Speaker Trevor Mallard started this whole sage when he wrongly accused a parliamentary worker of rape - two years ago. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Explainer
The National Party calling for Speaker Trevor Mallard to be removed this morning is the latest in long-running saga that has almost clocked two years.
It follows a heated debate in the House last night on Mallard's settlement with a former staffer who he falsely accused of rape. In the debate - and under legal immunity of parliamentary privilege - Mallard said the former staffer had committed serious sexual assault.
Behaviour in the House escalated at times to angry exchanges between Labour and National, particularly between Mallard and National MP and shadow leader of the house Chris Bishop.
After the debate, National leader Judith Collins called for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to "grow herself a spine" and remove Mallard.
Tension over this issue has been building for two years. The starting point is May 21, 2019, when Mallard released Debbie Francis' report into bullying and harassment in Parliament.
"Three of the alleged [sexual assault] incidents disclosed to me in interviews were in my view extremely serious," her report said. Neither Francis nor Mallard would comment on the assaults or whether the person accused of them still worked at Parliament.
The following day, in a morning interview with RNZ, Mallard said of the accused: "I get the sense that the man is still on the premises ... We're talking about serious sexual assault. Well that, for me, that's rape."
His comments caused alarm throughout the parliamentary workplace, and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called an urgent meeting to seek safety assurances.
Later that afternoon, Mallard said a parliamentary staffer had been stood down following a formal complaint about a historical assault of a sexual nature.
Parliamentary Service, the man's employer, said an investigation into the alleged incident had already taken place, but had now been reopened. The original investigation was not into alleged rape.
Two months later, the accused told Newstalk ZB that he hadn't done anything inappropriate, and he felt "bullied out" of Parliament. He demanded an apology from Mallard for his "slanderous" comments.
He claimed the three allegations were related to hugging a colleague, complimenting another colleague on her hair, and kissing another on her cheek as he said goodbye to her after she visited him and his wife for tea.
Newstalk ZB reported that the first complainant alleged he hugged her from behind, pushing his groin up against her, and that he was staring at the breasts of the woman whose hair he complimented. The man said he believed the third complainant was put up to lodging the complaint by someone else.
Parliamentary Service initially found that the claims were unsubstantiated.
"I would like to be able to return to work to clear my name and I expect, at the very least, an apology from the Speaker for labelling me as a rapist which I most certainly am not," the man told Newstalk ZB.
The accused, who has name suppression, started defamation proceedings, seeking damages of $400,000 and exemplary damages of $50,000.
Fast forward to December 2020, when Mallard issued a formal apology for the comments he had made 18 months earlier.
"Trevor Mallard accepts that his understanding of the definition of rape at that time was incorrect and that the alleged conduct did not amount to rape (as that term is defined in the Crimes Act 1961) and that it was incorrect of him to suggest otherwise," it said.
"Trevor Mallard apologises for the distress and humiliation his statements caused to the individual and his family."
It came on the same day as the Royal Commission of Inquiry into March 15 released its report, prompting accusations that Mallard was trying to bury the apology on a busy news day.
Mallard defended the timing, saying he issued the apology "as soon as was practical".
Later that week, National revealed the cost to the taxpayer: more than $333,000, including a $158,000 ex-gratia payment to the former staffer to settle the claim and more than $175,000 on legal fees.
The size of the bill prompted Judith Collins to call for Mallard to resign. "Because Mr Mallard has not lived up to the high standards of behaviour that he has set for Parliament, we believe he is no longer fit to hold the role of Speaker."
Ardern responded by saying she still had confidence in Mallard.
The next day, Mallard appeared before a special Select Committee meeting where he again apologised, and said he realised he had made a mistake "probably within 24 hours" of making his original comments about rape.
At that meeting, Parliamentary Service chief executive Rafael Gonzalez-Montero confirmed there was an ongoing employment case which had cost taxpayers about $37,500 so far. The former staffer was challenging what he claimed was constructive dismissal.
When Parliament resumed in February, National tried to move a motion of no confidence in Mallard - which failed.
In March it stepped up its campaign to remove Mallard again, after Bishop obtained court documents about Mallard's intention to use truth to defend his "rape" comments in court.
Bishop questioned how this squared with Mallard's previous comments that he knew he had made a mistake within 24 hours of making the original comments.
"Mr Mallard said he planned to prove in court the plaintiff was a rapist, He intended to do this knowing it was false," Bishop said in a general debate speech in the House - which Mallard himself was chairing.
"The consequences of this are severe," Bishop said. "Mr Mallard was either planning on misleading the court or he has misled Parliament. These are not the actions of someone fit to be Speaker."
Mallard said his mediation agreement prevented him from commenting outside the parliamentary process, but added that "the truth will be told" during the annual review debate of Parliamentary Service.
That debate was last night.
Having cited his apology Mallard, under parliamentary privilege, said that the accused had committed serious sexual assault.
He sought to side himself with the complainants, and to paint National as siding with the accused.
He further claimed that there were two women who had laid complaints against the accused, and revealed he had never spoken to the woman at the centre of the first complaint.
"That man's life was destroyed when he sexually assaulted a woman."
There were at least three separate incidents involving three separate women and at least two - probably three - perpetrators of serious sexual assault, he said.
The first internal investigation into the former staffer was a "disgrace", he said, and the second investigation had found substance to the complaints, as did a police investigation.
There were a number of reasons, he added, why police might not pursue charges.
Mallard revealed that a month or two before the Francis report came out, Gonzalez-Montero had briefed him about an accusation of serious sexual misconduct that had already been investigated, and that the complainant was being encouraged to formalise a complaint to Parliamentary Service as well as with the police.
They had one further "30-second" discussion where he was told the woman was waiting for the Francis report to be released before deciding what to do.
The day after the report was released, Mallard said he was told the worker was suspended on full pay and a new investigation was instigated, which was completed in November 2019.
The matter could still end up in the employment court, he added.
At one point he attacked Bishop's "moral compass".
"The member might think that serious sexual assault and not supporting the victims of it is funny, but I don't," Mallard said.
"Mr Bishop, this is not a school debating society ... I will answer the questions. I've got all night to answer the questions and I will. His ongoing behaviour has caused distressed to a number of women, and he's been asked to stop and he hasn't."
Bishop responded by saying Mallard was a "bully" who was treating the House with "petulance and contempt and hate for both me and Parliament".
The chamber became even more tense when Labour MP Willow-Jean Prime said she had heard "horrific statements in the House tonight".
"It really sounds like she asked for it. Her skirt was too short. She was drunk. I didn't like what I heard."
She added "you said it" in response to an uproar from National MPs.
Bishop retorted: "She has just said words that are grossly offensive about Members of the Opposition and she needs to withdraw and apologise. We did not say that."
Prime: "I didn't say you said it."
Bishop interjected again and was forced to withdraw and apologise, as was Prime.
After the debate, Bishop said the short skirt comment was "a made up allegation by a Labour Party that is running cover for a Speaker that they need to be dumping, not defending".
He said Mallard still hadn't answered the key question of why he intended to pursue a truth defence in court when he had already admitted to making a mistake within 24 hours of making his original comments.
Collins said Mallard's behaviour was the worst she had ever seen in Parliament, and Ardern should "grow herself a spine" and remove him as Speaker.
Bishop challenged Mallard to repeat his claims of sexual assault outside the chamber, but Mallard cited his mediation agreement.
National MP Michael Woodhouse said Mallard had re-victimised her to further his own ends.
This morning, Leader of the House Chris Hipkins said last night's debate didn't reflect well on Parliament, or anybody involved in it.
Ardern followed this by saying no one covered themselves in glory last night, though Mallard continued to have her overall confidence.