Why is Bill Shorten being given the benefit of the doubt when named adversely in the Royal Commission?

R1235215_16324104

By Jason M

It's now been a week since Bob Kernohan named Bill Shorten in the Royal Commission. 

Remember, this wasn't blokes talking at the pub. Bob was under oath and, like all witnesses, faces charges from the Royal Commission if he's shown not to be telling the truth. 

Since then, Kathy Jackson and Marco Bolano have mentioned Shorten adversely in their evidence - again under oath. 

At what stage do you think political reporters might think it's time to start questioning Shorten's suitability to be Leader of the Opposition?

Just in case they missed it - google "Bill Shorten Royal Commission" for a bit of background. There's plenty to ask about:

Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 8.31.49 am

 

Remember, Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos stood down when mentioned adversely in the NSW ICAC. He was a junior minister. 

NSW Police Minister Michael Gallacher stood down when his name came up in the same ICAC. 

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell is history for misleading ICAC over a bottle of wine. 

They all deny wrongdoing - as does Bill Shorten - but there is nothing exceptional about their actions because in our system of government it's what is expected of office holders linked with unanswered scandal.

Why is Shorten being extended the benefit of the doubt while conservative MPs are not?

 

Comments