Barry Soper: Why should the Speaker of the House, Trevor Mallard, resign?

OPINION:

Trevor Mallard should step down from the post of President, I believe, before he faces a vote of no confidence when Parliament resumes its sessions in February.

National lost confidence in him and Labor, the party that preaches welfare and goodness, will surely have no choice but to vote against his continuing in office.

The nearly $ 334,000 in legal costs have been confirmed to have been paid by the taxpayer. Why? Well, Mallard changed the rules after he made his outrageous comment to protect him from having to pay the bill for something he should have known would go against him.

The tragedy of all of this is that the man you accused of a terrible crime, who spoke exclusively to me after Mallard’s indictment last year, has suffered from serious health problems since he was sent packing and it seems that he will get nothing from it. settlement.

The $ 158,000 made to him is for the payment of his legal bills and $ 171,000 was paid to Mallard’s attorneys at Dentons Kensington Swan. Another $ 4,641 went to Crown Law to advise then-Vice Speaker of Parliament Anne Tolley, whom Mallard delegated to change the rules to protect him.

Mallard rejected any attempt on the last day of Parliament by national MPs to make a statement to the House on the matter, hopefully at least an apology for the way he had behaved. He used the excuse that confidentiality was part of the legal agreement even though he is on record saying that when it comes to taxpayers’ money there should be no secrecy.

He apologized to the devastated member of parliamentary staff for the anguish and humiliation his remarks caused the man and his family.

Mallard used what I would say was a lame excuse – he didn’t understand the definition of rape when he used the term, now he says the defendant’s behavior does not amount to rape.

In fact, it is alleged that he hugged a colleague from behind. He filed a complaint two years after the incident, after their relationship deteriorated. An investigation by Parliamentary Services into the incident found it to be unfounded.

As for his lack of understanding about rape, he goes against a comment he made 10 years ago about reforming rape law and what it was supposed to achieve.

This whole issue has been a sham on many fronts.

Mallard must have known that his rape claim was false last year, but he waited until after the election and much litigation to apologize. Had he done so last year, he would have faced a vote of no confidence in Parliament and probably would have left as New Zealand First was unlikely to support him.

It is difficult to understand why he unsuccessfully demanded that the man’s name be made public, as well as causing embarrassment.

It downgrades the investigation into bullying and harassment that Parliament launched with great fanfare by Mallard and consultant Debbie Francis. Francis’s silence was deafening when a rape report was made.

It shows how the powerful can trample the powerless. If the parliamentary staff member hadn’t spoken to me, this would have been swept under the rug.

It shows just how manipulative the Speaker, ranked the third most important role in the country after the Governor General and the Prime Minister, can be by releasing his apology on the day of the Royal Commission on the mosque shootings and on the eve of the first anniversary. from the Whakaari / White Island eruption.

It seemed to work; the media was more focused on those stories than on this farce, until today.

Jacinda Ardern, who is close to Mallard, has so far kept the issue on the sidelines.

He was asked at what other workplace in New Zealand someone could falsely accuse a person of being a rapist and keep his job.

Ardern simply referred the interrogator to the apology statement Mallard had made.

She may not be able to remove him from office, that is Parliament’s job. But she should at least say if the Speaker ‘s behavior is acceptable to her.