A good summary

So, a different law professor (Ben Saul in Sydney - never heard of him before) has put up in a twitter thread the position with having an independent inquiry into Porter.  I agree with it completely:

 My legal views on Christian Porter: 1) it is normal that the same conduct of a person may be subject to different legal processes for different purposes - criminal, civil, employment, disciplinary, human rights, ombudsperson, coronial etc

2) The standards of proof may differ between processes for different purposes. Non-criminal processes may not depend on the existence of any criminal process, let alone a conviction on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or the views of police

3) The govt is not legally required to establish an ad hoc inquiry into the matter. It is a political question of what our democracy expects of the character and fitness of any politician, particularly a cabinet minister and first law officer

4) and whether we trust the Prime Minister alone to judge it when he has a clear partisan political conflict of interest, the matter is so serious, and larger issues of violence against women are of such public concern

5) It is well accepted that the content of due process varies according to context. An inquiry for determining the fitness of the Attorney-General could readily meet necessary due process standards if appropriately structured  

6) It is irrelevant that Porter thinks all he could do in an inquiry is deny the allegations. It is his choice not to respond more fully. The purpose of an inquiry is to allow the complainant’s evidence to be independently tested so far as possible...

7) including by considering any views Porter may wish to put after he is fully informed of the evidence; to forensically test his version of events; and to consider other evidence or witnesses. An inquiry would ensure, not undermine, due process in these circumstances (end)  (Source: https://threader.app/thread/1367382998727847940)

I noticed Phil Coorey wrote a column bemoaning "no one will ever know the truth", and indicating that this means there is no point in having an independent inquiry.   This is a completely ill conceived criticism, and it sure as hell hasn't stopped governments calling enquiries into historical matters of much less consequence than a criminal sexual assault by the first law officer of the nation.  ("Ms Gillard,  did you or did you not pay for that kitchen renovation?")

No one knows the details of the evidence this woman, and/or her friends, have compiled.   The woman's family would like an enquiry now.

Sure, there is every chance that the enquiry will conclude that the events of the night concerned are so uncertain that Porter should be given the benefit of the doubt (even applying a civil law "balance of probabilities" test) - but you don't know that for sure until you have the enquiry.

The social media rumour mill which Coorey is complaining about actually makes it more important to have an enquiry.   

If Porter had any sense, he would see that the best chance of getting past this would be to step aside and co-operate with an independent enquiry.   

But he has been a terrible Attorney General all round, so why should he stop now?

Update:   and more along these lines: