John Tamihere's emotion-charged confession of his drink-driving convictions was Parliament's ghastly equivalent of a Stalinist show trial, even though his offences were real and not imagined.
The Labour MP's penitence begged the obvious question: who would be next in line for purge by anonymous attack, fax or otherwise?
Yesterday an anonymous caller to a Whangarei newspaper stung National's John Carter with his 1985 drink-driving conviction. Carter brushed that off, saying he stood by his 1997 comments that all first-time drink drivers should go to jail.
Before Tamihere's come-clean statement on Thursday afternoon, most politicians had thought Parliament had pulled back from a war of sleaze in which private lives and past indiscretion would be fair game.
MPs pointed to the censure of the Alliance's Grant Gillon for his lewd joke about Tory males preferring the company of sheep, noting the real significance of Parliament's formal condemnation lay in its unanimity.
But the anonymous fax sent to Radio New Zealand, which referred to Tamihere's convictions and his discharge without conviction in a forgery case, gave weight to a minority view that things will get worse before everyone deems enough is enough.
That now depends on whether Labour carries out threats to retaliate against Richard Prebble - plus the media's willingness to pursue anonymous allegations which may have little bearing on an MP's ability to do his or her job.
Typically, the Prime Minister cut straight to the political chase once she saw the fax. She ordered Tamihere to get everything out in the open and then fingered Act as the orchestrator.
Labour's evidence of Act's complicity is a list of written parliamentary questions from Act's Rodney Hide dating back to March which allude to the forgery case without saying so. He also asked Clark if she was aware of any of her MPs being charged with a criminal offence. She refused to say, saying it was inappropriate for privacy reasons.
Prebble says he was well aware of Tamihere's past. Clark argues if that was so, why did Hide need to ask - unless he was seeking more publicity for Act's campaign against Tamihere or surreptitiously trying to breach the court's suppression order on the forgery case.
Prebble says the questions were "warning shots" to Tamihere, who was making unfounded allegations against Act during its investigation of how public funds were spent during his tenure as chief executive of the Waipareira Trust.
The author of the anonymous fax miscalculated badly. It gave the Prime Minister a useful distraction, overshadowing embarrassing revelations about binge spending on consultants by Jim Anderton's new Ministry of Economic Development.
But it also provided Clark with a gift opportunity to keep Act squirming. For once, Prebble has looked distinctly uncomfortable after the public doubted his motives in the lead-up to the sacking of Dover Samuels despite his protestations of innocence.
Labour MPs privately say they have plenty of dirt to throw back at him. But the public judges the accusers as much as the accused. It makes no sense for Labour to vacate the high ground when public tolerance of political sleaze is exhausted. And it would also clash with Labour's election promise to set new standards of political behaviour.
For those reasons, any targeting of Prebble will not carry Labour's fingerprints.
It is worth noting that the allegations against Samuels, the latest attack on Tamihere and now Carter did not originate on the floor of Parliament. But the genie is out of the bottle. When the sleaze is oozing into the building it is harder to find the source and stop the flow.
The Samuels, Tamihere and Carter cases have also broken fresh ground because events were dredged from their pasts. Until now, misbehaviour or illegality by a minister or MP was highlighted only if it occurred while they were in the job. What they did before getting into Parliament has generally been considered off-limits.
Samuels' public execution has sobered MPs. As Anderton observed - until Gillon cut the ground from under him - a war of sleaze is a war no one will win.
It is also understood the Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, has been talking to senior MPs to ensure there is some thought about the impact on Parliament's standing before anyone dishes the dirt.
But he is handicapped by two things which have radically altered Parliament in the past decade - there are far more parties under MMP and television cameras now track everything in the chamber.
Previously, the old two-party club kept things reasonably tidy because if one threw a bit of dirt it knew it would get a mud pie back in its face.
But it is not in minor parties' interests to abide by that gentleman's agreement when they are desperately trying to wrench voters away from National and Labour.
It is also convenient for Labour or National to let a minor party do its bidding, knowing that while the minor party gets the immediate attention, big brother will probably reap any spinoff at the polling booths.
That is another reason Labour will not retaliate against Act in any direct fashion. The only winner from a sleaze war between Act and Labour is National.
Minor party behaviour is also driven by MMP's 5 per cent threshold and opinion polls which gauge how far away each party is from parliamentary extinction.
This recipe for desperation provokes incessant publicity-seeking in the belief it will drive up ratings. Parties compete relentlessly to offer something each day to titillate the media, particularly when Parliament is sitting and the television cameras are in the chamber.
In such an atmosphere, the long-term health of Parliament as an institution comes second to expedient, short-term interests. While there may now be some respite from allegation and innuendo - the House is in recess for two weeks - don't expect any truce to last.
Prebble obvious target for Labour mud pies
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.