Thomson saga shows minority government's flaws

THE Craig Thomson affair entrenches the odium attached to the minority government parliament and deepens the chasm between "insider" politics governed by survival and the public anger towards Canberra's present power structure.

Thomson has become a surrogate. Cast as both villain and victim he has the rotten luck to be trapped in the razor-thin parliament where his fate is tied to something much larger: the struggle between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to run the country.

The consequence is a sustained hypocrisy where Labor and Coalition have both recruited high principle for base motive. It is proof, yet again, that the minority parliament brings out the worst.

Gillard is literally desperate to hold her numbers, stay in power and defer the election until the appointed time in 2013. Committed to Thomson's political protection Labor, at week's end, was presenting him as a potential suicide victim and target of Abbott's bloodlust for power - a bid to stanch its own collapsing support.

This week Abbott has been a driven man, convinced of Labor's perfidy, fixated on terminating the parliament, running on his natural aggression and consumed by the idea of translating his huge polling lead into seats in a new and untainted parliament. Even by the bitter standards of this parliament, the rancour has reached new depths.

It is bizarre but Labor does not seem to grasp the scale of its self-inflicted damage. It does not comprehend the sense of outraged public morality about the Thomson affair - with the findings of misappropriation of union funds, cronyism for individual gain and personal indulgence in perks and prostitutes, combined with blanket denials of wrongdoing despite overwhelming evidence. The community anger is tangible.

Gillard's determination to shield Thomson from any further sanction beyond his removal from the Labor caucus leaves the inescapable perception that Labor is protecting Thomson to save its own political neck. Abbott wants to drive Thomson from the parliament but, if that cannot be accomplished, he intends to use the Thomson affair to destroy Gillard's prime ministership. Indeed, he has Gillard trapped - whether she cuts Thomson free or protects him, she seems doomed.

The Thomson issue cannot dominate the news cycle indefinitely. While it does, however, Labor is denied any policy oxygen and runs the risk its primary vote will fall further. The more public odium grows, the more Labor will be tempted to resurrect Kevin Rudd as its only feasible circuit-breaker from this downwards spiral. The irony is that the charging of Thomson, were it to occur, might bring relief of sorts, though it might also intensify demands for parliamentary sanctions.

Thomson's speech last Monday was powerful, emotional and aggressive. It succeeded in contesting the Fair Work Australia findings against him but it failed to provide a persuasive rebuttal against any single finding.

On Thursday Thomson switched to playing the sympathy card. "What I'm here to say is, guys, enough is enough," he told the media at a doorstop. "Is this about trying to push someone to the brink?" You can judge for yourself the extent to which this betrays his mental trauma or the extent to which it is a calculated tactic to ease the pressure on him.

It is possible Labor and Thomson will get relief if Abbott and the media press too far. The Nine Network's reported interview with an escort involving a $60,000 payment is a double-edged sword. The idea, however, that Thomson will become an object of public sympathy is remote.

Abbott revealed his real purpose in parliament on Thursday afternoon saying the "honourable" action for Thomson was to resign from parliament. That comment was a blunder. There is no basis or precedent for Thomson to resign. Abbott has made no convincing argument for such a resignation. Regardless of what Thomson may have done, it is wrong for an MP to be driven from the parliament by an angry mob or by an Opposition Leader ambitious to force a by-election that may see Labor fall. So Abbott needs to be careful.

Yet the argument mounted by Gillard - that the parliament cannot act because that is tantamount to being "judge and jury" - is spurious. The parliament has a responsibility to uphold and enforce its own standards. The privileges of the parliament, defined in the Australian Constitution, as the High Court once said, are "incapable of a restricted meaning".

The public sees the Thomson affair as a test of parliament's ethical standards. That begins with the executive. This is Labor's failure. Gillard defended Thomson for far too long. When she exerted authority it was a ploy. Suspending Thomson from the Labor Party but relying on his vote in parliament is tokenism - Gillard pretends to care but refuses to take any action that might endanger her government.

Labor's tactics are understandable but invite public contempt. As Liberal deputy Julie Bishop said: "If he (Thomson) is entitled to the presumption of innocence why not invite him back into the Labor Party until he has had his day in court?"

It now seems the Thomson affair is unlikely to deliver Abbott the election he wants but is guaranteed to entrench Gillard's leadership woes. The chasm between the parliament and the public is vast. The Labor-Greens-independent working coalition, still intact on the Thomson issue, does not enjoy support in the country.

Parliament's privilege powers derive from the House of Commons as defined by s49 of the Constitution. But its 1987 Parliamentary Privileges Act removed from parliament the power to expel a member. This is Abbott's problem. The parliament no longer possesses the power he wants to see exercised. Any Thomson voluntary resignation must be a remote option since it would constitute a decisive break with Labor. Why Thomson, given his predicament, would sacrifice his MP's salary is hard to see.

If expulsion is out, what about suspension? The answer is suspension is unlikely. There is no will in the parliament to suspend Thomson and the crossbenchers seem firm on this point. Independent Andrew Wilkie said the saga "stinks" but he would not agree with a Coalition move to suspend Thomson. Wilkie said: "He's innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a fair hearing. So unless the findings against him have been tested in a properly constituted court where he has the opportunity to defend himself, we must accord him the presumption of innocence no matter how much that grates." This is Labor's position.

At this point suspension would be a false step. Any such Coalition push would be unjustified. Professor George Williams from the University of NSW said suspension would be "striking into major new territory with sure risks involved". Once a precedent is established for suspensions on the basis of allegations or non-judicial findings by government bodies (in this case Fair Work Australia) then "the risk is 'tit for tat' suspensions" and it is "possible to imagine a future government using this against an opposition".

In short, the parliament should beware of generating precedents ripe for political manipulation.

Alert to such arguments, the Coalition's tactic was to refer the issue to parliament's privileges committee. Abbott hopes the committee's inquiry will intensify the pressure on Thomson. It is a forlorn hope.

The committee's brief is not to determine Thomson's guilt or innocence. It is, rather, to assess whether in his statement he deliberately misled the house. The barriers to such a finding are immense. The committee on such an issue would probably divide along party lines. It is difficult to imagine a report from the committee that would change the parliament's mind on suspension.

Independent Rob Oakeshott told the house he was "angry and let down" by Thomson and felt the weight of evidence was with the FWA report against Thomson. Oakeshott foreshadowed a censure motion against Thomson and the endorsement of a draft code of conduct.

It is difficult to see what a censure motion would achieve. Even if passed, it could not remotely appease public sentiment. It runs the risk of being seen as tokenism and a substitute for more serious action. There is no objection to a code of conduct but its ability to improve parliamentary standards would be highly marginal.

Williams says the parliament must respond meaningfully to the Thomson issue. He says: "It should address the absence of a body that can get on the front foot to examine misuse of parliamentary entitlements, allowances and the like. We have seen the Independent Commission against Corruption work effectively at the NSW level but this hasn't been addressed at the federal level. There is a gap - we need an integrity or an anti-corruption body to fill that gap. The problem at present is the parliament does not have the capability or process to investigate the merits of the issue."

He's right. But this is a response post-Thomson. The truth is governments must lead in such issues but Labor's vulnerability means it cannot lead. It is wrong simply to blame Thomson. Though exiled, he is backed by Labor's collective weight to stay in the house.

The affair exposes the flaws in minority government. It magnifies the indiscretions of any government MP beyond their true import simply because the government's survival is at stake.

Portentous sermons about the need for politicians to calm down and focus on policy issues are useless since they are in blind denial of the power stakes involved. There will be no relief until the current parliament is terminated.