Thomson affair shows the need for a federal ICAC

Nicholson cartoon

THE unresolvable Craig Thomson affair testifies to a minority government parliament now tainted beyond repair and casting a disreputable shadow over those who sustain it.

There is an easy and immediate solution for Labor -- to disown Thomson's vote. The obvious solution is a no-brainer. A majority government would have taken such a decision months ago and swiftly moved on.

The public, however, knows that Julia Gillard refuses to uphold the integrity of the government and parliament because of the survival imperative. Labor is frightened that by sacrificing Thomson's vote it might be forced to face the people.

This motive is so transparent that it defines the character of modern Labor. It is a party that puts its own self-interest before any standard, principle or institution. This is the public perception yet much of the Labor Party continues to rationalise one disastrous decision after another.

Paul Keating recently lamented that Labor had lost its narrative. Yet such a narrative does exist. It is about staying in office and doing whatever is required to stay in office. This narrative suffocates any other Labor message and is killing the government.

Within days of the 2010 poll Gillard signed her fatal alliance with the Greens in order to generate momentum to form a minority government; she won the independents with a blend of persuasion and pork barrelling to save her neck and seal minority government; to cement the deal she ditched her election policy and decided to price carbon; in 2011 she embraced a de facto carbon tax in breach of her election promise; she declared confidence in Thomson to solidify her own numbers; given the irresistible tide, she stooped to recruit Peter Slipper as Speaker as more survival insurance despite warnings that his personal transgressions would backfire against her; once public revulsion mounted, Gillard suspended Thomson from the Labor Party and got Slipper to stand aside as Speaker on the fabrication that "a line has been crossed" when the real motive, yet again, was her survival; now after Thomson's unconvincing statement this week, she will accept his vote in the parliament and take no further action because the parliament cannot "be judge and jury".

Neither the opposition nor the media will let the Thomson story alone. Labor's solution is a non-solution: once again it has purchased survival at the cost of its reputation and public standing. This has occurred so often there is now a fatalism about Labor. It is impossible for its economic, social and foreign policies to get clean political air.

The repeated claim by Gillard and house leader Anthony Albanese that the minority government is working because Labor is passing bills overlooks the bigger point: the public sees the minority government parliament as political poison.

Tony Abbott must offer thanks daily that the independents put Gillard in office in 2010. His disappointment at the time has since surrendered to private relief. Abbott is now positioned to become prime minister off the back of a hefty election victory instead of the poisoned chalice of minority government.

As his speech revealed Thomson has undergone his own personal agony. It has been protracted because the razor-thin numbers on the floor mean the Coalition has targeted him brutally and Labor has sought to disown him yet keep his vote. In the process tangible damage has been done to the institutions.

The Labor government is discredited because of its self-serving double standards. The parliament is damaged because the justification for its inaction -- that it cannot usurp the role of the courts -- is an untenable abdication of its responsibility. Parliament must be a credible master of its own standards and its failure to take meaningful action on Thomson parades its impotence when there are grave non-judicial findings against an MP.

Fair Work Australia is damaged not only because of the unacceptable delay in its report but because Thomson's speech raised serious questions about the conduct of its inquiry and such allegations must be answered.

The trade union movement is damaged because of the rorts, rivalry and financial misappropriation in the Health Services Union and absence of sufficient statutory supervision of trade unions.

Recall now the nonsense from 2010 when the crossbenchers backed Labor into minority government amid ludicrous claims of a new political paradigm, greater accountability and higher parliamentary standards. It is ending in farce. The crossbenchers are sticking with Labor. Their aim remains a full-term parliament under Labor regardless of the Thomson taint and they will have shared responsibility for the ignominy that now brands this parliament.

So what should the parliament do? The first response from a government of integrity would be to refuse to accept the vote of an MP with such findings against him. Labor's excuse this would be acting as "judge, jury and executioner" is nonsense to justify its survival imperative.

However the parliament at this point would be over-reaching to suspend Thomson. That would be unjustified. It would be an unsatisfactory response given the contested facts between FWA's findings and Thomson's defence.

The Coalition wants a Thomson suspension perhaps in the delusional belief it could procure a "no confidence" vote or an election as a result. This is fantasy. The independents would be wary of any such trap. A "no confidence" motion must be an unambiguous expression of parliament and its passage off the back of a temporary suspension of an MP would not meet such test.

The Constitution is weighted towards a sitting MP by saying disqualification requires a prison sentence of more than a year. The task for the current parliament is to find a path between avoiding a lynch mob against Thomson and avoiding inaction by paralysis.

References to the privileges committee would founder along party lines. A mooted MPs code of conduct will be harmless and ineffective and is tokenism to excuse failure to act on Thomson. FWA as a body did not conduct an open inquiry with witnesses and its findings do not constitute a judgment between Thomson and his prosecutors.

The real lesson is there is a gap in the parliamentary architecture that requires a federal form of Independent Commission against Corruption with the ability to conduct a semi-judicial hearing in relation to an MP with conclusions of such gravity that parliament is compelled to act and sanctioned to act. That does not exist at present. The Thomson affair is deadlocked in a bitter and protracted split along party lines that will only discredit this parliament and its minority government.