The media aren’t sticking up for Trevor Mallard at all:
He was told time and time again he’d ruined this man’s life, destroying his career and making him fight a case Mallard knew from the beginning he himself could never win.
The only concession he made was the man’s life was ruined alright, but only when he committed a serious sexual assault against his accuser. Mallard’s pathetic and unbelievable excuse for wrongly calling him of being a rapist was that he didn’t understand the definition of the word.
His outburst this week calls into question whether he understands what a serious sexual assault is. The parliamentary worker was accused of hugging his colleague from behind, a complaint laid years after it allegedly happened. A secret inquiry was held, involving parliamentary lawyers among others, who found the accusation was without substance.
After a select committee appearance late last year where Trevor Mallard was interrogated at length by National MPs Chris Bishop and Michael Woodhouse, it became clear to senior ministers and the Prime Minister’s office that the Speaker couldn’t keep his temper in check. …
Mallard’s behaviour at the select committee had already raised a red flag with senior members of the Government, prompting them to sit down with him ahead of Tuesday night’s debate.
It’s understood he was counselled to take a more moderate stance and only talk to points that had already been canvassed in public.
Lines of attack were rehearsed to ensure Mallard was on script.
But within minutes, Mallard had thrown that advice out the window, as he used the protection of parliamentary privilege to launch into a claim of an (alleged) sexual assault, and to purposely antagonise Bishop.
That hatred was centre-stage as Mallard and Bishop went at it at each other on Tuesday night. Mallard, who has mostly kept from outwardly attacking his attackers in recent months, used the absolute legal protection of parliamentary privilege to say that he believed that this man sexually assaulted a colleague and has no place working in Parliament. He took the case for a defence that he has long wanted to make far further and with far more political venom than was needed – it’s easy to understand why Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern found the need to reprimand him today. His hate for Bishop dripped off every comment he made; as did Bishop’s hate for Mallard.
The role of Speaker of the House requires a level head and sense of authority. A bit of mana, it commands respect.
And that’s why I’m finding the hot-headed unprofessional behaviour of Trevor Mallard increasingly frustrating.
In fact, it’s beyond frustrating; it’s actually just downright rude.
He is a law unto himself and is abusing his power.
His outbursts and the tone he is setting inside Parliament are beyond the pale. Even the PM has said so. Which, by the way, is a first, a sitting PM criticising a sitting Speaker has never happened before, that’s how serious this is.
But her expressing concern is not enough, he needs to go. And can she have it both ways? Express concern over him, but then still give him her confidence. Which is it?
The key duties of a Speaker are to maintain the dignity and order of Parliament, and to exercise impartiality.
Last night, the Speaker himself was breaching all three. Consider Parliament brought into disrepute.
It is against the rules to even insinuate a Speaker is not impartial – but that rule comes with a responsibility on the Speaker to at least try to achieve impartiality.
Where a Speaker is openly hostile to Opposition MPs, that is a hard rule to adhere to. …
If Mallard’s resignation is due, after last night it is not for the reasons National has set out. It is not because of the defamation settlement or the length of time it took for him to admit he was wrong, or because he wrongly accused a man of rape.
It is partly because he used Parliamentary privilege to make further claims about a man who has little recourse to challenge those claims publicly.
It should be because last night he abandoned any pretence of impartiality and the dignity of his role.
Some two years after he initially misspoke, and having had the time and opportunity to reflect on his actions, Mallard repeated the claim of sexual assault.
We believe, or we should believe, in innocence until proven guilty. Trevor Mallard sits at the apex of Parliament, the guardian of citizens’ rights against tyranny. He sits in the chair and the office bequeathed by the courage of William Lenthall and others.
The view can be taken that, from that office, and with the privileges accorded to him as a member of Parliament, Mallard engaged in a considered, calculated, and deliberate act of malevolence against a person with no ability to respond.
In order to perform his unique constitutional role, as a representative of Parliament and not merely the executive, the Speaker cannot be seen to hold their office solely at the indulgence of the sovereign, or her representative as in our current arrangements.
Trevor Mallard has lost, and critically cannot regain, the mana that his office requires.
This is a difficult decision. On the one hand Mr Mallard has been a loyal member of the house and has served his party well. His behaviour can, to a certain extent, be explained by provocation and the extreme stress of the situation. On the other hand he has brought his office into disrepute and dispelled any sense of neutrality or objectivity.
Two factors particularly persuade me in my final ruling. As Speaker, Mr Mallard holds the third most constitutionally important position in the country. Only the Governor-General and the Prime Minister are placed ahead of him. The dignity and gravitas of his office rely on the incumbent conducting him or herself appropriately. This is not a matter of hidebound tradition or stuffy etiquette. It is integral to the position and reflective of the temperament required. The other factor that weighs with me is Mr Mallard has unfortunately become a major sideshow to the important business parliament must conduct. It already operates with a disgraceful tolerance for bad behaviour. Mr Mallard has modelled the exact behaviour he should be stamping out.
I bear in mind his remorse and the punishment he has already received in a stern reprimand from the Prime Minister. However, note he has not offered to pay the settlement monies out of his own pocket. Unfortunately I cannot give him credit for a blameless record.
Mr Mallard would you stand please. My decision is that you must relinquish your position as Speaker. You may stand down.
And yet he retains the confidence of Jacinda Ardern.
One may wonder, as I do, what actually is bad enough for her to sack someone?
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD