Jun 10, 2014

Lawyers at 20 paces as Victoria’s crisis turns constitutional

Labor will today try to expel controversial MP Geoff Shaw. It is acting upon legal advice, but it is likely the move will result in a legal challenge. ACIL Allen Consulting public policy and governance expert Stephen Bartos explains the looming battle.

Victoria's state Labor opposition has said it will move a motion today to expel member for Frankston Geoff Shaw. The party has had advice from constitutional law professor George Williams that Victorian Parliament has the power to expel members, which it can exercise at its discretion. The advice suggested that a challenge to the expulsion would be unlikely to succeed, provided the motion was worded properly. Even so, if there is an expulsion motion there will almost certainly be legal action. It will be wall-to-wall constitutional lawyers at 20 paces duelling it out in the Victorian courts. Speaking on ABC Radio National Breakfast this morning Labor shadow attorney-general Martin Pakula acknowledged that whether Parliament could expel a member was different to whether it should, and he avoided commenting on whether Williams had advised on this. In terms of good governance, the merits or otherwise of expulsion are broader than the legal issues. Labor has indicated that the grounds for expulsion would be Shaw’s misuse of travel entitlements, a matter of privileges. All Australian parliamentarians, whether in Victoria or elsewhere, have a wide range of privileges afforded to them, including being able to make statements in the Parliament without fear of legal action (the right of freedom of speech), powers to compel witnesses, and powers to punish people found guilty of contempt of Parliament. Travel and other entitlements are among the least important; nevertheless, their misuse does affect the ability of parliaments to maintain public respect. But as Crikey has pointed out, a Parliament expelling one of its members, no matter how unpopular, unpleasant or poorly regarded they might be by their colleagues, sets a dangerous precedent. Our system of government allows minority positions to be expressed -- indeed, to combine to hold a balance of power in the Australian Senate. We also have a separation of powers between the legislative (i.e. Parliament), executive (i.e. government) and judicial (i.e. the courts and judges) arms of government. In a Westminster system, such as applies in Victoria, the legislative and executive are blurred because the government is formed by the party with a majority in the lower house. Once the Parliament starts acting like a court and sitting in judgement on people, one of our fundamental freedoms is diminished. Whether or not that applies to a judgement about one of its own members (should the expulsion motion be carried) remains for the courts to sort out. Even if Labor's motion succeeds, it all seems rather pointless given that the next Victorian election is on November 29 this year. Labor has already indicated that it will pass key legislation including the Victorian budget, so why is it pressing the matter? Expelling Geoff Shaw would trigger a byelection, and conventional wisdom is that byelections favour oppositions (and Labor almost certainly thinks it can win in Frankston). As Paul Keating is reputed to have said, always bet on self-interest: at least you know it’s trying.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “Lawyers at 20 paces as Victoria’s crisis turns constitutional

  1. David Hand

    The most interesting possibility of a precedent setting expulsion from parliament for rorting expenses is how many other MPs in all houses in Australia might then be vulnerable to expulsion.

  2. puddleduck

    I second the motion, Mr Hand. The problem we have is that Mr Shaw’s conduct is unlikely to be an isolated example.

    Poorly written piece by Stephen Bartos – or did you forget to edit it, Crikey?

  3. AR

    I stand aghast at the precedent that it will set once the Silks have ceased rustling.
    Not looking at the not yet set,new, Senate or nuthin’…

  4. zut alors

    Let Shaw cop it sweet from his electorate in six months’ time.

  5. klewso

    I like the precedent set of what to do with those that abuse their “entitlements” – book promotions, out-of-pocket charity expenses, weddings, parties, anything – imagine that being taken to Canberra?

  6. JohnB

    In, say, 5 years’ time, will the purported wrongdoings of Mr Shaw appear significant? I think not.

    Let the electorate deal with this in due course and get back to work, boys and girls. This debate is not worth the associated risks.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details