The House of Representatives has the power to imprison for up to six months an individual found to be in contempt of Parliament by the privileges committee, and it’s a punishment they’ve doled out before.
Independent MP Craig Thomson and Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly have been referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests this week.
In 1955, two members of the public — newspaper editor Frank Browne and newspaper owner Raymond Fitzpatrick — were jailed for three months by Parliament for breaching parliamentary privilege rules when their newspaper The Bankstown Observer impugned MP Charles Morgan.
The Committee of Privileges, as it was then known, found the men tried to influence Morgan’s conduct in Parliament when they published an article that said Morgan had been involved with an “immigration racket” by taking money from prospective immigrants in exchange for helping them jump the queue.
While it’s unlikely the Parliament would jail Thomson or Kelly, it is within the realms of possibility, assuming such a punishment was supported by a majority in the House when put to a vote.
The Coalition moved a motion this week to bring Thomson before the privileges committee for misleading the Parliament. The move was backed by the Labor government, while Labor has also moved to bring Kelly before the committee for failing to declare his directorship of some companies. It has also been reported that the government will move to bring Liberal frontbencher Sophie Mirabella before the committee for failing to declare financial interests.
Under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the House also holds the power to impose a fine of up to $5000 on an individual or suspend a member from Parliament if the 11-member committee, chaired by Labor MP Yvette D’Ath, finds against that person.
Only four Liberal members sit on the House privileges committee, compared to six Labor MPs (including the chair) and independent Tony Windsor, although traditionally members of the committee do not act on party lines.
The committee usually sits in private and has the power to call witnesses to come before it and to compel required documents to be presented. Witnesses may be asked to make an oath before providing evidence.
Isn’t the real issue whether the ALP majority on the Privileges Committee, in investigating Thomson will have to consider the role of former ALP national president Williamson who could theoretically be exposed for alleged for different or worse wrongdoing, and the pressure will be on the ALP members of the committee to try and shut down the whole thing as quietly as possible?
One imagines a real politik calculation that if that means doing over Thomson as the easier option, then so be it, all depending on the best way to quarterise the thing. Granted it must be hard to decide who to cut loose for purely pragmatic reasons, that is , former national president Williamson or sitting MP Thomson in a hung parliament.
No wonder some people reported as still having any kind of future in the L/labor movement are making “no comment” on the merits of Thomson’s defence. They really must want to know which way the wind will blow in a tough poker game of self interest.
And just say the Committee does find against Thomson, would they jail or fine him over matters that are probably going to be before the Court/s? That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed. Watching Question Time today, it was interesting to note, that the PM commented that the Assistant Shadow Treasurer? allegedly commented, that ‘they’d welcome the vote of Thomson’? If that’s true, it really shows how sleazy the Opposition is, and the lengths they’ll go to for their own ends? I was sickened to hear Abbott say that he ‘felt sorry for anyone in trouble, but’???The behaviour of a nice little christian I’d say! Hypocrite! Pyne is a tyke too, as are several on their front bench? So much for that!
Very interesting.
Contrary to The Australian sourcing of expertise re phone cloning this is not so impossible or unknown – ABC RN tech expert this morning http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/tech-review-with-peter-marks—facebook–phone-clones/4027668
I recall about 2003 or 4 the incredulity around society generally at the idea of remote access and control of online computers which is now taken as standard risk profile.
As regards phone cloning the guy in the link I posted says that up until 2002 cloning a sim card was easy and you could get one down at the shop on the street in Hong Kong! After that year it got harder. Mmm. The audio in the link (under moderation for a bit) is about 2/3 through from RN ABC Breakfast with Fran Kelly “Tech review with Peter Marks” for 23 May 2012 – that is, this morning, broadcast in the shadow of the later edition of AM.
There is a sense of Godwin Grech about all this, though I wouldn’t dare proffer any final conclusions. Evidence isn’t really like that until thoroughly tested hence need for a court.
“cauterize” is the correct spelling.