Understanding Mallard – Part 1

Trevor Mallard is Labour’s campaign manager, so it is with little surprise that the campaign is going to be dirty with plenty of muck flung. Mostly it will be flung by him or his assistants.

Readers need to be aware of Mallard’s history though. His history of telling lies, and his history of defaming people under parliamentary privilege.

So I will start a series looking back at Labour’s campaign manager and his history of muck-raking so we can all be under no illusions that whenever he opens his gob it is likely to be pouring forth lies, innuendo, defamatory comments and muck.

Mostly his slurs and attacks are simply fanciful, given credence only in his twisted mind. But in his long parliamentary career he has never stopped doing it. He continues to this day. Let’s look at the 80s in today’s post.

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—APOLOGY

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): With the leave of the House, I want to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171 in relation to a supplementary question I asked during question time, in which I alleged that the member for Tamaki was a patron of the Mongrel Mob. It has been pointed out to me that he is not the patron of that gang, and I want to apologise.

So he flung dirt at Muldoon and was wrong. He had to apologise.

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I request the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171, about compliance orders.

John Banks: Apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no discussion on this matter. It is a question of the House granting leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: When I spoke in the debate I made an error about the method of review of the appointments of chief executives. A review can be done by the High Court, but not by the Labour Court. Therefore the Governor-General cannot be affected. I do not retract the comments I made about the effect of compliance orders on Ministers of the Crown under other clauses in the Bill.

Labour at the time was trying to stop public sector workers who refused to join the PSA access to the the provision of the Labour Relations Act. Not only that Labour’s Bill would have given the Public Service Association the statutory right, for the first time, to insist on compulsory unionism. But Mallard ruined his arguments by lying and then having to apologise tot eh house.

Tuesday, November 21, 1989

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—QUESTION OF THE DAY No. 5

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation relating to a supplementary question I asked during question of the day No. 5.

Hon. W. F. Birch: What’s it about?

TREVOR MALLARD: The Opposition Whips have been briefed.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has given a brief explanation. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: During question of the day No. 5 I asked a supplementary question relating to payments for public relations contracts. I stated that the National Government had produced a green booklet with a photo of its current leader that promised 410 000 jobs, and that that booklet had gone to every household. I also implied that a company involving the member for East Coast Bays was involved. The member has indicated to me that I was wrongly briefed. I make it clear that I accept his word, and I apologise for any embarrassment that I have caused him.

Another day where Mallard has had to make a personal explanation in parliament about more lies he has told. This example is particularly interesting in that Mallard was spreading muck leaked to him from someone, and he got it wrong. It is exactly the same type of thing he doing to this day. Again involving himself in the affairs of another political party, receiving emails and txts from affiliated protagonists including sitting MPs and even Ministers and then repeating those on his blog and in parliament as statements of fact.

Those examples are from the 80s….step forward just a few more years and Mallard was at it again.

Thursday, April 18, 1996

TREVOR MALLARD (Pencarrow): It became clear to me late yesterday that the information that I had that suggested that the Minister had said that President Mandela was “a fat, balding, Maori” was in fact incorrect. The information that the Minister had twice indicated that a photograph of President Mandela was a photograph of a Maori resembling President Mandela was in fact correct. I took some advice as to whether it was appropriate to apologise at that stage. The advice I got was that bringing it up again might in fact further embarrass our relations with South Africa, so I did not. But I do apologise to the Minister for the partial inaccuracy.

Another day  a few later and he was smearing John Banks this time. Another apology. Getting the picture. Mallard lies, then he gets caught, then he has to apologise.

I will cover the 90s in another post. This could take a while there is so much material to work with. Mallard was a muck-raker then and he is a muck-raker now. He was wrong so many times then, he is still wrong today. When I call him an apologist you can see why, he spends a great deal of time apologising for his lies and smears.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

40%