Trevor Mallard badly damaged his credibility this week.
His decisions were weird. His judgement was badly lacking. Don't ask me why he did it. I can't figure it out either.
But whatever his reason, he threw Parliament into panic this week.
On Wednesday morning, staff woke to the news that a serial rapist was working in Parliament. Mallard had made the claim on radio.
Women were reportedly freaking out. Men apparently felt under suspicion.
And then Mallard said he wasn't going to do anything about it. He wasn't calling the police. That would re-traumatise the victims. So he mic-dropped rape, walked off stage and left Parliament to play out Lord of the Flies.
Mallard's biggest error was using the word rape.
There seems to be no evidence of rape. It seems, Mallard has grossly exaggerated the findings of the Francis bullying report. The report found three examples of "extremely serious" sexual assault. How does that become rape? Because, says Mallard, "My view is that any serious sexual assault, man on woman, is rape."
Really? That's the best evidence you've got? That's flimsy and legally very dodgy.
So now we're dealing with a situation where the Speaker of the House has hollered RAPIST and when there may never have been a rapist.
Then, Mallard refused to call the police. Mallard's reasoning was that his hands were tied. The Francis inquiry promised complainants it wouldn't take their complaints any further. So, if Mallard then did call the cops, he'd be re-traumatising those victims.
That is absurd. Essentially, the Speaker has weighed up the safety of women in Parliament against the feelings of victims, and has decided it's better to protect past victims and, well, the rest of the women in Parliament can take their chances.
The Speaker has a duty of care to the women working in Parliament. The cops should have been called as soon as he knew of these allegations.
There is a good chance Mallard's troubles aren't over either.
He must be at risk of a defamation suit.
In the hours after Mallard cried rape on the radio, a Parliamentary staff member was stood down over historic sexual assault . That man's name has already spread through Parliament. It's a small place. If he's done anything short of rape, he may well have a case against the Speaker of damage to his reputation.
It's a pity Mallard's got himself into this trouble. He's a good guy. I like him. Loads of people around Parliament do.
But this is an unforced error. And he can't afford too many of these. He's in enough trouble already.
Mallard has sought out way too much media attention and attracted way too many headlines for the 18 months he's been in the job.
He's been accused of bias against the Opposition, of protecting the Prime Minister in the House, of involving himself in negative stories about the Opposition and of giving stories about the Opposition to the media.
He makes himself an easy target for National. They use him as a distraction when they don't want a negative story leading the news. They know if they can just get him angry enough, he might make a stupid decision in the House and, guess what, suddenly we're talking about the Speaker's alleged bias again.
Mallard must pull himself into line. There is more at stake here than just his own credibility. Technically, the Speaker is the third most powerful person in the country, just behind the Prime Minister, but far ahead of any other member of Cabinet.
It's crucial to the integrity of our Parliament that the person sitting in the Speaker's chair is seen as impeccably neutral, fair and credible. Otherwise, our democracy becomes a circus no one trusts anymore.
Can we say Mallard is impeccably neutral, fair and credible? It's becoming harder to do that.