Mallard losing the plot, again, privileges complaint laid and now threatens top cop

Two events that are perhaps linked have led to Trevor Mallard once again losing the plot. Firstly John Banks has laid a complaint with the Privileges Committee about Mallard’s actions last week in parliament.

Act leader John Banks also revealed he laid a breach of privilege complaint against Labour’s Trevor Mallard last week after Mr Mallard strongly criticised the Speaker’s decision to allow United Future to retain its parliamentary entitlements while it sorted out its registration.

Mr Mallard described it in the debating chamber as “farcical” and left rather than be forced to withdraw and apologise for it.

Today before question time, Mr Mallard stood to withdraw and apologise, which Mr Carter said related to last week.

He said he was yet to make a decision on Mr Banks’ complaint, lodged last Friday, because he needed to first seek a response from Mr Mallard.

Mallard also described the decision by Speaker Carter as ‘corruption’. 

The decision prompted Labour MP Trevor Mallard to label the House “a farce”, shortly before leaving rather than apologise.

Outside Parliament, Mallard said Carter had chosen to protect Dunne because UnitedFuture supported the Government.

“That, in most countries, would be regarded as corruption.”

To make matters worse for Mallard he has threatened Mike Bush in a select committee hearing:

A select committee hearing has descended into acrimony after Labour MP Trevor Mallard appeared to threaten the job of a senior police officer.

Mallard abruptly left a select committee after an exchange of angry words with Police Minister Anne Tolley after he questioned the decision of Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush to speak at the funeral of former police officer Bruce Hutton.

This of course is Labour’s continued meme, attacking Mike Bush because he got the job that David Shearer’s brother wanted.

The threat was pretty specific too.

After Mallard attempted to question Bush on the issue Government committee members objected that his questions were out of order.

But Mallard hit back and appeared to threaten Bush’s job.

“We’re deciding whether or not to continue his salary, that’s what we’re deciding now,” he said.

Mallard then got embroiled in an exchange with Tolley who said that was not his decision before Mallard abruptly left the committee.

This is shameful behaviour from a politician, attacking a senior public servant. Mallard should quit, he is clearly past it.

This is obviously a continued utu against Mike Bush and is pretty shabby stuff from Mallard.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Let’s wait for the media to turn on Mallard for abusing his position as they did with Aaron Gilmore; oh, wait…

  • JeffDaRef

    The reality is Mallard has NO position – he’s clearly lost his marbles because even 5 years down the track he still doesn’t quite get it that he’s no longer part of the Government…he is no more able to sack Mike Bush than you or I are…

  • chadchambers

    I don’t know how this works. Who appoints the top cops? Is it the select committee upon which Trevor Mallard sits on?

  • chadchambers

    On the Mallard accusation of Carter. That was colourful language for sure but the question must be asked, why is PD still getting those privileges? Probably the opposition would look upon PD more favourably if he was clean, something which Peter Dunne is clearly not.

    • Dion

      Yes but one can ask the question without resorting to behaviour unbecoming of an MP. This is parliament, not a union picket line.

  • Jester

    Trevs just heard the latest news that 12 in 100 women are allergic to semen it seems. No wonder he’s irritated today.

    • richard.b

      They should stay away from boats.

      • blokeintakapuna

        …and glossy magazines found in as yet un-cleaned hotel rooms…

        • Hazards001

          Wipe out the ole’ parliamentary credit card…no probs with magazines then…right Shane?

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Yeah neh – He will emerge unscathed. Labour has absolute power

    • unsol

      It would seem so. WO has been attacking Mallard since forever – I am not sure even Simon Lusk knows how to get rid of a man that the poor love so much.

  • unsol

    I am not sure the attack against Mike Bush can considered to be utu – more like it is deserved if he indeed did say (re the Crewe Case) at Hutton’s funeral that

    “We all know despite the length and depth of Bruce’s term with us in the police, in the public eye he is only associated with one case….It is a great tragedy and irony that a man of such great character should have been subject to those accusations.”

    Unless of course WO you are saying that Hutton didn’t plant evidence?

    Bush said later that “At no time did I make specific reference to the royal commission of inquiry. There was no intention to create the perception that I or NZ Police was challenging the findings of the [inquiry] or the integrity of any individual connected with the inquiry.” yet how else is one to take such comments?

    As for the rest of it – well, it merely proves what we all know to be true about Mallard…..he is not fit to be a duck let alone an MP.

    • Rex Widerstrom

      Yes, Cam, I wonder how you’d react if the Pope read the eulogy for a Catholic priest accused of child molestation and said “We all know despite the length and depth of the Father’s service and good works in many communities, in the public eye he is only associated with one case….It is a great tragedy and irony that a man of such great character should have been subject to those accusations”?

      At best, the comment by Bush can only be read as clearly implying either a) Bush was innocent of the charge of planting evidence or b) the good works he (allegedly) did during the remainder of his career ought to have absolved him from blame.

      At worst, it’s running the line that there’s one law for the police and one for the rest of us.

      Either way it calls into question the judgement of a senior police officer, responsible for enforcing discipline and integrity and for setting an example to junior ranks.

      I’m with Trevor on that one.

      • johnbronkhorst

        Or it could just be read that it is a long held convention….NOT to speak ill of the dead!? Tell me, have you EVER been to a funeral where speakers EVER raised the negative aspects of the recently departed!
        NO………neither have I!!!!

        • Rex Widerstrom

          No John and nor would I expect anyone to have highlighted Hutton’s transgressions at the service.

          Bush could simply have avoided mention of that case altogether and instead talked of other aspects of his career.

          Instead Bush chose to use it to mount what sounds very much like an excuse for police corruption.

          • LesleyNZ

            Have you listened to the full 6 minute eulogy?

    • TomTom

      He’s only ever fit to be a duck when it’s duck-hunting season. Good lord that should be all year round till someone knocks that fucking annoying mallard off.

    • Kimbo

      “”There was no intention to create the perception that I or NZ Police was challenging the findings of the [inquiry] or the integrity of any individual connected with the inquiry.” yet how else is one to take such comments?”

      I’d suggest you take them as Bush no doubt intended, and as the context determines: –

      The allegation/finding of the Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case was not a trial, neither were its findings infallible, and nor did it determine that it was absolutely and/or exclusively Hutton who supposedly planted the shell case.

      Despite being found guilty in the court of public opinion, Hutton was never charged, most likely because (and it’s ironic supporters of Arthur Allan Thomas can’t get this point – but then Arthur Allan Thomas always was a very very stupid man) it could most likely never be PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in a criminal trial.

      In the light of Hutton’s long and in many other ways successful career, and also due to the burden his family would have borne over the years (because no matter who planted the shell case, it wasn’t them!), it was reasonable for that public service by Hutton and his family to be mentioned by someone like Bush at a funeral service – and the last time I looked, the purpose of a funeral service is to remember the life of the deceased in a way that aids the grief of those who mourn the loss. NOTHING MORE!

      In that context, Bush had the right to say what he did. Not sure I agree with his exact wording, but frankly, neither my opinion, nor yours, nor Arthur Allan Thomas’, nor Trevor Mallards is something that Bush or Hutton’s family should ever have to be troubled about or take into account given where and when they were said.

      That Arthur Allan Thomas spent 10 years in prison was a tragedy and an injustice, but Thomas was compensated. Do you really think Mallard cares at all about Thomas? He was in government for 15 of the 33 years since the Commission gave its findings on the Thomas case. Guess how much time Mallard and Labour spent seeking to prosecute Hutton, or have him chucked out of the police. Answer: Nyet!

      My God, I knew Trevor Mallard is a nasty piece of work, but to try and make political gain at the expense of a third party speaking words of comfort to a family at a time of grief! Has the man no decency?! That you would seek to deny a man like Bush a promotion based on something as petty and mean-spirited as this, when the real reason is you want to wreck a public servant’s career for no other reason that the Government want to appoint him? Because you want a scalp to aid your poll ratings for a couple of weeks?!

      Who would ever want to be a public servant with masters like that?!

      • LesleyNZ

        Spot on Kimbo. What was this meeting for? It was a law and order committee meeting not a meeting to discuss Bruce Hutton’s funeral yet high and mighty Trevor Mallard reckons it was his job today to decide whether Mike Bush should be paid and quizzed about comments made at a police funeral. What has Mike Bush’s salary got to do with Trevor Mallard? None of his business. He is not in government. Suggest the video is watched – slam dunk to Anne Tolley!

      • unsol

        It was a rhetorical question kimbo; the comments were at best grossly inappropriate coming from a DPC, especially given the inquiry & the ongoing review expected to be concluded later this year. At worst they were indicative of old boys policing which precluded morality & doing ones job properly within the confines of the law. No matter which way you look at it, someone in the police force framed Thomas & Hutton at the very least old have known who it was. This means he cannot possibly be beyond reproach; integrity & common decency were clearly foreign concepts.

        Your comment is nothing more than presumption & speculation; Thomas’ intellect is irrelevant.

        Best to reserve judgment until the review is over – hopefully it will shed light on the issues so it can be put to rest once & for all.

        As for Mallard – his motives are irrelevant. He made the right call on this one.

        • LesleyNZ

          Rubbish unsol. Mallard was out of line and wrong and behaved like a child who couldn’t get their own way. He looked a bit “hormonal”. He was grandstanding – much like Metiria Turei and her baby grandstanding. I look forward to the report.

          • unsol

            No Lesley you are wrong. Sure Mallard’s last comment was out of line – he isn’t in a position to determine anyone’s job let alone salary, but his question re the eulogy & whether it was Bush’s own words or from the service record was fair enough.

            I must say you are awfully good at defending the indefensible. First Rickards then Roache, who next – the unfunny comedian?

            A wind up sure, but the point has merit – you seem to often place more weight on the wrong doing of rather minor offences while the greater issue of lack of morality & common decency escape unnoticed.

          • LesleyNZ

            I defend the truth unsol. Trevor Mallard is wrong. Read what I have just posted.

        • Kimbo

          Your rehashing of your first post overlooks the reality that the meaning and significance of Bush’s comments were delimited by the context.

          “Best to reserve judgment until the review is over – hopefully it will
          shed light on the issues so it can be put to rest once & for all.”

          You are dreaming. And sanctimonious with it. The on-going review is almost certainly going to be a waste of time. Unless some one in the police, or more likely long-since retired spills the beans, there is nothing new that will come out after 43 years that wasn’t publicly disclosed in 1980. I can understand Rochelle Crewe’s, and Thomas’ and his supporters desire for answers. However, I don’t make the rules – I just report them. The likelihood is remote, so no, I don’t think it best to wait until the review is completed,

          Instead, we are exactly where we were in 1980 – yes, as per your subsequent post to LesleyNZ, on the balance of probabilities Bruce Hutton (like David Bain, and Ewen McDonald) likely did it. However, unlike Bain and McDonald, there was likely never enough evidence to even charge Hutton in the first place. And even your statement “Hutton at the very least old have known who it was” isn’t a fact – it is another ‘on the balance of probabilities’ assertion.

          “the comments were at best grossly inappropriate coming from a DPC…At worst they were indicative of old boys
          policing which precluded morality & doing ones job properly within
          the confines of the law”.

          Hmmm. Given that the comments were made to the family who doubtless were innocent sufferers of all of the (merited or otherwise) public critcism that came the way of Hutton, if you view the comments as they were intended and directed (i.e., for the edification of Hutton’s family – and NO ONE ELSE) then, who are you to say that IN THEIR EYES, that it wasn’t “IRONIC” (and think about what that means) the good police work that Hutton did for many years (and his family bore the cost for that too) was over-shadowed by one highly controversial case? There was a public perception of Hutton that was likely very different to what Hutton’s family thought and experienced of him.

          But ok, let’s turn it around and ask some questions of you, Mr Smarty, who thinks you have a right to sticky-beak in on an essentially private family funeral:

          Is it not a fact that the Hutton family, in the light of the sacrifices they had made during hutton’s long career

          …and in light of the intense and continuing public discomfort and sadness the Thomas case would have brought into their lives (and I reiterate, whoever planted the cartridge case, it wasn’t Hutton’s family!)

          …was it not right that an official from the police should in some way acknowledge that? If you interpret “beyond reproach” as he was never charged (and more to the point never had a real or viable means to challenge the findings of the inquiry)

          …then why weren’t Bush’s comments valid?

          But if you disagree they weren’t the right words, then what, pray tell, should he have said to the Hutton family who deserved to have his (and their) public service remembered at a time like that?


          Exact wording and precise phrasing Mr Sticky-Beak who wants to intrude on a famly’s grief?

          Or have you never considered the advice, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”?

          Wait for the inquiry?! How inconvenient for the Hutton family that they should have to wait for the “review expected to be concluded later this year.” when they have to deal with an unscheduled event that is a…funeral.

          So Mr Smart Arse – what exact and precise words should Bush have said at the family funeral, especially bearing in mind that the Hutton family likely didn’t, and neither shouldn’t be expected to give a flying rat’s f*&k for your precious review?.

          • LesleyNZ

            Agree. However no way can Bruce Hutton be on the same page as David Bain and Ewen McDonald. (Unsol is a Mrs not a Mr – or maybe a Ms. ) Mallard took what Mike Bush said out of context and refused to listen to the truth when Anne Tolley challenged him. Mallard is wrong. Of course the Labour Party is known for its “untruths”.

  • LesleyNZ

    Trevor Mallard does nothing but show SHAMEFUL behaviour in parliament in every sense of the what the word SHAMEFUL means. He can’t talk about having standards. Talk about labelling the House “a farce”, He is one of the MP’s who have no problem in using the F word in the House and doing other “things” in the House’s offices with a fellow caucus member. Shame on you Trevor Mallard. You need to look in mirror to find out who is making the House into “a farce”.

  • yossarian1971

    why should he quit? He and mumblesalot are proving to be great assets for the National Party come election time.

    I say keep him there, no one takes him seriously anyone.

    He’s sort of the like old dog, who although did bugger all, Labour just don’t have heart to put down.

    • Ronnie Chow

      That’s a bit of a catch 22 , yossarian .

  • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

    The pleb tribune is at it again! I can only aspire to emulate such greatness!

  • unitedtribes

    Could be taking a lead from Gillard

  • Phar Lap

    Certainly beyond belief that Mallard has been able to run rings around the speaker,and all sorts of Parliamentary procedures.He goes for the throat like a pit bull aided and abetted by the other bully Robertson alias a boy named “Sue”.To make it even worse bullies like the two mentioned Lie-bour pests they are getting away with it.Surely Carter the” Speaker”, has to come off the ropes and earn his salary and stop being the proverbial whimp.

  • LesleyNZ

    Walking out is losing and what a loser “Mr Sanctimonious Lilly White” Mallard is and an embarrassment to the Labour Party and to the HOUSE. Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush ignore him. Check out the link – Good on you Anne Tolley – you tell him!

  • LesleyNZ

    Whale, I do wonder if Trevor Mallard has ever listened to Detective Inspector Bruce Hill’s eulogy at Bruce Hutton’s funeral. Suggest he does now and also all those who think that they know what was said but in fact have never bothered to sit and listen to it as it is over 6 minutes long. It is no good picking bits out – you have to listen to it in context. The reality is – Bruce Hill is right – they were accusations by a judge levelled at Bruce Hutton and never proven. I did not hear any words like “Crewe case”
    Question is – who did kill the Crewes?

    • unsol

      Good grief, clutching at straws.

      The real questions are who did kill the Crewes & who planted the evidence?

      Even if Hutton did not frame Thomas he at the very least knew who did – that makes him have the moral compass of a brick.

  • LesleyNZ

    Mallard bullying police – Tolley –

    The NZ Herald have done this story today about Trevor Mallard’s bullying yesterday. I can’t believe these sentences. It shows clearly that Mallard hasn’t bothered to listen to what exactly was said in the eulogy after all, yet here he was yesterday shouting his mouth off and performing like a ……………. I was going to say seal. He hasn’t a clue or checked to see what exactly was said in the eulogy. That is such poor behaviour and standard from an MP.

    “Mrs Tolley has previously said that Mr Bush’s comment about Mr Hutton’s integrity was quoted directly from his police record. Mr Mallard disputed this.”
    Trevor Mallard – LISTEN NOW especially when it gets to 03:25.

    Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush read a range of positive comments from the service file of Bruce Hutton. This included a comment made in 1967 from then Chief Inspector W R Fleming who when recommending Bruce for a promotion to Inspector said “his integrity is beyond reproach”. Anne Tolley is right. Trevor Mallard you are WRONG. Admit it and apologise and stop being such a bully in the House.

    I think Trevor Mallard needs to borrow “Clint”.

  • Bryan

    me thinks mallard would need to walk and drive very carefully as the word would be out to pick him up for anything police do not like their top officers being attacked