Garth George: Targets rise above all the lowlifes and muck-raking

A bloke who phoned Leighton Smith's talkback show on Newstalk ZB on Monday morning opened his remarks by saying, "I'm ashamed to be a New Zealander." The rest of what he had to say was ignorant drivel, but his preface struck a chord with me, for after reading the Sunday Star-Times and Monday's Herald, I was feeling a bit that way myself.

I wondered what we had done to deserve the sordid and loathsome goings-on in Parliament late last week, and the media then and since, centred on allegations of adultery and insinuations of homosexuality.

And what we had done to deserve such low-lifes as Trevor Mallard and David Benson-Pope in our Government; and such muckrakers as Ian Wishart in our journalism, a trade I have practised with pride for nearly 50 years.

Weekend Herald columnist John Roughan, with hallmark restraint, described such people as "reptiles who do some dirty work and slither back out of sight when it is done" and as "parliamentary bottom feeders".

My description of such people would not be nearly as restrained, but the trouble is that the words I would use are - so far, anyway - unacceptable to the editors of this newspaper.

Then I remembered that old truism which states that any person who puts himself or herself forward for public office does, by that very act, prove that he or she is absolutely the wrong person for the job.

And I remembered, too, that both Mr Mallard and Mr Benson-Pope are erstwhile schoolteachers who spent most of their lives in the classroom and schoolyard and who, having had limited experience of the adult world, unsurprisingly revert to childish behaviour when they feel threatened.

Mr Mallard, incidentally, is one of only two members of Parliament to have declined to receive each week a complimentary copy of Challenge Weekly, the independent and non-denominational Christian newspaper which it is my privilege to edit.

Not long after the first complimentary issue arrived in his office, one of Mr Mallard's secretaries rang our office to tell us he didn't want it. And when asked if the minister was not interested in what was going on in Christian circles, which made up more than 10 per cent of the population, she answered: "No."

Even quicker off the mark was the openly lesbian Maryan Street, appointed to Parliament last year after being given a secure place on the Labour list. Within hours of her copy arriving, her secretary emailed our office: "Maryan does not wish to receive copies of Challenge".

It could well be that a lot of MPs - every MP gets a copy every week thanks to donations from readers which cover the cost - throw it unopened into the wastebasket, but at least they have the gumption not to throw it back in our face.

It just goes to show that the assertion of 19th-century English philosopher Herbert Spencer still holds true: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail but to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

As for Ian Wishart, his scurrilous innuendo aimed at Peter Davis, based on nothing more than a film clip of him receiving an election-night hug from an old and queer friend, leaves blowin' in the wind any shreds of credibility Wishart might have retained after falling flat on his face over David Parker.

A smoking gun? Give me a break - it's not even a water pistol.

It is ironic, isn't it, that the people who will come out of this sordid affair relatively unscathed are those who have been pilloried by it - Don and Je Lan Brash, Bill and Diane Foreman and Peter Davis and Helen Clark, who have all comported themselves with dignity and restraint.

Dr Brash's leadership of the National Party may have been destabilised, but when has it ever been stable? I predicted in this column when his name was first mentioned that National would never acquire the Treasury benches with him as leader, and nothing I have seen or heard since would make me resile from that view.

Bill Foreman sprang unwaveringly to his wife's defence, and Mrs Foreman has kept as quiet and as out of sight as she has been permitted to do by the voracious media.

I have nothing but admiration for Ms Clark's vociferous defence of her husband. Their marriage has lasted 25 years and, unless my finely honed instincts betray me, shows no signs whatsoever of anything but contentment and stability.

My prayer for them is that they will continue to cohabit as husband and wife in love and companionship until death does them part.

And now I have to admit that deep down the whole Brash-Foreman-Davis furore has me thoroughly confused.

In this day and age why would it matter if a political party leader has one mistress or a dozen? And who on earth would care if the Prime Minister's husband was gay?