KEY POINTS:
To understand Trevor Mallard requires that you first realise there are two Trevor Mallards.
There is the one whose sharp political instincts make this seasoned operator one of Labour's most valued and trusted sources of political advice. Then there is the other Trevor Mallard, the one with rushes of blood to the head who says or does something even though he is fully cognisant that he is going to regret it.
This walking contradiction may explain why Mallard, one of Labour's most shrewd, competent and hard-working ministers, has made the political mess surrounding staff appointments and the awarding of contracts at the Ministry for the Environment even messier.
When the political chips are down, Mallard finds it difficult to remain a bystander.
That is cold comfort for Labour. With Mallard picking up the Environment portfolio in October's Cabinet reshuffle after his demotion for his fisticuffs with Tau Henare, Labour should have been able to rely on him keeping his head down and concentrating on fixing the Environment Ministry's more obvious shortcomings.
But Mallard had been in the job for barely three weeks before he launched a typical boots-and-all attack on the credibility of Erin Leigh, the woman who had sought to blow the whistle on the ministry's awarding of a communications contract to Labour Party activist Clare Curran.
A former contract worker for the ministry, Leigh claimed Curran's appointment amounted to political interference by David Parker, the Climate Change Minister, who, according to Leigh, wanted Curran in the ministry's communications role to push his political agenda.
This was a very heavy allegation to make. Mallard would have assessed it made Leigh fair game politically. He retaliated accordingly. Adopting the old tactic of shooting the messenger, Mallard used advice provided by his ministry to question Leigh's competence as a communications consultant.
He said Leigh had had "repeated competence issues". He said she had been forced to make six attempts to fix up a piece of work after complaints from senior officials from various government departments.
Mallard was counselled not to go down this path as there was little benefit for Labour in being seen to heavy a defenceless former government worker. Mallard may now wish he hadn't.
The rug was pulled from under him this week by no less a figure than Hugh Logan, his ministry's chief executive.
For reasons that the Beehive is finding hard to fathom, Logan apologised to Leigh because the briefing note on which Mallard had based his attack on her had been interpreted in an "adverse way" by the minister.
Mallard is refusing to add his name to Logan's apology.
Publicly, he is only saying he will not be commenting until the State Services Commission has completed its investigation into the Curran appointment.
Privately, the Beehive is asking what exactly is Mallard supposed to be apologising for. The advice was clear. It was not open to misinterpretation.
However, the internal focus on the minister and his obviously dysfunctional relationship with his departmental chief executive misses the bigger picture. All the public sees is an increasingly unpopular Cabinet minister who seems to have learned nothing from his scrap with Henare and who picks on a citizen who thought she was doing the right thing by raising her concerns about what was happening in her former workplace.
There can only be one loser from this. Mallard should have cut his losses. He should have acknowledged the error. He could have blamed the ministry. He did not even have to utter the word "apology", although it would have looked better if he had.
Perhaps most astonishing of all, Mallard has followed National's preferred script almost to the word.
The Opposition can hardly believe its good fortune. It has been trying to paint the Government as arrogant, bullying and out of touch. Along comes Mallard who obligingly displays those very characteristics.
Mallard's less impetuous side may be back in charge, but just where his head is right now is difficult to assess, such is the impact of the fallout from that punch.
While Mallard was punished, he would have been even more severe on himself for his lapse.
Loaded on top of the self-criticism was this week's public humiliation of standing in the dock in the Wellington District Court - the pictures of which are the abiding political image of 2007. And certainly the most damaging. And not just for Mallard.
Those pictures of Mallard in court - he faces a private prosecution for alleged assault of Henare - were the latter day equivalent of someone being stuck in the medieval stocks
Mallard seems to have taken it all very hard. He looks like a haunted man. There is only so much a politician can take. Being forced to make an apology he did not think was justified may have been too much to stomach after Monday's court appearance.
Moreover, having made one apology and still ending up in court, Mallard may be loath to make another.
Mallard will also feel he has been badly let down by Logan, who blindsided him with Wednesday's apology.
Just what prompted it remains unclear. It might have been an attempt by the ministry to pre-empt any defamation action by Leigh. It could conceivably have been ordered by the State Services Commission for the same reason.
The timing certainly caught the much-vaunted Beehive spin machine off-guard.
It was not until the following day that some explanation began to emerge why Mallard felt he did not need to follow Logan's example even though he was the one who had actually criticised Leigh in public.
Mallard's questioning of Leigh's competence is understood to have gone beyond what the ministry said in its briefing note, the contents of which were the subject of Logan's apology. However, it is now being said Mallard's comments in Parliament were based on oral advice he received in a separate briefing by ministry officials. The word is officials dumped on Leigh, raising the concerns apparently expressed about her ability to co-ordinate the government agencies contributing to the communications strategy for Labour's keynote climate change policy.
The trouble is there is no way of knowing until the State Services Commission reports - and perhaps not even then - whether all this stacks up. Or whether it is simply convenient Beehive spin to get Mallard off the hook.
One question immediately springs to mind: why didn't Logan also apologise for the oral advice, presuming he was aware of what his officials would be telling Mallard.
There is another, more disturbing question: why was the ministry trawling through its files for what Logan says was "information" on Leigh's work and her departure at the request of Mallard's office when the parliamentary questions put up by National made no reference to her employment record?
The plain fact is that Mallard used the cover of parliamentary privilege to discredit Leigh and punish her for having the temerity to speak out.
The Prime Minister is standing by him out of loyalty and because she does not want to lose him. But something has to give. Voters are no longer willing to put up with the two Mallards.
