RNZ cannot identify the party, party leader, sports club at the centre of the case or even specific dates, as they would breach an interim name suppression order.
The party declined to comment to RNZ while name suppression is in place.
‘[The defendant] is a sexual predator’
RNZ has obtained screenshots of a Facebook Messenger conversation in which a complainant’s wife told the party leader that the party employed a “sexual predator”.
The conversation took place nearly three months prior to the former political figure resigning from his role.
In the first message, the complainant’s wife writes: “[The political figure] is a sexual predator.”
It generated an automated response from the account.
The next day, a staff member replies to the woman, writing: “Anything to back that up?”
Complainant’s wife: “Yeah it was my husband.”
Party staff member: “Sorry, I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying.”
Complainant’s wife: “My husband was sexually abused by [the political figure] when he was a kid at [their sports club]. People like that shouldn’t be in positions of power. [The defendant] is a predator.”
Two days later, the party leader personally responds.
“Dear [complainant’s wife]. Thank you for your message and I’m sorry it’s taken a few days to get back to you. I do not normally personally check all messages. The allegations you have raised are extremely serious. The Party is considering its response. We will reply to you with our proposed course of action by the end of tomorrow. Yours sincerely, [party leader’s name].”
The next day the complainant’s wife thanked the party leader for their time on the matter and said she was looking forward to hearing back.
The party leader replied a few hours later.
“We believe the best way forward is to offer you the option of contacting a lawyer who will ask for you to detail any allegation your husband is making. Having heard the details from you, they will advise us on how to proceed further.”
The party leader gave the woman the contact phone number of an employment lawyer, that she and her husband were “free” to contact, adding they hoped the pair found a satisfactory response.
“I’ll pass this information to my husband who I have no doubt will contact [this lawyer] regarding this matter. This isn’t an attack on your party, please understand, it’s the man who you have [in a political role], in a position where he shouldn’t be considering his past, and god forbid this happens to anyone else,” the complainant’s wife responded.
Ten days later, the party leader wrote back to the woman, saying they understood the employment lawyer had been trying to get in touch.
“We obviously want to go give you and your husband every chance to make contact, but we cannot keep that open indefinitely. If you haven’t heard from [the employment lawyer] please let me know. If you have, please get back to her. At some point, if we have not heard from you we will have to consider the matter closed.”
The complainant’s wife replied that day.
“Thanks for following up on this. After discussions with my husband and due to the serious criminal nature of this, he has gone to the police with this matter and they are conducting a full investigation.
“He was groomed from a young age by [the defendant] and if he can prevent that from happening to anyone else by finally speaking out then that’s what he will do.
“He would like to become a survivor of this rather than a victim which is fantastic. I suppose the police investigation into this will help you make a decision about [the political figure]’s future in your political party.
“As you stated earlier, these are very serious allegations and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner - the justice system.”
The party leader responded: “Thank you for that update, we will inform the lawyer that they should not expect to hear back from you.”
