Removing Van from the Party Room kind of reminds me of the NRL No Fault Stand Down Rule, where any player charged with an serious criminal offence with a potential prison sentence of 11 years or greater is immediately stood down until the matter is dealt with by the Courts.
The BIG difference, of course, is the No Fault Stand Down Rule comes into effect after a player is charged. With Van, Dutton has simply made a unilateral decision based on claims made from (at a minimum) two sources about his personal behaviour at different times. The fact that he made his decision after reports from (at least) two sources takes it above a simple ‘she said, he said’ situation, but it still doesn’t give Van his ‘day in Court’ where he can test the claims being made against him through cross examination of the claimant under oath, the testimony of witnesses or other evidence.
I read this claim should now be examined by the Parliament, but I have no idea what this really means or the ramifications thereof.
Personally, I both like and dislike what Dutton did (if that makes any sense).
Like….that he took a fast and pragmatic approach to dealing with the issue, to help restore some level of normality to the Parliament.
Dislike….because I truely believe that everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law (as I’ve argued on so many occasions, whether it be Pell, Porter, or anyone else).
But what’s really sad that people don’t make a complaint to the police immediately upon any wrongdoing, but then throw allegation around, sometimes years later; and in this case, with the impunity of Parliamentary Privilege.
