Why the Shorten and Porter cases are different — and why that’s not the point

Our system of justice does not stand still. It evolves with us, and we need to remember that.

At the last federal election, I voted for the Labor candidate in my electorate. I am not a member of any party. I voted Labor, because it at least promised some policies to give our planet a fighting chance.

I did not know at that time of the rape allegations against Bill Shorten, which I now know he has strenuously denied. I am not sure why I didn’t know. Partly, Shorten’s case was reported differently in the media than in the case of the allegations against Christian Porter. Porter also strenuously denies the allegations against him.

I was also busy, with a young family, work and life generally. Would I have voted for Labor, if I had know about the allegations against Shorten, the police investigation, and the outcome of that investigation? I’m not totally sure, but probably yes.

 It would not, however, have been a vote for Shorten. That is contradictory, but again, my one concern at the last election (and continuing) is stopping the denialism about the climate catastrophe that is staring us all in the face.

 Does Shorten’s case provide a valid precedent with respect to the current allegations against Porter? No. This is not because of the differences between the two cases that some media and commentators have identified, such as Shorten having been questioned by police and Porter having not.

It is not a valid precedent because our society, the values we hold, and our system of justice do not stand still. If they did, a husband would still have a defence in law to a charge of raping his wife.

The fundamental difference, the shift that has occurred, is that we no longer accept that the inability to prosecute and prove beyond reasonable doubt a charge of sexual assault means that such allegations should either not be raised or, if raised, not be seriously investigated in a civil context, particularly when fitness for public office is concerned.

As a lawyer, there are a number of things I do not understand about the statements made by Porter at the press conference he gave last week. Surely he must have known that this is not (and never was nor could have been, given the woman took her life before giving a formal statement to NSW Police) about his presumption of innocence to a criminal charge.