Whenever an election comes around, whether it be for Parliament or local government, the knives will come out at some stage as candidates and supporters strive for the extra advantage, and people who might be friends in any other setting suddenly become enemies at war.
Thus it is thatrumours emerge about candidates who may have a skeleton or two in the closet, such as criminal offending. This raises several issues, such as does it matter, if so, how much, and whose obligation is it to divulge such information, if anyone's at all?
The simple fact is that people eligible to stand for public office do not have to divulge whether they have criminal convictions.
They are ineligible to stand, or even vote, if they are serving a prison sentence.
There is at least a smidgeon of irony, for if you're going for any other job the prospective employer has some sort of entitlement to know what miscreancy blemishes one's past, albeit within the constraints of the Clean Slate Act.
Believe it or not, this legislation has been with us 12 years, and by and large, apart from the small print, means if you haven't been convicted of a criminal offence in the last seven years you're regarded for the purpose as having no criminal record.
This recognises that everyone deserves a second chance, and by inference perhaps that such pasts may even add to the complete cross-section of personnel some of us may want to be having an input into the decisions affecting the nation, the region, or the district.
Others will of course say "once a crim, always a crim", regardless of the degree, and with some allowance for the nature of the relationship (family, friend or foe). Would it sway your vote?
