The rules quietly changed for taxpayers to pay for the cost of parliamentarians’ court settlements

At the same time that President Trevor Mallard was being sued for libel, he changed the rules so other MPs could also have theirs covered by the taxpayer without publicly revealing it.

Law and national leaders said yesterday they no longer trust the president after he revealed that it had cost the taxpayer more than $ 330,600 to resolve a case after incorrectly calling a former member of parliamentary staff a rapist.

It has also come to light that the rules on when parliamentarians can claim legal costs when they are being sued were expanded by the president in August so that damages and settlements can come from the public purse.

Such requests must be signed by the party leader, the president and the executive director of the Parliamentary Service.

It puts the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers, however, only ministers are subject to the public disclosure rules under the Official Information Act. Other MPs and parliamentary services are exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.

The Mallard case was handled by Vice President Anne Tolley and it was felt that because the spokesperson is the minister responsible for parliamentary services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.

The process for Mallard’s legal costs was approved by Tolley instead of the Cabinet.

Two opposition parties are now calling for Mallard to step down, saying they have lost confidence in him.

National leader Judith Collins said Mallard had been “reckless in his words” and taxpayers had to pay the bill to “clean up this mess.”

“Because Mr. Mallard has not lived up to the high standards of behavior that he has set for Parliament, we believe that he is no longer fit for the office of President.”

The leader of the act, David Seymour, said that “the real shame is that he does not recognize that his behavior requires that he leave.”

“I thought that after 36 years, Parliament has been very good to him and he would have more respect for the institution.”

Given the Labor majority in the House, a vote of no confidence would not be passed.

Mallard declined to answer questions about the deal and referred the Weekend Herald to his public apology Tuesday.

In the statement, the Spokesperson said that some of his comments gave the “impression that the allegations made against that individual in the context of the Francis Review amounted to rape.”

Trevor Mallard agrees that his understanding of the definition of rape at the time was incorrect and that the alleged conduct did not amount to rape (as that term is defined in the Crimes Act of 1961) and that it was incorrect to suggest otherwise.

“Trevor Mallard apologizes for the anguish and humiliation his statements caused the individual and his family.”

The day after Francis Magazine on bullying and harassment was published in Parliament, Mallard said he believed a man responsible for three serious sexual assaults was still working in the building.

His comments, called shocking by some parliamentary workers, triggered a series of turbulent events that led to a complaint of historic aggression and the withdrawal of a member of the parliamentary staff.

Mallard later said that a security threat had been removed from the facility.

An investigation later found no wrongdoing on the part of the staff member who then filed a defamation case against Mallard seeking damages of $ 400,000 and exemplary damages of $ 50,000.