With an inquiry into fresh allegations about the MP’s past under way, the National Party needs also to ask whether candidate selection is as reformed as they hoped, writes Toby Manhire.

The office of the leader of the opposition flicked into full crisis response mode last night after RNZ put to Sam Uffindell fresh allegations about his past. If true, they cast into doubt the MP’s assurances to National Party leader Christopher Luxon, and to the public, that there were no other serious historic incidents he needed to disclose. 

At 11.21pm, a statement from Luxon: Uffindell had been stood down from caucus while an investigation into the “very concerning accusations” was undertaken by Maria Dew QC. 11.22pm: a statement from Uffindell: “I reject any accusation that I engaged in behaviour that was intimidatory or bullying. This simply did not happen.” 11.37pm: a statement from the new president of the National Party, Sylvia Wood, the same information, no further comment.

The new allegations may not be on the same horrific level as the original revelations that Uffindell, when 16, had pummelled a boy three years younger while he lay in his dormitory bed – an assault that left the 13-year-old covered in bruises. But they are very serious, not just in substance but because of the assurances Uffindell offered that there was nothing more to come. 

Almost certainly, the woman who spoke to RNZ this morning had not planned to come forward before those assurances. She was motivated by his insistence that he was a reformed character after being, in effect, expelled from the posh boarding school King’s College. And after hearing what she called the “hypocritical” remarks in his maiden speech on law and order, on the need for “accountability”, on the scourge of “impunity”. 

With Uffindell’s former flatmate set to give her account of ongoing bullying, intimidation and destructive behaviour on Morning Report, Luxon moved to cauterise, at least temporarily, the wound. It is not obvious whether the woman will wish to take part in the Dew investigation, nor whether any further allegations may emerge. Uffindell’s version of events clearly differs fundamentally. But for Luxon, the question is in one way straightforward: does he believe he has been misled by the new MP? Does he still have confidence in him?

If the first answer is yes, the second is surely no, and that means a second 2022 byelection in Tauranga. There would be a temptation to exile the MP from caucus permanently, and hang on to the next election citing the cost to the taxpayer. That’s unlikely to wash, however – if Luxon feels Uffindell has fundamentally not been frank with voters, he owes them a chance to have as their representative someone who is. 

Luxon is clear that he should have been told about the original dormitory assault and Uffindell’s apology 22 years later, given the candidate himself raised it with the selection committee. As is made obvious by the episode, when it comes to something like this, the temptations of plausible deniability are trumped by the doctrine of no-surprises. As Luxon acknowledged to media today, he needed to know simply so that he, as party leader, could consider the “political risk” it presented. That is playing out now, comprehensively stinking up the fresh air of a successful party conference and a very good TVNZ poll. 

But another, bigger, jarringly familiar question looms: How did Uffindell end up the National candidate in the first place?

The candidate conundrum

The potential for reform, redemption, absolution – these are precious social and cultural ideals, and few would deny them to Sam Uffindell. But New Zealanders cling, too, sometimes in spite of the evidence, to principles of egalitarianism. Did Uffindell get the same shot at turning over a new leaf that a kid in a state school might have? Or did he enjoy the kind of second chance preserved for the patrician class? 

This might seem a tangential, off-topic point but it goes to the heart of questions around National Party candidate selection. Consider the hall of shame National candidates of recent years, as sounded out to Luxon by Guyon Espiner this morning in a list that echoed like sepulchral bells. “Do you remember these MPs? Andrew Falloon. Hamish Walker. Jake Bezzant. Aaron Gilmore. Jami-Lee Ross. Todd Barclay.” 

None of the above is remotely Luxon’s responsibility. With the exception of a clumsy, subsequently corrected remark suggesting that Uffindell’s errors were different to Metiria Turei’s because “we’re not talking about criminal behaviour here”, his response in recent days has been empathetic and unflinching. But those names, to which we can add Sam Uffindell, speak to a persistent problem. 

In the catalogue of awkward headlines, “National tries to avoid repeating mistakes in Tauranga” ranks pretty highly. It sits above a report by the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan detailing the efforts by Luxon and then president Peter Goodfellow to address criticisms around a lack of diversity and questionable character that had plagued the past – a new “National 101” programme, said Luxon, was designed to  “reset our candidate selection processes”. He said: “I’m very confident we’ll get a great candidate in Tauranga.”

MMP offers a helpful device to install diversity into a political party: the list. It is much trickier at a local, constituency level. They’re choosing one person, not a range. And there is good reason why no one wants to see overbearing party HQs parachuting their picks in. But at the same time, if ever there was a chance to show a party turning a corner, a byelection in the safe seat of Tauranga, with all the attention it attracts and a brand new party leader, was it. 

If the National Party had really turned a corner in candidate selections, the MP for Tauranga today would be Tania Tapsell, an impressive, widely admired young Māori woman and Rotorua Lakes councillor who gave Kiri Allan a run for her money in the East Coast electorate in 2020. Maybe she wasn’t interested in the byelection. Maybe she can’t abide the Tauranga traffic. Maybe party bigwigs tried everything but just couldn’t persuade her. I don’t know. She’s currently running for the Rotorua mayoralty. In 2020, she was placed 64th on the National list.

As it was, there was no Tapsell, nor anyone that looked or sounded like her. The National shortlist for the Tauranga nomination was this:

And so questions of representation, class and fairness slink back into the room. The stock riposte from those who decry ideas of diversity is but meritocracy! Did meritocracy really compile that lineup? Based on Uffindell’s performances on the campaign trail, based on his maiden speech – put the revelations of the past few days to one side for a minute – is that really a triumph of merit? Is meritocracy responsible for the list of candidates later found so ill-equipped? If this is meritocracy it is a strange kind of cream rising to the top.