Peter Carr
In 1976 Prime Minister Robert Muldoon responded to a taunt which queried the professional capabilities of his accounting business.
His response to that taunt thrown, at him by popular Labour MP Colin Moyle, was to hurl back an accusation as to Moyle’s social and possibly sexual preferences.
Peter Carr
This was gutter politics at its very worst, but Muldoon’s vituperative utterances were well acknowledged. Several years later he intimated a similar slur against an MP from his own party, Marilyn Waring, at a time when the LGBT community was gaining prominence.
National MP “Gentleman Jack” Marshall made his view clear around this time, stating “anyone who indulges in this kind of behaviour is damaging himself and lowering the status of parliament”.
So, in Westminster-styled parliaments, are these isolated incidents? Well, apparently, not. In Canada a multitude of slurs are regularly thrown across the parliamentary aisle, in Australia Prime Minister Paul Keating was not above bowling down ugly slurs while in the Indian house severe racist slurs are apparently commonplace.
Which brings us back to the true home of Westminster where the antics of the speaker frequently lead to conjecture that he is presiding over a cross between a three-ring circus and a home for the bewildered.
So why this dig back into historical parliamentary mis-behaviour? Well, it is surfacing again in New Zealand where very recently three rude and completely unnecessary slurs have crossed the floor between the green leather seats. Two were directed at a hard-working minister who, it appears, has taken the responsible step of improving her health and associated longevity of life. The other comment from ‘on high’ was a wider ranging and ethnically-laden description of Indian immigrants and their food preferences.
All three comments have been withdrawn either by public pressure or as a directive from a party leader.
Which brings me to the root reason for this subject today. We elect parliamentarians to conduct the affairs of our country fairly, professionally and with compassion.
The Parliamentary Code of Conduct clearly instructs elected members to adhere to behavioural statements which prioritise a safe, respectful environment. No slurs or crude vibes for which a quietly muttered apology later will not dispel the ugly, alleged truth of the originating statement. Once the cat is out of the bag, both the originator and recipient of the rude phraseology are damned for life.
Moyle and Waring with active and balanced political minds that could well have served the nation well in later years both withdrew from politics far too early.
It is election year when a war of words will be thrust upon the voters.
I once asked a group of parliamentary press gallery journalists why the (then) opposition did not use the sanctum of the House to challenge Muldoon as to his parliamentary and personal misdemeanours. The reply was that he kept a very good book and had more debilitating information on them than they had on him. Says it all really.
