There are other conventions and or rules, one of which requires elected members, to sit and represent their constituents. PM Gillard went as far as she was able to distance herself and labour from Thomson and Slipper, who by the way is still the speaker, and has no criminal conviction.
So technically he is only required to surrender his position by a successful motion of no confidence. The remaining civil case against him relies exclusively on the words of a single staffer, who appears to have consented? And has timed his complaint, with a visit from the opposition's business manager Pine? Shades of Gordon Grenich perhaps?
When a civil case relies exclusively on the vigorously denied uncorroborated testimony of a single witness it invariably fails!
Particularly given the sheer lack of any physical evidence whatsoever and the highly suspect nature of the timing of the revelations?
Abbott is aggrieved by the fact that Thomson still sits and although now effectively divorced from Labour and Gillard, still intends to vote with and or for her? Meaning, a no confidence motion in the speaker will likely fail?
I believe a genuine Christian would not hurl the first stone unless he was without sin.
Abbott, not all that long ago, was prepared to accept he had a son out of wedlock; because he apparently had consential out of wedlock sex.
Ditto Thomson on a number of occasions and paid for, when he was still single.
It's only a question of time before the endless relentless negativity and vexatious mischievous mudslinging, comes back to bite Abbott's coalition in the rear.
The fairwork report that Abbott yammered on about for years, apparently does not mention Thomson.
If a Senior Chief Executive Thomson, was entitled to an entertainment budget, of say a thousand dollars a week? How he spent any part of that entitlement was entirely down to him, and if supported by legitimate receipts, in no way illegal. Just marginally immoral?
Pulpit pounding "Puritanical Sanctimonious Hypocrites" may judge that as wrong, but the law and genuine Christians can't! Rhrosty.

Why does everyone ignore the fact that action was taken by Ashby against Slipper under Labour legislation which gives a presumption of guilt against the Defendant in this type of action? He is guilty until proven innocent, under this unprecedented law.

Roxon's claim, that there was a presumtion of innocence, displayed an ignorance of the law which is only to be expected in a Gillard appointed Attorney General.

There is no basis upon which the Speaker can be suspended, or stand aside. He has to resign or be dismissed.

Within a couple of months there will be an election in the lower house.

None seems to understand the stage at which police investigations have reached.
The Federal police stated on the weekend that they are now launching a formal investigation into Fraud allegations against Slipper. That means their preliminary investigations to discover if an offence has been committed has been satisfied. They are now looking to assemble the evidence to present to the DPP for prosecution.

The actions today by the NSW police show they are now gathering evidence to support prosecutions against members of the HSU.

In both cases having Thompon ans Slipper sit in Parliament and vote for the government is damaging Gillard but imagine the damage to a government in election mode, regardless of leader, if it takes 12 months for prosecutions, against these to charactersm, to be heard by the courts?

The hard heads in labor have surely looked at that senario. And if you think they haven't been watching the police investigations you'd be nuts.

If the Government would just become a little democratic we would have an election. We have self interested sleazy independants, Greens and an incompetent Labour party with no moral compass clinging to power while destroying our country. Forget the emphasis on the individual and just give the people an election. That is the only morally right thing to do. Oh that's right Oakshott and Windsor will lose out on pension money as they continue to trash democracy and our nation. No wonder all but about 2 OLO contributors are embarassed to even be associated with Labour these days. Stay out of the country Mr Beazley because you won't recognise the rot when you return.

No such guilty until proven innocent legislation or constitution changing act exists!
Complete garbage that simply underlines the absolute paucity of morality and or genuine knowledge, that so typifies the average born to rule advocate, who arguably never ever lets the truth get in the way of any opportunity to put the political boot in; via, entirely vacuous vexatious political scaremongering.
There is simply no way of proving the allegations against Slipper, which if actually true, ought to have been raised when they occurred!
Years ago?
Rather than hard on the heels of Slipper's resignation from the liberal party, which had re-endorsed him as their preferred candidate nine separate times.
When the Slipper returns to the chair, he will be a very powerful political enemy of all those who have sort to advance their purely political prospects at his expense or embarrassment!
Moreover, he could counter with his own allegations of say, entrapment and or blackmail, which might fit with his seemingly extravagant lifestyle?
He has very left to lose, by becoming an even stronger Speaker in the remaining months, as neither party will endorse him as a preferred or preferences exchanging candidate?
Moreover, the ugly and mindless mudslinging, has probably permanently damaged him to the point, where he couldn't even contemplate standing as a independent; and, may only be left with returning to the Anglican Priesthood as his only remaining employment option?
There are many political candidates and or sitting members, with something to hide or, who may dwell in some sort of "true character" hiding closet, who have suddenly become fair game for career destroying s--t slinging on the part of a few die hard homophobes, or the hard men?
They need to be aware that this material goes where it wants to, whenever it hits the oscillating fan!
Suspicion and or eccentric behaviour is not evidence! Albeit, The coalition has had or still has its fair share of eccentric Uncles, who are also now fair game, for the target for tonight game that seems peculiar to, and permeates profligate politics, or power possessed potential potentates? Capiche? Rhrosty.

Thanks, Rhosty, for your exposition of the law.

Under Sec 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009, where “it is alleged that a person took, or is taking, action for a particular reason or with a particular intent; and
(b) taking that action for that reason or with that intent would constitute a contravention of this Part;

it is presumed, in proceedings arising from the application, that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise.”

Is that what you say is not a presumption of guilt until proven otherwise, Rhosty?

Perhaps you could clarify.