By JOHN ARMSTRONG political editor
The stench of utu hung heavy in Parliament yesterday. It was ugly stuff.
It was not merely the astonishing sight of an MP having to physically restrain the Minister of Maori Affairs, Dover Samuels, after he shuffled across the chamber to silently, but furiously, eyeball Act leader Richard Prebble.
The allegations of sexual impropriety in a letter from Mr Prebble to the Prime Minister prompted an afternoon of revenge-taking, as National and Act combined to exploit the affair and smear Helen Clark with the dreaded word "cover-up."
In turn, Winston Peters, whose many crusades include securing Mr Prebble's head on a stick, sided with Labour, demanding the Act leader's resignation from Parliament should the allegations be unfounded.
Looking like a man in a trance, Mr Samuels had been carried along on a wave of applause from Sir Paul Reeves, Ngatata Love and other Maori leaders as he made his way through the main lobby and the media scrum to the chamber.
Inside, he vigorously and categorically denied the allegations, his voice cracking. Speaking in Maori, he attacked Mr Prebble.
"At this time I, along with my family, tribe and hapu, have been covered in vile, but I say this to him, in time it will turn on you and you will be made to eat your own vile."
Then he walked over to where Mr Prebble was sitting, staring him down for several long seconds. Mr Prebble stared back, blank-faced. Labour's burly Parekura Horomia quickly grabbed Mr Samuels' arm, pulling him reluctantly away and towards colleagues waiting to console the hapless minister.
Mr Samuels' cameo was just an appetiser for the snap debate which followed. That shed no light on the allegations because the specifics were deemed out of bounds by the Speaker.
No matter, there was enough innuendo to provide payback time as National MPs rummaged through the underwear drawer of history to remind indignant Labour of its relentless hounding of another Maori MP, Tukoroirangi Morgan.
They then zeroed in on the bigger prize - the Prime Minister and her judgment.
Why, they repeatedly asked, had she not referred the allegations to the police in January when she first became aware of them?
"What has changed in six months?" wondered National's John Carter.
Were the allegations now being referred to the police simply because they had embarrassingly come to the attention of a third party, namely Act?
It was a good question and Helen Clark's answer was an honest "yes."
While she had earlier accepted the word of her minister, the allegations had since fallen into the hands of someone who would have selectively leaked them for political advantage. There was no choice but to go on the front foot and deal with the matter decisively.
Not just for Mr Samuels' sake, she might have added, but for her Government's sake too.