Hot on the heels of his reprehensible speech to Parliament this week — which may bring more self-inflicted trouble than anything — Craig Thomson played the misery card again today, begging the opposition and media commentators to leave him alone. They shouldn’t, and they won’t.
There are people in this world who genuinely believe themselves to be beyond scrutiny or reproach; people who think they can do whatever they like, to whomever they like, at whatever cost, and that they should walk away scot-free if their travails are ever uncovered, with neither consequences nor responsibility, and with ultimate accountability to nobody.
It increasingly appears, and not least by the man’s own words and deeds, that Craig Thomson is such a specimen.
In what is (for Thomson) a rare media appearance indeed, he conducted a doorstop interview in Canberra today, imploring those in pursuit of him over scandals at the HSU, his alleged use of prostitutes at union expense and the misappropriation of $500,000 of HSU monies to back off.
Thomson went on, identifying nine different inquiries, investigations and legal proceedings against him that are underway involving the courts, Parliament and Police.
“Enough is enough, really,” he said. “Is this about trying to push someone to the brink?”
Really? Really?
We’re going to see exactly why Thomson should not be “left alone” under any circumstances; but I would first make the observation that his remarks today are an insult to those in the community who really are suffering depression, feeling suicidally miserable, and so forth.
People on the brink of self-harm — or worse — tend not to prate of it; they simply go ahead and do it, rather than looking for attention, sympathy or, in this case, a reprieve from scrutiny.
Ever since Thomson started to talk a couple of weeks ago — and even then, it was only to evade censure in the House of Representatives — the “woe is me” theme has been prevalent in his utterings; the clear impression is that Thomson wants everyone to feel sorry for him, and that his alleged misdemeanours should be quietly dropped and forgotten.
The general message is that Thomson should be able to skip off into the sunset, and that anyone standing in his way is, quite simply, a bastard.
Well, I have a message for Craig Thomson: this column won’t leave you alone until either you satisfactorily and credibly explain your purported innocence of the allegations you face, or you are prosecuted.
And I have a small inkling that the Liberal and National parties, the vast majority of those in the mainstream media, a similar proportion of commentators here in the new media space, and maybe — just maybe — the odd federal Independent who has been “solid” for Thomson until now don’t intend to leave him alone either.
Collectively, we can’t — Thomson must be held to account.
Here’s a little rap sheet, and some reasons why the scrutiny Thomson clearly despises is not going to go away — and nor should it.
What was supposed to be a watertight explanation of all allegations against him in his speech to Parliament was nothing of the sort; at first glance, those passages dealing with the allegations seem guided by saying something — anything — against each accusation in turn rather than by any requirement for a credible or even cogent overall account.
And defences to specific allegations — such as inviting investigators to secure CCTV footage from escort agencies that only provide outcall services — fool nobody.
In point of fact, they merely make Thomson appear like the idiot he seems determined to play everyone else for.
In the past 72 hours Thomson has smeared several people both under parliamentary privilege and, through a leak to the Murdoch press, outside Parliament; those people consequently may not have recourse against Thomson, even if they can show they were defamed. But Thomson — having tried to settle scores by throwing stones from a glass house — expects and believes his address to be a repercussion-free exercise.
Thomson, in rattling off the details of the various inquiries and investigations into his conduct that are currently underway, claimed that “these (investigations) are the appropriate places for these matters to be dealt with.”
Yet he has repeatedly frustrated or otherwise refused to co-operate with them, especially two current inquiries (and one that lapsed as a result of his failure to co-operate) being undertaken by the NSW and Victorian Police.
The headkickers of the ALP are lining up behind Thomson to do his bidding; Leader of the House of Representatives Anthony Albanese, in particular, seems determined to terminate any further scrutiny of Thomson and to protect him, and the government, from any further fallout from the scandal.
Indeed, Thomson can’t even be said to have made a credible stand in his own defence; until last week, his security of tenure has largely rested on the refusal of the Prime Minister to do anything other than to reaffirm her full confidence in him.
Whenever challenged on the ethical or legal implications of allegations surrounding Thomson, Gillard has attempted to talk about Tony Abbott, or to ignore the question.
More recently, she has simply walked away — be it to an overseas conference, or out of question time when the subject matter of the discussion is not to her liking.
All this comes as the Nine network prepares to air a segment on its A Current Affair programme; Nine says it has located and interviewed one of the prostitutes who allegedly slept with Thomson, and who claims to have details of credit cards and other incriminating material to prove that Thomson was with her.
The programme’s executive producer, Grant Williams, visited Thomson in Canberra yesterday and offered to allow Thomson the opportunity to view the ACA segment and to respond if he saw fit.
Oddly — and, I would have thought, unbelievably — Thomson declined.
For the record, Nine has emphasised that it did not pay the prostitute to appear; and this also comes as Melbourne’s Herald Sun reports that Police have been told to look into whether Thomson used American Express cards on escorts:
“Detectives in NSW are believed to have referred to Victoria Police fraud squad detectives information about an American Express card allegedly linked to Thomson…sex industry sources in Victoria have (also) told police to look into Thomson’s use of that card, and not only (other) records checked by Fair Work Australia.”
It was also reported today in the Murdoch press that a payment account linked to a Sydney sex industry supremo appears to have allegedly had funds deposited to it by Thomson during his time in charge of the Health Services Union, and that when asked specific questions about payments to that account, Thomson refused to answer.
I could go on…but what would be the point?
Aside from sympathy, why would anyone back off Thomson when he can’t give a straight and honest answer to questions about matters in which he is implicated?
Why should he be let off the hook, when not a word of what he has said remotely excuses him from even one of the myriad of allegations against him?
Indeed, why would anyone have any sympathy for him at all?
Liberal backbencher and retiring MP, Mal Washer — a doctor of medicine — has attempted to intervene this week, on account of his genuine concern for Thomson’s wellbeing and general health.
Such an intervention is not unwelcome; I actually think Dr Washer should be commended for coming forward despite the fraught, charged political atmosphere and the highly partisan nature of the events that are playing out.
But Thomson must face scrutiny; until or unless he is either exonerated or prosecuted, the matters in which he is alleged to have engaged in misconduct must be rigorously pursued.
I note — near the end of my remarks tonight — that the opposition’s focus is now turning more sharply towards Julia Gillard — as it should.
The conduct of a Prime Minister in office should always be unimpeachable; in the current circumstances of minority government, the need to uphold standards is ever-more critical, with parliamentary numbers so finely balanced and the overriding requirement for the country to remain governable.
Yet Gillard — with her selective honesty, smart answers, glib slogans, questionable ethics and deceptive manipulations — has directly facilitated the trashing of the reputation of Parliament as an institution, and in so doing has provided a grub like Thomson with a safety house in which to shelter, free from the repercussions of his alleged actions.
I’m not a brute; simply a plain, no-nonsense Tory. I think it of paramount importance that any and all legitimate methods of investigation in the Thomson matters required to establish the truth — once and for all — must be utilised.
I am not insensitive to any health issues that may afflict Thomson and I really don’t think the likes of Abbott and his MPs or the media community are either, but I would point out that Dr Washer’s idea to offer care and observation can easily be carried out simultaneously with ongoing investigations, and that both should proceed.
But if Thomson wants people to back off him, I will make this offer:
- Immediately submit to full co-operation with all outstanding Police inquiries;
- Provide any and all material and intellectual evidence as demanded by such inquiries, including under oath as reasonably required;
- Seek to make a personal explanation (or similar) to Parliament, on the next available sitting day, substantially retracting in full the speech made on Tuesday;
- Utilise whatever options are available to have the Hansard record of the speech struck out; and
- Citing the irreconcilable incompatibility of ongoing, protracted allegations and investigations with the effective representation of a federal electorate — and irrespective of any potential political ramifications — announce the resignation of the seat of Dobell in the House of Representatives, effective from 6pm on Friday 1 July, 2012.
If Thomson is prepared to do all of those things — effectively turning his back on the ALP protection racket whose favour he has enjoyed, throwing himself on the mercy or the law and proper process, and leaving the Parliament, albeit in disgrace — then this column will make no further critical comment of him.
It seems fair: with so many questions to answer, and the apparent weight of evidence against him almost overwhelming, if Thomson wants a break then he’s going to have to give something for it.
Of course, this won’t happen; Thomson wants everyone to know exactly who the bastards are and why they’re such evil people, and he wants the world to lavish him with pity and sympathy and “understanding;” but he refuses to take responsibility for his actions — either as determined by Fair Work Australia, or otherwise alleged.
I’m sorry, this bozo simply doesn’t get it.
Contrary to what he and others in the ALP might think, this is not a game.
Standards of governance in this country are lower than at any time since 1975, or perhaps ever; there is a great deal at risk the longer this goes on.
And hypothetical questions about what Tony Abbott might do if the shoe were on the other foot are — irrespective of their merit or otherwise — irrelevant.
Craig Thomson is an utter disgrace to this country; the sooner he leaves Parliament — one way or the other — the better off Australia will be for it.
Enough is enough, all right, Mr Thomson. It is time for you to go; your legitimacy as a member of Parliament has long since expired.
And if your departure results in the fall of the government and an election, then so be it.
Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
another insightful and exhaustive argument Yale, well done that man!
thank you, I am appalled at the state of this country under this government. They are liars and are DETERMINED to do anything to get what “they” want, NOT THE PEOPLE
Hello Bronwyn, and welcome; glad you liked this article. I call things as I see them; and the way I see this is that it’s a big old mess. I think some people are missing the point that between “that” speech on Monday and the subsequent conduct of the ALP, there has been a de facto admission of sorts — something has got to give. Believe me, I share your frustrations.
Look, I think Thomson is dirty, however I must hold to the important principle that distinguishes our society from most that have gone before, “Innocent until proven guilty”.
The last of your bullet points is so wrong as to be beyond even reasonable. Resignation due to investigations and allegations? It is only reasonable that all allegations of wrongdoing be investigated, so you are saying that a man should resign his job if there are allegations of impropriety. Nice. Welcome to the 11th Century.
Has Thomson done the wrong thing? Yes he has by not fully co-operating with the police investigations, but at the moment that is all he has done wrong.
I’m getting very tired of the hysterical screaming for his head when so far he has not been found guilty of a single crime.
This is pure trial by media and trial by public opinion, it has nothing to do with Justice or the Rule of Law. Who are the media to demand explanations and defences against allegations? Were I in Thomsons shoes (heaven forbid) the only responce that the media are worthy of is this; “If you have a charge to make, then make. Until you have something that will stand up in court, STFU and p*ss off.”
Sound familiar? The behaviour of the media crowd is amazingly similar to Salem in 1692 as well.
Right now, Thomson has done a great many things incorrectly or stupidly, however there is yet to be a proven charge and until such a time I, and any person who values this society of ours, cannot back any calls for punishment. As dirty as I think he is, or you think he is, our opinions do not matter. The only thing that matters is what is proven in court. That is what separates us from previous societies where allegations were considered enough evidence for punishment.
Make your stand Yale, you either stand on the side of Justice and due process, or on the side of those who ran the Salem Witch Trials, where a pointing finger was proof enough. The choice is yours.
The man has only to say I am innocent, I never stole $500,000 from the fund, I never used the funds for prostitutes. I am cooperating with the police. The Alp did not keep me from being a bankrupt so they could have my vote. LIAR LIAR LIAR, and you JohnB are happy for the present govenment to help bury this in legal documentation that could take years and years to come to court. SOMETHING STINKITH and you want to talk about Salem Witch Trials. I want to talk about CORRUPTION at the highest levels in this government. A government that only got in by buying the greens and independents and telling the Australian public We will not have a carbon TAX. LIARS LIARS LIARS.
JohnB, normally whether we differ in opinion or not, there is a healthy respect for your views here; on this occasion I am in total disagreement with you and will state my reasons.
Your point (in disagreement with the last of five bullet points in my article) may well have been valid a week ago; it most certainly isn’t now.
The exact wording of the passage in question was “…the irreconcilable incompatibility of ongoing, protracted allegations and investigations with the effective representation of a federal electorate…” — this does not say that because there are allegations, he must resign as a causal link; rather, it goes to the impact that (in Thomson’s own words) no fewer than nine separate inquiries will be having in terms of compromising his ability to adequately and effectively perform his duties as an MP.
It also took into account (which I perhaps did not spell out) that Thomson’s health is being affected and that this is accepted on both sides of Parliament; similarly — as was reported on 3AW this morning from Fairfax Radio’s Canberra bureau, an unspecified number of MPs on both sides of the chamber are now telling journalists off the record that they believe Thomson should go as this is the only way the pressure on him can be relieved.
Apparently the ALP MPs of this view understand the risks it would entail but are apparently resigned to having to face that particular issue sooner or later.
It is the reason the Coalition attack swung toward Gillard today; there are also credible indications that Thomson is not permitted to leave the Parliament on account of his indebtedness to the Labor Party.
In the context of your wider objection — the presumption of innocence — I must first say that the “presumption of innocence” is a concept absolutely bastardised by the ALP during this process as an excuse to provide Thomson cover and protect him from further action.
As I said earlier, your point may have been valid a week ago but it isn’t now; the change there is a direct consequence of the speech he delivered in the House on Monday.
Parliamentary privilege is not a suppression order; thus, whilst anything he had to say is open to public scrutiny.
Whilst this cannot be actioned through the Courts, the substance of what Thomson said in Parliament on Monday leaves no doubt whatsoever that there is a cover-up underway, and that he is central to it; the list of examples I published further reinforces this point.
Thomson has repeatedly refused to put all of the “interesting bits” from his speech on the record, or answer formally to various of the inquiries he is subject to; but in the glass house of Parliament…
And the “misery is me” act now being used, both by Thomson himself and by others in the ALP on his behalf as they seek to shut the allegations down, is the figurative salt being rubbed in the eyes of those who simply wish to see justice done.
The other point i may not have made adequately clear is that the Privileges Committee charged with evaluating whether or not Thomson lied to and misled the Parliament on Monday — controlled by ALP MPs as it is — is tearing itself to shreds as we speak, and will make no finding except exoneration on account of Labor’s control of it.
And there goes one more avenue to adjudicate these matters with some degree of evenness and justice.
In sum, I do not believe for a minute now that the pursuit of Thomson is a witch-hunt; he has had ample opportunities to explain himself on the record and in evidence, and has refused, but spent Monday thumbing his nose at millions of disgusted Australians, and at the investigative agencies charged with the “doing” of justice in this case.
So your analogy with the Salem witch trials is not merely anomalous, but inappropriate in the context of the point I was making; and I think it entirely appropriate for Thomson to leave Parliament, for the reasons stated, and on the timeframe proposed.
The “presumption of innocence” was surely removed when Gillard tossed Thomson out of the Labor Caucus and then announced he would not be pre-selected for the seat of Dobell?
Or has Gillard had legal advice she is not willing to share with the voters?
The “presumption of innocence” was surely ignored by PM Gillard and the Labor Caucus when Thomson was moved from the Labor Caucus to Cross Benches and PM Gillard announced that Thomson would not be considered for pre-selection for the seat of Dobell?
Or was it that PM Gillard and the Labor Caucus had information they are unwilling to divulge either in the House or to the public?
Surely “Crossing a line” is hardly an explanation or defence for a legally trained Prime Minister
gabrianga, what the redheaded fool in Canberra does is not my concern. I believe in the principle of presumption of innocence, do you? That this is politically convenient for the ALP is bad news for me but I would rather sink with colours flying while defending the principles that founded our nation than scuttle those principles myself.
My personal opinion is that the guy is so bent he could stand in the shadow of a corkscrew, but for punishment etc my opinion doesn’t count. Guilt or innocence must be decided by the courts. This principle goes back to 1215 and is found in section 38 of the Magna Carta. This is not a minor point here, it goes back unchanged for 1,000 years.
Yes, there will be times when unscrupulous politicians and criminals will hide behind presumption of innocence, but the question we have to ask ourselves is what sort of society do we want? One that has the presumption or one that doesn’t? Or does it only count when we want it to? Which puts you squarely in Gillards camp.
Bronwyn, I’m not happy about the situation at all. But if you aren’t going to do it “by the book”, then what sort of justice do you want? I want Thomson charged and facing a court. I want him in the dock where there is no protection and every lie can result in perjury charges. I want him publicly found guilty and jailed for 10 years or so. I want the Union he defrauded to then take civil action and recover the money he stole. I want it all done in the glaring light of publicity as a message and warning to the next corrupt bastard that we will get you and it will hurt.
But I want it done within the rules, you want trial by media and accusation. “The man only has to say…..”, well he’s said all that and more yet you still want his head on a platter? You want to talk about “Corruption”? I put it to you that there is no greater corruption than the usurping of the rule of law to satisfy short erm desires.
Yale. Presumption of innocence I covered above but will restate. What the ALP does or says in regard to this is immaterial, you either believe in the principle and will defend it or you do not. I do, at all times and for all people. You and others obviously do not, you think it should only apply when it is not inconvenient for you. Then don’t b*tch about Gillard because you are doing exactly what she is doing.
As to the bullet point you are missing the logical conclusion of your reasoning. If we accept the idea that allegations should be investigated, then we accept that a number of allegations will lead to a number of investigations. Your argument was that the number of ongoing investigations meant he should resign. But all that is required for ongoing investgations are ongoing allegations, no proof, no evidence. Get it? You are arguing that if there are enough allegations that lead to enough investigation time then the person should resign even though they have not been found guilty of any crime. You know, that’s exactly how people use the workplace rumour mill to get people sacked.
I’m not calling this a witch hunt BTW, I’m comparing the behaviour of those involved to those from Monty Python and Salem. “WE’ve found a crooked politician and we want him out of Parliment!” “How do you know he is crooked?” “He looks crooked” Rabble agrees.
The argument is made that he hasn’t answered the allegations adequately. Answered to whom? You? Channel 7 news? The only group in this country with the authority to demand an answer is a court of law, anything else is trial by media.
The bottom line here is that you either believe in and defend the principles of “Rule of Law”, “Due Process” and the “Presumption of Innocence” even when it is convenient for your opponents and it really sticks in your craw to do so, or you are in the Gillard camp and only support the principles when it is convenient for you to do so. I’ve made my position clear, principles first, last and always and it amazes me to see that people who obviously abhore Gillard are making exactly the same argument that she is, specifically that principles can be ignored if they are inconvenient. That’s what she does and that’s what you are asking for.
I have been searching the resignation of Fitzgibbon and can not find any mention of court action as it was apparently only handled. a Parliamentary Committee.
I did not say that priciples should be ignored rather that Gillard ignored the principle of innocent until proven guilty when she and her cohorts “red carded” Thomson to the Cross Benches and denied him pre-selection for the seat of Dobell.
An explanation along the lines of “crossing a line” does not suffice and if Gillard had evidence to back up her decisions then she should have shared them with all.
I do believe the Privileges Committee have the power to sentence a Parliamentarian to a max 6 months in jail or fine up to $5000 for an individual without referral to a Court but I may have misread this?
Nueclearn, I must brush up on the privileges of Parliament, so I’m unsure as to whether they can issue a sentence as you suggest. However, the power used to exist to expel members if they were found to be in contempt of Parliament (it still exists in the States) — but this was abolished by the Hawke government in the 1980s at federal level.
I wonder why…it had only ever been used twice (once at federal level I believe, in the 1920s); the last person to be “threatened” with it was Jeff Kennett as opposition leader in 1991, when the kirner government threatened with expelling him for a threat to forfeit the parliamentary superannuation of defeated Cain/Kirner MPs.
One of the points I have been trying to make is that even if Parliament could find Thomson in contempt, and expel him, it wouldn’t; the Privileges Committee is split along party lines and tearing itself to bits.
So your precedent — rightly or wrongly — isn’t going to matter in practice on this occasion.
My mistake.
The Committee of Privileges and Members‘ Interests is established at the start of each Parliament to inquire into and report on complaints of breach of privilege or contempt referred to it by the House under standing order 51 or by the Speaker under standing order 52. The committee itself cannot impose penalties—its role is investigatory and advisory. In its report to the House the
Committee usually makes a finding as to whether or not a breach of privilege or contempt has been committed, and it usually recommends to the House what action, if any, should be taken.
Normally when a report from the Committee of Privileges and Members‘ Interests is presented, and especially if there is the possibility of further action, the practice is to consider the report at a future time so that Members may study the report and the issues involved before making decisions on it. The House is not bound to follow the committee‘s recommendations, and any motion moved in relation to the matter is subject to amendment.
The House for various reasons may decide not to proceed against the offenders or it may take punitive action.
Punishment may be by way of imprisonment or fine, public reprimand, requirement of an apology or exclusion from the parliamentary precincts.
Where I went wrong on Privileges Committee apolgies
Section 7 – Penalties
7 Penalties imposed by Houses
(1) A House may impose on a person a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months for an offence against that House determined by that House to have been committed by that person.
(2) A penalty of imprisonment imposed in accordance with this section is not affected by a prorogation of the Parliament or the dissolution or expiration of a House.
(3) A House does not have power to order the imprisonment of a person for an offence against the House otherwise than in accordance with this section.
(4) A resolution of a House ordering the imprisonment of a person in accordance with this section may provide that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires, is to have power, either generally or in specified circumstances, to order the discharge of the person from imprisonment and, where a resolution so provides, the President or the Speaker has, by force of this Act, power to discharge the person accordingly.
(5) A House may impose on a person a fine:
(a) not exceeding $5,000, in the case of a natural person; or
(b) not exceeding $25,000, in the case of a corporation;
for an offence against that House determined by that House to have been committed by that person.
(6) A fine imposed under subsection (5) is a debt due to the Commonwealth and may be recovered on behalf of the Commonwealth in a court of competent jurisdiction by any person appointed by a House for that purpose.
(7) A fine shall not be imposed on a person under subsection (5) for an offence for which a penalty of imprisonment is imposed on that person.
(8) A House may give such directions and authorise the issue of such warrants as are necessary or convenient for carrying this section into effect.
Both Houses have the power to declare an action to be a contempt and to punish such an action. The rationale is that the Houses should be able to protect
2HCP Report concerning the execution of a search warrant on the electorate office of Mr E H Cameron MP, October 1995.
themselves from actions which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions in a similar way to the power of the courts to punish contempts of court. Section 7 of the Privileges Act authorises the imposition of fines up to $5000 for individuals and $25 000 for corporations, or imprisonment for up to six months. A decision to impose a penalty of imprisonment may be subject to review by a court. The court may determine whether the conduct or action in question, particulars of which must be set out in the warrant committing the person, was capable of constituting an offence.
Lesser punishments such as admonition, reprimand or suspension of a member are also available under the normal powers and processes of the House. The Senate has imposed a penalty for contempt (reprimand before the Senate) only once in 1971. The House of Representatives has once imposed imprisonment for contempt in 1955 (Browne/Fitzpatrick, 1955).3 The Privileges Act specifically removes the power of the Houses to expel a member (s. 8). The Senate Committee of Privileges published a comprehensive information paper on penalties for contempt in 2000. The paper makes no recommendations.4
Section 12 – Protection of witnesses
12 Protection of witnesses
(1) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before a House or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving any such evidence.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of a natural person, $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months; or
(b) in the case of a corporation, $25,000.
(2) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of:
(a) the giving or proposed giving of any evidence; or
(b) any evidence given or to be given;
before a House or a committee.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of a natural person, $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months; or
(b) in the case of a corporation, $25,000.
(3) This section does not prevent the imposition of a penalty by a House in respect of an offence against a House or by a court in respect of an offence against an Act establishing a committee.
Apologies for the spelling of apology