Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Mr Speaker what I'm about to say to the House is very important. I want to outline for the House why I and the National Party believe it is critical that Trevor Mallard resign as Speaker of the House. Mr Mallard's position for the reasons I want to outline we believe is untenable. The basic facts of what has become known as the Mallard rape affair" are I think well known.On 21 May 2019 the Francis Review into bullying and harassment at Parliament was published. The next day Mr Mallard gave a series of interviews to media including Morning Report and TVNZ's Breakfast show about the contents of the Francis Review and a man he believed was still on the premises. To Morning Report Mr Mallard talked about serious sexual assault and said "Well for me that's rape." Directly in response to the question "So people have been raped in Parliament?" Mr Mallard said "That is the impression I get from the report yes." On Breakfast Mr Mallard talked about three sexual assaults and that three appeared to be in the rape category. We know what happened next. Those claims were not correct. Mr Mallard said later he knew they were wrong within probably 24 hours. An employee of the Parliamentary Service then sued Mr Mallard for defamation in December 2019 and it was not until December 2020 that Mr Mallard settled with the plaintiff. That settlement cost taxpayers $158000 as an ex gratia payment and an additional $175000 in legal fees the total being over $333000. Mr Mallard came before the Governance and Administration Committee and said he knew within 24 hours he had made a mistake. There is still an outstanding employment claim against the Parliamentary Service by the plaintiff; so this amount could rise.I want to put on record for the House three things that have not yet been made public relating to the sorry affair I've just outlined. They are shocking and I believe make the case overwhelming for Mr Mallard's resignation or for the House to lose confidence in him. Earlier this year I applied to the High Court of New Zealand for access to the statements of claim and defence filed by the parties in the now settled defamation action. The statement of claim says that after Mr Mallard's morning media interviews on 22 May where he spoke of rape his staff advised him that claim was wrong. Despite being told that he then repeated the claim in the afternoon of the 22 May in another media stand-up. Let me be clear: having gone on radio and TV in the morning and effectively accused someone of rape Mr Mallard was then told by his general manager that was wrong. He did a media stand-up and was specifically asked about whether he stood by those statements. He said "Yes. And anyone who's been involved in looking at the rape law would be aware of the definition of 'rape' in New Zealand." That is appalling. Mr Mallard knew it was wrong; he said it anyway.The second thing I want to bring to the House's attention is that Mr Mallard intended on pleading truth to the defamation claim. On 10 June 2019 the plaintiff through his lawyers wrote to Mr Mallard. He asked for the release of an apology to him. He asked for the apology to be read by Mr Mallard to the House. He asked for the payment of damages and he asked for an undertaking that Mr Mallard would not make any more defamatory statements. Mr Mallard refused. On 24 June he wrote back. He refused to publish an apology. He refused to pay damages. He claimed his statements were either truth or honest opinion or covered by qualified privilege. Let me be clear about what that means: Mr Mallard said he intended to prove in court the plaintiff was a rapist. He intended to do this knowing it was false. Remember as I've just said Mr Mallard was told by the general manager the complaint was not about rape and Mr Mallard told us last year he knew he'd made a mistake within probably 24 hours. So even though Mr Mallard knew he was wrong knew he'd made a mistake in June 2019 he was planning on actually proving the person he defamed was a rapist. The consequences of this are severe. Mr Mallard was either planning on misleading the court or he has misled Parliament. These are not the actions of someone fit to be Speaker.It gets worse. Mr Mallard said he would defend any claim "vigorously". He threatened the plaintiff. He said that should the plaintiff pursue litigation "the question of his reputation and his conduct will be very much the centrepiece of any public proceeding". Mr Mallard said he would prove the man was a rapist knowing it to be untrue if the plaintiff sued to protect his reputation. This is a gross and disgraceful abuse of power. He refused to apologise to the man he called a rapist even though he knew it was wrong. He refused to compensate even though he knew it was wrong. He said if the man sought to protect his reputation he would prove he was a rapist. He threatened to put the man on trial. This is a man who should resign—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member's time has expired. Members I chose during that speech not to draw attention to the fact that it was completely out of order; Speakers' rulings 18/7 make that clear. Because I was involved I thought it was not appropriate to stop the speech. I will say I look forward to the hearing of the Estimates where the truth will be told."