One standard

It might seem strange, even hypocritical, for me to step up in defence of a politician from One Nation. And indeed, the politics of One Nation are undeniably not politics I will ever support in any way.

But even One Nation politicians deserve the principles of privacy, sexual freedom and rehabilitation, and fair political scrutiny.

Warren Pickering is the Victorian One Nation leader. He has admitted to indulging in illicit drugs in his 20s: speed, ecstasy and marijuana. He also had an open relationship and, according to One Nation national director James Ashby, was exploring his sexuality.

Mr Pickering claims he stopped using illicit drugs before joining the Australian Defence Force at 28. Given that One Nation has backed Mr Pickering following his admissions, it presumably considers standing by him consistent with its values.

But the response around Victoria’s political circus did not stop at accepting Mr Pickering’s admission. The day after Mr Pickering’s press conference, reporters were asking Victorian politicians whether they themselves had ever taken illegal drugs. Some admitted to having smoked a bit of marijuana in their youth; some denied ever using illicit drugs.

It was a disappointing exercise; it risked suggesting that smoking a bit of marijuana years ago says something significant about a person’s capacity to perform their job, rather than, perhaps, how they might understand the harms of drug use, as if a simple yes answer would automatically discredit them.

There are legitimate questions that can be asked of Warren Pickering and of One Nation, and no shortage of those questions, no doubt. Exploring his sexuality, the subject of some of the headlines, is not among them.

Unless the exploration involves coercion, abuse or a misuse of public power, a politician’s sexual relationship, open or otherwise, private or otherwise, should have no bearing on their worthiness to hold public office. As long as they act in accordance with these standards, it is up to them and their partner to determine what their relationship will be.

If Pickering is, or should be, free to explore his sexuality as he sees fit, so should everybody else, even people we don’t like. It would be embarrassing to us, not to them, if we tried to defend their sexual freedom only so long as their choices are ones we’d make ourselves.

But why should anyone be surprised that One Nation has not expelled Pickering? One Nation explicitly presents itself as representing conservative values. Perhaps the surprise is that it did not recoil at a leader who has explored his sexuality or entered into a non-monogamous relationship. That, of course, violates the stereotype of the conservative right: that of rigidity and hypocrisy.

Asking politicians about illicit drug use is a bit more complicated. Illicit drug use breaks the law, and if a politician is currently dependent on drugs, it could affect their ability to do the job. But, in such instances, dishonesty about drug use, if a lie could be material, may be more relevant.

A party with a punitive drug policy might take a different view.

If One Nation wants to talk tough about drugs, then the media should ask the head of the Victorian arm of the party, Warren Pickering, who has admitted past drug use, if he thinks people with his history deserve punishment.

If, as reported, One Nation opposes supervised injecting rooms and pill testing, then it’s worth asking the Victorian leader of the party, Warren Pickering, who has admitted past drug use, if he believes a punitive approach would have been best for the younger version of himself.

What does he think should be the approach to people making the same mistakes he did?

These are fair political questions.

They are not the same as asking a politician entering parliament whether they have ever taken illegal drugs.

It’s more worrying for our political culture if we think this is a reasonable question to put to candidates for public office, or a reason to disqualify them.

People should be capable of rehabilitation. A person who used drugs at 22 could be living an entirely different life at 42.

Paradoxically, as a society, we claim to value people who come to their senses after committing an offence and live differently for many years.

But if that person puts their hand up and says they used to do bad things, that admission can be used against them when they seek election.

Our political culture treats honesty about life’s untidiness as a liability. If you want to win a seat, the lesson is not merely to live better, but to disclose less.

The failure to be honest, then, cannot be attributed only to the individual politician. It is a symptom of a culture that insists its representatives be scrubbed clean, a culture satisfied only by the knowledge that its elected representatives, at least, do not stray too far from the norm, whatever that may be.

A representative parliament ought to represent all of us. Some of us have used drugs, some of us are bisexual, some of us have relationships that occur outside conventional monogamy, and some of us struggle with addiction. Some of us make mistakes. And some of us successfully change course. All these people should be able to enter public life when they choose.

The implication is that because Warren Pickering has had trouble, he cannot be trusted. Taken to its conclusion, only people with an antiseptic biography could become legislators. Warren Pickering has experienced illicit drug use and relationship breakdown. Countless people have had these experiences.

A legislator with an antiseptic biography tells us little by itself about their actual ethics. They may well have been fortunate enough never to have been caught when their principles were tested, never to have been asked some probing questions, or to be skilled at concealing things that would make a headline.

There is a recurring tendency in politics for people who should know better, who may even have the evidence of their own eyes, to believe those who have been unusually fortunate are more worthy of trust than those who have had trouble. Why do they suppose our politicians will better understand the lives of people who have not been able to avoid the consequences of bad fortune? Trust is rightly earned by action.

At his press conference, Mr Pickering acknowledged his drink-driving offences. His exploration of his sexuality and consensual sexual conduct are different. Pickering has also reportedly acknowledged that some conduct while exploring his sexuality went beyond the boundaries agreed with his partner, describing it as cheating. That may raise questions about his private conduct, but it is not the same as his sexuality or the fact of consensual non-monogamy.

Also different are the serious allegations made against him by a former partner that he used ice while children were at home. He has denied those allegations. That doesn’t mean journalists can’t put them to him or examine the public record and his statements on the subject.

Questions about his candour are also legitimate. Pickering has reportedly acknowledged that he did not initially disclose his own illicit-drug history when he first applied to run for One Nation. He also initially broadly denied his former partner’s allegations before admitting some historical drug use the following day.

Where I part company with those scrutinising Mr Pickering’s suitability for One Nation is that I don’t accept all those matters are equally relevant to scrutiny of the man. Questions about what he disclosed and when are relevant. But once the facts are known, how are the remaining details of his sexuality and consensual private relationships relevant, unless they bear on his present policy positions or on whether his earlier behaviour is inconsistent with the understanding he now seeks. Opposing One Nation’s public politics is one thing. Using that political hostility as another excuse for bad standards is another.

One Nation’s policies can be challenged, along with the claims its candidates make to support them. What Warren Pickering, should he attain power, intends to do with such power is fair game for questioning.

But his sexuality and consensual private relationships, by themselves, have nothing to do with his fitness to hold public office. Questions of dishonesty or conduct outside agreed boundaries are separate questions.

There is a distinction between the questioning of historic drug use, which Pickering has admitted to, and the questioning of his private sexual conduct. One is fair game for questioning. The other is not, unless it bears on a policy he advocates, his honesty or his treatment of others. The drug use was unlawful and relates to policies One Nation advocates. His sexuality and consensual private sexual conduct are not unlawful and should not themselves be treated as evidence of unfitness for office.

Drug use can have serious consequences for a person. But a long-ago period of drug use does not contaminate a person forever.

It is just that kind of irrelevant argument that we should reject.