The Lateralist Failure

It emerged on the news tonight that the Western Australian Treasurer had - up until recently - been having an affair with another Member of Parliament. That both are married ought to go without saying, in that if they were not, it would be a relationship, not an affair. That she is a member of different political persuasion (a Green to his Liberal) is actually far more interesting, and worthy of discussion that the political shit-storm about to blight Western Australian politics, due in no small measure to the assumption of small-mindedness inherent to Western Australian media outlets' perception of Western Australian people.

It seems as likely as not that the Treasurer is going to lose his job, largely due to his history of being unable to control himself (or be, you know, not a fool) in the company of women. But the primary reason cited will be that he used Government money to conduct some of the affair. I think he's confessed to using tax-payer funds for two nights accommodation. The affair lasted four months, by the way.

Now, whilst I have no desire to be seen to be in favour of affairs, or for Government Ministers (or Employees) to act fraudulently, I have a few minor points to make. For a start, if all in Government employ were sacked for acting immorally, we'd have some vacancies, that likely as not would extend from the parking area to the Prime Minister's office. The same would apply if all those who put Government money to improper use were shown the door; the issue would simply determining who got the boot, which would be directly contingent with whom was in charge of vetting the expenditure's validity.

Right now, that's a shared responsibility; it's called voting. That it is in the Premier's purview to retain or dismiss the Treasurer should remind all that this is a political issue, as opposed to a professional one. Much like the WA media determines how to report the story based on its perception, it is we who are being sized up, and a decision made on our behalf. But don't worry; if you don't like the decision he makes, you can indicate as such with your vote. Whilst forming that opinion, consider the Liberal party currently serving in State Parliament, and ask yourself who'd be a better Treasurer. I don't have the answer for you, I just think there ought to be some consideration of actual - rather than perceived - consequence when determining who ought or ought not be in charge of the State's finances.

I shall withhold my views on the Treasurer, as they ought not be relevant to my assessment on whether or not he keep his job. That's not my call until the next election. A man who has an affair can, likely as not, be described as having behaved poorly, but to do so would be to confuse my business with his. The minute we start employing people on one set of criteria and firing them on another is when we've crossed a pretty dangerous societal line. When laws are broken, that is perhaps another matter, but then even then it depends on the law. Speeding? A problem for the Transport Minister, but not even then, if he's pinged for doing 67 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, surely? Like most things, this is matter best regarded in terms of its degrees. To expect perfect public servants is to have none at all. That said, having none at all is likely better than allowing all transgressions, blunders, lies to occur. As I said before, though, it's a matter of degrees.

That the Treasurer has fraudulently claimed funds that were not his to use is not in dispute, nor is the fact that such actions are wrong, and ought to bring with them serious repercussions. But I can't help but wonder his transgression would be held up as being quite so serious if it were not in the context of an extramarital affair. I don't believe Ministers ought to act fraudulently, but I don't think office-workers should steal stationery, either; and what these two opinions share is a fervent wish that summary judgements aren't made with regards to irrelevant side issues being treated as mitigating facts. And that's pretty much the focus of this posting, which, sadly, is more lateral in intent than ought to be the case in a rational, fair minded society; treat situations on their merits, and no more.

I'll end with a challenge to look at your own life, and ask yourself where you'd like the boundary line drawn between your professional and personal lives. Do you really want your colleagues to be the arbiters of your marriage? Or how you raise your children? Or what you say about your friends behind their backs? If not, think about what you're saying when you confuse a relatively minor financial aberration with your (rightly held) indignance regarding marital infidelity. Still, if you're one of those folk who think politicians ought to be held to a higher standard, you're not alone. It's just I've thought that adage is best applied to parents. If you're happy to start ranking the importance of particular parents in our society, then you're a braver man than I.