There’s been a fair bit of talkback this afternoon on the whopping payment Trevor Mallard has had to make for falsely accusing a man of rape. 

We’ve learned this afternoon that the bill is $333,000.   

$158,000 went to the man he labeled a rapist to settle the case and then 175,000 in legal fees.

The reason we know this today is because – despite Mallard appearing to try to bury this story earlier this week - National has asked written parliamentary questions and uncovered the information.  

This is already an awful situation, to have the Speaker accusing an innocent man of rape, then appearing to try to bury it, and then hiding behind a gag agreement when he himself in the past criticised other public servants using gag orders.  But what makes this worse is that the rules were changed so that we, the taxpayers, covered Mallard’s bills. 

It used to be that taxpayers did not pay the Speaker’s legal bills in cases like this, but after he accused the man of rape wrongly, the rules were reportedly changed so that we would end up paying his bills 

National says it has lost confidence in the Speaker, which is to say, he needs to go.

I agree, for two reasons:  

First… Trevor Mallard demeans the office of Speaker, he should never have been appointed.

This is the 3^rd most powerful position in the country.  It should be filled by someone who is at least a little bit statemanslike, has control of their own temperament and is respected by their colleagues 

• Mallard's false rape claim costs taxpayers $333,000 - National
• Barry Soper: Trevor Mallard should resign for his disgraceful behaviour
• Barry Soper: How can Labour preach kindness, yet support Trevor Mallard?
• 'He needs to go' - Judith Collins on under-fire Trevor Mallard
• David Seymour condemns Trevor Mallard for wrongly calling staff member a rapist

Mallard is none of this. He is frequently labeled a bully. He has a history of losing his cool, remember the punch up with Tau Henare, he is widely disliked within Parliament and has been labelled by at least one veteran and well-considered commentator to be biased in the debating chamber.  

He has used his power against a powerless man who did nothing close to what he was accused of.  

Second, for political reasons, Labour might want to consider getting rid of him. 

He is tribal Labour and is said to be a close confidant of the Prime Minister.  Unlike other Speakers, he hasn’t managed to yet gain the perception of neutrality.  That means that his behaviour continues to reflect on Labour.  And it reflects badly.

National will continuously target him next year if they’re smart.  He is now a liability to Labour. 

They’ should move him into retirement. 

It’d be the best thing for Labour, and for the rest of us.  It is hard to respect mallard in the role of Speaker.