The private lives of politicians

are none of our business? Or are they?
There was a heated debate  yesterday over whether the private life of the Deputy Prime Minister was open to the public. Much was made of the fact that his marriage had failed and he was having an affair - complete with baby to come.
My own view? It is none of my business. It's not nice for any of those involved but it is none of my business. 
Most politicians approached by the media seemed to feel the same way. Only one of them hedged a bit. He would clearly have liked to be able to condemn the man for political purposes but didn't quite dare.
There was condemnation for the now Senator who had previously posted a couple of videos showing violent confrontations between minority groups and others. He has been accused of being "racist" and even a war criminal. The videos have been slammed as "fake".  Those making the claims know full well that the Senator is not a racist or a war criminal and that the videos are not fake. They know that even if they need to apologise down the track the damage will have been done. They will tell you "it's politics". No, it isn't. It is just nasty, indeed vile, behaviour.
Then there was the third thing that came up yesterday. One of the Opposition politicians has been caught up in the sec.44 problems, the section of the Constitution which does not allow you to be a dual citizen. She made her private life very public indeed, so public that it will go on the parliamentary record for posterity. 
I doubt that there is any decent person who wouldn't feel some sympathy for her. As a child, she was abandoned by her mother. They are still estranged. That's an appalling thing to happen to a child and still a very sad thing as an adult. 
But, whatever her personal circumstances, sec. 44 of the Constitution has to override them. She needs to refer herself to the High Court - or be referred. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and must take precedence over her personal circumstances.
The Deputy Prime Minister has done no more or less than many another person. He is not the first politician to do this and he probably won't be the last. It is almost certainly why his fellow politicians refused to condemn him.
The Senator was highlighting his personal hatred of violence and his concern about the way some groups don't integrate well with other groups. It might not have been the best way to do it but he wanted to say something that was clearly important to him - and he was doing it from a background which has given him first hand experience of some of the problems. The Senator on the opposite side won't repeat his statements outside parliament - and that will tell people all they need to know.
That leaves us with the parliamentarian in potential breach of sec.44. It would have been better for her if she had simply referred herself quietly to the High Court. Her personal life is not the issue here.