons of Luxon have been made to John Key, and claim that Key would have just cut Uffindell loose with no time for the under-fire MP to defend himself. But that comparison is simply not true. Key always let MPs under fire to put their case forward. But he was very clear that he was the leader and if that position was unsustainable, it would be his way or the highway.

This is exactly the stance that Luxon has taken.

As soon as the Kings College incident was presented to Luxon, he made it clear that Uffindell must front. And continue fronting. Traditional political management would have been one tightly controlled stand-up press conference and that was it. But Uffindell was sent to repeat the story over and over again, and make his repentance.

There is nowhere harder, especially for a new MP, to appear but in one-to-one interviews with some of the most experienced political journalists all wanting to claim their pound of flesh. But Luxon was clear, if Uffindell believed he was a changed person, he must prove it.

When the dust settled on the first 24 hours after the incident became known, Luxon could be forgiven for thinking that this matter had been handled. Uffindell would carry the reputational damage of his first few weeks through his parliamentary career. But this is deserved. Uffindell carried out that attack and therefore must be responsible for it. And Luxon needed to look the issue of how to improve the communication between the board and leader's office on matters like this, and how historical claims of bad behaviour for anyone in the caucus was to be treated. This was achievable.

But Tuesday evening's new anonymous allegations, completely refuted by Uffindell, of bullying during his time as a university student, presented a different challenge. Within hours of media requesting a response, Luxon had listened to his junior MP's position, ordered an investigation and stood Uffindell down.

There is rarely a perfect way to handle disputed claims about a person but there is certainly a wrong way.

Take for comparison, the actions of Speaker Trevor Mallard when presented with anonymous allegations in the Francis Review stated that there was a "rapist" working in the parliamentary precinct. There was no opportunity for the accused to refute the claims. And Mallard was subsequently required to admit were incorrect and an investigation found were unsubstantiated. This bungled process cost taxpayers' undisclosed amounts in legal fees and a settlement to accused.

There has been a resounding silence from other MPs, on all sides of the chamber, since Tuesday's allegations came out. There will be MPs with serious incidents in their past, like Uffindell's, who will wonder whether they should front foot the issue.

And every MP will be aware there would have been disagreements with family, friends, and colleagues that would reflect badly on them in written about in an article.

That is not to say that if the Otago University flat story is substantiated that it is not serious, but that it is enough of a disputed situation between two people that it is worthy of investigation, not immediate condemnation.

This week we have seen Luxon's corporate experience play out. Driving a strong team culture doesn't just mean just celebrating the wins, but also dealing with the difficult situations fairly and decisively.

National will take a hit in the polls for this incident. Regardless of how expendable a backbencher can be, they still can make a serious hit on a party's reputation. And this one feeds in to an ongoing narrative of poor pre-selections.

To arrest a downward trend, it is likely that Luxon will have to take more decisive action. If more complaints come to light that indicate a pattern of behaviour - an unchanged man - an investigation will be redundant. The public would have already decided the outcome and Luxon will have to cut him loose.

* Brigitte Morten is a director with public and commercial law firm Franks & Ogilvie and a former senior ministerial advisor for the previous National-led government.