Annual Review Debate — Speaker

Members, we turn now to the annual review debate for the Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, I just wanted to set the scene for the annual reviews that we’ve just had. I acknowledge the committee. I would particularly like to acknowledge Nicola Grigg, who spent as much time being subbed out as she has joining us as we replace various spokespeople for the entities that we did the annual reviews for.

Just for the information of the public who are listening tonight, we had a number of entities. We had the Public Service Commission. We had the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Internal Affairs; Stats New Zealand; Fire and Emergency New Zealand; National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), who do the national emergency; the Office of Film and Literature Classification; the Office of the Ombudsman; the Office of the Clerk; and the office of Parliamentary Service.

Just a couple of things that I would note is that during the year of COVID-19, a number of those departments, including those here operating in Parliament, found some new ways of operating, because we certainly had to change a lot of our systems. I remember the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet talking about how in World War II, it took a whole year to actually set up the systems and processes that would allow the variance in the House to take place. So I actually note that we had to move much more quickly this time.

I will note that Stats are hoping for plenty of improvement in the next census. Fire and Emergency is in transition. I particularly wanted to note NEMA, who are a very brand new organisation, and given that they’re very new themselves, they have undertaken a huge amount of change in an organisation that’s barely set up. So I particularly would like to note them.

Of course, the Clerks and the people who work in the Parliamentary Service are the people we see every day around this building, in the Chamber, and in our select committees and elsewhere. So I just want to thank those who participated and the committee for being part of this process.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wish to start by acknowledging the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Barbara Kuriger. My experience of Barbara is that she is an honest and decent person and she does a very good job as chair of this committee. In 2008, the Minister in the chair, in his role as Speaker, announced an independent review into bullying and harassment at Parliament in 2018. In my view, that was long overdue. It sought to address the long history in this place of bullying and harassment, and it’s my view that the Minister should be commended for that.

The review sought to establish formally whether bullying and harassment had occurred and, if it had, the nature and extent of this towards staff employed or engaged since the 51st Parliament; review how previous complaints had been handled; whether policies, procedures, and related controls are effective, how they compare to best practice in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; and whether there are barriers to reporting or making complaints. It sought to assess the culture of Parliament as a place to work, and allow for consideration of other matters brought up in the review.

When the Minister came before the committee, it was revealed that the review made 85 recommendations—85 recommendations—on how to address bullying and harassment in Parliament. That’s extraordinary. But he also advised that 29 had been implemented by the end of 2019/20. A further nine were completed between June and November 2020. We heard that 31 other recommendations are in place or being implemented. Despite this progress, it was acknowledged that more work needed to be done.

During their presentation, one area in which I was pleased to see some progress was around employment relations here at Parliament. The breakdown clause where members of staff could be removed at the discretion of a member of Parliament no longer exists. I think that should be celebrated. When the bill that brought this upon Parliament, the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill was discussed in this House, it was disappointing to me, as the member sponsoring the bill, that this bill was not supported across the House. But I hope now, upon reflection, that members will see that all staff, regardless of whether they are in a triangular employment arrangement or a general employment arrangement, should have provisions to the right of a personal grievance. I’m pleased to see that that is the case now for Parliamentary Service employees.

The question I have for the Speaker is in reference to his comment of more work to do. Could he please outline to the House what areas he believes still need work, in terms of addressing bullying and harassment at Parliament, and whether he believes that they will be completed by the end of this year?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We had a good hearing of the Parliamentary Service annual review, but we canvassed very serious matters to do with the conduct of the Speaker, and I want to ask two particular questions at the start of this exchange to the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Service. In relation to the Francis Review and the publicly reported comments that have led to an ex gratia payment to a former employee of the Parliamentary Service, when did he find out that what he said was wrong, and who told him what he’d said was wrong, and why, thirdly—to start things off—he then told his lawyers to tell the plaintiff that he intended to plead truth in the defamation claim lodged by the plaintiff?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to add to the list of questions that Mr Speaker, the Minister in charge of the Parliamentary Service, could answer, and it relates to information, evidence provided by the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service in the second hearing of the Governance and Administration Committee on 10 March. The line of questioning sought to understand what the Speaker knew about the case in question. I asked Mr Gonzalez-Montero, “Between [the time you became the] CEO and the day you decided to reopen the investigation, did you have any conversation with Mr Speaker about the case?” The answer from the chief executive was, “Yeah. I mentioned to the Speaker that there was something happening … that I had become aware of [that] and … I would … be thinking about reopening an investigation. Yes, I did.”

My question to the Minister is: on what date, with the best information available, did that briefing on a no-surprises basis take place? Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Michael Woodhouse.

It seems that we’re going to be piling up some of the questions. So I’ll add to that, because one of the absolute privileges of this place, and, actually, of any court, is that members are free to express themselves in a manner that protects them more than if they say things outside this House. But that protection comes with a condition, a very serious condition, and that is that the comments that are made to a select committee or this Chamber need to be the truth or, at least, the person’s honest belief in the truth.

I have a problem with what appears to be an inconsistency between comments made by Mr Speaker in the hearing of the Governance and Administration Committee on 16 December regarding the knowledge that the Speaker had of the case before the committee, that of the suspension and subsequent dismissal of an individual who worked in this place. Under questioning by me, where I put to the Speaker that clearly he knew more about the case than he as the Minister in charge of the Parliamentary Service was entitled to know. Mr Speaker rejected that; didn’t really attempt to refute it. But that is in direct conflict with two things, in my view, and an explanation from the Minister would be helpful.

In the three interviews he gave on the morning of the day in which the individual was suspended from Parliament, I think it was 19 May, the Speaker said three times—firstly, to Ms Ferguson on Radio New Zealand, “I want to make it clear that I don’t know that this is an MP, and if it is not an MP, then it will be a Parliamentary Service or Office of the Clerk staff member.”; to Mr Garner, on The AM Show, “I don’t know whether the person is a member or a staffer, a current or former employee.”; and to Mr Campbell on TVNZ Breakfast, in answer to a question, “Do you know enough to be able to tell me whether it’s an MP or a staffer?”, the answer, “No, I don’t.” I find that difficult to reconcile with the information that Mr Gonzalez-Montero gave to the select committee subsequently that he had briefed the Speaker, on a no-surprises basis, about the case in question and that it could be, without doubt, the same case, and, therefore, what the Speaker said to the media was not consistent with the information the select committee got. I think the committee of the whole House is entitled to an explanation about how these two wildly different realties can both be true at the same time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to add some further questions for the Minister the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard’s consideration and the House’s ventilation of the issues in relation to the court case that didn’t go to trial but that was a live issue throughout most of 2020. We know that these issues and proceedings we are talking about date to May 2019. Later on that year, there was the filing of a statement of claim by the plaintiff to the Speaker, the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Service, and there was an exchange of letters between counsel for both parties—pre-trial skirmishing, I think you would say. I want to ask the Minister, in particular, why his lawyers told the plaintiff that he would defend the case vigorously and why his lawyers said that his reputation would be at the centrepiece of the trial, and I want to know why he did that in the context of what we now know to be true, or what we now accept as the truth, which is that the Minister knew within 24 hours that what he’d said was wrong. It’s worth recalling that’s what we were told in the Governance and Administration Committee hearing in relation to the annual review of the Parliamentary Service: that the Speaker, who came on his own volition to tell us in response to a question from me, knew within 24 hours that he’d made a mistake.

So the question that obviously follows from that is if the Speaker knew he’d made a mistake within 24 hours—a number of questions follow from that. Firstly, why he didn’t apologise straight away and admit that he’d made a mistake—because it’s worth recalling this has ended up costing the taxpayer $340,000, and rising, and we need to know why there wasn’t an immediate admission of wrongdoing. Why, when the plaintiff wrote to him, or his lawyers, and said, “I’d like an apology and a retraction and a commitment to not say it again,” that was not met with immediate acceptance. Again, bearing in mind he knew immediately or nearly immediately he’d made a mistake, why was that not met with acceptance? Why was that rejected?

Not only was that rejected, the defendant in this case, the Minister, wrote and said, “If the case proceeds, I will plead truth,” which, as any defamation experts watching will know, means, actually, at trial, the defendant will lead evidence to prove that what he said—and in relation to this it’s about rape—was correct and true. I say again, let’s bear in mind that the defendant knew within 24 hours. So why, then, was there an exchange of legal letters in which the defendant intended to prove truth, knowing it was wrong? Because that’s the point: knowing it was wrong, there was an exchange of letters in which the defendant said he would prove truth. Why did he say he would do so vigorously, and put the reputation of the plaintiff at trial?

This whole issue turns, I believe, on the timing of the knowledge of wrongdoing by the Speaker. He told us in committee he knew he’d made a mistake within 24 hours, and the question for the Minister is why he then did not clean up the matter immediately, and instead spent 18 months fighting a legal battle that has ended up costing the taxpayer over $340,000—and rising.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start off this debate, before we get on to some of the issues which are clearly more focused, by thanking David Wilson, the Clerk of the House, and Rafael Gonzalez-Montero for the work that they have done in building organisations that I think serve this place very well. They don’t get credit in the way they should; their teams don’t get credit in the way they should. And I think the way that change has occurred after the election contrasted with the way things happened after the previous election, we were not perfect, but a lot closer to it, and the way that this place was able to operate during the COVID emergency was something which was pretty special and actually world-leading, as far as democratic institutions are concerned. I do want to say thank you to them for that.

I want to say it’s good to be here in this Chamber and have the ability to debate. It takes, I think, someone pretty special to make a totally out-of-order debate during a general debate, someone with a different set of values and a different moral compass, to make a set of allegations in an out-of-order way in a general debate, when the person who is being attacked has no ability to reply. I say it is good to be here and have the ability to discuss these issues.

💬 Chris Bishop: You could have come to the committee.

The member says I could have come to the committee. I asked for that committee to come forward—I asked for the committee to come forward. I changed the time of the committee because Mr Bishop wasn’t prepared to come in the morning because he had something more important to do. We changed the time to suit him. We extended the committee—we extended the committee before Christmas. Why did we extend it? Because the National Party asked. We had Pacific speakers around the Pacific waiting on a Zoom call because Mr Bishop wanted the committee to extend. For him to say that I didn’t attend the committee is just untrue—just untrue—and that member, I think, needs to settle down; settle down a little bit, and we’ll get on with it.

I have apologised for a mistake which I made. I shook the man’s hand in September. The paperwork was completed in December. But my mistake doesn’t erase the fact that there were serious allegations from staff members that had to be taken seriously. I have a duty of care to make sure that staff are safe. I believe in taking a victim-centred approach, and I want to be really careful about causing further distress for the three or more women who have suffered serious sexual assaults as a result of working here. I just say that not listening to the general manager when he pleaded for those women, when he told the committee the pressure that they were under—every time this was raised by the Opposition is something which I very much regret.

The Francis Review is something which was very important. It highlighted some culture issues here, and since that time, what we’ve done is have, within this Parliament, a group of people who have worked really hard to make it better. Now, I want to acknowledge the chair of the committee, both chairs, actually—the chair of this committee and the other committee—for the work that they’ve done. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley for the work that she has done, because the work that she has done will make a difference long term.

I want to thank Paula Bennett for the work that she did in championing women who had been sexually assaulted. I didn’t always agree with her, and I don’t think she always got it right, but she was there for those women, and that’s something which I think is very, very important. But some people are working on making this place feel safe, and then there are others.

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

The member might think that’s funny. The member might think that serious sexual assault and not supporting the victims of it is funny, but I don’t. Mr Bishop, this is not a school debating society; this is something where at least three—

💬 Chris Bishop: Answer the questions.

I will answer the questions. I’ve got all night to answer the questions, and I will, but what I’m going to do is lay out some context, and say that his ongoing behaviour has caused distress to a number of women, and he’s been asked to stop and he hasn’t.

I believe the victims—I believe the victims. I believe, in the most important case, the one around which the court has been focused, the second internal investigation done by individuals who were not involved in the first investigation, who are not involved in the culture of cover-up that appears to be supported by members opposite, and I believe the police. Now, people have to make a choice. Do they believe the victim, the results of the independent internal investigation, and the police, or do they believe the person on which Mr Bishop relies? That’s a call to be made. It’s a value judgment—it’s a value judgment—and people have got to make a decision on who they support. But I start by standing with the victims of this.

I want to, as part of this, just make it absolutely clear that the investigation that was done first, under the old Parliamentary Service administration, was a disgrace—it was an absolute disgrace. The woman involved was put back to work with the man who sexually assaulted her. That was the decision of the previous administration. That is the sort of human resources approach that in my opinion belongs in the previous century, and quite a long way back there.

I want to go to some of the questions that members have asked. The member is right. I have indicated to him that I worked out within about 24 hours that there had been an association with an individual for whom it was inappropriate. Now, I do not agree with the characterisation that Mr Bishop has given that particular individual, and my comments, that it ruined a person’s life, that I caused the heartbreak and agony for the complainant. I don’t believe the stuff that he posted on Facebook about destroying a man’s life. That man’s life was destroyed when he sexually assaulted a woman. That’s what did it. And I want to reiterate, I will support the woman and what she said, I will support the investigation that found that he seriously assaulted her, and I will support the police—and I will support the police and their investigation and the results of that.

Going to the questions from Mr Woodhouse, the matter is relatively simple. There are actually, as far as that individual is concerned, two complainants and there are at least three separate incidents involving three separate women, and at least two perpetrators, of serious sexual assault.

Well, when we look back on this period—a tawdry, sordid period, in this Parliament led by this disgrace of a Speaker—I think we will look back with shame. That 10-minute contribution from the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service will be probably the thing that sinks him as the Speaker. Because I do not believe anyone watching the Parliament tonight could look at that display of petulance and contempt and hate for both me and Parliament, actually, and consider that he is appropriate to continue in the role.

Let’s be very clear about what’s just happened here: the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service has used privilege to show that the settlement he reached with the plaintiff is not worth the paper it’s written on, because the settlement that was reached last year and released to this Parliament apologises for what he said and the matter is settled. In fact, the Speaker came before—eventually came before—the Governance and Administration Committee and said that he intended to say no more about it. Well, what we now have, in May 2021, is the Speaker turning up at 8 o’clock at night and using privilege, parliamentary privilege—a sacred, a sacrosanct right—in order to re-litigate what happened in May 2019 or before. Let’s just be very clear about that. My challenge to the Minister in charge is say those words outside this Chamber, because what people watching need to know tonight is that he has privilege in this Chamber, and so do I, and we are protected from defamation law by what we say here. But he is not protected on the tiles of Parliament. He is not protected by what he says in the media if he repeats those comments. So my challenge to the Speaker is to go and say those words outside this House. I’m willing to say that he will not do that. And what does that say? Says it all.

So let’s be very clear about what’s happened. The Minister has used privilege to re-litigate what happened. And we’ve got a lot of stuff about, “I believe the police”—and, you know—“I believe the police and I believe the internal investigation and I believe the parliamentary process that we went through.” And he says don’t believe me. Well, all I’m doing is litigating the settlement that he agreed to. There was a settlement, and he told me in select committee that he knew within 24 hours that what he said was wrong. He said that he was going to be here all night and get to the questions that I asked. Well, we look forward to that because they were not addressed. The question of why, when he knew within 24 hours, he did not admit he was wrong and say so, was not addressed. The question of why legal letters went back and forward between the plaintiff and the defendant in which Mr Mallard said he would plead truth and prove that what he said was right about rape, that was not addressed. The question of why he said he would do it vigorously, and put the man’s reputation on the line, that was not addressed either. Those are critical issues because they go to judgment. Leave aside all of the defamatory stuff that the Minister just said in relation to me in particular, most of which was wrong—leave aside all of that—this is a very simple issue. He knew he was wrong but he fought for 18 months, at vast taxpayer expense, to fight it.

The reality is that’s what a bully does; that’s not what a Speaker of the Parliament does, particularly not a Speaker who’s meant to be overseeing Francis Review reforms into improving the culture of Parliament. And how can we have confidence, on this side of the House, in someone who does that at the same time as they’re meant to be improving the conduct of the Parliament? The reality is we can’t and we don’t.

For the several months that this saga has been going on, my colleagues and I—in particular, Mr Bishop and I—have been very, very careful not to engage in questioning comments or observations that would have the effect of re-victimising any victim in any of the cases that the Minister has outlined. While that is a fine line to walk, I think we have done that, because no one in this House thought that the Francis Review was not a good idea, however ironic it was that the biggest bully in this place was actually instigating it—that’s right, that being the Speaker—with a long track record, by his own admission, frankly, and one who, as he said in interviews, came into this place when there were still people who had fought in World War II and it was a different time and he acted in a different way, and he saw the error of those ways. I don’t want to do that now, but there are enough lawyers in this place and enough employers who know the importance of process, the right to be heard, and the right for the facts to be put on the table. That is what we have seen has been the failure here, and, frankly, with questions that still haven’t been answered, and a Speaker that said one thing in one forum and said another thing in another. The Minister shakes his head, but he still hasn’t explained to me when he was briefed by Mr Gonzalez-Montero about the case—the very case that I believe he knew was at the heart of the Francis Review. He knew because the chief executive told him.

Now, before the select committee on—oh, and I still want the answer to that date, by the way—16 December, when Mr Mallard came to the committee he said these words: “I want to start today by restating the apology made both personally and in writing to the plaintiff.” He goes on to say, “I apologise for saying the allegation associated with the individual amounted to rape, and that my understanding of the definition of rape at the time was incorrect”, and so on. He talked about the Speaker needing to be above reproach. I agree with that. Then tonight, he reaccuses the individual at the heart of this, that he seriously sexually assaulted a woman. Now, the lawyers can help me out here. What we’ve heard is he was forced to back down over an accusation of rape, but maintains the accusation of a serious sexual assault. That, to me, says that he does not believe the apology he gave either to the plaintiff or to the committee. They were false words.

He talked about the initial investigation being an absolute disgrace, but that was the investigation that enabled both parties to be heard, that brought in the Parliamentary Service legal counsel and the Public Service Association (PSA), and that on the balance of the evidence decided that the case—not that anybody had lied or that something didn’t occur—could not be established. Now, the matter of the fact that two people might have been working in close proximity for several months after the end of their investigation is, I think—well, in the Minister’s words—an absolute disgrace. I think it speaks to something else that, indeed, maybe there was something of a détente, a recognition of a misunderstanding. Who knows? And the Minister can answer if he wishes, he’ll have the chance. But the reality is, the second investigation, on the day this individual was dismissed, was suspended, he was driving to work, hearing about a rapist in the building, having absolutely no idea that reference was being made to him until Mr Gonzalez-Montero picked up the phone and called him into his office and told him to bring a PSA delegate. No interview, no restatement of the facts, no hearing his or her side of the story; out the door straight away. Well, I know which one sounds like an absolute disgrace in terms of process, and it’s not the first one.

So I go back to my initial point: on what date did the Minister get briefed by the chief executive about the individual that we are talking about?

I apologise to the member for not answering his question, because it’s a—

💬 Chris Bishop: You haven’t answered anything.

Sorry?

💬 Chris Bishop: You haven’t answered any question; you’ve just defamed us.

Either the member wants to have a serious discussion about a very serious issue, or he just wants to chip. As I indicated, in my opinion, this is something which is very important.

On the question that Mr Woodhouse raised, I was briefed in either late March or early April, in a very limited way, by the chief executive that a female staff member had approached him, that there had been an accusation of serious sexual misconduct, that it was a matter that had been previously investigated, and that he was encouraging the woman to formalise a complaint, and he was putting support around the woman and was encouraging her to go to the police. That was the extent of it then. I think it came up on one further occasion in a 30-second conversation where he indicated that she was waiting for the results of the Francis Review before making a decision as to her progress, and then, on the day following the release of the review, he indicated to me that he had suspended the person and, as the member is aware, that he then instigated the new investigation, which went on, I think, until November, and at the conclusion of that investigation—so, you know, it wasn’t on the spot that he was sacked; it was an investigation—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, he was suspended on the spot.

He was suspended; he was on full pay through until November, until the—I think he was still general manager—chief executive was satisfied that he had a proper ground for dismissal, and he took that action. Subsequently, when he was—you know, I want to be a little bit careful because there’s still the possibility of—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Too late for that.

Well, no it is not too late, because there is a question still of details around something which may yet be, as the members are aware, an Employment Court case. Now, I will say that, at the moment, there is not one, that, you know, there’s been nothing that has lodged, but the chief executive has made clear to the Governance and Administration Committee, based on the information that he has, from the second, the independent review and the citing of police documents, that he is on absolutely solid grounds, and he will not make a settlement, because he thinks that the message that making a settlement would give would be that it is acceptable to pay money to people who have sexually assaulted their work colleagues. And, you know, those decisions are not mine; they are his—that’s the way that that works. But I say that that is a proper perspective.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The advice of the briefing of the Minister in late March or early April is consistent with the time line provided to the committee by the chief executive in his letter dated 17 December. Although, I do note that he didn’t decide to formally reopen the investigation until 13 May. But what we’re asked now to believe is that, having been briefed on what the Speaker himself describes as a serious sexual assault, that he drew no nexus between that information and a subsequent 30-second conversation he’d had with the chief executive. The Francis Review, which highlighted this very fact—that it was an entire coincidence that on the day that he was talking about the Francis Review that he was talking about a rapist being in the building and that the threat had been cleared by that afternoon. That he simply didn’t know that they were one and the same thing—I’m sorry, it frankly fails the sniff test.

That is why I lodged a Privileges Committee complaint on 10 March 2021—addressed by the Deputy Speaker because of the obvious conflict of interest—because of what I believe was the clear inconsistency between the information provided on 16 December to the committee, and subsequent advice on 10 March from the CEO that said he had indeed briefed the Speaker. Both of those things could not have been true and I believe that gave rise to a question of privilege.

I was staggered to note that that was ruled out on a technicality, because apparently there was a belief in the Speaker’s office that I had gone to the media. That was quite wrong. Newstalk ZB speculated—having heard exactly what I had heard—exactly the same thing. Well, I think Mr Soper on Newstalk ZB said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if National were thinking about a Privileges Committee complaint.” Apparently, that was me talking to the media. So on that technicality, a very important question of privilege was ruled out. I find that very, very disappointing, because the House is none the wiser about this, frankly, inconceivable sequence of events.

I have one more question for the Speaker in relation to, apparently, these three complaints that we don’t know anything about, but that I am advised that at least the substantive complaint has been closed by the police. There is no question of charges. The only person talking about serious sexual assault right now, under privilege, is the Speaker himself. But I would ask this: was one of those investigations, as recorded on the file of the individual concerned, dating as far back as 2008?

Kieran McAnulty.

Sorry, can I just deal with that right now?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rt Hon Trevor Mallard.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What concerns me about this debate is that we appear to have lost sight that there were—that there are—accounts of serious allegations about sexual assault. I’m making no judgment on those; I am talking about the accounts that there have been accusations. When you hear of such accusations, they must be taken seriously, and it is vitally important that we, as parliamentarians, do not use our position to politicise these, to drag them out, and revictimise those who are accusing of sexual assault.

We heard two examples from the previous contributions that concern me greatly. Mr Woodhouse stands up and claims that he has been very careful about what he says; yet we have heard—not just tonight, but at the select committee which led to the report that we’re discussing tonight—that after a complaint of sexual assault, Parliamentary Service placed the complainant and those that they’d complained against back working next to each other. That is disgraceful, and that is the sort of behaviour that the Francis report provided recommendations to change. Mr Woodhouse has the gall to stand here tonight and suggest that that could have been some sort of arrangement, or some sort of misunderstanding. That is the sort of response, that is the sort of language, that revictimises those that are accusing of sexual assault. This is the sort of behaviour that we should all, as parliamentarians, avoid.

If we as a House wish to ask the Minister about conduct that he himself has already apologised for, go for gold. I’m not going to defend that behaviour. He has apologised. He has admitted that it was wrong. But let’s not, in this process, fall into the trap of revictimising these women.

We have heard tonight that there are up to five accusations of sexual harassment in Parliament. They need to be taken seriously. They once were not, and I don’t think—whilst, I repeat, not attempting to defend the decision that the Speaker has now apologised for—that should take away from what is very clear that in his role as Speaker he was attempting to take these very seriously and do what Parliament has not done and actually deal with these as they deserve.

Tim van de Molen: Wairarapa’s coming back to us.

So I think that—they can joke, again politicising it. Here I am, making a serious comment about a serious issue, and they joke about what seats they’re going to win at the next election. I say to Mr van de Molen, if you wish to contribute, how about you focus on the debate and stop—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

—trying to politicise this.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Oh, you’re right, Madam Chair. I shouldn’t have said “you”, but I stand by everything else I said.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Kieran McAnulty.

Thank you very much. I repeat: again, we saw accusations which I believe were political in nature. Mr Bishop spent a large contribution of his speech making the point that he believes the Minister will not repeat his comments outside the House. I note that the member did not repeat his general debate contribution which attacked the Speaker, outside the House. So let’s not play silly political games and actually focus on the fact here that this report—this annual review—focuses on the fact that Parliamentary Service has come a long way in dealing with bullying and harassment, but, by its own admission, has a long, long way still to go.

Well, the member who’s just resumed his seat is quite wrong. I have said what I said in Parliament outside the House, and I’m happy to say it again, and the reason I said it outside the House is because it’s based on court documents. Everything I did when I turned up here on 21 March and gave my speech, the famous speech that the Speaker thinks that he’s somehow a hero for allowing in Parliament because I basically attacked the integrity of the Speaker—and I stand behind every word of that. He seems to think he should get some sort of special credit with the public for allowing it. I have said that, and everything in that speech is based on the statement of defence and the statement of claim that I applied to the High Court to get. What those documents show is precisely what I’ve ventilated in this Parliament and said outside the Parliament, and I’m happy to say so again, and I’ll say: the Speaker is a bully. I’ll say it outside Parliament and, if he sues me, I will turn up to court and I will defend it. And guess what! I will plead truth and I will prove it over 20 years of this Speaker’s behaviour in the Parliament. I believe the charge fits in relation to this case.

There are two very simple questions that have not been addressed that we deserve an answer to. The first is: what explains the gap between May and December 2020? Remember, he is on the record telling us he knew he was wrong within 24 hours, but there was no settlement till December. What explains the gap and what explains what happened in the gap, which is legal letters going back and forth, and a claim by Mr Mallard that he would plead truth and he would put the plaintiff’s reputation on trial at the trial? What explains that? We’re yet to hear anything in relation to an answer.

And the second question, and this is very important: did he follow through on the legal letter and plead truth in a statement of defence to the court, and, if so, why? Here’s why that matters. Because if he filed papers with the court, saying that he intended to plead truth, that is contradictory with what we now know to be the case, which is that he told Parliament, or the Governance and Administration Committee, that he knew within 24 hours he was wrong. Both things can’t be true. Either what he told the court is right, which is that he was going to plead truth, or what he told the select committee is right, which is that he knew within 24 hours. Both are appalling. Either he’s misled the court or he’s misled Parliament, neither of which is appropriate for a Speaker.

We need an answer to both questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I heard the Minister say that, about the serious sexual assaults involving the person who now no longer works here, there were three incidents involving two complainants and two perpetrators. I wonder if perhaps he could address that straight away?

I’m happy to address that. There were two complainants in relation to that one particular individual. There were three separate cases of serious sexual assault involving at least two, and probably three, perpetrators.

OK, thank you. I appreciate the speedy clarification. So there were two complaints against the individual who is the subject of this debate. I am advised—

💬 Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: Two complainants.

Two complainants. Two complaints?

💬 Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: Two complainants.

But not of the same incident.

💬 Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: No.

No. So I think we can deduce from that that two complainants means two complaints. I am advised that the individual concerned has no knowledge of any other complaint except one that took place 13 years ago. Now I want to come to the issue of the separation, ministerially and operationally that, I think, has been significantly clouded by the events of 19 May 2019. Because this is the day on which we are asked to believe that the Speaker, by some amazing coincidence, believes that a serious sexual assault has taken place, and that there is a rapist in the building, ergo RNZ Breakfast, The AM Show, and TVNZ Breakfast, and in the afternoon the threat has been removed, but that we’re also asked to believe that there was no knowledge by the Speaker of the individual who lost his job.

Now, in between those two times, the phone rings, the individual concerned is contacted by the chief executive, asked to attend a meeting in the chief executive’s office at 2 p.m., and to bring a support person. So a Public Service Association representative accompanies this person, a meeting is held, and at 3.10 p.m. on that day, he is ushered out of the building. At 3.30 that day, Mr Speaker holds a press conference to say that the threat has been eliminated. And we’re meant to believe that this is purely a coincidence? Well, I’m sorry, I don’t believe in coincidences like that.

Here’s why it matters: the separation, regardless of the physical proximity of the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service to the Parliamentary Service, the actual separation of governance and oversight from the operational aspects of this place are very, very important. There are 1,100 employees of the Parliamentary Service. I was the Minister for Immigration; there are 1,200 employees of Immigration New Zealand. Had there been a similar incident at Stout St, I would have had no knowledge of it. There was no need for me to know, I trust the operational aspect of the Vote to get these things right, and if at a macro there are problems and they are brought to my attention, either by the media or by somebody else, then it may require some intervention. Why was the Minister so deeply immersed in this issue? Well, here’s my theory. He wanted to be the big man. He wanted a scalp. He wanted the Francis Review to have impact, and he knew about these cases and that they had been addressed to the satisfaction at least of one party, clearly not another—but there is another story to that that I don’t think is appropriate for me to embark upon. But Mr Speaker wanted a scalp. He wanted to demonstrate to this place and to the public that he was serious about bullying. Well he’s always been serious about bullying, and he got serious, because there was a rapist and he got rid of him.

And I have it firsthand that the words that were used to describe what happened to this individual was that his career has been ruined, his life has been ruined. And I don’t say that to trivialise any victim of bullying, harassment, sexual assault in this place. But there is a process and a right to a fair go. I’ve heard the Speaker talk about a fair go. Well, if there had been a fair go, and the right outcome was reached, it wouldn’t have got the scalp that Mr Speaker was looking for.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve sat through this entire debate this evening, and parts of it have been really difficult to sit here and to listen to. I think what the viewers at home may be seeing and perceiving here is far more weight being put on accusations of bullying of a man, versus a report which identified serious sexual assaults within Parliament and the Speaker who has come forward and said, “I’m going to take this seriously and I’m going to do something about it.” I’ve heard some horrific statements in the House tonight that perhaps there might have been something going on and we don’t know the full story. It really sounds like “She asked for it. Her skirt was too short. She was drunk.” I didn’t like what I heard. [Interruption] You said it. [Interruption] I’m sorry—Madam Chair? [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order—point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member Chris Bishop will resume his seat. Now, this is a serious matter—this is a serious matter, and I would ask all members to retain some decorum in this committee.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. She has just said words that are grossly offensive about members of the Opposition, and she needs to withdraw and apologise for those.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: We did not say that.

I didn’t say you said it.

💬 Chris Bishop: You did.

Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Chris Bishop will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, thank you.

You’ve ruled? OK, sure.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I have ruled. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I do hope this is a fresh point of order.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In so far as a ruling had been made for somebody to withdraw and apologise, it is a fresh point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I will ask Willow-Jean Prime to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Thank you, Madam Chair. What I want to ask the Speaker tonight—in the short amount of time that we have left, because this entire debate has been taken up on one part of the Francis Review—is Mr Speaker, the Minister, alluded to the work that has happened since we received the Francis Review—the work that a group that was cross-party worked on and the steps that have been taken. I want the Speaker to please explain to this committee and to the listeners listening in tonight more detail around what it is that we have done since we received that review, what has been the work of that working group, where we are at with that, and how many of the recommendations we have implemented. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there are serious things in that report that need to be addressed by Parliament so that we change the culture of this place. Thank you.

I want to ask the Minister, in the time we have available for this debate, one more time, when will he address the two critical questions I have just asked, which is, what explains the gap between May 2019 and December 2020? Why is there 18 months of legal wrangling and threats and bullying, when he knew within 24 hours he had made a mistake and was wrong? What explains that? We are yet to hear one skerrick about that. And, secondly—and I’ve explained why this is important, already—did he follow through and plead truth in a statement of defence to the court, and, if so, why?

I see no movement from the Speaker, so I will add to the questions: what we know is that the taxpayer has stumped up about $338,000 avoidable costs—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: So far.

—as a consequence of this—so far; quite right, Mr Simpson. I’d like an update. I’ve heard that there has been another $7,000 of legal fees that have been paid. We now know that the $331,000, as it was in December, and the extra $7,000 is not the end of the story, because we have had a revelation that there is a separate legal process under way, which is almost certain to cost the taxpayer more money, and that is—I now know and the chief executive wasn’t prepared to say it, but it is a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act—that he told the Governance and the Administration Committee, on 10 March, that he was not prepared to settle. In fact, the Minister answered a written question about whether he thought settlement could be achieved before reaching the Employment Court. The one-word answer was “No.” When I asked Mr Gonzalez-Montero, “Why?”, he was quite bullish; he said he would rather lose the case and be right than settle with this fellow. Now, that is, I think, a reflection of a process that is going to lead to a significant sum of money needing to be paid by the taxpayer. It’s not his money, it’s not Mr Speaker’s money, either; it’s the taxpayers’ money.

If the case was so strong, why, two years later, has this not been settled? It hasn’t gone to court, because there is backlog at the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court because of COVID—probably not before the second half of this year. But should it go there at all? Any lawyer worth their salt would encourage some kind of mediator settlement.

Or they’re to have this litigated in another court, it is called a criminal court. That is usually where serious sexual assaults get handled. I wish it was. Then, we could hear the evidence rather than a Speaker standing up under privilege and accusing somebody of serious sexual assault, and that is it. If only it were that easy.

I’d like to know how much money we are on the hook for. And given the proximity of the Speaker to his chief executive, and that they seem to be hand in glove, does he believe that the response the select committee was given about a steadfast refusal to settle in the face of a cause of action that seems to have some merit is an appropriate response?

I’m happy to, I think, reiterate the comments I made on that matter. And I think that the decision of the chief executive not to settle on that question in the Employment Court is one which is appropriate, because to pay money to someone who in the second independent investigation was found to have sexually assaulted someone, who the police investigation found sexually assaulted someone—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: They’re not pressing charges.

Order! Sorry, I’m the wrong person.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Why don’t you let me keep order.

Sorry. I should’ve, Madam Chair. The point that I am trying to make is that many of us who know a bit about the way women have been victimised, and the way that things work through the police system, and work through the courts know that a significant proportion of them, especially if they’ve had periods of being victimised over a long period of not being believed privately and publicly by public figures, choose not to expose themselves, choose not to expose themselves to the court process. And there are other cases where the police make a decision that there’s a very real chance of not being successful in a case. I want to say that in two cases that I have been dealing with, there is one of each that fits into that category. While I am always someone who, when a woman is properly supported, will support them going to the police, I will support them through the process. I am not someone who thinks women should be pressured into proceeding with charges, especially when they have been repeatedly—repeatedly—publicly disbelieved by people who are meant to be community leaders.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start by saying this is a debate that I would rather this committee was not having, this Parliament was not hosting, and I would much rather not be participating in it. One thing the Minister has said that I think is true is that the existence of this debate does have a revictimising and traumatising effect on people up and down New Zealand and, indeed, associated with this Parliament as their workplace.

Nevertheless, I also believe it would be a mistake to assume that the Speaker is not at least partly culpable for the fact that this debate has continued as long as it has and is necessary. I would further add that because somebody has done something laudable to make the workplace safer and reduce violence and bullying in the workplace, that does not absolve them automatically of other misdeeds. I think those things as preliminary comments need to be said.

There is, in my view, considerable confusion about what the Speaker’s true position is. He has said that on the morning of 22 May 2019 he believed that a rapist was in the building. He’s told the Governance and Administration Committee he knew within 24 hours that that was not true. He’s apparently maintained the position that it was true and done so in legal proceedings for many months afterwards, and, in spite of his apology at the select committee and his settlement and payment to the person who was accused, or at least the taxpayers’ payment, tonight he appears—or at least the Minister appears to have repeated the accusation almost acting as judge, jury, and executioner about what happened in the matter.

Now, I raise this as a point that I believe is extremely important, and I raise it in the context of a really savage attack by a member of this House on a member of the public who was not able to defend themselves just last Parliament. I know that that had some serious effects on that person, and I know that that person had to go to some lengths to have the Speaker enter a correction into the parliamentary record. That was the only way under the Standing Orders that they could be defended.

With that context I ask: is it true that the Minister has used privilege to, effectively, decide on the guilt or innocence of a person, making the judgment under privilege? Because if it is, that raises some quite serious issues for the future of the House. You see, this House has enormous privileges. Nobody in this land has higher privileges than this House. We are able to evade defamation law and do all sorts of things that normal citizens could not get away with at law. But there is a quid pro quo for having those privileges: that we must use them very carefully. If it is true, that the Minister in the chair, who’s also personally the Speaker, is carrying on a precedent started last year that it’s OK to attack people, members of the public, and actually remove the distinction between this House, which makes laws and the courts which interpret them—the comity that is critical to our constitutional arrangements that have evolved over a long period of time—then that, on top of the many other miseries and sagas that have got us to this sad debate, is actually a very important development.

So I would call on the Minister to clarify if that is what he has said tonight, that he is, effectively, using privilege to venture into what is properly the area of jurisdiction of the courts. Now, I’m very aware of all the difficulties with complaints about sexual violence in courts. In fact, this Parliament is trying to change the sexual violence legislation at the moment. But if there is a problem there, it’s not an excuse to use parliamentary privilege to act as a kind of pseudo court, and I think the Minister needs to clear up exactly what he was trying to do there.

💬 Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: I want to thank the—

The Rt Hon Trevor Mallard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m, sort of, not used to taking calls. I want to thank the member for his initial comments, because I think early in his comments he summed up the situation pretty well. I did make a serious error, and it’s something that I’ve apologised for, and it has caused distress—unnecessary distress—for a number of people.

I do want to make it clear that I am in no way pretending to be a court. I haven’t actually discussed the case that is at the centre of this, with the woman involved—I’ve had no discussion with her at all. I have had, as I’ve indicated, a couple of brief discussions with the general manager, around which I got the context of it, and I have had discussions with other women about alleged sexual assaults, alleged rapes, which are related to this workplace. But I do want to make it clear, in this case, that I’m not being a judge and jury, but what I am saying is that my default position is to believe what the woman has said.

The next position is that I, when there is an independent, separate, careful five- to six-month investigation into a matter, believe the results of that, and when the police make a decision, I will believe that. Now, that doesn’t make someone criminally guilty, but what it does is give me confidence to support the general manager in his decision. It’s not my decision; it’s his decision. But I will stand behind him when he says that the particular individual is not a fit and proper person to work here.

There being no further speakers, we move now to the annual review debate for education. The Minister in the chair, Hon Chris Hipkins.

Education