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.