A Matter of Public Record.

How absurd/pathetic can our politicians be?

Surely, in the public arena, presentation is a matter of personal responsibility. If Ron Mark choses to make his mark in the debating chamber then he does so in the knowledge that it is a matter of public record ... his behaviour (rabid attention-seeking) would indicate that he knew this full well.

Perhaps this is an indication of the depths to which the lack of decorum/courtesy has descended in society, even with our leaders - an admission that admonishment no longer has an effect, an admission that a 'whipping' by strong 'wimmin' can no longer contain all these 'free spirits.'

But the fault truly lies with the cameramen ... it is entirely their responsibilty to present these members in a statesman like manner and if they can't do this then their shutters will remain closed and the public will remain blind to this sorry conduct ... but wait, this means the public will never know ... blatant censorship on such basic personal conduct? ... but then when has character/basic courtesy ever had anything to do with sound decison making?

And what is worse? If it is due to narcolepsy, or soon to be banned mind altering substances,

or binge drinking, or obesity, or the readily available crystal meth ... but no, not this, this is a stimulant, it would need to be a sedative...or perhaps the speaker was simply awfully boring?

But never mind, there is a degree of security in knowing all are regulated and that in future we will be protected from this visual pollution independent of cause.

But how can 'real time' recording omit certain images - no time for 'photoshopping' here.

And should this level of disrespect/dismissal of one's colleagues not be a matter of public record.

Is there a cultural basis to this, is this the deference we have come to expect from a portion of our society, averting gaze out of respect? Ironically this is probably an enduring legacy that evolved from Kim Workman's tenure as head of corrections, nothing to do with a history of getting 'the bash' at all.

But we all know that there is something terribly terribly wrong about intervention to correct and that what is required is intervention to protect.

So electronic scattering will in future overlay our parliamentarians indiscretions, as it has done with some of our other icons ....

and this would appear to have preserved his 'image' and averted any generalised effects. So perhaps this is the way to put the 'statesman' back in to our parliamentarians, to make them once again reverred by the people who voted for them ... after all, what you can't see wont distress you.