Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Vindicated

Vindicated

I’ve reproduced this post that I’ve written @ Alpine Opinion over here because I think it might provide a bit of balance @ Chez Hall. Cheers & Merry Xmas to the Liberal Party schemers – Ray Dixon

.

slipper-1” … the predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper.”

With those words the Federal Court has today thrown out the sexual harassment case against former Speaker (and Liberal Party defector) Peter Slipper.

Even though Slipper is obviously a bit of sleaze who ‘talks dirty’ (and rubbish), thankfully the court has seen right through the clear political conspiracy behind the case that was brought by his staffer James Ashby after colluding with the likes of Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne, Joe Hockey, Mal Brough and possibly even Tony Abbott himself.

The whole case was clearly a set up designed to bring down the Gillard government after Slipper defected and accepted the role of Speaker thereby increasing the government’s majority in the House of Representatives.

I guess what will happen now is that Peter Slipper will return to the House and sit on the cross benches as an independent. Bad luck Tony Abbott et al – maybe you should try developing policies instead of hatching up dirty schemes to win office?

.

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. deknarf says:

    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS! Phoney Tony and his NO Coalition had hoped that they would be the government before this farce played itself out to this conclusion. Bugger! – probably an inadequate expression of their feelings I suspect. If Ashby appeals then the NO Coalition smear and sleaze continues.
    I guess they’ll have to think of some other piece of sleaze and misrepresentation to try and throw more dirt on the Labor government. I know! I know! What about some sleaze and innuendo about Julia Gillard, her ex boyfriend and the AWU? Surely that’s got a bit of mileage in it?

  2. alan says:

    It will be interesting to see it the Liberals now apply the same standards to themselves that they are demanding of Gillard.

    Mal Brough must be disenfranchised if they do, not too mention that little squeaking sook Pyne, as well as various others.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Sounds like a political fix to me Ray and Ashby says that he will appeal:

    In a statement, Senator Brandis said the opposition was carefully studying the verdict by Justice Rares this morning.

    “The Attorney-General has once again behaved inappropriately, and once again shown a misunderstanding of her appropriate constitutional role, in commenting on the case when it remains before the court pending the appeal,” he said.

    “The Attorney-General has also yet to explain why the Commonwealth settled its side of the proceeding in breach of the Commonwealth’s own guidelines.”

    Senator Brandis noted that Mr Ashby “has already announced he will appeal the decision”.

    In October, Mr Ashby settled his case with the federal government for a sum of $50,000 and a commitment from the government to introduce training for all MPs and senators regarding sexual harassment. He still had the civil case against Mr Slipper.

    “By paying Mr Ashby a very substantial sum and for all practical purposes, conceding that he was right all along, what the Commonwealth has in effect done is concede the accuracy of his claims against Mr Slipper,” Senator Brandis said in October.

    In a Senate Estimates hearing in October, Mr Brandis said there was “no way in the world” that any court would summarily determine the proceedings [ie, make judgment without full trial].

    “I would not have advised a client of mine in a million years that they had any chance of success at all of getting summary judgement on this material,” Senator Brandis said.

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-case-thrown-out-20121212-2b8o9.html#ixzz2EoPsr7am

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Michelle Gratten seesm to be suggesting it is a no great win for slipper or any real vindication either:

    The Liberals overstepped the mark in comments during the case – the government is targeting in particular shadow attorney-general George Brandis – and in their contact with and support for Ashby.

    Mal Brough, who is set to win Slipper’s seat next year, gave Ashby counsel and portrayed him as a victim needing advice. Brough was an active player, and he had received a thumping in the judgment as a result.

    But again, in the rough world of politics, the affair in the past months worked to the Coalition’s advantage – in the sense of reinforcing the message about what a shabby deal the government did by installing Slipper to improve its numbers.

    The point about that deal still stands, regardless of the court decision. The government elevated to the highest office of the Parliament a man who, given a past record of stretching the use of entitlements, should not have been installed in that position. (The irony was, when he was in the job, Slipper performed well in managing the House of Representatives.)

    One also has to wonder about the government’s decision to settle its own part of the case with Ashby by a $50,000 payment. Its defence is that it seemed at the time that to fight on would cost a lot more.

    While Slipper has been vindicated in the Federal Court case, the Director of Public Prosecutions is still considering a police brief about the Cabcharge allegations.
    Dealing with this matter seems to have taken an extraordinarily long time.

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/james-ashby-lost-the-battle-but-won-the-war-20121212-2b8ya.html#ixzz2EoZQGu6d

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, to start with, quoting George Brandis hardly cuts it. As for the $50,000 payout by the Federal Govt, I’d suggest that was nothing more than ‘nuisance money’ – you know, give him something to shut him up. I don’t agree with Roxon’s decision to do that but she’s a freakin’ lightweight in my opinion and should never have been made a Cabinet Minister. Piss weak – except when it comes to ‘getting tough’ on tobacco companies. Yeah, she doesn’t mind wasting money there.

    But Brandis is sounding like the prefect who got caught with his hand in the other prefect’s pants.

    As for Gratten’s article in The Age, she misses the point entirely. Slipper was already a spent force politically when he defected and took the Speaker’s job. He’d been disendorsed by the Liberals and was only seeing time out, remember? For some reason or another Gratten is diverting from the main thrust of this decision – the culpability of Brough and other LNP/Liberal figures. So are you.

    Nothing to say about that, Iain? Nothing to say about the key aspect of the decision – that it was a politically based conspiracy?

  6. […] here is an opinion of the Ashby/Slipper matter that is somewhat different to the one offered by Ray in the previous post at my Sandpit The author makes the same argument that I was suggesting in my comment to that post. namely that […]

  7. Brian says:

    As I’ve said before, I think this whole business is just a political swamp. I don’t think either Slipper or Ashby are entirely innocent, but I think Ashby’s claims of sexual harassment were vexatious and designed for political effect. Rather than appealing, it would be better if the whole business just disappeared so we could see some real political debate.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    I don’t think either Slipper or Ashby are entirely innocent

    that is a reasonable judgement and a good reason to think that the result could be seen as fair enough. Lets not forget that the only reason that Slipper was even an issue was because Gillard elevated a dodgy character way above a station that his character and personal virtue justified , all for teh sake of that one extra seat on the government side of the house and so that Gillard could afford to thumb her nose at Wilkie. That was a “too clever by half” piece of political skullduggery that should not be ignored.

  9. Brian says:

    Actually Iain, I think it was ugly but probably necessary. Given the choice between Wilkie holding the government to ransom with his obsession over poker machines, or having Slipper off the floor of the house to negate Wilkie’s deciding vote, I think the government made the right move. The downside is that it forced Harry Jenkins, an excellent speaker, into an early retirement that he did not want or deserve.

    Slipper is obviously an irredeemable scumbag but I’m sure that fact would have been known to the Liberal Party, which kept preselecting him.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: