“I didn’t realise this was going to go four years.”
Clearly. And with that, Craig Thomson ensured it would continue well into the future, too.
In a rambling and at times emotion-charged hour-long speech — just finishing as we hit deadline — Thomson outlined his proud electorate record and attacked Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson and the Fair Work Australia report that contained damning allegations against Thomson, the use of his credit card and his nocturnal activities.
Each allegation was denied. There are alibis and CCTV footage. The documents with his signature are part of an elaborate set-up. The truth will eventually be revealed, he said.
Perhaps. But what Craig Thomson did or didn’t flash his plastic at is increasingly less important than the damage he is doing to Labor and the dysfunctional nature of the parliament and the public debate.
Thomson raised new questions about the motives and conduct of Fair Work Australia but produced no evidence. Nor would you expect him to; he is entitled to his presumption of innocence until charges are laid and proven. But in also failing to produce a resignation letter he guaranteed the sorry saga is a long way from over.
Craig Thompson sounded pretty convincing to me. If what he said is true, and it is up to otheres to prove that it is untrue then there is no reason for him to resign. And to continue to vilify him is quite wrong.
I didn’t hear him, but agree fully that presumption of innocence is core to any functioning democracy, as is the separation of parliament from the courts, and we would all do well to remember that trial by media is also pretty unworthy. Those who live by this sword will in all likelihood die by it. Or should…
I totally agree with Gratton. If he were to resign it would be painted as an admission of guilt. I thought it was up to the accusers to provide proof of guilt, not the other way round. Oh yeh, that’s right, not in a trial by media. Surely the evidence presented in posts by shepherdmarilyn and lilac previously on crikey would need to be refuted before one could expect or request a resignation. The FWA investigation being so thoroughly compromised by the accusers partner leading said investigation, and his having been appointed to his post by Abbott, leads one to suspect a set up. It’s not like the Libs haven’t got form in this regard when one remembers the wretch Gretch.
“But what Craig Thomson did or didn’t flash his plastic at is increasingly less important than the damage he is doing to Labor and the dysfunctional nature of the parliament and the public debate.”
Here is the problem, why is what he did or didn’t do somehow irrelevant? Why is it that even if he is eventually proved innocent that HE has damaged Labor? Shouldn’t the opposisition and the media take the resposibilty for the “dysfunctional nature of the parliament and the public debate”?
As Richo said afterwards Thomson did sound as though he was convinced of his version of events; convinced of every lie he told.
Richo also pointed out that Thomson avoided the specifics of many allegations against him in the FWA report by generalising.
Now, if anybody ought to be able to call a liar a liar, it’s Richo.