Woodhouse Michael; Mallard TrevorHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): 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?Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Speaker): 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.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): 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.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Two complainants. Two complaints?Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: Two complainants.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: But not of the same incident.Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: No.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 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 1100 employees of the Parliamentary Service. I was the Minister for Immigration; there are 1200 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.