In defense of Trevor Mallard

ByMartyn Bradbury

I know, I know.

I KNOW.

I can’t believe I’m doing this either.

But.

In defence of Trev.

Put aside for 30seconds, just 30 seconds, the righteous outrage at this appalling fuck up regarding this insane woke definition of rape that Trev used to defame a civil servant that has cost us $333k – put that just to one side for a moment.

Every political geek recites that Lockwood Smith is the benchmark for NZs greatest Speaker, and that is a fair and righteous claim. Smith believed in Parliament and its role to hold the Government to account and actually forced Ministers to answers questions.

Mallard is the same type of trailblazer.

He has made Parliament a better debating chamber and his enthusiasm to explain the democratic process to the masses is actually beautiful.

Mallard has been a reformer and a powerful new voice for an independent Parliamentary process and I for one acknowledge and salute his leadership.

I also acknowledge that he was responding to allegations of bullying inside Parliament when he mangled his attempt to be new and down with the kids by using a woke micro aggression policing definition of rape as a ‘hug from behind and glancing at breasts’.

Trev’s attempt to get down with the kids and their new trigger threshold definitions was akin to GrandDad mistakenly doing a Nazi salute tic tok dance and accidentally sending it to all his contacts.

So based on how well he was actually doing at his job, I think we should forgive this bewilderingly poor judgment call as the sad over compensation cultural virtue signal it was.

I know, I know. The guy who was called a rapist by the Speaker of the House has had his career destroyed and mangled, but this is the new cultural landscape of subjectively perpetual wounds and a bonfire of reputations and careers will be burnt before that rage has been sated.

Just be thankful it didn’t cost as much as that bloody slide.

I vote for Trev to stay.

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

29 Comments

  1. I agree….what was the hysterical trumped up climate in which Trev said that?….who fed him the misinformation?

    Don’t give the Judith Nacts a victory!….they have done far worse and they are still there!!!

      1. Anne Tolley said “It didn’t seem right that there was not a similar protection for him” saying “I was surprised, in fact, that they didn’t [qualify for legal financial support] so we set up a system whereby they did,”

        “The decision I made was to put in place a process that gave the speaker of Parliament the same protections as a Cabinet minister” saying “At some stage National will be in government and they will have a speaker. We’re a much more litigious community these days, so it may well be that National’s speaker gets into trouble.”

        https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/12/former-deputy-speaker-anne-tolley-expected-trevor-mallard-s-legal-dispute-to-be-costly-when-agreeing-to-it.html

  2. Sorry Bomber, but I cannot just look past the fact he Mallard has caused all kinds of hurt for not just the staffer, but his family. It is not OK to try and be cool by slamming another person and then hide behind his privilege as Speaker. That is wrong on a couple of points but mostly as he is meant to be setting standards and as one of the longest standing members of parliament he knew better and should have acted in a more honorable manner “alleged” never came into it, it was a flippant and careless remark that clearly defamed another individual, who had no right of reply. Cowardly and arrogant to think he can get away with an outlandish statement. He has failed to live up to the standards by which his position is based and should do the moral thing and resign.

    1. Ministers and MPs “hide behind privilege” as you put it, what makes the speaker different? the speaker is the minister of parliament after all and he is the only speaker to ever address the toxic culture that exists within parliament. The person in question that you are defending isn’t innocent, there were three cases of serious sexual assault. Trevor’s mistake, and he never named the person, was calling it rape which was ” incorrect” of him to give the impression the man had been accused of rape “as that term is defined in the Crimes Act 1961”

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/432413/speaker-apologises-to-man-following-rape-comments

    1. Found that article somewhat contradictory. She says he should go but as you say favours him but is concerned with who will pick up the important work Mallard started.

  4. I only know what is being said by the likes of Barry Soper but if it is true he caused a great deal of mental pain to to person he slandered . If he thought anything of Jacinda he would have let her know this was coming up . If you look at his track record he has been a likable bully boy around parliment. If he stopped being speaker he would still have a $160000 job which is more than the person he falsely outed has .

    1. What makes you think the PM wasnt aware of the case? Of course she was. The person in question isn’t innocent, there were three cases of serious sexual assault. Trevor’s mistake, and he never named the person, was calling it rape which was ” incorrect” of him to give the impression the man had been accused of rape “as that term is defined in the Crimes Act 1961”

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/432413/speaker-apologises-to-man-following-rape-comments

      1. I serious sexual assault is a big call . As I can only talk about what I have read it would seem to be more appropriate to say it was an error of judgement by the man who should have known better.

        1. I posted a link for you to read, or do you want to ignore the facts because its more convenient? Mallard’s mistake was calling the serious sexual assaults rape when the serious sexual assaults are not deemed rape under the law.

          1. The sexual assault by this man was a kiss on the check in front of his wife a compliment on a staffers appearance and a hug . Perhaps these actions were no
            appropriate but it is a long bow to call it sexual assault .

          2. Dont know where you got that garbage from but that wouldn’t constitute serious sexual assaults that were detailed in the Francis report.

  5. Yet no comment on Collins, Smith or Brownlee’s serial recidivists, let alone Nationals 9 years of fucked up serial incompetence. Jesus Frank balance is everything in a debate!

    1. That describes Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith. National’s 9 years of neglect isn’t a myth though.

      1. Labour haven’t “continued the same trajectory” though, changes have and are being made. Its going to take a number of years to sort out the sell out National govt’s corrupt neglect.

        2. “Lol. At this rate it will take centuries.”

          Given the mess National left, it may well do Frankie, it may well do. Look on the bright side, National may well get another chance in a few centuries……but I doubt it.

    2. Mythical, ha, you probably believe Key was a good leader and in the mythical trickle down theory, you know the one , the one that was debunked, Christ you probably think National won the election ala Trump.

  6. One more point, the National party had no qualms about Tolley seeking advice from the Solicitor General and Crown law re the speaker of the house. She was told of the probable cost and it came within it, so its galling National is concern trolling over it now particularly given the massive cost to the tax payer that has forked out for numerous National party mps and ministers transgressions some of which we still do not know the true cost of.

    A notable point is that Mallard fought hard for the inclusion of a clause in the agreement that allowed him to be answerable to Parliament.

    “The clause means he can share details of the defamation case when he appears before a select committee on Wednesday”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/he-made-a-mistake-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-continues-to-back-speaker-trevor-mallard/VOQXTV7MM6747UXGXD7B26XISY/

  7. Adern should hold steady…(compared with the Judith Nacts corruption against this country …lets list them) … Trev’s misuse of the R..e term, when serious assault(s) happened, is a technicality and minor

    The Nacts are in the Pit….we have had 9 years of their perfidy and corruption….so best policy is to keep calm and carry on….and throw any corruption mud back on them

    Trev’s heart was in the right place and he is doing a good job

  8. “5th form back of the bike shed fights outside of the debating chamber.”.. And who was it that grabbed his tie and pulled him in towards himself? An action that, if it had been done to me would have earned both a left, and a right hook, with an overhand right to finish it before the bully got going… Yes, it was Tau Henare.. That was the bloke who actually started the “fight”, which wasn’t anything of the sort… What trevor did was no more than anyone who prefers to defend themselves rather than cower in front of an overgrown thug.. The way this played out in the “news” media was at best, adolescent triuphalism, and a poor reflection on those “journalists” who sucked up so utterly to the bullshit that passed for common sense in the press gallery.(No change there yet)… The rest of your little rant tells me you need to have a lie down, and get your emotions under some sort of control… As silly as this incident was, I agree that Trevor is actually doing a good job as speaker… Time for the reactionary bigot lobby to take a powder…

Comments are closed.