A man lost his position in parliament the other day.  

What was his offence?  He had, it was said, done something that was ‘inappropriate’.  The conduct alleged  involved touching women.  Except that the women reacted in ways that they thought was appropriate, no details were given by which the electors could determine by what criteria the conduct was said to be not ‘appropriate’. 

Such conduct could be improper conduct or just bad conduct.  Or, perhaps, conduct that might give offence.  It was certainly not suggested that the lack of propriety made the conduct illegal.  We don’t know if the actual conduct might be compared to a breach of table manners, or something serious.

Before a government acts to deprive a person of their position, it must tell the person what its grounds are, and afford the person the right to be heard in answer.  That has been the law for more than 800 years.  It came to be called due process.

Due process was not given here.

Nor was it given to the former premier of New South Wales.  After a period of delay, the presumption of due process lapses.  The delay in that inquiry was both cruel and unconscionable, and grossly unprofessional. 

In my view that misconduct was far more reprehensible than the conduct alleged against the lady the subject of the investigation.

Van – Berejiklian