Mr Mallard, I find you guilty. Please stand down
Today I have before me a 66-year-old male who has been charged with being unsuitable to hold the position of Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives.
The facts of the case are that in 2019 Mr Trevor Mallard received a report resulting from an investigation into the work environment in Parliament. The colourful and perhaps overdramatic report by Debbie Francis highlighted a toxic culture in which bullying and harassment appeared widespread.
Worryingly, she said she had received three serious sexual allegations, although they were untested.
Mr Mallard, in response to media questions, equated the rather vague allegations as supporting the conclusion a rapist was at large in Parliament. The nature of the alleged offending is still unclear, with a discrepancy between the accounts given by the complainant and the alleged offender. However, Mr Mallard’s remark sparked alarm and effectively ended the employee’s career.
Mr Mallard eventually apologised but, in some fiery exchanges on Tuesday night in Parliament, he used parliamentary privilege to say the employee was guilty of sexual assault. He also widened the attack to say he had in fact dealt with two perpetrators of serious sexual assault.
I consider the arguments for his removal first.
The prosecution says Mr Mallard has shown appalling judgment and lack of care in remarks about an individual staff member, and has acted as judge and jury in regard to another. As an employer he should have been more circumspect and, as a senior and experienced member of the House, should have known better.
The conflation of sexual assault with rape was not merely a slip of the tongue in a grey area of definition. It was, the prosecution says, a mistake so egregious that its utterer should forfeit his important and prestigious position, not to mention generous remuneration.
The consequences of Mr Mallard’s mistake have been dire, especially for the alleged subject of his remark, the prosecution says.
The man received no prior notice of the comments that were made in the most public of settings and therefore guaranteed to get headlines. His return to work would be untenable. His reputation in the wider community was damaged irreparably.
Mr Mallard’s mistake also had significant financial consequences for the taxpayer, the prosecution says. A settlement of the man’s justifiable claims has cost $333,000.
In addition, the prosecution submits Mr Mallard has lost the confidence of the House due to a series of disgraceful decisions which undermine the neutrality of his position, and that his behaviour, mistakes and style have made him a distraction to the business of the House.
In Mr Mallard’s defence, it is said that the prosecution does not come with clean hands.
It is claimed its motivation is not the proper running of the House but rather a desire to focus on Mr Mallard to boost the prosecution’s poor ratings and lacklustre performances. His transgressions, if they can be described as such, have been exaggerated by a self-interested and vindictive applicant, the defence claims.
Mr Mallard, the defence also says, has overall done his best to remain neutral and seemly but, in a system like ours, where the Speaker is drawn mostly from the winning party, he or she is always going to be accused of bias and be the subject of other malicious claims.
The Speaker’s position, according to the defence, calls for a rare combination of skills and is not for the faint-hearted or for those who insist on the highest moral scruples. The Speaker was also supported by a report by a reputable expert and simply jumped to a conclusion too far. Not a hanging offence surely, the defence says. It submits I can stop short of dismissal.
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 that 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, I 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.