Certainly some of his past conduct and allegations against him make for sobering reading – including physical assault, attempts to sabotage the employment of opponents, and sexist bullying.

And some of the terms that have been applied to Mallard – such as “Knee Capper”, “Head Kicker”, “Bully” and, most commonly, “Bovver Boy” – from journalists and commentators (leftwing, rightwing and neutral) give a clue to his temperament and raise questions about his appropriateness for the role of Speaker.

Since yesterday’s report came out, his critics have had a field day drawing attention to the irony of Mallard trying to deal to bullying at Parliament. Former MP Tau Henare went on TV3’s The Project to say that “I think that we have a Speaker that is the epitome of the word irony”. Of course, it was Henare who was punched by Mallard outside the debating chamber back in 2007 – for which Mallard was convicted and fined.

Henare claimed: “This guy was the biggest schoolyard bully in the place. If there was a programme called ‘The Biggest Bully’, he would have won it ten years in a row… When it was announced by him that he was going to do a report on bullying, I literally nearly wet myself” – see Jamie Ensor’s Former National MP Tau Henare lets rip on bullying in Parliament after review release.

Mallard went on the AM Show this morning and responded to criticism, admitting his bad behaviour and claiming that he’s trying to improve – see Jamie Ensor’s Speaker Trevor Mallard acknowledges his behaviour hasn’t been perfect after bullying review.

Mallard claimed his own bullying is a result of his upbringing: “When I was first here it was in the immediate post-Muldoon period, the system up until there had been run by Second World War veterans, it was very stratified, it was very structured, and as was our society”.

AM Show host, Duncan Garner, has also drawn attention to Mallard’s bullying and says he must take more responsibility for what goes on: “He effectively controls the entire Parliament, how it operates, behaves and is perceived. Yet history shows Mallard is always near the centre of controversy, or a dust-up” – see: Speaker of the house Trevor Mallard must lift the lid on bullies.

Garner says: “Mallard still protects the club. He should be naming and shaming our worst MPs and, if he’s on the list, own it – call yourself out. Instead, we slam the door shut. This inquiry is no better than the behaviour itself. Mallard must lift the lid and stop protecting the bullies, otherwise, he’s only encouraging them.”

Over the years there have been a number of significant episodes that might be characterised as bullying by Mallard. Two particularly important ones were his treatment of senior public servant and whistleblower Erin Leigh, and former head of WINZ Christine Rankin.

In 2007 Erin Leigh accused the politician of destroying her reputation. She won her Supreme Court case against Mallard in 2011 – see this Dominion Post editorial from that time: Likeable larrikin becomes a bully.

The former head of WINZ, Christine Rankin, has spoken out in recent times about Mallard’s treatment of her, saying “He was a bully… They were all bullies and they revelled in it” – see Anna Bracewell-Worrall’s ‘He was a bully’: Christine Rankin accuses ‘crude’ Trevor Mallard of bullying. According to this article, Rankin “says ministers would whisper and laugh about her during meetings – with Mr Mallard using language that still makes her too uncomfortable to repeat.”

His targets also include the media – as the Speaker has a history of personally attacking commentators. He has no compunction in launching personal attacks against people in a manner that makes it hard for them to fight back – the hallmark of a bully.

Of course, the story has rapidly moved on today following Mallard’s shocking allegations this morning that a rapist has been working in the Parliamentary complex – see Derek Cheng’s Parliamentary staffer stood down after historic assault allegation. Mallard went on TV and radio this morning to talk about this, saying on RNZ’s Morning Report that “We’re talking about serious sexual assault. Well that, for me, that’s rape.”

Politicians and political parties are reeling and have demanded action. According to Stacey Kirk, National’s deputy leader Paula Bennett “has accused Speaker Trevor Mallard of ‘harbouring of a criminal’ and urged him to call in police” – see: Paula Bennett says police should be involved over Parliament rape allegation.

According to this article, “The National Party was taking it ‘really seriously’, said Bennett, but Mallard had a duty of care to any victims. Bennett said she had no idea who the potential perpetrator was. But people were now feeling unsafe, following Mallard’s comments, and Bennett said she was personally dealing with staff.”

Mallard also took the chance to lash out at Act Party MP David Seymour’s criticisms of Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman saying he is guilty of bullying behaviour that has crossed a line – see 1News’ Speaker Trevor Mallard says David Seymour bullied Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman.

Is Trevor Mallard also a biased Speaker?

In addition to being known for bullying, Mallard is increasing gaining a reputation for bias in his role running Parliament and the debating chamber. Of course, most Speakers get labelled as biased, but a consensus is emerging that Mallard is the worst in living memory. And some commentators worry that he is bringing the institution of Parliament into disrepute.

The Herald’s political editor, Audrey Young, has recently said that Mallard is both extremely good and bad: “I have covered Parliament under seven Speakers and Mallard is both the best and worst of Speakers rolled into one. When he’s good, he’s brilliant but on a bad day he is a House-wrecker” – see: Is it time for fresh challenges for Speaker Trevor Mallard?

Young says Mallard is at his worst “when he abuses the inherent power of the chair by insulting Opposition MPs and then punishes them for reacting under extreme provocation.” She suggests Jacinda Ardern should solve the problem by making him a Government Cabinet Minister in her upcoming reshuffle.

Similarly, in a column late last year, Young declared Mallard “has an inbuilt bias against National Party leader Simon Bridges and a soft spot for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern” – see: Bridges punishment was fair but Mallard’s intolerance is an ongoing problem.

Around the same time, Heather du Plessis-Allan gave her own evaluation: “Speaker of the House isn’t proving a career highlight. He’s been accused of bias towards Labour. And even worse, of trying to protect the Prime Minister. And, much as I like the guy, I have to admit he deserves the criticism” – see: Trevor Mallard is protecting Jacinda Ardern. She outlines the ways in which the Speaker has been biased towards his own side in Parliament, arguing however that this prejudice has actually backfired on the Government.

The most cutting criticisms of Mallard’s bias came in a recent blog post by former parliamentary colleague and opponent, Peter Dunne – see: Parliament’s resident bully boy. Dunne says “time and time again, he seems too quick to intervene to cut the Opposition short, to the benefit and delight of the Government. That is not as it should be.”

Dunne says that Mallard has taken on the role as protector of the Prime Minister: “Faced with a new government and a totally inexperienced Prime Minister he seems to have taken on the role of her protector in the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate, Question Time in particular. While his paternalistic approach towards the Prime Minister may be understandable in the circumstances, it is, at the same time, not only utterly patronising, but, worse, it is completely inappropriate and totally compromising of the presumed impartiality of the Speaker.”

Going with the analogy that the Speaker’s job is akin to that of a sports referee, Liam Hehir wrote earlier this month that “It is as if the referee, in his excitement, is occasionally catching the ball and kicking a drop goal. It’s not hard to see why the opposing team might feel aggrieved” – see: Parliament’s ref continues to drop the ball and it can’t continue.

Along with many others, Hehir points to the problem of Mallard not being able to make the transition from being one of the hardest Parliamentary brawlers to being in charge: “When he was appointed speaker, the hackneyed cliché of “poacher turned gamekeeper” got a good workout. But for the transition to be sincere, the poaching really needs to stop. It should not remain an occasional sideline.”

Also using a sporting metaphor, legal scholar Andrew Geddis wrote a useful blog post last year about Protecting the umpire, in which he examines the extent to which the Speaker can and can’t be criticised. He points out that Parliament could, in theory, decide to hold critics of Mallard to be in contempt, but in practice this would be highly unlikely to occur.

Nonetheless, the whole debate around Trevor Mallard’s fitness for the job has brought up some important debates about the role of the Speaker and how they are appointed. For the best discussion of this, see John Armstrong’s Mallard and National’s falling out exposes deep flaws in the way we select Parliament’s ‘referee’.

Armstrong argues that the spats from last year have “exposed a yawning gap in the fabric of New Zealand’s democracy. Quite simply, the current procedure employed to select one of Parliament’s number to fill the role of Speaker is archaic, unfair and unacceptable in falling well short of meeting acceptable constitutional standards. In short, there is a drastic need for reform. The New Zealand Parliament needs to take a close look at how some of its overseas counterparts choose their Speaker and – perhaps of even more importance – the steps taken to bolster the independence of the holder of that office.”

But don’t expect reform of the Speaker’s role – or any other parliamentary procedure – any time soon, says Danyl Mclauchlan. He argues it’s not in the interest of the government and nor will it be in the interest of the next government – because they always benefit from the backward arrangements – see: How the Bennett vs Mallard standoff exposes a paradox at the heart of politics.

Finally, despite bullying and bias, the current Speaker is modernising Parliament in some ways, especially through the inclusion of dogs and babies in the buildings – see Lucy Bennett’s Speaker Trevor Mallard on a mission to humanise Parliament, and Wendyl Nissen’s Babies and the Beehive: Trevor Mallard’s big plans for a child-friendly Parliament.

The survey, from November last year, says that only 13 per cent of New Zealanders ‘would speak highly of Parliament’ and only 7 per cent ‘would speak highly of MPs’. Furthermore, only 27 per cent of the public say they trust Parliament. For plenty of other statistics about how poorly the country thinks of our foremost democratic institution, see: Survey of the New Zealand public.

The point is that the public generally has a very negative attitude to Parliament, being aware of the toxicity of how politics operates in this country. And today’s bullying report, authored by Debbie Francis, is only going to reinforce the belief that there is a major problem, particularly with MP behaviour.

The report emphasises this bad behaviour is a serious problem for democracy. It points out: “Many of those who contributed to this Review drew a direct link between the culture and behaviours within the parliamentary workplace and the healthy and productive functioning of New Zealand’s democracy during a time of great challenge.”

One parliamentary staff member is quoted about the lack of political leadership: “Never has there been a moment in history when we most needed our leaders to engage constructively on the existential and profoundly complex issues that threaten the planet – climate change, nativism and economic inequality being just a few.” You can read the whole report here: Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace.

Overall, a particularly ugly picture is painted, and this is best reported on by Andrea Vance – the journalist who has followed this topic more closely than any other – see: Parliament a toxic workplace with systematic bullying problem – Francis Review. She reports, “Parliament is a toxic workplace with a systematic bullying and harassment problem, a sweeping new review has confirmed.”

MPs come out of the report very badly. For example, the review reports the view of staff that MPs are “treated like gods” with a “master servant relationship”. Debbie Francis “described hearing about unreasonably aggressive behaviour, language or gestures, that staff found intimidating and threatening. There was frequent shouting, abusive calls or texts, character assassination – like one staffer who was ‘constantly’ told they were stupid.”

Lucy Bennett has also summed up some of the statistics from the report describing the life of parliamentary staff: “Of the more than 1000 respondents, 29 per cent had experienced some form of bullying or harassment from either an MP or a manager, 30 per cent from peers and 24 per cent from a member of the public. Some 56 per cent had experienced destructive gossip, 47 per cent demeaning language, 53 per cent a lack of co-operation and support and 41 per cent aggressive behaviour” – see: Francis review into harmful behaviour in Parliament released.

There was a particularly gendered nature to a lot of the harassment. Bennett reports: “Sexist behaviour was prevalent, Francis found, with 60 per cent of those interviewed saying they had experienced offensive remarks, comments, jokes and gestures that were sexist. Some 35 per cent had experienced the same but of a sexual nature. The report also said that sexual harassment and sexual violence were likely to be under-reported.”

There are plenty of examples in the report of bad behaviour by politicians. For example, Anna Whyte reports the view of one staffer: “This workplace is so ridiculously demanding that only 24-year-olds and older people can survive in here and then only with self-medication. Anyone sane or with a family just gets out” – see: Bullying and harassment widespread in Parliament, report finds.

Of course, it’s hard to know how representative such examples are. But Whyte also quotes Debbie Francis saying she was not “cherry picking stories about a bad day or an off-coloured joke.” Instead, there was a clear picture “of a small number of Members whose behaviours fall well outside the normal range to be expected in a workplace”.

A number of MPs are apparently identified – but not named – in the report as being particularly toxic to work with. These MPs are apparently well-known within Parliament, with one staffer saying: “Everyone will give you the same list. It’s well known but there’s a conspiracy of silence about these few.” Likewise, another staffer said: “The few who are various shades of shits… and everybody knows who they are, and no-one every challenges them… at least obviously or effectively.”

All political parties and all MPs will now be looked at with suspicion. “How well do you treat your staff?” might very well be asked of all MPs. This report certainly doesn’t give clearance to any MPs, but instead says that some of them are very bad. Which ones will now be speculated on.

The staff involved have also been given anonymity in the report. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t going to see any current or former parliamentary staff standing up publicly to condemn behaviours or even particular politicians or parties.

On Twitter, a number of former staffers have posted to give their support for the report – for example, two former Green Party workers. Jack McDonald (@tautokai) has tweeted: “As a former parliamentary staffer for four years and my team’s staff rep on our management committee, this absolutely aligns with my experiences. Parliament is a toxic place for staffers to work and I’m so glad to no longer be there.”

And Asher Wilson-Goldman (@AsherGoldman): “As a former parliamentary staffer and union delegate for parliamentary staff (though I left just before the scope of this review began) I’m really glad this stuff is out in the open now. Looking forward to reading the recommendations.”

Finally, one of the most interesting commentaries on the report comes from blogger No Right Turn, who is particularly unimpressed that the badly-behaving MPs are not being outed: “The report of course refuses to name those MPs, meaning that the independent reviewer is effectively part of this conspiracy of silence as well. Which is not acceptable. Naming names is the first step towards accountability, and that needs to happen if anything is to change” – see: A toxic workplace.

And he has a theory about what might be contributing to the toxic nature of parliamentary working conditions: “it’s worth noting that both of the publicly-identified parliamentary bullies (Jami-Lee Ross and Meka Whaitiri) previously served as member-support staff, meaning their bullying behaviour may have been institutionalised into them. Its rather like intergenerational child-abuse: today’s abusive MP’s were normalised to abusive habits by their past exposure to a toxic, abusive institution.”

by Dr Bryce Edwards

The bad behaviour of New Zealand politicians has been a major focus of this year in politics. Actually, this has been happening throughout the world recently, as the growing mood against elites and sexual harassment has led to a refreshing openness and scrutiny of what goes on behind the scenes in places of power.

2019 might well see further revelations about politicians’ wrongdoing, especially because of the newly-launched parliamentary inquiry into the treatment of staff by politicians. Parliament’s Speaker, Trevor Mallard, has essentially given the green light for allegations about misbehaving politicians to be brought out into the open, via his official “Bullying inquiry”. The inquiry will be led by Debbie Francis, an independent external reviewer who has recently completed work on bullying and harassment at the NZ Defence Force.

Will the review be effective or a whitewash?

Will complainants confine themselves to using the official channels of what is an inquiry with a relatively narrow ambit and very limited ability to research and achieve much? Already, former parliamentary staff are choosing to go outside of the review, using the media to make their complaints public – see Kirsty Johnston and Derek Cheng’s Herald article from the weekend: Former staff accuse National MP Maggie Barry of bullying.

The Barry scandal may be the first of many revelations and allegations to come out about MPs in this fashion. Staffers are likely to see that Mallard’s review is relatively limited in scope and likely impact, and instead choose to go public. I explained some of the review’s shortcomings on The AM Show this morning – see: Simon Bridges bats off Maggie Barry allegations, says staff have a ‘spring in their step’.

Although Trevor Mallard has received plaudits for launching the review of behaviour in Parliament, really it was inevitable, considering some of the recent revelations about bullying in Parliament. It’s probably the least Mallard could do in this situation, without being accused of a cover-up. By front-footing the problem, but at the same time allocating few resources and setting such a limited scope, Mallard is likely hoping he has done just enough to assuage public concern.

Herald columnist Lizzie Marvelly has some similar concerns, arguing the inquiry needs more teeth: “While I support the spirit of the review, from the few details currently released to the public, I doubt it has been equipped with enough firepower to make a significant difference. It doesn’t have the power to subpoena documents, and will rely heavily on self-disclosure from affected staff. Most of the information gathered will never be released to either the public or Parliamentary Services” – see: What will spill out when the rug is lifted?

She also worries that the abilities and inclinations of the politicians to suppress negative information will kick in: “if MPs or senior staff members suspect that their conduct may be reported to the review, what lengths will they go to in order to suppress information? At this stage, within its current framework, the ability of the review to fulfil its brief and deliver the impetus for change raises more questions than it answers.”

There are also questions about whether the review is independent enough. Although Trevor Mallard has hired an independent investigator, it’s hard to imagine Debbie Francis will be really applying rigorous scrutiny to the Office of the Speaker. So, there’s an argument to made for having the investigation taken right out of the arena of the Speaker. After all, Mallard himself has something of a reputation as a bully, and so this review might be seen as being compromised by him.

For more on Mallard’s alleged bullying, see Anna Bracewell-Worrall’s ‘He was a bully’: Christine Rankin accuses ‘crude’ Trevor Mallard of bullying. In this, former head of WINZ, “Christine Rankin says she was subjected to a campaign of bullying from senior ministers who wanted her out – and that Speaker Trevor Mallard was among them”. Rankin makes some specific allegations against Mallard: “He was a bully… They were all bullies and they revelled in it.” According to this article, Rankin “says ministers would whisper and laugh about her during meetings – with Mr Mallard using language that still makes her too uncomfortable to repeat.”

Problems with employment arrangements in Parliament

The review will need to deal with some of the core issues about how Parliament operates – especially in terms of the peculiar employment arrangements of the staff that work for politicians. Although their bosses are in practice the MPs, legally they are actually employed by the two main agencies of the Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services.

This means that, quite often when there is a problem between an MP and employee, a payment is simply made to the employee to make the problem go away. The employee leaves with a payout, and the taxpayer pays for it, with no great consequences for the MP.

This is explained by Act Party leader David Seymour: “There is no other workplace in New Zealand where you can be a bad boss and get rid of somebody, no questions asked, and some other entity – in this case the Parliamentary Service – picks up the tab. I think that’s actually the biggest problem here” – see Derek Cheng’s Winston Peters has ‘no idea’ why bullying review into Parliament is taking place.

According to this article, Seymour believes that “that MPs could essentially treat their staff with impunity”. He therefore has a solution: “I, David Seymour, should be the employer of my staff, and then I can face the same employment laws that every other employer faces.”

National Party blogger David Farrar has also commented on this problem: “The Parliamentary Service is the employer and hence they pay for any costs of any employment disputes etc. There isn’t a huge financial incentive for MPs to avoid employment disputes. If you changed the arrangement so the parliamentary party or even the MP was the formal employer, then you could well end up with better incentives as if you have to pay out a dissatisfied staff members say $15,000 that is $15,000 less money you have for newsletters etc” – see: Maggie Barry accusations.

A further problem is that the parliamentary employment agencies have a reputation for being totally subservient to the MPs, which makes the staff even more vulnerable. One former staffer is quoted by Henry Cooke saying: “When you would go to Ministerial Services they very much had the attitude of ‘Yes, Minister’ ‘Whatever the minster wants the minister gets. They didn’t give a s….'” – see Henry Cooke’s Is Parliament a safe place to work? MPs and Speaker disagree.

This is best illustrated by Melanie Reid and Cass Mason’s important article, Bullied at Parliament – and nobody helped. This tells the story “of one woman who says she received no support when she was bullied by Jami-Lee Ross.”

This account suggests that the Parliamentary Service was aware of bullying against staff of Jami-Lee Ross, but did little to help them, instead just suggesting they resign. According to the staff member working for Ross, the Parliamentary Service staff “would just say ‘Look, you’re the one in the wrong here. You’ve been given a great opportunity by giving you a job … [Ross] has done so much for you and this is how you repay him?” The staff member now says this about the Parliamentary Service: “I wish that they would realise how crazy they were for defending Jami-Lee for everything he did.”

Just how toxic is Parliament?

Already this year, there have been major scandals around allegations of bullying and misbehaviour relating to Meka Whaitiri and Jami-Lee Ross, and so it’s not surprising that people are starting to ask questions about standards in Parliament and whether these scandals are indicative of the political working environment.

Obviously Trevor Mallard thinks things are bad enough to have this inquiry, and in launching it he’s exclaimed that “Incidents have occurred over many years in this building that are unacceptable” and “I wouldn’t recommend my kids work there”. Some other MPs agree – Kris Faafoi says that he had “seen some things I probably wouldn’t want to see”.

But Shane Jones says “In my experience it has been a relatively benign place to work”. And his own boss, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, has replied to questions from the media like this: “The only person who has been seriously bullied around this place is one Winston Peters by people like you”.

Henry Cooke also has another very good article that explains the new review, its limitations, and the unique employment relations of staff – see: Extensive review into bullying and harassment at Parliament. He reports on Mallard’s observations “that reviews into law firms have inspired the review, as they were somewhat similar workplaces with entrenched hierarchies, long hours, and a powerful ‘bubble’.” It is also noted that “Parliament is often a very stressful workplace, with intense public scrutiny, party loyalty, many deadlines, and a culture of long hours.”

Lizzy Marvelly’s column is also very good on this: “I would argue that politicians are an interesting breed, and having so many of them in one place, variously vying for power, advocating for passion projects, feathering their own nests and/or trying to save the world, is a recipe for fireworks. In a game in which fortunes can change with the gusty Wellington wind, it’s not difficult to imagine that such a charged environment might drive some rather heated workplace relations. It should surprise exactly no one that bullying and improper conduct takes place at Parliament. I would even venture that it may be worse than many other workplaces.”

Finally, one of the people who knows the culture of Parliament best is the AM Show’s Duncan Garner, who shared his own experiences last week: “I’d worked in Parliament for 17 years, and I’d become like them: mean, combative, cynical and I drank too much. I had to get out” – see: Parliament review will reveal drinking, cheating, sexual abuse, bullying – Duncan Garner.

Garner concludes with what he expects: “Parliament could be a bomb site by the end of this inquiry. You see that place rewards the winner and the loser is humiliated. The more public the humiliation then job done… I expect this review to highlight the total power imbalance between the worker and the MP, the drinking, the relationships, the Wellington wife, the sex, wanted and unwanted, the daily humiliation of the weak and of the wrong.”