Sunday 23rd of January 2022

don't expect the miracle of truth from the sick scomo government — the kanbra brothel...


Scott Morrison has a man problem. Sixteen of them, to be precise.

They are the 16 men in the 22-strong Federal Cabinet over whom hang an allegation of a horrible crime, outlined in an anonymous letter sent to the Prime Minister.

One of them is accused of a horrific 1988 rape of a 16-year-old but until he is identified, all 16 live under a cloud of broader public suspicion.

This is the political conundrum at the heart of the Prime Minister's man problem that threatens to tumble the scandal over parliamentary culture into a full-blown Cabinet crisis.

And until this is somehow resolved, Morrison's oft-spoken-about "woman problem" only worsens — a woman problem that's undeniably contributed to Liberal MP Nicolle Flint quitting politics in disgust at the toxic treatment of women in Canberra.

A woman problem some Liberals fear will further discourage women from pursuing a political career. A woman problem that hasn't been remedied by any of Morrison's efforts to promote women.


Sexual assault support services:


For now, the Morrison government argues that the minister in question must be afforded natural justice. It points to 7.1 of the ministerial code which states that "a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct."

One prime ministerial aide argues there is no official police investigation, in South Australia, NSW or federally, nor has a minister been charged.

Liberal strategists might have already calculated that the prospect of prosecution is remote in any case, given the complainant took her own life in June last year, aged 49.

But other senior Coalition folk wonder if a wait-it-out strategy is politically tenable in the long run, especially after the past fortnight of sleaze, shame and self-reflection.

They question whether the Government can sustain resistance against calls for an independent inquiry.

Some in Labor suggest the Coalition might fight fire with fire, that historical claims of sexual assault against a senior Labor figure might be revisited.

But this wouldn't help Morrison, whose acknowledgement of significant cultural problems in the Parliament and his party requires action that restores the Coalition's reputation.

In the wake of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins's explosive claim of rape by a colleague in the office of a minister in 2019, the PM has set himself the task of rebuilding female faith in federal politics.

He urged MPs and senators to heed the guidance of Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw by referring allegations of sexual assault and other serious offences to the police "without delay".


"I cannot state strongly enough the importance of timely referrals of allegations of criminal conduct," Commissioner Kershaw wrote to the Prime Minister on Wednesday, February 24.


The ABC understands that the AFP Commissioner had already received — by email earlier that day — the anonymous complaint of rape against the federal Minister.



Read more:


the most amoral government since federation...

Morrison’s government: the most amoral in 50 years


By DAVID SOLOMON | On 1 March 2021

It is extraordinary that a Liberal Party leadership manages to be outside the bubble when anything might go wrong. Concepts of right and wrong have no place in what it does, and even what it says it does. Its only concern is the exercise of power, to satisfy its current whimsies and to excuse and cover up mistakes, blunders and policy errors. 

The power it exercises is entirely divorced from the way governments generally, and the Australian government specifically, are legally as well as morally required to act. It ignores the concept that elected and appointed government officials are in a trust relationship with the public.

As the High Court made clear a century ago (and has reaffirmed recently) government officials have a public duty and a public trust. The “public trust” requires them to serve not their personal interests but the interests of the public. As several judges put it, the fundamental obligation of a member of parliament is ‘the duty to serve and, in serving, to act with fidelity and with a ‘single-mindedness’ for the welfare of the community.

You don’t have to know what the High Court judges have said. Just think about what our country is called – the Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth (apart from having republican connotations which don’t yet apply) means that the political entity exists for the benefit of all its people. The people we elect to Parliament are obliged to act in our general interest – not their own personal interest, not the interests of their party, not the interests of only those who vote for them (or might be persuaded, by misuse of public moneys) to vote for them.

The various rorts in which Ministers have been involved recently were designed and have been executed to advance the government’s political interests by favouring electorates that either elect a coalition MP or are marginal and might be persuaded (with the help of a grant or two) to do so.

Most, like the various sports rorts, appear at first glance to be legitimate. They have stated aims, published criteria for evaluation and a process of ranking the bids that are made in accordance with those aims and criteria. It’s all rubbish, because ultimately the minister makes the decision and does so for reasons that are not stated overtly.

It turns out that it is not the quality of the submissions you make (if you even make one) or the proven needs/utility/community benefits of your project that matter, but your political connections or possible political value to the minister or government.

It is OK for ministers to use the grants to help win or hold marginal seats or reward safe Liberal/National Party seats. The grants, the Prime Minister insisted in one of the latest scandals (involving Home Affairs Minister Peter (‘I pride myself on my integrity’) Dutton, were ‘not outside the rules’. (Actually, they appear to have been outside the legislative guidelines in effect at the time.)

In any event (inside or outside those rules) the Minister or Prime Minister, or their respective ministerial officers, could (and would) have changed the rules, after the event if necessary, to let the government do whatever it pleased. Mostly, however, the rules and the published criteria are simply ignored and/or are irrelevant in the decision-making process.

The ministers’ obligations under the public trust doctrine are never considered.

Once upon a time (actually, back in the 1970s and 1980s) Ministers who blatantly ignored their obligations under the trust doctrine were obliged to resign or were sacked. A prime example was Labor Minister Ros Kelly, who put on a whiteboard the irrelevant considerations she was going to apply in making grants, was caught out and resigned.

But there were plenty of others who resigned or were dismissed for other reasons – such as misleading parliament, or conflicts of interest, or failure to observe regulations – Jim Cairns, Rex Connor for example in the Whitlam Government, Mick Young and John Brown in the Hawke Government and Jim Short and David Jull in the Howard Government.

Actually, there was a host of resignations for various reasons in the first Howard Government, but in his second government, Howard put an end to the practice of ministers resigning if they made mistakes for which they would be otherwise accountable. Regrettably, subsequent Prime Ministers have tended, like the later Howard, to tough it out, rather than have their ministers admit fault through resignation.

Senator Bridget McKenzie was different. Her resignation (for a fairly trivial conflict of interest) was aimed at deflecting attention from the really serious problems including possible breaches of the law and the Constitution, and other problems unveiled by the Auditor-General, and subsequent inquiries, involved in her administration of the sports rorts.

Reverting now to the issue of amorality, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the rape and sexual assault allegations currently dominating parliament and the media.

It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister apparently (judging him by his own words) needed to be told by his wife that rape is wrong – and that that is so even if that rape occurs in a ministerial suite in Parliament House and involved ministerial staff. Wrong. Not just wrong of course, but a serious crime.

For some commentators, this is just another example of the ‘culture’ issue that many people, including women Liberal MPs and former parliamentarians, have long complained about.

There can be no doubt that the Liberals do have a woman problem (as it is described). But there are two distinct issues. The first is the relative lack of representation of women in the ranks of the Liberal party in federal parliament, particularly at a senior level. The second is the bad treatment of women, by Liberal men, mostly involving bullying. It seems that this is replicated in the behaviour of Ministerial and other staff.

(As an aside: Labor is well on the way to overcoming the under-representation of women issue within its ranks. But there are still remnants of the male dominance/ superiority/ offensive behaviour syndrome among its parliamentarians – I say nothing about staff, lacking personal knowledge or reliable reports).

The Prime Minister’s response to the sexual assault allegations has been to set up a number of inquiries (the number changes from day to day) some of which are guaranteed (by the nature of the inquiry being conducted and the persons conducting them) to produce little of any consequence.

What is already evident, however, is that the woman who was allegedly raped was not encouraged to report her experience to the police. The pervading ‘culture’ is well understood: a person who goes to the proper authorities with a complaint has no chance of advancement within the party and little chance of retaining the position they currently hold.

Couple that with a Liberal Party leadership that manages to be outside the bubble when anything might go wrong.


Read more:


Gus says Scomo's is the most amoral government since federation...


See also:

Two more Federal MPs and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said they were aware of rape claims against a member of Scott Morrison’s cabinet which were revealed on Friday.

Labor MP Daniel Mulino said the alleged victim, who was also his friend, had contacted him in December 2019 about wanting to “proceed with a formal complaint”.

He told the ABC he “supported her in that decision” and ensured she “was receiving appropriate support”.

Meanwhile, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said he had contact with a woman who alleged she was raped by a current senior federal minister, and called for an inquest into her suicide death.



Meanwhile, as well as Scomo, the Attorney General, Christian Porter, should demand this cabinet minister stands aside until inquiries are finished, or sack himself for not demanding the culprit stands aside...

the truth is known but...


I knew about the rape allegations more than a year ago. Here's why I didn't report them

Tory Shepherd

It can be gut-wrenchingly complicated to report (or try to report) on sexual abuse allegations

I knew about the rape allegations more than a year ago. And I didn’t report them.

But this is a confession about human frailty and complicated moral decisions, not about a media conspiracy to cover up an alleged crime.


It’s natural that people want to know which minister stands accused of a “historical” rape. That people feel aggrieved that so many insiders apparently knew all about it, but didn’t drag it into the light.

The road from rumour to publication is not just rocky. It’s blocked, sometimes, by law. On one side it falls into the abyss of uncertainty, on the other there’s a creeping and impenetrable jungle of personal ethics, public interest tests, the murky miasma of unintended consequences.

And, if it’s not stretching the metaphor too far, the warning signs about procedural fairness.

So. One morning I strolled down an Adelaide street to a cafe full of sunshine and plants. And I listened to the woman as she told me her story about a horrific attack by a prominent politician (a claim the unnamed politician has denied).

And I did nothing. Well, except agonise over it from that moment to this.

The story had convincing detail, the ring of truth. But that’s not enough to put it in print. As we spoke, it was clear she was uncertain about going public. She was shaky, shaken, obviously suffering.

In the end, I made sure she had supportive people around her (she did), that she knew all the right places to go to for more help (she did), and told her to call me any time, and said that perhaps it was best, for now, to wait. She had started talking to police but wasn’t sure where she wanted official action to go.

So I decided not to push her. I told her that we’d only move on anything when and if she’d decided for sure that that’s what she wanted.

I didn’t call her again, because I worried that she would translate that as pressure. 

I don’t want to sound defensive, although my internal monologue veers from defensiveness to guilt and back again. I just want to tease out how gut-wrenchingly complicated it can be to report (or try to report) on sexual abuse allegations. 

First up, there’s the intimidatingly high bar of defamation law. The first rung to clear is your own belief in the truth of the events being described. There’s no single way to get to that point.

If your gut says there’s a story, and your heart says it’s in the public interest, you start to build your case. Get signed statutory declarations, figure out which freedom of information applications might help, talk to anyone who might know anything. Sometimes you find the proverbial smoking gun. Sometimes you’re painstakingly, incrementally, building one.

Make sure dates and times line up, that there are no clear contradictions that will spike your yarn.

Journalists have a clear code of ethics, but its application is a blend of subjective interpretation, personal squeamishness versus the desire for a scoop, and the need for arse covering. There’s no journalism manual that tells you how to proceed from allegation to publication, and journalists – particularly print journalists – zealously and jealously hold their works-in-progress close to their chests.

You’re on your own, mostly.

Until you clear that first bar and get to the second. Pitching the story to the higher-ups. Who will want to find any and all pokeable holes. Who will fossick through what you know and play devil’s advocate to see if the whole thing crumbles.

And the third rung. The lawyers. Who are naturally even more cautious than journalists and editors, because they are paid not to be driven by the imperative to break the story but to protect the company from any damage.

If you get all that way, all the way to publication, then you only have to worry about the 2am wake-in-fright moments. The dark hours where you bolt upright with a gasp, convinced you’ve made a terrible mistake and that you’ll be undone in front of everyone. The hurt and pain you’ve unwittingly caused to innocent bystanders, the triggering trauma you’ve unleashed, the backlash, the lingering fear you’ve missed something.

It’s understandable that people see the Canberra “bubble” as an opaque circle-jerk. Yes, Canberra can be too cosy. There are sociopathic journalists. There are transactional journalists. There are journalists who’ll hesitate to damage a good source, and others who’ll leap at the chance to damage someone they dislike.

But most of them, the ones I know, are anxious, complex bundles of hopes and fears. They wake in fright at 2am, terrified about the consequences of the decisions they’ve made, wondering if they should have done more, or less, or nothing at all.

• Tory Shepherd is a freelance journalist and writer

• If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or family violence, call 1800-RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit


Read more:


Meanwhile the NSW police has terminated any investigation... blah blah blah...

The investigation should be able to find out where and when the persons involved where at the time of the "incident". This isn't a difficult task, is it? Even 30 years ago... Or was the fellow too young at the time?...

Apparently, "he" has been named by ....   ?...




jane doe brings scomo down?

One of Australia’s most prominent politicians, a current cabinet minister, has been accused of raping a 16-year-old girl in 1988. Last year his alleged victim took her own life. Crikey has decided not to publish the woman’s name. She will be referred to from this point as Jane Doe.

The details of that night have been shared with politicians including Prime Minister Scott Morrison through an impassioned letter written by Jane’s friends and Jane’s detailed police statement (submitted in 2020 to NSW Police).

Crikey has seen both these documents, including photos of diary entries from the years shortly after the alleged attack. Crikey has spoken to the lawyer who helped her write her statement, Michael Bradley (who writes on legal matters for this publication), and to three of Jane’s friends who knew her when she was a student and have requested anonymity.

One friend said he was made aware of the alleged attack several months after it happened. All believe Jane wanted the issue to be made public and wanted justice. For risk of defamation, Crikey can’t go into details that would identify the alleged rapist. He will be called John Doe from this point.

Rape, and especially historic rape, is not an easy issue to write on. It’s estimated that around 13% of victims of sexual assault report it to the police. Less than a third of those reports lead to legal action. The fact that rape is gendered, the fact it often occurs in private, and the fact it usually happens between two people who have a prior relationship make conventional forms of legal recourse difficult.

While Jane’s statement only shows us her delayed recollection of what happened that night, it does show a pattern of what one expert has called “textbook” predatory behaviour, with John Doe allegedly attempting to control, domineer and gaslight his victim. Jane, like many who experience sexual assault, suffered for decades from poor mental health.

The alleged crime against Jane cannot be fully investigated and will likely not go to a criminal trial. Crikey hopes that by publishing details of the allegations, other potential victims might recognise this pattern.

Violence against women advocacy group Our Watch was consulted prior to writing this piece.

Red flags

Jane has been described by friends as a bright, fastidious student who at the time considered her alleged abuser a friend and potential partner.

The pair first met in 1986 and again in 1987 in Adelaide when Jane was 15 at a national school competition. The group of students travelling together became close friends, socialising, dancing and studying together.



Read more:



Meanwhile, as Scomo is covering up this intense fire in his cabinet, he should stand aside, resign and vanish like the perpetrator. There are far too much evidence and records of who was where and where the "girl" came from and what school she attended and "how she met the perpetrator" — and why the minister in question allegedly got his Wikipedia "altered" to remove any connection with the date involved... (Either the Minister did it himself or got someone naive enough — or pressured enough — to become an "accessory to a foul act after the facts"...)


Tomorrow shall be the date when the Scomo government bites the dust... as it should. End of the miracles of sports rorts and other rorts...

a brilliant girl...

In 1988, she was a brilliant teenage girl, clever and capable, with the world apparently at her feet.

But the woman who made allegations of rape against a cabinet minister is now dead, having taken her own life in the early days of the pandemic in 2020. She would have turned 50 last week.

“She was someone who was brilliant, acute. She was sensitive and had emotional and intellectual intelligence, and curiosity.

“People had high expectations of her and with that comes pressure. She was mindful of that.”

After losing touch with many of her old friends for years, in 2019 the woman began talking to trusted friends about her alleged rape in 1988, when she was 16 years old.

She said she had been sexually assaulted in Sydney by a man who now holds a senior position in government.

The woman knew the man when they were teenagers.

“We had a number of conversations because we were all very mindful of the difficulties of seeking justice through the criminal justice system,” Ms Dyer told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

“It was very difficult for her to be seeing him in the press all the time.”

The woman had not spoken to any journalists but going to the media was “definitely something on the agenda as a possibility”.

“How that could have worked with defamation laws, who knows,” Ms Dyer said.

The woman had engaged a lawyer and had a meeting with NSW police on February 27, 2020, before her struggles overwhelmed her.

Hours before she died, she reportedly rang police to say she did not want to pursue the police process.

“She was someone who suffered from severe mental health illness,” said Ms Dyer.

“Amongst all that there was a determination and a clear resolve, to tell her story, that she had reached after clear-eyed rationalisation.”

An anonymous letter sent last week to Mr Morrison, Senators Sarah Hanson-Young and Penny Wong detailed the allegations against the federal government minister.

The letter is dated February 23 and states the woman had told six people who she had known at the time, and “all of them believed her account and were highly supportive of [the woman] in her attempt to process the impact of the rape”.

She had also told “numerous other people” from a wider circle, the letter says.

The Herald and Age have seen a copy of the 2019 statement made by the woman, which alleges violent sexual assault.

The statement includes photocopies of what the woman said were 1990s diary entries that mention rape by a person with the same first name as the cabinet minister.

It is not a formal police statement.

Labor MP Daniel Mulino was a friend of the woman from when they were both high school debaters.

“I first became aware of the complainant’s allegation that she had been raped some years earlier, by a person who is now a senior member of the federal government, in December 2019,” Mr Mulino said in a statement.

“She indicated to me that she was determined to proceed with a formal complaint and I supported her in that decision.”

Another woman who knew the complainant as a young debater described her as “very, very clever”.

“She was an outstanding debater,” the woman said.

“She was quite a shy person. She was not the gregarious person you would associate with a great debater.”

National Sexual Assault, Family & Domestic Violence Counselling Line: 1800 737 732. Crisis support can be found at Lifeline: (13 11 14 and, the Suicide Call Back Service (1300 659 467 and and beyondblue (1300 22 4636 and


Read more:


Com'on, Scummo! Time to do the correct thing. You are a believer in god and suddenly you act like a devil... (which you always were, with your sports rorts and stuff). But time is up. 110 per cent of the nation knows who did it and you cannot hide it any more...



hurtful words

Embattled Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has not denied reports that she referred to alleged rape victim and former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins as a "lying cow".

According to a story in The Australian newspaper, Senator Reynolds made the remarks in front of staff members after Ms Higgins went public about an alleged rape inside the ministerial wing of Parliament House in 2019.

When contacted by the ABC Senator Reynolds did not dispute the reports.

"A report in The Australian attributed some remarks to me regarding the very serious allegations made by my former staff member, Ms Brittany Higgins," she said in a statement.

"I have never questioned Ms Higgins account of her alleged sexual assault and have always sought to respect her agency in this matter.

"I did however comment on news reports regarding surrounding circumstances that I felt had been misrepresented."

"I have consistently respected Ms Higgins's agency and privacy and said this is her story to tell and no one else's."

Sexual assault support services:

"Ms Higgins's allegations are very serious and that is how they must be treated to ensure her legal rights are protected. I welcome her decision to progress this matter with the Australian Federal Police."

The Australian reports Senator Reynolds, who is currently on medical leave, made the comment in an open part of her office on the same day Ms Higgins went public with the allegation that she was raped by a male colleague.

The remarks were reportedly made in ear shot of several staff members, including some who are public servants on secondment from the Department of Defence.

Senator Reynolds was admitted into hospital late last month as a "precautionary measure" following advice from her cardiologist.

She has faced sustained pressure over her handling of Ms Higgins's rape complaint, and this latest allegation is likely to infuriate some of her ambitious backbench colleagues who privately raised questions about her fitness to hold onto her ministerial position.

Former Liberal staffer Ms Higgins has made a formal complaint to the Australian Federal Police about her alleged rape in March, 2019.


Read more:


Read from top


We cannot name the culprit yet, until the police names him. But we know who he is and why he is protected species in the Liberal (CONservative) party. His footprint in the social media has "vanished"... Three other women have also accuse him of rape...


As noted on this site, women can be as nasty to other women as men can. This is hurtful especially when someone who has suffered is referred to as a "lying cow...". Had it been a man making this comment, he would have to resign forthwith without any recourse to forgiveness. Linda Reynolds would have to search through her conscience and I believe she has taken some sick leave to do so. May she recover well and find the strength to apologise.

voices against silence...

Today, women across the country found a united voice, marching to end discrimination, harassment and assault. Brittany Higgins, the woman who kicked off the movement by breaking her silence over her alleged rape in Parliament House, addressed the crowd outside that very building, saying she did so to protect other women. “Staying silent,” she said “would have made me complicit.” Speaking at a rally in Hobart, Australian of the Year Grace Tame – who fought archaic laws preventing victims from speaking out – said that “evil thrives in silence”, and that the solution was about “making noise”. See What You Made Me Do author and investigative journalist Jess Hill told the Sydney crowd that “the time for silence is over”. Less than two hours before these women spoke, the man whose alleged actions had galvanised the crowds, Attorney-General Christian Porter, announced he would be launching defamation proceedings against journalist Louise Milligan and the ABC, in an attempt to quell the rumours swirling around him.

Porter, who has strenuously denied allegations that he raped a young woman in 1988, is suing the ABC over Four Corners’ February 26 online story, which revealed that a historical rape allegation had been made against an anonymous cabinet minister. Though Porter was not named in the story, his high-profile defamation lawyers allege it made him “easily identifiable” as the accused perpetrator, pointing to the November 2020 Four Corners story that portrayed him as “a sexist and misogynist” and the fact that his name began trending on social media soon after. Those lawyers, Bret Walker SC (who represented Cardinal George Pell when he was acquitted of child sex abuse) and Sue Chrysanthou SC and Rebekah Giles (who recently represented Brittany Higgins in defamation proceedings against her former boss), are accusing the public broadcaster of “trial by media” and Milligan of acting with “malice” in a campaign to harm Porter’s reputation.

The lawsuit, many suspect, is aimed at silencing calls for a public inquiry into the allegations against Porter, with the government now able to point to ongoing defamation proceedings when asked about an inquiry (apparently these proceedings won’t contravene the all-important “rule of law”, despite the fact the police have closed their investigation). It will also create a shield against answering questions about Porter in Question Time, with the government able to argue that it doesn’t want to influence legal proceedings.

But it’s also no doubt aimed at silencing the media, as plaintiff-friendly defamation cases often do in Australia. As Saturday Paper editor Maddison Connaughton wrote in a recent editorial, our “notoriously restrictive defamation laws” have a “chilling effect” on allegations of sexual assault. The attorney-general himself, she notes, used a 2019 National Press Club address to say that laws “no longer strike the perfect balance between public interest journalism and protecting individuals from harm”. But Porter, who as the Commonwealth’s first law officer is responsible for defamation law reform, is now using the unbalanced law to his own advantage (assistant minister to the attorney-general Amanda Stoker told Guardian Australia that the government is in the process of determining how to manage “potential conflict of interest” here).

It’s not yet clear whether Milligan and the ABC intend to rely on the defence of truth, attempting to prove the claims, or if they will argue that the article in question does not convey the imputations of guilt or suspicion being alleged, as media outlets often do. It’s also not clear if the ABC can afford to fight this, following successive budget cuts, with Porter no doubt willing to settle for a retraction and silence if it means saving his reputation and career. Porter’s lawyers argue in a statement that the commencement of proceedings should put an end to the “trial by media”. But in response, they’ve launched a trial of the media, one aimed at hushing up the issue for good.

The past few weeks have led to today’s collective breaking of silence, with Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins rightly headlining the March 4 Justice rallies, but there is one woman at the centre of all this who was never fully able to break hers. The woman, who had slowly begun to tell friends, ex-partners and even the police that she alleged she was raped by the attorney-general when they were teenagers, was only just finding her voice when she lost her battle with mental illness, at just 49. On the weekend, journalists – one a friend of the accused – launched a major attack in the “trial by media” against her, publishing her diaries and making cruel implications about her sanity, while today, the journalist who had attempted to speak for her has been sued by the first law officer of the nation. After today’s rallies, the prime minister stood up in parliament and implied that the women who marched should be grateful to live in a “vibrant liberal democracy”, with protesters in nearby Myanmar “being met with bullets”. Women’s voices may not have not been met with bullets here, but there is no doubt they are seen as a threat – one that has been met with the full force of the law.



Read more:


Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to meet the protesters despite their urging, and was forced to defend his decision in parliament.

On Sunday, he had invited a delegation to meet with him in Parliament House but protest organisers declined, arguing that he and the government's minister for women should meet with them at the rally.

"We have already come to the front door, now it's up to the Government to cross the threshold and come to us. We will not be meeting behind closed doors," tweeted march organiser Janine Hendry on Monday.

Most government lawmakers declined to join the rallies. However the Labor opposition and several other prominent lawmakers joined the crowd in Canberra.



Read more:


Read from top.


scomo mis-denials and more lewd acts on MPs' desks...

A federal Liberal staffer sacked over a video of himself performing a lewd act on the desk of a female MP in Parliament House also took another video of himself performing a sex act on someone else in what he said was his boss’ office.

In a video seen by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, the man performs a sex act on another man in an office. The green carpet visible behind him in the video matches the carpet from the floor of the House of Representatives’ wing of Parliament.

The man in the video later claimed it was filmed in his boss’ office.

Ten News on Monday night reported a group of Coalition government staffers exchanged pictures and videos among themselves of sex acts performed in Parliament House.

Government sources confirmed the man in the Ten News video was sacked on Monday night after the report went public. They did not confirm the man’s name. Ten News showed heavily pixelated images of the man masturbating over the desk of an unnamed female MP. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have seen an unpixelated image from the video showing his face.

This masthead contacted the man on Monday night but he did not respond. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have chosen not to name him because his employer has not confirmed his identity.

Ten News also reported that sex workers had been brought into Parliament House to visit MPs.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the reports and videos were “disgusting and sickening”. He urged anyone with further information to come forward, noting the man at the centre of the allegations had been identified and sacked.

“It’s not good enough, and is totally unacceptable. The people who come to work in this building are better than this,” Mr Morrison said in a statement on Monday night.

“The actions of these individuals show a staggering disrespect for the people who work in Parliament, and for the ideals the Parliament is supposed to represent.

“I will have more to say on this and the cultural issues we confront as a Parliament in coming days.”

Finance Minister Simon Birmingham, whose department is the technical employer of parliamentary staffers, said he was disgusted and appalled by the allegations, which showed “complete disregard” for what Australia’s parliamentary democracy stood for.

“It also demonstrates an enormous disrespect for a member or senator in relation to those staff, those offices. It equally shows a complete contempt, frankly, for the Australian taxpayers who paid the wages of such staff,” he told a Senate committee hearing.

“In my opinion, any individuals who engaged in such activity ought to prepare to pack their bags and leave the building for good. They should also think intently about apologising not just to their employing member or senator but to the Parliament and to the Australian public.”

A spokeswoman for Speaker Tony Smith and Senate President Scott Ryan said the presiding officers were not aware of the incidents or allegations until they aired on Monday evening.

“MPs and Senators employ their own staff. If the presiding officers are informed of the identities of the staff members, they are of course prepared to take action within the context of their responsibilities,” the spokeswoman said.

Liberal MP Dave Sharma said he was disgusted and horrified by the reports. He said he discussed the matter with his staff and was confident none were involved.

“The people responsible should self-identify and resign immediately,” he said. “To denigrate and disrespect Parliament in this way, and female MPs, is beyond reproach and condemnation.”


Read more:




Scott Morrison had a chance to speak plainly last week about the review he ordered into what his office knew of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.

But the Prime Minister botched it. He hid the truth from Parliament rather than being straight about his response to claims of a terrible crime in a minister’s office two years ago.

Morrison told Parliament the review into his office, and what it knew when, was being done by the secretary of his department, Phil Gaetjens.

“He has not provided me with a further update about when I might expect that report,” Morrison told Parliament on Thursday, March 18.

Wrong. Gaetjens had given Morrison an update on March 9 that was all about this very question of when the review might be finished.

Gaetjens revealed this in a Senate estimates hearing on Monday. He said he paused the inquiry on March 9 after talks with Australian Federal Police commissioner Reece Kershaw. He said he told Morrison of the decision the same day.

Morrison was caught out being too tricky by half. He misled Parliament by denying there was any update from Gaetjens.

He misled through omission, too, because he knew the review had been paused but did not say so, and he spoke as if it was continuing. “This work is being done,” he said. Actually, the work is on hold.



Read more:



Read from top.









in the prayer room...

Political staffers have held a sit-in in the Parliament House room where employees allegedly have sex during work hours, saying the building is a “disgusting” place for women to work.

Tuesday’s protest came as pressure mounts on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to take more decisive action against sexual misconduct within the Coalition, as more bombshell reports further call his response into question.

A Channel 10 report on Monday alleged Coalition staffers took photos of their genitalia inside the parliament offices of their politician bosses, as well as airing claims staffers regularly brought sex workers inside the building for their MPs.

One employee reportedly captured himself committing a solo sex act on the desk of the female politician he worked for, sending it to a Facebook Messenger group of other staffers.

As revealed by The New Daily on Tuesday, calls went out on private social media groups for staffers to “occupy” the prayer room, which has been used – according to long-standing parliamentary gossip – by employees to engage in sex.

Two dozen staff – women and men – from Labor and the Greens attended, calling for urgent reform in making parliament safer and more comfortable for women. They were there for a short period before returning to work.


Read more:


Read from top...



no improvement...


It has now been more than 100 days since former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins came forward with allegations that she was raped by a colleague at work and then let down by her party colleagues, and the government remains as committed to concealing its callous mismanagement of the incident as ever. Senate estimates today remained focused on the government’s handling of the allegations, after it was revealed yesterday that no changes had been made in terms of how an incident would be handled if it happened now. The women of Labor and the Greens used two separate committees – Finance and Public Administration, and Legal Affairs – to hammer a minister, a head of a department and the AFP commissioner on the statuses of the confoundingly numerous lines of inquiry. The three men evaded and squirmed and continued to act, disingenuously, as though they had Higgins’ interests at heart. The hammering continued in Question Time, with the prime minister sensationally revealing that the report into whether his media office had backgrounded against Higgins’ partner had “found in the negative”. The four-page report, tabled in the House of Representatives, has now been made public, and as many note, it didn’t find that the backgrounding didn’t happen, merely that no evidence was found proving it did.

Throughout the course of the morning, it was also revealed that the report into who in the Prime Minister’s Office knew what and when will be completed within “weeks”, with no guarantee it will be made public, and that the AFP will provide a brief of evidence on the case to the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions in the coming weeks.

The most consequential questioning of the day took place in the Finance and Administration Committee, where senators Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher were able to grill Phil Gaetjens, the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Finance Minister Simon Birmingham, representing Morrison, on the sham investigations being carried out within the PMO – one into who knew what when, and another into whether backgrounding took place – receiving various answers that left them crying “cover-up”. Gaetjens said he would likely finalise his “who knew what when” inquiry soon, but would not commit to the report being made public, citing “confidentiality” for the staff members involved. And he would not even comment on how many interviews he had undertaken, due to “privacy”. An interview with Higgins herself is scheduled shortly. The senators demanded to know how it was possible that it could take more than 100 days to figure out something so simple, with Gaetjens citing that two-month “pause” undertaken “on the advice of the AFP”. (That “advice” caused some conflicting accounts in the last estimates, with the AFP commissioner walking back implications that he had not asked for a pause when this contradicted Gaetjens’ account.)

Birmingham, meanwhile, was questioned by Wong over the way the various investigations had been “dragged out” to avoid answering simple questions. “Do you feel no shame about that?” she asked. Gallagher quizzed him on the inquiry being undertaken by Morrison’s chief of staff, John Kunkel, into whether the infamous backgrounding had taken place, about which Birmingham had no information to share (despite the fact the inquiry had already been finalised, it now seems). Gallagher suggested things had gotten to the point where Higgins was being unfairly pressured to name the journalists involved, after already naming the staff she believed were responsible. Journalist Peter van Onselen, once so fond of detailed inquiries into such allegations, tweeted that Gallagher was in a “coward’s castle”, accusing staff “without evidence”. But van Onselen was himself quote-tweeted by Higgins, who noted that he was the one back in February calling out the backgrounding.

Kunkel’s four-page report into the investigation – which the prime minister clearly wanted saved for his dramatic reveal in Question Time, with its focus on grandstanding over grilling – claims that all senior members of the PMO media team denied backgrounding against Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz, who used to work in media himself. The report noted that corridor conversations were had, suggesting that it was journalists who had raised questions with staff. Kunkel writes that he could not make a finding of negative backgrounding, and that any such finding “would be based upon hearsay” – not unlike the dirt alleged to have been shared – “in some instances, second- or third-hand”. Denials, it seems, will be faithfully accepted, and second-hand information not considered, in internal investigations into how the prime minister’s office handled things.


Read more:


Read from top.




not surprising enough?...


One in three people working in federal parliament have experienced some kind of sexual harassment there, according to a review of workplace culture sparked by rape allegations made by Brittany Higgins.

Key points:
  • The review found 51 per cent of workers experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault
  • The report made a number of recommendations including setting gender targets for parliamentary workplaces
  • Mr Morrison said the statistics were "appalling" and he wished he found them more surprising

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins carried out the review, which was released in parliament today.

The review found more than half of all people in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison released the report, thanking those who contributed to the review including Ms Higgins.

"Her voice has spoken for many, as this report shows," he said.

Ms Higgins said she hoped the review and its report "inspired immediate action".

"I want to thank the many brave people who shared their stories which contributed to this review. I hope all sides of politics not only commit to but implement these recommendations in full," she said.

Mr Morrison said it was "appalling" and "disturbing" that 33 per cent reported some kind of sexual harassment.

"I wish I found it more surprising," he said.


Ms Jenkins said despite knowing there were issues within parliament she was "a little shocked" by the response to the review.

She also noted that while men and women spoke of their experiences, the harassment and bullying was disproportionately aimed at female staff and MPs.

"There is sometimes a temptation to say that because of its role in national life it is an exceptional workplace," she said.

"Being exceptional does not mean we should make exceptions."

The report said while some people spoke positively about working in parliament "too often we heard that these workplaces are not safe environments for many people within them".

"Largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion and a lack of accountability," it said.

"Such experiences leave a trail of devastation for individuals and their teams and undermine the performance of our Parliament to the nation's detriments."

The report also makes a range of recommendations, including targets to achieve gender balance among parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, and for progress to be publicly reported.


Read more:






FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!••••••••••••••••