Choppy waters for departing Mallard
AS befits a troubled and turbulent time as Speaker, Trevor Mallard’s departure from Parliament’s hot seat on Wednesday was similarly troubled and turbulent.
Like the best referees in sport, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has had a good day if noone is talking about him afterwards.
That was not a boast Mr Mallard could make too often, the combative nature which took him to a prominent place in politics often unable to be restrained when faced by a contrary, cantankerous or simply confused Opposition.
Mr Mallard went out with a bang, his successor yesterday having to issue a humiliating apology to former deputy prime minister Winston Peters for Mr Mallard having served a trespass notice on him for his visit to the protest camp which was then settling in on Parliament’s front lawn.
While some MPs may have privately thought it, not many
Speakers have had to publicly admit they had made a decision which was ``unreasonable and irrational’’, as Mr Mallard had to do yesterday.
From trying to drown the aforementioned protesters, both with Parliament’s lawn sprinklers and the dulcet tones of Barry Manilow, to getting caught up in defamation actions and petty personal quarrels with various MPs, to having a longstanding motion of noconfidence in him sitting on the order paper for many months, Mr Mallard’s time as Speaker has been far from distinguished.
The great shame about the many blots on Mr Mallard’s record is there were also laudable aspects of his Speakership.
Even his most disgruntled opponents had to admit that Mr Mallard did indeed make Parliament a more family friendly place.
The Francis review into the workplace culture at Parliament came out on his watch and, although some might question just how much progress has since been made, Mr Mallard and the Parliamentary Service have at least started what may well be the work of many parliaments.
There have also been several innovative and useful amendments to standing orders under Mr Mallard’s watch, such as a greater prominence for petitions and the advent of more special debates.
He also tried to make Parliament a more inclusive place. But his more divisive actions are likely to be his legacy.
On Wednesday his dutiful deputy, Adrian Rurawhe, was sworn in as Mr Mallard’s replacement, and welcomed by Parliament.
That debate is conventionally uncontroversial and often warm and funny, but in keeping with Mr Mallard’s time it was instead rancorous and often bitter.
National leader Christopher Luxon referenced his party’s many skirmishes with Mr Mallard, but he at least had the grace to do it quickly and with some pointed humour to temper his comments.
Act New Zealand leader David Seymour, on the other hand, delivered an illtimed and undignified summation of Mr Mallard’s failings and a shopping list of ways Parliament could be fixed.
Notwithstanding the fact that many of Mr Seymour’s observations were accurate or meritorious, there was a time and a place for those comments and, with Mr Rurawhe’s iwi and whanau watching, it was not then.
Even more illtimed was newlyminted independent Mr Gaurav Sharma’s contribution about Mr Mallard’s alleged role in his political demise, a speech which left Mr Mallard seething when he should have been celebrating.
All of which means that Mr Rurawhe has more than a few challenges facing him as he begins his new role and, given an election is a year away, it is unlikely to be an easy ride.
However, he has had plenty of practice, both as a presiding officer and having often overseen Question Time on a Thursday, in expectation that he would one day assume the Speakership.
He is quietly spoken but has not yet needed to carry a big stick . . . although in his steelier moments Mr Rurawhe has suggested that he will be no pushover.
Although his words upon taking his new job that he expected the Government to be held to account are pro forma, Mr Rurawhe certainly seemed to mean it.
Assuming he delivers on that promise, his time as Speaker should be worthy.