The Labour Party has decided it would be "inappropriate" to allow the public see the full report reviewing its policies after the youth summer camp scandal.
This is despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declaring the external report, conducted by Wellington lawyer Maria Austen, would be released when the criminal court proceedings concluded.
After a young man, who initially faced indecent assault allegations, was discharged without conviction on two common assault charges, the Court of Appeal suppressed his name permanently in September - ending the case.
The charges arose from the then 20-year-old man's inebriated behaviour at a boozy Labour Party youth camp in February 2018.
Because of the wider political context, the case received considerable publicity, which was further heightened because of the parallel but unrelated investigation by Maria Dew QC into the allegations of sexual misconduct and bullying by a senior Labour staffer.
That scandal saw former Labour Party president Nigel Haworth resign but the only element of Dew's review to be made public was an executive summary.
"The full [Dew] report will not be released," Ardern told reporters.
Not releasing the full report after such an incident is becoming something the Labour Party is seemingly seeking to avoid.
"Now that the courts have granted permanent name suppression in this case, Labour will not be releasing the full text of Maria Austen's report. Releasing the full report would be inappropriate given the court's ruling," Labour Party president Claire Szabó told the Herald this week.
Labour has released the recommendations in Austen's report and updated its internal policies to reflect them, which Szabó said "assures Labour members and the public that we are making the required improvements to our processes following this incident".
The Herald understands, however, the reason the public won't see the full review is because it would require a "substantial edit" to redact any potentially identifying material.
Labour's change of policy for this reason, after what the Prime Minister promised, is unsatisfactory for a case the Court of Appeal described as "high-profile and politically controversial".
Courts routinely release bundles of information about cases which are both suppression sensitive and of high public interest. This favouring of transparency helps to maintain confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial process.
While the Court of Appeal granted the young man permanent name suppression to shield him from a "weaponised" social media, it still publicly released its decision and full reasons - not just the result.
Labour's reversed position on the Austen report also won't put any of the rumours of a political conspiracy circling the case to bed.
Some of the allegations the court was made aware of included "Aunty Helen and Jacinda pulling big strings" to secure the man's discharge without conviction. Another claimed his mum was a Labour Minister or a sitting MP.
None of these rumours are true but with Labour reluctant to air out the full report, social media commentators will continue to cry political interference.
While there is little if any compelling public interest in knowing the man's identity, the court said the public interest lies in the events of the youth camp and the circumstances in which they occurred.
Szabó saying Labour is "creating and maintaining a welcoming culture for all our members" and has "made good progress" isn't a substitute for public scrutiny and doesn't do enough to maintain confidence in the process.