Editorial: Brash affair masks the real issue

Opinion

Don Brash is most unlikely to lead the National Party into the next general election. At some stage before then, certain circumstances will prompt a recognition that last year's poll represented his best chance of becoming Prime Minister. Now, however, is not that time. Nor, indeed, are those circumstances present. The allegations of an extra-marital affair swirling around him should not be the catalyst for his surrender of the National leadership.

Fundamentally, Dr Brash is suffering from his own, and his party's, vigorous challenging of Labour's disgraceful use of public funds to produce its election pledge card. Labour's response was a threat to reveal the private lives of MPs and pointed interjections in the House. Whatever Labour's protestations, the latter were the trigger for National MP Brian Connell's questioning of Dr Brash about his private life at a party caucus meeting.

The position in which Dr Brash finds himself is hardly unique. Parliament's complexion would be considerably different if every MP accused of having an affair were to resign. So would history. It is replete with leaders - such as President Bill Clinton and President John Kennedy - who indulged in extra-marital affairs.

Their reputations were barely affected because, while real questions of personal integrity are raised by these activities, they did not necessarily impinge on their trustworthiness in a political sense. They entered the public arena committed to certain policies and the complexities or errant nature of their private life had no bearing on their pursuit of that platform.

On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of examples of politicians boasting scrupulous private lives who saw little problem in deviating from policy. Take the case of Jim Bolger, a happily married man with nine children, and his abandonment of the campaign pledge to repeal the surcharge on superannuation. Integrity in private life has never been a guarantor of political behaviour.

Generally, of course, politicians' private lives remain private. In Dr Brash's instance, that had been the case until now because media outlets, including the Herald, did not consider it a matter of public interest. But Dr Brash made it so when he issued a statement saying he and his wife, Je Lan, had been having some difficulties. At that point, a public airing became inevitable, whatever the identity of the woman with whom the National leader was alleged to be having an affair.

As much as anything, this episode highlights yet again Dr Brash's political naivety and his alarming proneness to mishap. While Labour and Mr Connell fired the bullets, the actual wounds to his wife, family, party and himself are inflicted by Dr Brash's original actions. While it should not, in itself, lead to his loss of the party leadership, any change would simply represent a fast-forwarding of that process. The same liabilities, illustrated most graphically by the Exclusive Brethren debacle, resulted in the party losing an election that was there for the taking. At 65, Dr Brash's best opportunity lies behind him.

Should these allegations spur a leadership change, it is important this does not derail National's campaign against Labour's electoral spending. Labour will be satisfied that its snide interjections have precipitated speculation about Dr Brash's future and deflected attention from its own considerable discomfort. National, on behalf of the taxpayer, must ensure there is no lessening of the pressure on Labour to pay back the money it spent on its pledge card.

For now, Dr Brash should continue to lead that fight. He and National should not give Labour the satisfaction of using his fall to deflect attention from its shabby raid on taxpayer funds. Had Dr Brash made less of an impact on that subject, his private life would not now be a matter of debate.