Politicians calling for Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung Independent Senator Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe 聽to be sanctioned for dishonesty invite ridicule.
There are several contexts in which these calls should be seen and none places politicians in a favourable light.
Most parliamentarians expressing outrage about Thorpe鈥檚 yelling at Charles III come from the desperate Coalition parties.
These MPs and Senators follow the Opposition Leader鈥檚 knee-jerk reactions without question. Further, they echo the most outrageous commentators in the Murdoch media.
It would be interesting to know whether their reaction would be so virulent had a non-Indigenous parliamentarian offended their sensibilities.
Indeed, some true republicans boycotted the reception for the two royals and they seem to have escaped the attention of media and colleagues.
It seems that being a republican and taking the oath of office is not in itself an issue for self-righteous guardians of parliamentary integrity. Perhaps these republicans had their fingers crossed behind their backs?
The most damning context for these sanctimonious political critics is in the general area of integrity and ethics.
Surely, any politician who claims to be telling the truth has their tongue firmly planted in cheek. How they do this without blushing is amazing.
Politicians offend against the truth in several ways.
First, they tell outright lies, routinely, habitually.
Second, they break promises without any real justification. Sometimes they do not even bother to invent an excuse, such as the inherited deficit being worse than they thought. Sometimes they knew that they would not keep their promises, but make them nevertheless.
Third, they offend by omission. They remain silent when they ought to speak. They fail to act when they know they should. Sitting in parliament and saying nothing about the slaughter of Palestinian children is an abhorrent act.
Fourth, they put party discipline and career motives before their consciences. With the exception of Independent Senator Fatima Payman, no current parliamentarian has displayed the sort of courage that sacrifices career for the sake of integrity.
Fifth, given the opportunity to support the principle of truth in political advertising during campaigns, most politicians make excuses for their failure to do so. They should be forced to watch re-runs of the footage of Kangaroo鈥檚 coach Mal Meninga withdrawing his candidacy when he realised that mendacity was a qualification for office.
Sixth, moves to establish agencies for oversight of parliamentarians鈥 ethics have been greeted with lack of enthusiasm. Then, when such agencies have appeared, their effectiveness has been stifled. Consider the inquiry into Robodebt which exempts politicians from investigation. Consider the failure to pursue the former prime minister over his many portfolios.
Seventh, politicians are dependent upon secrecy. Nowhere is this clearer than in international affairs. Labor will not tell us about defence matters and certainly not consult parliament before making war preparations. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to accuse supermarkets of treating Australians like idiots, when we are routinely patronised over foreign policy.
Eighth, the PM unilaterally 鈥 dictatorially even 鈥 declared Charles King of Australia.
Not so long ago, the official line was that we could consider republicanism when the previous queen expired. Needless to say that the period of silence which expired with Elizabeth鈥檚 death has been extended. Perhaps the oath of allegiance should have died with her.
Ninth, when citizens lampoon Questions without Notice in parliament as 鈥渜uestions without answers鈥, their disappointment should be both with the government and with an opposition which does not use questions to elicit information and hold ministers to account, but to score political points.
Tenth, both sides of parliament are averse to the idea of revealing campaign donations in real time.
There might also be an element of envy in the criticism of Thorpe. Many parliamentarians probably wish they had the courage to overcome the temptation to do what is easy and instead do what they think is correct.
They know that the inequality implied in the monarchy is incompatible with democracy and make dubious rationalisations.
Thorpe might have pricked a few of those stifled consciences. After all, the substance of her complaint was that Charles III represented the power which visited genocide on First Nations people.
Should they admit the truth of her statement 鈥 or even examine it rather than her right to say it 鈥 they would need also to acknowledge that they are failing to address that other obvious example of ethnic cleansing in Palestine today.
In hollow vessels, the silence is a deafening echo.