Tony Abbott was wrong to defend Slipper

Peter Slipper had his pre-selection for the 2010 election guaranteed.   One of the conditions of the merger of the Queensland National and Liberal parties was that sitting members would not be challenged.

From that point, 26 July, 2008, Peter Slipper stopped trying.  He knew he was guaranteed another term. He is a grub, a drunk, a sexual predator and a reputed thief.   He has no place in the Federal Parliament in my view.

Tony Abbott could not have disendorsed him if he tried.   But he should have known about his proclivities.,   I did as a radio show host and a former resident of the Sunshine Coast.   I broadcasted regular editorials about the grub Slipper on 4BC.   He had then and he has now no place in our parliamentary system.

Tony is going to have to deal with this head on.   The charges Slipper apparently faces relate to his actions while an endorsed, sleepy, often pissed member of the LNP team in the Federal Parliament.

This article has been sent to me today by a few very pro Labor people, obviously the Labor Party is backgrounding with this sort of stuff.   And it is true.   Tony was wrong to defend Slipper, no one did the wierd travel and purchases that Slipper did.   It's indefensible.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/01/tony-abbott-was-wrong-to-defend-slipper.html

 

Meanwhile at duplicity central...

Tony Abbott says he would be "happy" to accept the vote of Peter Slipper if the former Speaker sided with the Coalition.

The Opposition Leader's approach is in stark contrast to his insistence that the Coalition would not accept the "tainted" vote of former Labor MP turned independent Craig Thomson.

Mr Abbott said on Tuesday that Mr Slipper was not a "fit and proper" person to hold the high office of Speaker, but he argues there are significant differences between Mr Slipper's situation and the case against Mr Thomson.

"Craig Thomson has been found by a quasi-judicial body to have misappropriated some $500,000 in low paid union members' money," Mr Abbott told reporters in Canberra.

"So there is a fundamental difference between Mr Slipper and Mr Thomson, and how he (Mr Slipper) votes is up to him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/abbott-happy-to-accept-slipper27s-vote/4305428

 

SO, THE PILLORYING of Peter Slipper and the humiliation of his family and the ruin of his career and the trashing of his posterity comes down, in the end, it seems, to the wrongful use in evidence of three words – ‘cunts in brine’ – in a private letter to a false friend, and three trips beyond the borders of the ACT in cabs in breach of a law about which, it seems, he was ignorant, and his drivers were too, and for which he may be fined nine hundred dollars — a sum I am sure he will gladly pay.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-pillorying-of-peter-slipper/

 

 

Former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper is alleged to have used taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers to visit a string of Canberra wineries, according to documents filed in the Magistrates Court. 

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) yesterday announced they had served Mr Slipper with a summons to appear in court in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the Commonwealth.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-08/slipper-to-be-charged-over-cabcharge-winery-tour/4456864?WT.svl=news1

 

James Ashby’s false claims that Peter Slipper had rorted his taxi cab entitlements while Federal Parliamentary Speaker in 2011-12 have triggered a summons on three cab overpayments in 2010.

The history of Ashby’s allegations is as follows: two claims of travel rorts were dropped  – after garnering maximum negative publicity for Slipper – while his last claim of sexual harassment was thrown out of the Federal Court in December as an abuse of process.

The AFP (Australian Federal Police) quickly dismissed Ashby’s (withdrawn) cab rort allegations, finding them baseless.

However, they began investigating Slipper’s cab claims, going back a while, and finally came up with the three from 2010, which they summonsed him on this week

 

Now, there is the Finance Department Protocol followed when an Allegation is Received of Alleged Misuse of Entitlement by a Member or Senator (the so-called Minchin Protocol, because the then Howard Government finance minister Nick Minchin decreed it) which says that when a politician claims too much for minor expenses (such as cab fares) then they just quietly repay the excess and all is forgiven.

From the Protocol:

Internal Audit

• When an allegation of or other event which suggests misuse of entitlement occurs, the Department undertakes an internal investigation to ascertain whether the allegations are credible (rather than being only malicious or vexatious).

• If the matter is relatively minor, the Member or Senator will be invited to provide an explanation to the Department.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/exclusive-how-finance-defied-protocol-to-crucify-slipper/

-----------------------------------

For those who were born yesterday and are tearing their hair apart at Peter Slipper alledged indiscretion, let me remind you of a certain Peter Reith who lend his "parliamentary phone" to his son who in turn ran a $50,000 bill...

Of course Peter Reith WAS NOT ALLOWED TO LEND HIS PHONE CARD. That's why Minchin did the protocol, mostly to exonerate his mates indiscretions...

 

 

COMPERE: Now to Canberra, and who's been using Peter Reith's phone card, and who's going to pay the $50,000 bill?

These were Opposition questions after it was revealed that Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith had racked up massive phone debts on a service he says he hadn't used for years. He admitted he had given his son his card, a clear breach of the rules, but that only accounts for less than $1,000 worth of misuse. For that he was forgiven, by the Prime Minister at least, but not by the Opposition. Not when they have 'Mr Waterfront Reform' on the back-foot, as chief political correspondent Philip Williams reports from Canberra.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Modern communications, the dog and bone, and today the call went out to Peter Reith - please explain how $50,000 worth of calls were clocked up on his tele-card account, some of which were racked up by his son.

Labor's Lindsay Tanner.

LINDSAY TANNER: If you were notified of the massive tele-card debt in August last year, can you explain why it wasn't until May this year before you notified the Prime Minister - a delay of nine months?

Are you aware that the Prime Minister said earlier today that it was his decision to refer the matter to the Attorney-General who in turn recommended a police investigation? Didn't your nine month delay in informing the Prime Minister delay this police investigation?

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Peter Reith says it took until April this year for the Department to investigate the calls. As soon as he was told the detailed bad news, he went to the Prime Minister. The Reith tele-card had taken an international hammering as hard as a dollar.

PETER REITH: In the nine month period to the 30th of August there were 619 to Malaysia, 448 calls from Singapore, 317 calls to Singapore, 389 calls from various mobile phones, 478 calls from various countries back to Australia - 2,301 calls in total costing $9,100.45. So my immediate reaction was - well, obviously I haven't been using the card and obviously this card has fallen into, you know, the wrong hands as it were and there was an unauthorised use.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: There certainly was. And one of those on the list was Peter Reith's son. He made around $950 worth of calls after dad gave him the card and the pin number so he could keep in touch.

Lindsay Tanner again.

LINDSAY TANNER: On what basis and on what authority did you provide your son with your tele-card and pin number? Since becoming aware of the fact that your card was being misused, what inquiries have you made to determine how the tele-card and pin number came to be more widely abused?

PETER REITH: I did give the card to my son and it was . I should not have done so. There is a Remuneration Tribunal determination which says that you must only use the card personally and I was in breach of that.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: A straight breach of the rules. So, what was the penalty?

The Prime Minister.

JOHN HOWARD: It's not something that I would encourage people to do and it's not something I've done but if you're asking me would I regard it as a hanging offence in relation to the position he now holds the answer is no, I don't.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Not even the muffled sound of a muted slap. Enter Labor's Senate Leader, John Faulkner.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s197803.htm

 

Note: Peter Reith is a regular "guest" on the ABC Drum... He always pontificate on how workers get to much entitlements too much employment security and too much of the good life... Reith is the epitomy of hypocrisy and of course the ABC should NEVER have had him rabbitting on at The Drum.

 

The leader of the opposition has no sympathy for Slipper and is still questioning his character and presuming his guilt.

“Why did the prime minister ever think that the gentleman in question was fit and proper to be the Speaker of our country?” demanded Abbott on Tuesday.

But if Slipper is not fit and proper to be Speaker then Abbott is definitely not fit and proper to be prime minister.

Tony Abbott released Battlelines in 2009. It was a book designed to set the tone for his leadership and outline his vision for Australia. From his Sydney seat of Warringah, Abbott flew to Canberra to discuss the book at the National Press Club on 28 July. While it can probably be argued that the Press Club visit was legitimate business – even if it was to discuss and sign copies of his book – how would he explain his trip to Melbourne on 3 August for a dinner event at a Dymocks bookstore? Abbott returned to Melbourne as well as visiting Brisbane and Perth to promote his book. In all, he charged $5,689.36 to the Commonwealth for business that seems personal not parliamentary. That was only the air fares. Including drivers to and from his book events, the taxpayer has put $6,651.96 towards the promotion of his book.

 

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/if-slipper-is-guilty-then-what-about-abbott/

----------------------

I had a nightmare last night... Tony Abbott was nice... He was a guest of some friends of mine who live there, on the north shore, and their house was getting complicated by the minute... Tony was asking me questions about the warm weather and social climbing... The house sunk, fortunately for me, unfortunately for my friends...

 

Tony Abbott of course is an iddiott... and a thief, according to the record above....

 

 

THERE IS NO DOUBT, whatsoever, that many Australians want to know answers to the questions posed by the group, Australians for Honest Politics, and other online publications, about Mal Brough’s involvement in the Slipper and Ashby affair.

Personally, I would like to pay due acknowledgement to Margo Kingston – a respected journalist and internet pioneer – for her interest in asking questions and sending them to the editor of the Sunshine Coast Daily. I would also like to highly praise the editor, Darren Burnett, for his immediate response to Margo and in sending the questions to the journalist Kathy Sundstrom. Last, but not least, I would like to praise and applaud Kathy for her tenacity and courage in putting all these questions to Brough on their train journey of 23 January 2013, between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. It is sad that despite all these efforts, Brough was dismissive, disingenuous and evasive.

It is important to take a quick look back about what the case was about initially and what it morphed into.

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/asking-the-brough-questions/

 

Those following the Ashbygate matter will recall that on 21 December 2012, Mr Perrett wrote to the AFP requesting a formal criminal investigation

‘…to determine whether Mr Brough, Ms Bishop, Mr Pyne, Mr McArdle, Mr Ashby, Ms Doane and/or any others, have committed any criminal offences’.

On 21 February, Mr Perrett advised that, apart from confirmation the request had been received, he had received no further word from the AFP.

That’s two months.

Compare this to the alacrity with which the AFP went in pursuit of Peter Slipper’s alleged 2010 Commonwealth credit card rort.

The bloodhounds!

Of course, the AFP had better evidence in the hire-car matter, evidence provided by News Limited and therefore to be acted on schnell! Papieren bitte!

Mr Perrett’s apparently pissweak ‒ yet curiously intellectually rigorous ‒ letter setting out a strong prima facie case becomes a mere bagatelle once the Dirty Digger’s fly is unzipped.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-perrett-complaint/

 

Police have suspended their investigation into whether former Howard government minister Mal Brough was involved in a conspiracy to bring down his political opponent, federal MP Peter Slipper. 

Labor MP Graham Perrett wrote to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in December, asking them to investigate allegations Mr Brough was part of a campaign to harm Mr Slipper and the Federal Government. 

He made the request after a Federal Court judge threw out a sexual harassment case against Mr Slipper, declaring it to be an abuse of process and designed to further the political interests of Mr Brough and the Liberal National Party (LNP). 

It emerged during the court proceedings that Mr Brough had requested extracts of Mr Slipper's diary from the staff member who ultimately filed the sexual harassment case, James Ashby. 

Mr Ashby has sought leave to appeal against the ruling. 

In a letter sent to Mr Perrett, AFP Commander Errol Raiser says the investigation into Mr Brough's actions has been suspended because of the ongoing legal action. 

"The AFP is aware that an appeal has been lodged with the Federal Court to be heard on May 30, 2013," the letter states.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-28/police-suspend-brough-slipper-conspiracy-probe/4545286?WT.svl=news1

 

 

So does this mean that should the appeal be granted and on the remote possibility Ashby be "vindicated" against the ruling of what was a very sound judgement, there won't be any investigation of Mal Brough's actions in this sordid affair?... Is it customary for police to stop investigating something and finding more clues because there is a court case going on? Is the police afraid of discovering damning evidence that will contradict the appeal? Is this what has stopped the police from investigating Kathy Jackson in the Craig Thomson case? Are the police chiefs going to the same clubs or lodges as the Liberal (conservative) party honchos?... I am living on the same planet?...

 

Tony Abbott said about Brough:

“Look I will leave claims about what Mr Brough did or didn’t do to be answered  by, by, by, Mal, erm, he’s been very up front about this. He’s done lots of interviews about it and, erm, if you’ve got a question for him, I think he would be only too happy to take it from you.”

Well, this statement should be ‘framed’, because it’s not true either.

As you will see, I emailed to the mal.brough2@bigpond.com email account which arose from this exercise from my Gmail account. It did not bounce back.

Realising that he might have closed that address down (although no message came back to say the email had not been delivered), we also sent the message to his campaign office at 9.18am on the 1 March 2013. The email was  fisher@lnpq.org.au. No rejection from that one either.

To date we have received no response from Malcolm Brough, the man about  whom Tony Abbott says:

“…erm, if you’ve got a question for him, I think he would be only too happy to take it from you.”

Well, erm, no Tony, in fact he wasn’t happy to take our questions.

Like many other journalists who’ve tried to put questions to Mal Brough about this murky affair, we have had no response at all.

------------------------

Read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/ashbygate-in-depth-part-iii-the-end-of-mal-broughs-dry-gully/

--------------------------

Hi! My name is Gus and I can tell you that Mal Brough is a manipulative man "with good intention" and that Hell is paved with good intentions... I know of secret meetings he's had in the past, though irrelevant to this affair — only relevant to the "Northern Territory intervention"... Nuf said...

 

 

THANK YOU for reading. What follows is pure supposition, but I am sure it is right. This piece is from the heart.

Not facts; osmosis, if you will; the timeline framework so succinctly laid out by Mr O’Grady allows the luxury of absorbing the ephemera and provides a place to hang the various seemingly unrelated bits.

And to me all those bits add up to say a determined attempt was made to destroy Peter Slipper as a man. Break him. Once he’d topped himself, they win.

While we’re all taken by the minutae of what has now been proven to be a conspiracy, it’s going to be nigh on impossible, even for the AFP, to prove anything apart from a few minor matters against minor players like Brough, Doane and Ashby. Puppets.

These guys, whether they like it or not, are going to be left swinging in the wind. Pissants, minor players, two-bit. Toodle-oo.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-ashbygate-puppets/

See toon at top for a clue...

 

Former Parliament speaker Peter Slipper has called for a royal commission into the events surrounding the sexual harassment court case against him.

Mr Slipper has given what he has described as a precautionary valedictory speech in parliament, saying he has not decided whether he will run at the next election.

Last year Mr Slipper faced a sexual harassment court case launched by a former staffer, James Ashby.

The case was dismissed but is still subject to a possible appeal.

Former Howard government minister Mal Brough is running as an Liberal National Party candidate in Mr Slipper's Queensland seat of Fisher at the next election.

Mr Slipper has used parliamentary privilege to reveal a story passed onto him by wealthy political hopeful Clive Palmer about Mr Brough's involvement in the Ashby case.

"Mr Palmer mentioned to me at that time that about Easter last year, Mr Brough accompanied by the Member for North Sydney came to see Mr Palmer to ask him to fund James Ashby's legal fees," Mr Slipper said.

"I would hope that the Government moves to see the involvement of members of the Opposition in particular in what has resulted in a situation where there was an attempt to not only bring down the speaker of the Australian Parliament, but also to bring down the government of this nation."

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey is the Member for North Sydney.

Mr Hockey has completely rejected Mr Slipper's statement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-27/slipper-calls-for-royal-commission-over-ashby-case/4785740

-------------------------

Between Hockey and Slipper, who do you trust? Slipper of course...

ON THE MORNING of Friday 28 June 2013, we spoke with Clive Palmer. He gave us the bum’s rush.

Our question was straightforward — would he confirm a report in The Age of 27 June 2013 that he, or his spokesperson, had backed Slipper’s allegation that Joe Hockey and Mal Brough had asked Clive to stump up for Ashby’s legal costs?

Coyly, the top PUP referred us to his twitter feed and specifically to a tweet he made on 26 July 2012:

"Never any support from me for James Ashby. I've known Peter Slipper 40yrs. He's a man of integrity. This issue best left for the courts."

Well, thanks Clive.
We called Clive’s media guy who, in fairness, did return our call but hit the message bank. We made a few more tries during the day to contact him, but hit his message bank every time and he did not return any of these calls.

So, we still don’t know. But what we do know is that, on 27 June 2013, Slipper, in his (possibly) valedictory parliamentary speech, announced to the house he had recently shared breakfast with Clive at Clive’s Coolum pleasure palace. Over toast, or maybe Cheerios, Slipper reckoned Clive told him that around Easter 2012 Mal Brough and Joe Hockey paid him a visit to suggest Clive like to meet Harmer’s no-doubt modest fees incurred prosecuting the honour of James Ashby.

Clive, according to Slipper, did not think this was a good idea and, in a display of his undoubted financial acumen, declined.

There are just four possibilities here — The Age lied, Slipper lied, Clive lied to Slipper or Joe lied to the house and the Australian public.

Just for fun, let’s go with The Age being correct, and Clive’s office did confirm Slipper’s version. That leaves Slipper, Clive and Joe as the possible liars.

Given what we know of Slipper and his reverence for Parliamentary protocol, it’s a big ask to think he’d intentionally mislead the House in what is possibly his last Hansard appearance.

That leaves Clive and Joe.

My own opinion, formed through prejudice and second-hand reports, is that Clive is a commercially fortunate clown who is making a bid for PM by assembling a PUP crew of electoral wannabees that looks awfully like the line-up on Celebrity Apprentice — minus the good ones. With his Isle-of-Man registered bizjet and bursting shirt buttons, the avuncular Clive has bounced Katter off the media radar for funny candidate stories and is possibly deluded enough to think he and his acolytes will have an electoral impact.

But would Clive lie to Slipper? Maybe. Everyone else has.

But why?

Clive would hardly be big noting himself by saying Hockey and Brough visited him — more down noting. Cruel pleasure perhaps? Offering Slipper a glimmer of hope that evidence was available and that justice might one day come, only to watch the victim sink even further into the slough of despair when he realised Clive had been lying.

Clive’s probably guilty of one or two mortal sins, but I’ve never heard his name used in cat-torturing stories and he doesn’t come across as a cruel man.

That leaves Joe.

In fact, that leaves Joe swinging in the wind.

If the story is true, then Hockey knew about the Ashby conspiracy at least a fortnight before the story hit the Daily Telegraph on 21 April 2012.
A couple of days after Rares J delivered his verdict, the reduced Hockey said anyone who alleged he had any prior knowledge of the conspiracy could “go to hell!”

Maybe Clive will get to feed Cerberus a Schmacko (if the beast can rip it from Clive’s maw) on the strength of his perfidy, but Joe’s claim is looking more like wishful thinking than a likely outcome.

It must have been a bitter moment for the putative Treasurer to go cap-in-hand to Clive’s lair. Please sir? Just to be knocked back. Ok, maybe Clive does have a cruel streak.

Clive’s unwillingness to play begs the question of who did put their hand in their pocket (or handbag) to fuel the expensive Harmer machine.

Could Clive’s indiscretion over breakfast be the string that unravels the whole Ashbygate mess?

It is on record that a couple of weeks before Easter ‒ on 19 March 2012 ‒ Christopher Pyne had drinkieswith Ashby in the speaker’s office (how deliciously naughty!) and the next day Ashby dropped intoBishop’s office for a chat. Pyne got sprung for telling porkies over his subsequent contact with Ashby and Bishop continues to deny meeting him at all.

Hockey too blustered his innocence, but the allegations are out there now, in Hansard — serious allegations that need to be addressed by the member for North Sydney. Otherwise, he’s going to have to tell half of Australia to go to hell.

Now, as for Mal Brough ….

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/slipper-palmer-brough-and-joe-go-to-hell-hockey/

 

The leaders of Team Ashbygate say they won't stop until they discover exactly who within the LNP, besides Mr Brough, was in on what they are describing as a “conspiracy”. The ultimate scalp, of course, would be Mr Abbott.
The reason they suspect the Opposition Leader's involvement is because of the careful language he uses whenever he is asked about Mr Ashby.“I had no specific knowledge of this,” Mr Abbott has repeatedly said.
But so far they've found nothing that links Mr Abbott to Mr Ashby.
Brock Turner is the unlikely leader of Team Ashbygate. He has never been a journalist, he says. Nor is he a member of a political party. And he has no particular affection for Peter Slipper. Mr Turner believes all the politicians involved in the Ashbygate conspiracy probably have something they would rather we didn't know about.
The reason he came up with the idea for the Ashbygate Trust, Mr Turner says, was because he thinks the mainstream media have been letting politicians off the hook.
In Ashbygate, there are “so many elements of what would normally constitute a fairly popular story,” Mr Turner says.
Besides the court judgement, there are hints at a larger conspiracy, he believes. There is evidence that others within the LNP, such as Christopher Pyne and someone from Julie Bishop's office, had spoken to Mr Ashby in the weeks leading up to his explosive allegations.
Mr Pyne, who admits to having a drink with Mr Ashby in Mr Slipper's office when Mr Slipper wasn't present, says the meeting was an innocuous social discussion.
Mr Brough admits to meeting Mr Ashby and advising him about his sexual harassment case against Mr Slipper. But despite the fact that Mr Brough is running against Mr Slipper for the Sunshine Coast seat of Fisher, Mr Brough maintains he only helped Mr Ashby because he was concerned for the young man's welfare. It had nothing to do with attacking his political opponent, he says.
Newspapers certainly covered Justice Rares' judgement when it was released in December, but Mr Turner says he is angry that “mainstream” journalists have not dug deeper.
“There has to be some demonstration that if the mainstream media won't pursue it, someone else will,” he says.

Mr Turner, who is 45, broke his neck about 20 years ago in a swimming accident. He gets around in a wheelchair and does most of his work using voice-recognition software. Some days he spends up to 12 hours investigating Ashbygate, and from his small weatherboard house on the Gold Coast, Mr Turner is helping to steer the army.
His right-hand man is David Donovan, the editor of the journalism website Independent Australia.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ashbygate-saga-pursued-by-internetfunded-activists-20130710-2pq72.html#ixzz2Yd2fOdFv

 

 

See image at top and other Ashbygate comments on this site...

 

Former federal parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper says revelations about MPs' expenses prove the charges against him are politically motivated.

Mr Slipper is fighting criminal charges over allegations he misused taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers to visit Canberra wineries in 2010.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and four other ministers have recently paid back entitlement claims, including allowances used to attend the weddings of colleagues.

Mr Slipper has told the ABC's Insiders program he was never given the opportunity to repay the money.

"I think there's a double standard here and I think one thing about the Australian people is they want people to have a fair go," he said.

"I think that either the charges against me should be dropped or everyone else should be charged."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-12/peter-slipper-claims-double-standard-in-entitlements-scandal/5018732 

 

See toon at top...

 

 

During an appropriations debate in Parliament this week (3/3/15), Labor MP Michael Danby reflected on the public resources spent pursuing former Speaker Peter Slipper over $954 after he was exonerated last week.

Just as the member for Blair said when speaking on this appropriations debate, he was to speak widely and wisely, so am I. I am going to reflect on some expenditure that I will not say was deliberately misspent, but I do not think these monies were spent wisely by the Australian Federal Police, by the Department of Finance and by the courts. Some of the things I say will be unpopular, particularly with members of the government, but they have to be said.

In the ACT Supreme Court, on 25 February, Judge John Burns exonerated the former Speaker of this parliament. He said, quite rightly, that having lunch with staff could be considered parliamentary duties, given the definition was so wide. The failure to apply to former Speaker Slipper, the Minchin protocols by which all of us in this place are able to repay taxi fares or travel expenses that are undertaken mistakenly or not properly notified is something that led to injustice. It led to a whole series of misallocation of resources in the pursuit of the former Speaker. These included the cost of Slipper's prosecution by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions over this $954 Cabcharges. Defending himself cost him more than $150,000 personally. These events cost him his reputation, his marriage, nearly cost his life and his mental health. And it cost the Commonwealth, in its various manifestations, at least $400,000 to $500,000 to pursue one member's taxi receipts.

Was this a wise expenditure of public money?

When Peter Slipper accepted the speakership he insisted that he would not be party to maintaining Labor in office. He felt that the Labor Government was going to stay in office whether he accepted the Speakership or not.

Slipper being made Speaker, of course, made it a little easier for Labor on the floor of the House, but the Labor Government was able to survive when Mr Jenkins was Speaker before Slipper and with Ms Burke after Slipper. He was a very good Speaker. I remember, to the surprise of the Coalition, he sat then Treasurer Wayne Swan down in his seat. There was praise for him in the media at the time as a person who knew the procedures and the rules. There was an article by Geoff Kitney in the Financial Review which was typical of this praise.

Also related to this misspending of public moneys and highlighted in the Federal Court's refusal on 9 February 2015 for Mr Ashley's applications for costs in this case. These costs are estimated at $3 million. The Federal Court added the Commonwealth's costs to Ashby's costs and his lawyer's costs. The Federal Court's judgement made clear that Ashby's sexual harassment claims were never vindicated, as he had claimed, subsequent to the judgment of Justice Rares, being invalidated by the Federal Court. When Ashby withdrew the sexual harassment case, on 14 June, he stated that he believed the Federal Court's decision to grant an appeal had indirectly suggested harassment had, in fact, occurred. The Federal Court judgement makes it explicitly clear that that was not the case.

The final paragraph of its finding says:

'But for the discontinuance of his claim, Ashby may well have been tested about why the primary proceeding was instituted in the terms it first appeared, and on a range of matters raised by Slipper arising in his summary dismissal application and in his defence of the claim.'

Then the organ grinders of the then Opposition orchestrated this persecution of the Speaker that was a vast waste of public money and the monkeys, in the form of Ashby and Co. were left with the bill.

It is true the Federal Court made a two-to-one decision to overturn Justice Rares, giving Ashby the benefit of the doubt — for reason of procedural fairness. The court wanted to let him proceed with this case even though Justice Rares had made a very strong judgement against them.

Remember, these Ashby allegations transfixed Australia. They led to 12 front pages in the Daily Telegraph, including the former speaker being portrayed as a rat with drawings all around him with tails and whiskers. Lady Di only got nine front pages! And then they were withdrawn with the merest whimper!

Justice Rares, who examined the case most comprehensively, said it was an abuse of process. The judge skewered Mr Ashby's solicitors, Harmers, for a strategy that was designed to:

'… to expose Mr Slipper to the maximum degree of vilification, opprobrium, sensation and scandal and to cause maximum damage to his reputation to the political advantage of the LNP and Mr Brough.'

Mr Brough, the current Member for Fisher was then Slipper’s self-interested opponent, being his opponent in the electorate.

Harmers, who backed Ashby, are an important type of lawyers for all of us members of parliament to contemplate and assess. What happened to Slipper could happen to any of us. Sensational public allegations could be used by such legal firms on a no win, no fee basis. Or as they did in the David Jones case, make sensationalist allegations, which is probably the reason Harmers were brought into this case against Slipper. This is a very dangerous precedent, a slippery slope of political assassination. 

Rares found the claim made by Ashby was an abuse of process.

Judge Rares said:

'… Ashby's predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists.'

 

 

James Ashby stole his employer's diary. I wonder if Mr Katter, the Member for Kennedy who is in the chamber, would like one of his staff to steal his diary and give it to the Daily Telegraph. It is an absolutely unethical thing for any employee to do. Moreover his sensationalised affidavit introduced the 2003 allegations about an alleged sexual relationship with Slipper. He swore affidavits in which he made assertions about Cabcharges 'had no legitimate forensic purpose”, the judge said, in a sexual harassment case.

Rares added:

"They were not included in the originating application to advance any bona fide cause of action that Mr Ashby … had against … the Commonwealth or Mr Slipper. The effect of their inclusion and, I find, the purpose … was to further damage Mr Slipper in the public eye and politically and to attract to him significant adverse publicity …"

After dropping his allegations in midyear 2014, Ashby later appeared on 60 Minutes. It was recently re-shown, in January.

On that program, James Ashby claims to have been induced by Liberal MPs, prominent members now in government, into making his sordid claims. What Ashby told 60 Minutes about these alleged inducements directly contradicts what he put on oath in a sworn affidavit to the justices who overturned, in a 2-1 decision, Rares' forensic judgement. I wonder, if the judges had seen what Ashby said on 60 Minutes, whether they would have indeed overturned Judge Rares's forensic dissection of Ashby's activities? I am sure they would not have.

Accordingly, after the program, I wrote to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, inviting him to investigate whether perjury had occurred and whether the appeal judges were misled by the affidavit. 

At the very least, Ashby's claim of inducements, made on national television twice now, in July and January, should have been known to the appeal judges when they reviewed Rares's judgement. Perhaps millions of dollars spent chasing Slipper's $900 taxi fares – the millions of dollars spent by the Department of Finance, the AFP and in the courts – might never have had to have been contemplated if we had known of the sleazy inducements in the beginning. Regarding these Cabcharge fares, it was silly to go beyond the boundaries of Canberra for lunch with staff, but they were still ultimately found by a judge to be possibly “parliamentary business”. If we had also known that, as Mr Ashby now confesses on television, that he was offered inducements, the judgement of Judge Rares would have been clearly upheld.

I am reluctant to believe anything that Ashby says, even if is politically convenient for my side of politics, or me personally, to believe it. Yet if he told the truth to 60 Minutes, there is a powerful message to all MPs from this: the politics of personal destruction, even for a member as unpopular as Peter Slipper, engineered by the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt will consume its perpetrators. We see this political vengeance carried through with the obscenely expensive royal commissions the Abbott Government have now launched into prime ministers Rudd and Gillard. Such Medici-like vengeance has no proper place in Australian public or parliamentary life. The admission by Mr Brough, the current member for Fisher, Mr Slipper's former electorate, on 60 Minutes that he had directed a G Gordon Liddy style black-ops misappropriation of the Speaker's confidential diary, is one that the Prime Minister has already had good reasons to carefully contemplate. The old warning 'Be careful what you become, in pursuit of what you want' should be ringing in the ears of members of the government after this disturbing 60 Minutes broadcast.

I witnessed – and I want to record this for the Hansard – on a daily basis, in the months of February, March and April 2012, what appeared to me when I went into the Speaker's office an entirely professional relationship between him and his constituent adviser. Strangely excluded from the 60 Minutes program was Extra Minutes, a special that they broadcast 60 Minutes online. In Extra Minutes, it is very odd that Mr Ashby, who claims to have been repulsed by the Speaker's approaches and presence, made it clear that the last straw for him in the perpetual betrayal of his employer was that the then Speaker would not take him on a first-class trip to Hungary!

 

As David Marr argued in The Guardian:

'A few days later, under Brough's direction, Ashby began scouring Slipper's office records for damaging details of travel expenses to be fed to Telegraph journalist Steve Lewis.'

I will not go into all of the details, as I planned to, about the scurrilous role of the Murdoch press in all of this, including The Daily Telegraph, or the securing of him in a safe News Ltd house in Sydney like a spy come in from behind enemy lines. If he was a spy he was more like Lonley than Callan. I just want to conclude with some points about how that destruction of the Speaker was used to destroy the Gillard Government. It was effected total disregard and such a terrible destruction of one individual. Slipper was a competent Speaker. Slipper may be an eccentric character. Slipper probably said stupid things, sexist things, to his staff member. Let us all remember this: the texts that were introduced into this Parliament by the member for Curtin, only available after the stupid and inexplicable settlement by Attorney General Roxon, were made from a conversation between Ashby and Slipper months before Ashby was in his employment! What would any of us think of a person, who was a prospective employee of ours, who recorded our telephone conversations, personal texts between us, with a possible view to blackmail? You inveigle yourself. You try and become popular with the person you are seeking employment form and then you cut their political throats.

I know the case of Slipper.

He married a younger woman, Inge, a beautiful person. She convinced the then Speaker Slipper to take a more modern tolerant view to hire this gay man, Ashby. They took him into their bosom. They took him into their office and into their confidence. And then their trust was abused in the most dastardly way. I saw that man, Ashby, in the Speaker's office all the time, working happily with the Speaker; lots of repartee. Only when Ashby’s overseas trips or the prospect of bringing down the government and getting vast amounts of cash or other rewards suggested to him induced him that he could profit from take another course, did he betray and destroy the couple that had looked after him so well.

There are other people who share guilt in this abuse of process too; this injustice. The former Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, should never have made a different standard for the then Speaker than what had been made for all leading members of this parliament. He should have had a legal defence from the beginning. Now, we all have insurance to protect ourselves, each of us, from an employee doing a similar malevolent or baseless thing to us. That scheme is justified. The former Special Minister of State, the Member for Brand is an excellent person who foresaw this problem, not just for Labor but for all sides of politics, and introduced our current insurance schemes. That same standard of justice and treatment should be applied to all electorate, ministerial staff and MPs.

It was also dishonourable that his solicitors, the firm of Maurice Blackburn, abandoned Slipper on the edge of court, after the Commonwealth unwisely made its separate deal with Ashby for $50,000 — a deal which, if it would have waited, Justice Rares would have invalidated. Just as the CabCharge allegation has been invalidated in a Canberra court. Finally we would have known, via 60 Minutes, that this was all done because of prospective inducements....

Some people affectionately refer to me as the "member for lost causes" in this Parliament because of my support for Tibet, Darfur and the Baha'is and various individuals like Anwar Ibrahim, for whom all hope seems lost. I never imagined when I came to be in this Parliament that I would become a friend or defender of a former Liberal National Party member from Queensland, Peter Slipper, but this is not over.

If the CDPP recommends, after advice from the Federal Police, that these inducements be looked at, then I repeat, this is not over. There will be, in the end, and despite his awful political crucifixion, justice for Slipper; and, as there always should be, justice for all.

You can also follow Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby on Twitter @MichaelDanbyMP. Find out more about the Ashbygate saga here. This speech was taken from Hansard. You can watch the speech here...

Read more: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/michael-danby-the-costly-persecution-of-peter-slipper,7452

 

See toon at top...

From David Donovan at IA:

 

 

I am feeling very sad. My good friend Brock Turner died on Thursday.

It was unexpected. I stil don't know all the details. It appears it was a tragic accident. He was hale and hearty last time I spoke to him, not long ago.

You may know of Brock through his stories on IA, or because he was the brains behind IA's Ashbygate Trust, or from mainstream media news stories like this.

Or, more likely, you may not know him at all.

I know Brock because he was one of the most valiant, principled, funny and, overall, good people I have ever met. And he also was my good friend.

He became a near paraplegic when he was 25 — I understand, through a near fatal diving/swimming accident.

But I met him long after that. I met him when he was a guy in a wheelchair in his mid-30s, with a gripping passion to right wrongs. Like a wheelchair-bound version of myself, maybe, but with a lot less uncertainty and diffidence, and much more courage.

The world is a bit darker place without Brock. His tweets as @turlow1 – ironically calling himself "Geezlouise", which made many people think he was a female, especially since he mischievously chose the image of a nun as his avatar – were consumed avidly by a great many fans.

His story about why he helped set up Ashbygate gives a great picture of the man: 

Here is an excerpt:

I would much rather spend my days in ignorant bliss sitting in the sunshine on my back verandah watching mother nature quietly ply her humble trade, but at some point in everyone’s life you come to that moment when you realise your choice is to become part of the problem or part of the solution. With a weary and cynical heart I found myself unable to continue sitting idly by....

What is really at stake is the nation’s right to be able to rely on the most fundamental tenet of any democracy, that being the right to something that at least approximates a free and honest press. If the population of this democracy is being deliberately deceived then it can only be to our detriment.

Certain of my own ordinariness I had to assume there were others out there who were equally concerned with what can only be described as an existential threat to our democracy.....

There must be other people who were equally fed up with justice and equity being afterthoughts that get squeezed into the nooks and crannies left over after the serious business of building structure and fortification around the coordinating principles of greed and power is completed to the satisfaction of the maniacally insatiable.

There must be other people who believe that we simply cannot let those currently in charge continue to be responsible for the lifeblood of our democracy – Information.

From here it was a straightforward proposition. With naive arrogance and an anxious hope in the existence of community-minded citizens I believed this was an issue of such importance to our rights to a fair go society that all I need do was let people know I was taking a stand and support would come.

And come it did, Brock. VALE Brock Turner. May you rest in peace, for all your good works on this earth. Condolences to his family, especially his wonderful partner Eileen.

 

at least, aussie post, one of the other sponsors, is still owned by the government, though tanking...