I wonder how well politicians have thought through their call to force Peter Slipper to stand down until the civil case regarding sexual harassment has been resolved.
Let us assume that they get their way and Peter Slipper does stand down. Have they thought of the precedent it would set?
Whereas in a criminal case there has been some preliminary, independent investigation that there is a case to be answered no such requirement exists in a civil case. Any one can bring a civil action against another person provided they have the financial resources to do so.
By requiring Peter Slipper to stand down until the civil matter has been determined politicians are opening up yet another way to destabilise their opponents. All that is required to encourage a former employee or a person with a grudge to launch a civil case, preferably a rather salacious action and yet another minister hits the dust.
Those who are baying for Peter Slipper's head may want to think twice before they commit themselves.

BAYGON ok but in truth now it has been uncovered the public have as they have been trained by Abbott to,found him guilty already, and they vote.
I find true reason for concern in mounting evidence he has been covered up, by those now calling for his head, for at least 3 parliamentary terms.
So are the claims, mud slinging , only worth mentioning AFTER he leaves?
Abbott wants to deny the other bloke a vote? stunning.
But am I deceiving my self?
In thinking given the chance Abbott would do nothing different in respect of a Slipper or Thomson?
Sad state of affairs Australian Politics in a hung Parliament.
It seems Justice/fairness and voters are hung not the Parliament.

Belly,
Do you dream about Abbott ? You're unbelievable ! Is there nothing in your life that is not Abbott ? You got to get a life mate. You'll end up wearing yourself out with Abbott on your mind so much. It's way too unhealthy. Let the bloke get his hands on the top job & if he performs worse that any Labor figure then & only then tell yourself how bad he is. But for God's sake wait till he proves himself good or bad first.

Actually Baygon, in the case of the employer being complained against
the laws introduced by Julia Gillard in fact presume guilt and the
accused has to prove innocence.
So in law Slipper is guilty unless he can prove his innocence.

The current government is acting constitutionally,
supported by a majority of the representatives voted in
by the Australian people and the speaker, Mr Slipper
has so far not been found guilty of anything.

I make every effort not to converse with you, your post as is the truth for all of us is a form of body language.
I present you with a thought,you may be very wrong in most things you put in print.
Leave me out of your posts, you asked me to do that.
I did, do the same for me, my posts are mine, opinions mine, and that is my right.
Get a life? have you ever spoken here to any one,without insulting them?
You have my sympathy but never my respect.

Interesting angle, Bazz, and spot on.

>>Actually Baygon, in the case of the employer being complained against the laws introduced by Julia Gillard in fact presume guilt and the accused has to prove innocence.<<

It may be too much to hope for, because the focus of attention is on the life and sleaze of Mr Slipper, but wouldn't it be good if the press got hold of this angle, and ran with it.

A large, well-known Australian enterprise with whom I am working at the moment has seen a ten-fold increase in the number of staff complaints of "workplace bullying", because simply defending the charge can fall foul of the Adverse Actions provisions of the Fair Work Act. The individual who has been fingered is in the unenviable position of having to defend a charge, that can be based upon the simple act of counselling the employee.

And heaven help any manager who dares suggest that one of their team has not been pulling their weight. That also comes under the heading of "Adverse Action" - all they have to do is burst into tears in the meeting, and hey presto, their case for being bullied is already a proven fact.

By all measurements, this state of affairs should be a scandal all of its own, bigger than any Slipper alleged malfeasance.

Pericles I was not aware of the provisions under the fair work act. If that is indeed the case then the issue is even bigger than I thought.
In criminal cases one at least has the safety net in that there is an independent body that makes an assessment regarding the likelihood of securing a conviction. Given that this is absent in civil case it opens the way for people abusing the system.
So I agree forget about Slipper there is a far more important issue here - people should not be denied natural justice.
By the same token we also need to acknowledge that victims of sexual harassment, bullying and the like need to have the protection of the law - an increase in the incidence of complaints is not surprising; it is to be expected it may simply give us an indication of the real extent of the problem.

Foxy Lexi

You wrote 'The current government is acting constitutionally'. How can you think this when Gillard's own Fair Work Act presumes guilt and the accused then has to prove his/her innocence.

FFS, read the post immediately prior to yours and tell us why you followed it with a statement that would appear to ignore Gillard's law as well as the poster who pointed it out.

Austin powerless why insult in that way Lexi prefers to be called that.
She has expressed that view,and frankly you are far better than that!
Lexi is quite right, Thomson is in all probability the thieving grub he appears to be.
He however, on being charged will front criminal court not FWA.
Liberals did bribe a Labor senator, he took the bribe.
For only a short time,they refused his vote.
Then backed down.
Amazing that so many see any chance, even insults to democracy, to charge the lost and foolish Gillard as fair game but get insulted if it is their team in the spotlight.

Lexi, No ! Slipper IS guilty and I agree the government is acting
constitutionally.
The Labour government introduced the law that said so!
So if you have a complaint about that, make your complaint to your MHR.

noted the comment..on insiders
[re how julia..needed to be seen to act..]
and she did...[hoping it would end it]..but she is hiding too much

in boxing terms
she is constantly on the backfoot
going front foot..on occasion..but she needs to find a better balance

the few times she front foots it..it seems like bluster
with other adgendas and based on populist spin

im over thinking to much about it
its going to be howard all over again

toney..REALLY didnt want it
last time..[much better
..to get rid of alp longtime..[next time]

like howard[lib] was supposed to..
but alp backdoor boys got too clever...they lied..big time

only 500
onmly 1000

yeah right

no carbon tax...yeah right
tax smokers..yep..[i know libs thunk it[so guilelard did a howard
took their policy[thats the game folks...try not to let toney get free air..[a policy]..

do a howard..steal it
and make it actually do the opposite
preferably with a nice slush fund..to manage..in their later years]
or a nice lobby job..[free lance]..

like others..in the know
[knowing who is who]

which dirt
gets what fruit's..[govt bailout/gifts]..corperate welfare
green funds...public service slushfunds

[selling telstra cleard the debt..not howard]
then to proove ywo party simultude rud pumps in 65 billiuon for nbn

gifting..the bulk of it to take the copper out
and put fibre in..[telstera gets the copper?'..too?

tax payers update..what our connection fees are supposed to do

double dipping dipwits..run the assilum
peter slip's one in...thats how the glory game is played

[he beat clive palmer out..of lib pre-selection]
ya gotta give the guy credit for that.

Belly,
I didn't use both names as an insult. Foxy was Lexi's previous OLO name. That's the only reason I used both names.
The point here was not about Thomson, but Slipper who is being treated in accordance with Labour's FWA - i.e. guilty till proven innocent.
Lexi doesn't appear to be prepared to address that fact.

Leave me out of your posts, you asked me to do that.
Belly,
Yes I did that but your Abbottphobia (thanks for the term runner) is just getting beyond ridiculous. it's bordering on the stupid.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear regarding
Mr Slipper. I may have posted this on another
thread so here goes again:

A widespread fallacy is advanced that the government
"installed" Mr Slipper. He was already the deputy
speaker and was elected by the floor of the House,
including by Labor, three Independents, and a Green.
Mr Slipper occupied a position constitutionally and
administratively separate from the executive. But
as I stated earlier - why worry about constituional
niceties when there's the possibility of blood on
the floor.

And as I said earlier - the current government is
governing constitutionally, supported by a majority of
the representatives voted in by the Australian people
and the speaker has so far no been found guilty of
anything.

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot - if this
was a Liberal MP - would there be such a fuss?
Or would this case barely get a mention in the press -
whatever happened to the charges of shop-lifting against
the female Liberal MP? Did she have to step down?
Was she found to be guilty - until proven innocent?
Or were the charges simply - what's the word
I'm looking for - ah yes - "forgotten."

was a Liberal MP - would there be such a fuss?
Lexi,
It would be a thousand times worse than Abbottphobia is now. You lot would be incessant.
Sadly we have to accept that a lot of higher offices are occupied by those batting for the other team. It is the single most influencing factor in things not getting better.

Lexi the liberal senators case was tried, from memory guilty of the assault without aconviction recorded but not guilty of the shoplifting. She was suffering depression at the time and reportedly suffered a panic attact after being detained by store security and tried to leave after initially cooperating, the assault seems to be a result of resisting being detained.

Libs made it clear they wanted the matter dealt with quickly, no long stalling processes.

A very different scenario to Labors handling of more topical issues.

Robert

A new era in politics, the door is wide open for trumped up allegations.
We could find by the time comes to vote there won't be any politicians left.
Abbott gaged the fat fellows mumblings about, his version of an economy.
The absolute desperation of going to the polls with-out any policies.
Abbott has not won a round yet.
Julia has out foxed him every time.
When the popularity contest is over and people weigh up some policies Abbott will be stumbling around like a drunken sailor.

Lexi, Foxy, whatever,

you are still avoiding my question when you write 'the current government is governing constitutionally'.

My unanswered question remains 'How can you think this (your above statement) when Gillard's own Fair Work Act presumes guilt and the accused then has to prove his/her innocence'.

Or is this untrue?

579,
I expect the Libs are knocking back potential candidates for seats at the next election. The branches will have a big job with pre-selection.

Lib policies? No carbon tax, stop the boats and the disabilties insurance. Good fiscal management goes without saying.

Wait to see Gillard try and buy some votes.

Your statements make me laugh, not with you, but at you.

The preselection has begun with Clive putting his hand up. Infiltration by the top end 1 %
You have been brainwashed by rhetoric, as yet the public do not have anything to compare.
300 pieces of legislation passed, an all-time record.
The public are not stupid.

Austin P.,

I shall be happy to respond to you further -
when you address me by my proper name.

banjo - I expect that you are right - the electorate prefers empty slogans as a substitute for policy the sad reality is that both Labor and Liberal are singing off the same hymn sheet; just in a different key. But neither they, nor the Greens have any policies which addresses the issues we are facing. this is why the Liberals are so keen to focus on Slipper and Thomson - it distracts us from addressing the real questions that we face as a nation and so we see the Liberals as an alternative when they too do not have an idea of how to tackle the challenges that we are facing. (Nor are they alone in this - just look at what is happening in the USA and Europe and you see that politicians from both the right and left are at loss to see what to do about challenges like peak oil, water shortages, decline in phosphate, keeping agricultural productive and climate change. (Regardless of the cause the climate is changing and we have to cope with the consequences). So we are given empty slogans and distractions to create the illusion that some have the answer - but be prepared to be disillusioned: regardless who wins.

OK Lexi

answer my question. No more avoidance. As for 'proper names', why call me 'Austin P' then?

Dear Austin Powerless,

My apologies. However, I did not change your
moniker in the way you did mine. I did not
substitute a totally different name to the one
you had chosen. There lies the difference. I
merely used the initial of your last name - not changed it.
This is customary practice in posting. For example -
David F., (instead of David Fisher) and so on.

As for answering your question. If you have read the
"Fair Work Australia Act," as you cite from it -
then you surely must know
that the established legislation for Fair Work
Australia gives the body independence - and "It's
President is not subject to direction ... by and
on behalf of the Commonwealth (s583)." The Prime
Minister cannot and should not interfere with its
work.

The Prime Minister believes in due process taking place.
She has stated that she believes in "innocent until
proven guilty."
Mr Slipper has not been charged with anything - as a matter
of fact Mr Ashby is suing the Commonwealth (not Mr Slipper).

Nobody has seen the report from Fair Work Australia - not even
the PM. And I dare say that when it does come out - we shall
be made aware of what's involved. Of course people yourself
included - can
follow what's written in the media - and make their own
judgements and speculations.

But that's all they are.

The Liberals seemed not bothered by Slipper's transgressions when they continued to support his candidacy.

Pots and kettles.

Slipper was a dreadful choice for Speaker though, and it is a shame that a strategic move overshadowed good governance and integrity.

'Slipper was a dreadful choice for Speaker though, and it is a shame that a strategic move overshadowed good governance and integrity.'

You are right Pelican however it goes unnoticed thanks to such a sleazy corrupt alliance of traitors (independants), Labour and Greens.

Lexi

I am only going with the reports that the FWA act, for example in cases of harrassment by employers, treats the employer as guilty unless/until he/she can prove otherwise.
If there is evidence to the contrary, could you point me to it?

I only used the name Foxy as I thought that that was your previous OLO name. Foxy's posts were of an identical format to yours and claimed an almost identical ethnic background to you.
If I was wrong, I am sorry if you were offended.

Dear Austin Powerless,

Thanks for the apology. Perhaps I was being a bit
"precious." I just prefer the name "Lexi," is all.

Anyway, regarding Peter Slipper - I don't think
he's been charged with "sexual harrassment," by
Ashby. I read somewhere that Ashby's suing the
"Commonwealth" not Slipper. I'm sure if you were
to Google the subject - you'd come up with the
appropriate link. If I find it - I'll post it for you.

Dear Austin Powerless,

Here's the link I read originally:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/24/slipper-attacks

thanks for the link, Lexi

by the statement 'the defendant is in fact the Commonwealth', I suppose that the FWA act would therefore not apply to Slipper.

I'm still none-the-wiser to whether or not the FWA act holds the accused technically guilty until proven otherwise.

I'm kind of over the whole affair now, anyway as both sides of both controversies (Slipper/Thomson) are acting disgustingly unprofessional.

Aussie politics, you gotta love them.

Dear Austin Powerless,

I'm over it as well - and I agree - trust in our
political system has started to ebb away.

Someone, I have forgotten where, posted the clauses involved in the
guilty unless proven innocent part of the FWA act.
To an unlegal mind looked quite clear.

for the sake of flogging a dead dog, I did find the FWA section that caused me to post originally.

The FWA, section 361, states

'Reason for action to be presumed unless proved otherwise
(1) If:

(a) in an application in relation to a contravention of this Part, it is alleged that a person took, or is taking, action for a particular reason or with a particular intent; and

(b) taking that action for that reason or with that intent would constitute a contravention of this Part;

it is presumed, in proceedings arising from the application, that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to orders for an interim injunction. '

How that can gel with the government acting constitutionally has me baffled.

Anyway, I'm too busy learning the guitar solo from Aqualung to waste any more time on this.