Trevor Mallard defamation case: Settling Speaker’s false violation claim against a staff member costs taxpayers $ 333,000 – National

President Trevor Mallard’s bogus ‘rape’ claim about a member of Parliament’s staff has cost taxpayers more than $ 333,000 to settle and National says it has now lost trust in him.

The bill included an ex gratia payment of $ 158,000 to the former staff member to settle the defamation claim, and more than $ 175,000 was spent on legal fees.

Mallard issued a public apology to staff this week, which was released on the afternoon of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks.

The spokesman said that some of his comments gave the “impression that the allegations made against that person 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 of him to suggest otherwise. , “the statement read.

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

The staff member was removed in May after Mallard’s comments, but an investigation later found no wrongdoing.

The man then sought to sue Mallard for defamation, seeking a $ 400,000 award and an exemplary $ 50,000 award.

The $ 333,641.70 cost of settling the defamation case was awarded to National in response to written parliamentary questions.

National leader Judith Collins said the party had lost confidence in Mallard.

“This is unacceptable behavior on the part of the Speaker of the House. This total amount of this payment illustrates how serious the matter is,” Collins said.

“It is the Speaker ‘s job to set the standard of behavior for everyone in Parliament, but he has been reckless in his words, resulting in taxpayers paying a bill of more than $ 330,000 to clean up this mess.

“There has been no formal apology to Parliament for this, despite the fact that the National Party encouraged the President to do so in the last session of this year.

“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 people who work in Parliament and New Zealand taxpayers deserve better.”

In August, the president issued new ‘instructions’ (rules for funding and spending by MPs), which expanded the range of legal costs MPs could have financed with taxpayers ‘money, to include’ damages and payments for resolve a legal action “.

In the past, such funding was only available for legal costs to defend legal proceedings brought against them in their capacity as parliamentarians, and not for settlements.

To obtain their approval, it must be signed by the President and the Executive Director of the Parliamentary Service.

They should “consider the extent to which the member’s participation in the proceedings is due to the member acting in his capacity as a member of Parliament.”

The money generally comes from a political party’s funding pool.

There are separate provisions for the legal costs of cabinet ministers.

In cases where a cabinet minister is sued for something like defamation, the Cabinet Manual said that the Cabinet will decide whether its legal costs are covered and whether it will pay the costs or damages if the minister loses in court.

That depends on the circumstances of each case. The Cabinet manual is silent on whether public funds can be used for a deal.

How the saga unfolded

In June of last year, Mallard said he believed a rapist was working on the parliamentary compound a day after Francis’s review of the parliamentary workplace was released.

The report found systemic problems of bullying and harassment, too often tolerated and normalized misconduct, and a perception of low responsibility. Mallard himself commissioned the report after a series of cases of misbehavior.

Mallard had said that he believed a man was responsible for three serious sexual assaults mentioned in the review, and that he believed the man was still working in Parliament.

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.

The employee then lashed out at Mallard, saying he felt intimidated outside of the workplace and was the victim of “slanderous” comments from Mallard.

After Mallard made the remarks, the man, who had been removed from Parliament, told Newstalk ZB that he felt intimidated into leaving the building.

He said at the time that he wanted an apology for what he described as the “slanderous” comments from the Speaker.

The man claimed that all three allegations were related to hugging a colleague, congratulating another colleague on his hair, and kissing another on his cheek while saying goodbye to her after she visited him and his wife for tea.

However, the first complainant alleged that he hugged her from behind, pushing his groin against her, and that he was looking at the breasts of the woman whom he complimented on her hair.

You believe that the third complainant was forced to file the complaint by someone else.

The man was investigated by the Parliamentary Services, which determined that the claims were unfounded.