The standard should travel with the candidate

A party jacket is a curious choice of clothing when the explanation is that you were simply visiting family.

That does not make family connections a political offence. It does make the campaigning worth examining.

Kerrin Leoni has resigned as Labour’s Tāmaki Makaurau candidate after footage emerged of her campaigning alongside Mongrel Mob members. In his statement, Chris Hipkins said campaigning alongside gangs was unacceptable and the footage fell short of his expectations. RNZ, 23 October

There is a distinction worth getting right. Te Ao Māori News reported that the footage did not show Leoni at a gang pad. It showed an event attended by gang members, with Leoni wearing Labour branding, her campaign hoardings visible, and encouragement to vote. Leoni said she had attended a whānau function. Te Ao Māori News, 22 October

The location matters when assessing what she denied. The campaigning matters when assessing her judgement.

We should be capable of holding both thoughts at once.

Nobody should have to pretend their relatives do not exist to qualify for public office. Nor should an elected representative refuse to hear someone merely because that person has a gang association. Representation includes people whose choices we dislike. Helping someone leave a gang is a worthy purpose.

But a candidate can maintain family relationships and still decide that an occasion is unsuitable for party promotion. A family connection explains why someone might be there. It does not settle whether they should be campaigning there.

That is the boundary Labour now needs to explain clearly.

Hipkins had already criticised Green and Te Pāti Māori candidates over their gang-pad visit. His own candidate’s conduct therefore put his standard to a practical test. RNZ’s account of the sequence

To his credit, he has now drawn a line within his own party. Consistency requires consequences for your own side, and Leoni’s departure is a consequence.

The remaining question is how that line will work next time. Candidates need a rule they can apply before arriving at an event, rather than an explanation assembled after footage appears.

A useful standard would distinguish listening to constituents, attending a family gathering, and using an occasion involving gang members to promote a party. Those activities can overlap. That is precisely why judgement is required.

Voters are entitled to expect politicians to recognise that difference without treating every difficult decision as a matter of geography.

The standard should travel with the candidate. It should not depend on the address.