KEY POINTS:
So why not say you're sorry, Mr Mallard? The Minister for the Environment should have issued a unqualified apology for wrongly maligning whistle-blower Erin Leigh the instant he was given the highly embarrassing news yesterday that his questioning of her competence had been based on inappropriate advice from his ministry.
It is basic politics. He should have apologised out of fairness to Ms Leigh, the woman who went public with claims Labour activist Clare Curran had been foisted on the Ministry for the Environment by Mr Mallard's Cabinet colleague, David Parker, so that Labour could use ministry resources to push its political agenda on climate change.
Mr Mallard should have apologised to set the record straight in Parliament and avoid a potential breach of privilege case. He should have done so to silence the National Party. And he should have done so for his own sake.
That he has not done so - and that his Beehive colleagues are not insisting he do so - suggests he and they have lost grip of their senses.
Following his court appearance on Monday relating to a private prosecution against him for alleged assault of National's Tau Henare, Mr Mallard might have thought things could not get any worse. But they did yesterday.
Mr Mallard is coated in embarrassment because his ministry produced a briefing note that it now admits was not intended to reflect on Ms Leigh's professional ability.
However, he is as much to blame for the mess as the ministry. He chose - apparently against the advice of the Prime Minister's office - to use the briefing note to question her competence when he faced questions in Parliament two weeks ago. That simply inflamed things when Labour needed to dowse them.
Hugh Logan, the ministry's chief executive, has apologised - for the third time in almost as many weeks. He has taken responsibility for this latest fiasco in the unfolding series of events surrounding the hiring of Clare Curran and the sacking of Madeleine Setchell.
Mr Logan has already been given a telling-off by his employer, the State Services Commission, for his handling of the Setchell case. He has already had to apologise for a separate occurrence of the ministry giving Mr Mallard wrong information which the minister then used in Parliament. Even allowing for the commission's caution, it is difficult to see how Mr Logan can hang on to his job after the latest embarrassment of his minister.
Mr Logan might be on the way out. Mr Mallard might go the same way if he is not careful.
As a minimum, he needs to set the record straight in Parliament. He did so when previously supplied with wrong information. What is so different this time?
His unwillingness to say "sorry" may reflect advice that he concede nothing in case Ms Leigh seeks damages for defamation. But the ministry has already admitted fault by saying the briefing note could be interpreted in an adverse way.
Mr Mallard might be looking for a way out of politics. That analysis might be completely wrong. But his behaviour has more than a touch of the political death-wish about it - his refusal to apologise seemingly just another example of that syndrome.
