Shadow Minister, the fact is there was no crime at all. That is why the two were acquitted on appeal.

Good lord, do people read articles or just presume.

It's rather pointless to hold Abbott up as someone beyond reproach - although runner appears to think that near enough is good enough in the political pig pen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

Regarding Ashby and Slipper:

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

Doesn't make for edifying reading.

'It's rather pointless to hold Abbott up as someone beyond reproach - although runner appears to think that near enough is good enough in the political pig pen. '

and so who besides Jesus Christ Himself do you regard as beyond reproach or are you again just demonstrating your Abbottphobia?

That's not the point, runner.

I was merely noting that you tend to excuse the fabulous Tony's exploits by referring to the deeds of others as just as questionable.

(However, I might be suffering from runnerophobia:)

It is interesting that the responses are so
predictable when one dares to question the
actions of certain political leaders. Or
even try to hold them to account.

The PM seems
to be fair game but the moment one tries to
do the same with the leader of the Opposition
then the labels come out. Things like, "Abbottphobia,"
"Labor tragics," "Sisterhood," "Secularists," are bandied
about and even "Jesus Christ" is brought into the mix.

Which proves the point that I was making earlier.
It is one set of rules for some, and a totally different
set of rules for others. "Don't do what I do. Do what
I say you should do."

How can one be expected to compete with "Big Party, Big Money,
and Big Media?"

The chance of having a sensible discussion on any issue
evaporates rather quickly under those circumstances.

But, on a public forum such as this - I guess it goes
with the territory.

I've managed to find the following link which gives an
interesting insight into this topic:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/11/how-abbott-funded-fight-against-one-nation

Of course the usual attempt will be made to claim this is a
"leftist" publication. When in actual fact
it is rational and principled without being biased to any
social or political postion and presents a variety of views,
and voices,
unlike the tabloid press.

The link points out that:

"Tony Abbott led the Liberal charge against One Nation.
Where did the money come from? The slush fund that
sustained the anti-Hanson fight."

It asks the question:

"Shouldn't Tony Abbott's slush fund be subjected to the
same media scrutiny Julia Gillard's has received over the
AWU scandal?"

Obviously not, according to some people.
Nothing new there.

Lexi says:

"Shouldn't Tony Abbott's slush fund be subjected to the
same media scrutiny Julia Gillard's has received over the
AWU scandal?"

I agree, it has been, and not only msm 'scrutiny, but other types as well; let Gillard's 'affairs' be simarlarly investigated:

http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/compliance/AEC_Advice/honest-politics.htm