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...