Who was presumed innocent when Windsor pursued Anderson?

•      by: Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor
•      From: The Australian
•      May 25, 2012 12:00AM

THE parliamentary debate over Craig Thomson's political future is full of flawed logic, straw man arguments, selective memory, misapplied and inconsistent principles and, most of all, peopled by many who don't come to the privileged chamber with clean hands.

The debate is essentially about whether the former Labor MP for Dobell should be held accountable in parliament for the findings of Fair Work Australia that he was involved in the misuse of $500,000 in union funds for election funding, personal items, cash withdrawals, meals, entertainment and prostitutes, some of which occurred while he was an MP. The secondary point is whether, in making a long and detailed statement to parliament about the FWA findings and making allegations against the authorities and individuals, Thomson has breached the privileges of parliament.

The ultimate outcome of both questions could decide Thomson's parliamentary future and that of the Labor minority government. Of course, while the independent and Greens MPs continue to support the government the most likely political outcome is the continuation of the Labor government and the frustration of Tony Abbott's over-eager attempts to force an election.

It is important to note that this potential impact on the viability of the Gillard government is what is driving the intensity of both the attack and defence of Thomson. As Labor's dumped Speaker, Harry Jenkins, told parliament this week, there has been a relatively recent precedent of a Labor MP who was charged with criminal offences, who left the Labor caucus and became an independent and served in parliament for another 12 months unmolested through to the next election. The simple difference between then and now is that Andrew Theophanous was a Labor opposition backbencher and his vote didn't matter on the floor of the house.

But the defence of Thomson, who hasn't yet been charged or involved in any court proceedings, is vital to Labor's political survival and the protection of Julia Gillard, who has been placed in the invidious position of refusing to have Thomson in the Labor caucus or as a Labor candidate at the next election while needing him in parliament.

Thomson's defence, from both the government and some independents, is that he is entitled to: a presumption of innocence, his "day in court", no parliamentary debate over his behaviour, no parliamentary accusations and to make a statement under parliamentary privilege to defend himself.

The claim is that the parliament is not a court, should not become a "kangaroo court" and should allow the police and court processes to progress to a conclusion without interference or judgment from parliamentarians.

The Prime Minister, government leader of the house Anthony Albanese, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and independent MP Tony Windsor have all argued the parliament cannot act as judge and jury or prejudge the issues surrounding Thomson. The argument is designed to protect him and limit the damage to Labor.

During a considered and thoughtful debate from all sides on a motion about Thomson from independent Rob Oakeshott, Windsor said: "I think if we go down the slippery slope of prejudgment before the appropriate criminal or civil action is taken we do start to put ourselves out there as the judge and jury."

Yet, despite all these high-minded protestations and semi-legal defences, many of those framing the arguments seem to have forgotten recent parliamentary history.

Consider this: a few years ago an MP rose in parliament and named two fellow parliamentarians as attempting to bribe him. The allegations had been made previously to a newspaper, without naming anyone, and they had been referred to the Australian Electoral Commission, which passed them to the Australian Federal Police.

When the MP stood and named the others the "due process" of the police investigation was not finished, the police had not made any findings and no charges were laid. Parliamentary privilege protected the accuser from defamation and the opposition used the allegations to pursue the government for question after question in parliament because a guilty finding would mean the end of two parliamentary careers and a scandal for the government.

The MP who made the allegations, first as a throwaway line to The Sunday Telegraph and repeated on local radio during the 2004 election campaign, was the member for New England, Tony Windsor.

After the ALP had referred the claims to the AEC and while the AFP had not concluded its processes, Windsor named the then deputy prime minister and arch political rival John Anderson, and Nationals senator Sandy Macdonald, in parliament as the two who had offered him a bribe, through a Tamworth businessman, not to contest the 2004 election.

Anderson vehemently denied the charge and the next day Windsor returned to parliament to give an even more detailed account of the attempted inducement.
Windsor went further with the claims of alleged bribery while excusing the "messenger" of any "sin".

"I think it would be a great travesty of justice if the real villains in this case - the ones who are the architects of the message - were allowed to flutter off into the sunset rather than the messenger," Windsor said.

He also suggested that "if the Federal Police were doing their job correctly" they could ascertain the accuracy of details of his allegations.

"One of the reasons I have been reluctant to name names is that there are people who are going to be damaged by this who should not be and people who should be damaged will most probably fly away and hide behind the Chinese wall of an intermediary. I do not think that is fair and I do not think that is what the parliament would indicate as fair to an individual.

"I am proud that we have a parliament where people can actually raise these issues," he said, and added that he hoped the "players" would "consider their positions and tell the truth on this matter".

The Labor opposition, led by Mark Latham, who this week declared his view that the pursuit of Thomson was justified and a moral issue for parliament, pursued Anderson in question time. Latham, Albanese and Gillard all demanded Anderson answer the charges from Windsor, all before the police inquiry was finalised.

Gillard argued the questions were in order because Labor was "entitled to point to the public reporting of this matter".

Anderson argued that "given that there is a police investigation under way, the full, proper, decent and right thing to have done would have been to have allowed that process to be completed".

And the then leader of the House, Tony Abbott, had demanded Windsor produce evidence of his claims.

The matter was resolved when the businessman said the claims were wrong and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions found there was no prima facie case for charges to be laid.

It's amazing what change the pressure of a minority government can bring to principled parliamentary positions and arguments.

Gee another Craig Thomson thread..yyyaawwnnn

lol just pathetic isnt it. Like I have said, this enough is enough and Gillards silence, is to keep as far away from the truth as possible. Dont talk about it, cover your eyes and ears and no-one else can see you.

Abbnotts problem is that no sane person would support him.

The independants looking at the options realised that Abbnott was not an option.