Trevor Mallard is both the best and worst of Speakers rolled into one. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Trevor Mallard is both the best and worst of Speakers rolled into one. Photo / Mark Mitchell
COMMENT
It is just as well there is a parliamentary recess next week.
It will give some much needed time-out for Speaker Trevor Mallard and the National Party.
Mallard's performance as Speaker this week has not done the Government any favours.
He is seen as simply part of the Governmentand the Government is seen to be throwing out National MPs - leader Simon Bridges and Nick Smith - from Parliament.
It has been so bad, that if Ardern is casting around for a capable minister to add to her ranks for the June reshuffle, maybe she should consider bringing Mallard back into the ministry.
Mallard was one of the most highly valued and competent ministers in the Helen Clark Government.
If he became a minister again, he would immediately be among similar ranks in Ardern's Cabinet.
He only ended up as Speaker as a survival tactic. Labour spent so much time in Opposition that by the third term, Mallard needed to reinvent himself in a new role.
The pressures of "rejuvenation" in the ranks became so strong that experienced operators like Mallard, Phil Goff and Ruth Dyson were less valued in senior roles.
He went list-only. Were it not for Ardern's popularity suddenly inflating Labour's party vote during the campaign, Mallard's list ranking meant he was going to be toast.
He not only survived but he became the only Speaker in recent memory to have actively sought out the role. It means he spent more time thinking about what sort of Speaker he wanted to be and came to the role with more fixed ideas.
He wanted better questions from the Opposition, better answers from ministers, better behaviour generally from MPs and a better flow.
He wanted to emulate Sir Kerry Burke, who never threw anyone out of the House under his watch.
Deputy Speaker and National MP Anne Tolley spoiled that record when she threw out Winston Peters one night last year and – in probably not unrelated timing - Mallard threw out Simon Bridges the following week.
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.
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.
First the best: On a good day (and there have been two out of the past six sitting days),
Questions Time can be brilliant. Because of rules Mallard instituted, the flow of questions and answers is seamless and his intervention is evident only when he insists that a minister give a fuller answer.
Mallard does not always wait for a National MP to object to an inadequate answer. He can and does step in on his own judgment. He listens to questions and answers very carefully. He does not give diatribes when explaining why he has made a decision.
With oversight over written parliamentary questions, he has also demanded a better standard from ministers and twice this year has awarded National an extra 12 questions because of sloppy written answers from ministers Shane Jones and David Clark.
He has shown a willingness to adjust at times. For example, he appears to have dropped the egregious practice of taking questions away from National – for what were often minor infringements of standing orders.
That practice for 14 months poisoned the relationship with National. It has been much better this year, until recently.
Mallard at his worst is when he abuses the inherent power of the chair by insulting Opposition MPs and then punishes them for reacting under extreme provocation.
That is how Simon Bridges came to be kicked out. Bridges was kicked out for calling Mallard "unprofessional".
Under Parliament's rules, it was not an unfair punishment. But Bridges was right: Mallard had been unprofessional.
Illustration / Guy Body
What is happening is that Mallard is giving himself licence to insult MPs but as soon as they bite back, they are punished. Speaker and ordinary MP will always be an unequal relationship but Mallard is abusing it.
Mallard insulted Bridges several times on Tuesday, demanding he show "leadership" at a time when he knew Bridges was facing leadership pressure from some quarters of his caucus. The apparent intention was to humiliate Bridges.
He also characterised a moan by Bridges at an answer as a barnyard-like noise - it was an audible response not unlike the thousands that are made on both sides of House day in and day out. Mallard simply has less tolerance of some MPs' utterances than others.
However, Mallard was at his absolute worst this week when he refused to put leave on behalf of Nick Smith to give priority to a bill next members' day that provided roadside drug testing of drivers.
Smith wanted to know why and Mallard said that he himself had objected. That is unprecedented for the so-called umpire. When Smith objected, not unfairly, Mallard ordered him to leave the House.
When Smith abused Mallard on the way out ("soft on drugs, like the Government") Mallard ordered him back in and named him, suspending him from all parliamentary proceedings for a day and docking his pay.
Again, on its own, the abuse hurled at Mallard by Smith warranted serious punishment but Mallard's refusal to put the leave was extreme provocation and an abuse of his position.
Mallard slightly adjusted his own behaviour the next day when another MP, Alistair Scott, sought the same leave for the same bill. This time, Mallard put the leave but before any Government MP had time to open their mouths to object, Mallard offered his own "No".
The case was more complicated because the issue on which Smith was questioning Police Minister Stuart Nash involved a petitioner who was in the public gallery and whose son had been killed by a drugged driver.
Smith was demanding an apology to her from Nash for saying four months ago that a policy document on drug driving was imminent when it had not been published.
It was like those times that the hallowed atmosphere of a courtroom is invaded by the reality of victim impact statements.
Smith was demanding accountability for something Nash had promised, albeit with the rawness of a grieving mother present, on a pressing issue.
It was uncomfortable for Nash but he handled himself perfectly well. He did not need the Speaker's protection or misjudgments.
