Editorial: Fairness, not gender, the issue

Election campaigns occasionally throw up an incident or a comment that seems trivial but goes to the heart of something important.

Don Brash's declared reluctance to debate aggressively with a woman is that sort of comment. It would of course have been more credible if he had made the admission before, rather than after, his reticent performance against Helen Clark on television on Monday night. But he probably means what he said, and it is important.

It says a great deal for and against his character, and about the values of the country he aspires to lead.

He adheres to a code of good manners that has become sadly dated but can still be admired. And the divided public response to his debate explanation attests that many do admire it. But it is also a code that can be oppressive of women in certain circumstances.

Women in politics, business and other careers have the right to expect that male colleagues and competitors will engage with them on the same terms as men in order that they may advance on personal merit.

True consideration for the interests and dignity of women would treat them no differently from men when they aspire to the same positions, or at least say nothing to undermine their achievement.

If gentlemen like the National Party leader cannot put aside their customary graces when they find themselves competing with a formidable woman, they should also have the grace to keep quiet about it after she has won.

Dr Brash discredits his own code of behaviour when he brings the Prime Minister's sex into the discussion. What is Helen Clark supposed to do about it? Temper her attack out of deference to his politeness? She has a right to use all her qualities to advantage. And a male opponent does not need to reply in kind. A calm, confident man has some advantages too.

Dr Brash blew his opportunity on Monday night because he did not play to his own strengths. He had much going for him. That day the National Party had revealed the scale of its tax cuts and they are impressive. Impressive enough for the Prime Minister to set about savaging them that night with far more heat than reason.

Dr Brash could have quietly reminded viewers of the oldest rule of debate - when your argument is weak, shout - and proceeded to make some telling points about excessive taxation and the prospect of more take-home pay.

Instead he listened to his opponent's version of his policy and was drawn into arguing about her points rather than asserting his.

She, it turns out, was shouting to be heard above interjections from the National Party's segment of the studio audience. Since the din was not quite as dominant over television the only effect of National's supporters was to make the Prime Minister appear more forceful - if unappealingly shrill - to the wider audience.

Those were Dr Brash's real problems on the night. They had nothing to do with the sex of his opponent. By offering that excuse, the National leader has only raised concerns among women about his attitude to them and ability to work with them.

It has reminded many that two women have resigned from speaking roles on issues of particular political interest to him. He needs to dispel those concerns quickly. Like his view of Maori and the treaty his latest difficulty makes him sound like a relic of a different time. Whatever regard voters retain for the values of a bygone age they probably prefer a Prime Minister to be in tune with the present. And one who will stand up for himself, against all comers.