EO&E..............................................................................................................................................................

 

 

There are many, many issues that have arisen from the Member for Dobell’s statement. Craig Thomson’s statement earlier this week raised more questions than it answered. He’s given no credible explanation for the $100,000 worth of cash withdrawals; for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of electioneering expenses; for the $6,000 of escort service expenses. He hasn’t dealt with the question of who provided him with legal support and why. He hasn’t dealt with the issue of secret commissions arising from the credit card that was supplied with him. The statement to the Parliament was, to use an immortal phrase that I’ve quoted before, “a moonbeam from the larger lunacy.”

 

Now, no one could take that statement seriously and yet while the Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, was given one hour to make a statement to the Parliament, the Government has used parliamentary gagging and stalling tactics to deny us a single minute to debate that statement. Now, you’ll all remember that the Prime Minister said when she formed a government after 17 days of torturous negotiations that this Parliament was going to be different; that this Parliament was going to be a Parliament where the sun shined in. Now, instead of that, this Parliament has become a travesty: a travesty of a Parliament where debate is regularly shut down because the Government doesn’t like the subject matter.

 

The Prime Minister herself in opposition said the Parliament and particularly Question Time should be the very forum where scandals are debated. Not only does she not listen to the debate, not participate in the debate, but now she’s got her colleagues shutting down the debate. The idea that this Parliament should not be allowed to fully debate the Member for Dobell Craig Thomson’s statement, I think would strike the Australian public as an absolute travesty of democracy and I think people need to understand just how low and dishonourable this Parliament has become under the leadership of a low and dishonest government.

 

 

Has your own tactic backfired a bit, though? By referring it to the privileges committee you do limit the debate in the Parliament about this matter.

 

 

This is quite wrong, Michelle. We got explicit advice from the Clerk on this very point, that referring it to the privileges committee did not in any way limit the Parliament’s ability to discuss the subject matter. Sure, the specific discussions of the privileges committee were off-limits but there is no subjudice rule for matters referred to the privileges committee. We got explicit advice from the Clerks on this point and, as I said, it is making a travesty of this Parliament if the Government shuts down debate on the most important subject of the week.

 

 

Mr Abbott on the privileges committee hearings, would you like to see them in public or in camera? I understand that members can vote?

 

 

I don’t presume to advise the privileges committee. I think that the privileges committee ought to be allowed to do its work and I’m confident that the privileges committee will seek to establish whether the Parliament ought to believe the findings of Fair Work Australia or whether the Parliament ought to believe the statement of the Member for Dobell and therefore come to a recommendation as to whether the House has been misled by the Member for Dobell.

 

 

Do you think it’s time to take it out of the Parliament’s hands altogether and give it to a judicial inquiry or a Royal Commission into the whole HSU affair?

 

TONY ABBOTT:

The fact is that the only body that can determine and enforce the standards of the Parliament is the Parliament itself. Now, I am not seeking for the Parliament to judge Craig Thomson’s guilt or innocence on the civil or criminal charges that may be brought against him. I’m not seeking for the Parliament to judge that at all. What I do think the Parliament ought to be able to judge is whether he has upheld the ordinary standards of the Parliament of which the most important one is not to mislead the Parliament.

 

I also think that it ought to be open to the Parliament to debate something as important as the Member for Dobell’s statement and to require the Prime Minister to express a view on the Member for Dobell. Let’s face it, the Prime Minister has been saying for months and months that she had full confidence in the Member for Dobell. She even said to the Parliament that she wanted Craig Thomson to remain the Member for Dobell for many, many years to come. Now, of course she is doing her damnedest to run away from parliamentary questioning on this subject. As I said, it makes a mockery of our Parliament – an absolute mockery of our Parliament. It is a travesty of democracy and it’s my duty to call this for what it is.

 

 

Mr Abbott, you’ve conceded, or you’ve made clear, that it’s not up to you to judge what exactly it was that Craig Thomson did, yet you are asking for the Parliament to consider whether he has misled the Parliament. Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse in that if there’s no official finding as to his guilt, innocence or otherwise, how do you know if he’s misled the Parliament?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well, plainly his statement is grievously at odds with the findings of a very long and very thorough and very meticulous and, I think, highly professional investigation by Fair Work Australia. Let’s not forget, Matt, that for months and months, whenever we asked questions about Craig Thomson, the Member for Dobell, we were told by the Prime Minister and others, ‘Oh, just hold your fire until the Fair Work Australia report comes out’. Well, it has come out and it has found, as a fact, that Craig Thomson has grievously misused almost $500,000 of union members’ money.

 

Now, we should be able to debate this in the Parliament. We should certainly be able to debate his statement in the Parliament and we should be able to require the Prime Minister to front up, answer questions and make statements on this matter.

 

 

Mr Abbott, what’s the standard of proof that you would be expecting here? Is it on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt that he’s misled the Parliament, because this, it becomes quite a legalistic question when, as Matt was saying, you’re asking the privileges committee to judge his word versus Fair Work Australia’s.

 

TONY ABBOTT:

Well, exactly right, but that is something which has been done time and time again. Frequently, the Parliament has been asked to judge whether a Member has misled it. Now, I think it is a very reasonable issue to be put to the Prime Minister inside the Parliament and outside the Parliament: who does she prefer? What is the version of evidence that she places most credence in: the findings of fact of Fair Work Australia after a meticulous investigation lasting almost three years, or the self-serving statement of the Member of Dobell? Now, just on the question of the standard of proof, again, I don’t seek to give the privileges committee advice, but I would have thought that the ordinary civil standard would be more than good enough for the Parliament.

 

 

Wouldn’t it be important, then, for the privileges committee to compel certain witnesses to come forward, particularly the ones that Mr Thomson has relied upon for his defence with respect to Fair Work Australia? Do you expect that to occur?

 

 

Well, I certainly don’t think that there is any need for the privileges committee to re-litigate all the matters that were so extensively investigated and found upon by Fair Work Australia, but certainly it would be open to the privileges committee to call Mr Thomson. It would be open to the privileges committee to call Channel Seven to ask them whether in fact they did engage in some kind of Peeping Tom behaviour as alleged by the Member of Dobell, Mr Thomson. It would be open to the privileges committee to call Mr Nassios and ask him, did he in fact have minimal contact with Mr Thomson as Mr Thomson alleges? It would be open to the privileges committee to call a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald and ask them did they, in fact, neglect to make contact with the Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, as he alleges? It might be in order for the privileges committee to call some of the people who the Member for Dobell named as his tribe of loyal supporters who are constantly in contact with him, given that at least one of them has gone public today to say there was no such contact. It might be in order for the privileges committee to call some of the journalists who were named in Mr Thomson’s roll of honour and ask them to dissociate themselves from the Member for Dobell. So, all of these things are in order for the privileges committee, but what it shouldn’t do – and what would in fact be delaying tactics by the government, yet further delaying tactics by the government – would be for it to seek to re-litigate all of the matters that were so exhaustively investigated by Fair Work Australia. The purpose of the privileges committee inquiry is not to try to establish Craig Thomson’s guilt or innocence when it comes to civil or criminal charges that might be brought against him. It’s to establish whether or not he has misled the Parliament and the issue is why is the government continuing to run a protection racket in favour of such an unworthy member?

 

[ends]