Attorney-General Nicola Roxon breaching the rules governing commonwealth litigations by reaching a $50,000 settlement with James Ashby.

Despite previously condemning Mr Ashby's case as politically motivated and vexatious, Ms Roxon revealed on Friday that the commonwealth had reached a $50,000 settlement with Mr Ashby in breach of its own legal services directions which are the guidelines for the conduct by the commonwealth of litigation.

Government policy dictates that the commonwealth should never settle litigation merely to avoid future costs and should only settle litigation if it's of the view that there are reasonable prospects that the adverse party will succeed.

This is an acknowledgement that there is a substantial case against Slipper. Slipper's lawyers have abandoned him, and he is already liable for costs due to a motion he lost. Is Labor ready to go down with the Slipper sleaze?

yes, another stuff up by Labor.

This mob can't get anything right. Most incompedent lot to ever be in power.

The stuff ups list is growing.

Context is everything, Shadow Minister.

Mr Ashby was suing the Government for not providing a safe working environment. Given the pathetic nature of "evidence" required to prove this charge - particularly in government departments, where a blunt pencil-sharpener can be declared unsafe, as it might cause RSI - settling early was a sensible call. Lawyers would have had a field day, discussing the proper definition of "safe", as it applies to the public service. An unedifying, and expensive, prospect for all concerned.

And this is inaccurate too:

>>This is an acknowledgement that there is a substantial case against Slipper.<<

There would need to have been absolutely no assessment of Slipper's innocence or guilt in the determination of whether a "safe workplace" case would succeed or not. But it did give them the excuse necessary - as in, the Government is no longer a party to the case - to set him loose.

Altogether a pretty smart decision by Ms Roxon.

I like this one quote "The Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, maintained yesterday that the reason the Commonwealth chose to settle was to end the ''lawyers' picnic'' which had cost the Commonwealth more than $700,000 in legal fees thus far"

Yet Australia gave millions of dollars to a trial in Cambodia that is costing $45 MILLION dollars per year so far over $150 MILLION has been spent to get 1 conviction.

THAT IS BLOOD SUCKING LAWYERS AT THERE BEST.

Back to the thread The reason for settling may be more apparent now because the lawyer now want the case dropped against Mr Slipper, he is trying to get off free, maybe then he can return to parliment on Juliar's side .

Roxon's decision was a financial one and not an admission of the charges themselves.

Ashby seems likely to pursue the charges against Slipper independently of the Workplace Safety claim that Roxon settled.

I hope Ashby continues. I for one would be interested in what it dredges up about other "interested parties" involved in the matter.

Likewise, the HSU matter still has a long way to go and has some interesting entanglements.

wobbles - Does it not seem strange that $700,000 is too much but we can give Millions of dollars for a prosecution in another country?

We are better served by putting our biases in the bin at the door.
$50.00 to settle
Against a Commonwealth legal bill of $700.000 plus already.
Wobbles you try to swim up a waterfall here.
Facts say nothing for those mining black rocks to throw at Labor.
Remember, never forget, these same folk charge us with wasting money.
Enjoy your swim, other threads beckon me.

Belly - The present labor Government produces enough black rocks that they are not hard to find and you don't have to mine for them.
I believe the black rocks go by another name " incompetence "

The settlement of the case included not only the $50 000 cash payment, but an agreement to put procedures in place to prevent further sexual harassment of staffers. Short of a written confession by NR, this is as close as possible to an admission that Slipper's behaviour was inappropriate.

This settlement is essentially Labor washing their hands of Slipper, as now the commonwealth isn't fighting the action, it is entirely for Slipper's account, and it appears not to be going well for him.

G'day all...

My modest penny's worth if I may...which ever way you cut it, our Mr Slipper aka 'slippery Pete', sounds like a real piece of work ?

Never let it be said I'd support Ms. Roxon on any issue. However, it's certainly not unusual for a legal matter to be determined a 'no bill' or even N E T O, if for no other reason than, purely on fiscal grounds.

Her remarks, apropos wishing to avoid a 'lawyers feast' I'd agree with. Whether Mr Slipper has/had a case to answer in this matter, is now moot. I guess we'll never know whether or not he's in anyway culpable, as alleged ?

Another thought though, I wonder if there are any politicians out there who are actually doing what their constituants want ? Or do they all spend their time ensuring they can make as much as possible from the public purse ?

There's only one, I repeat one politician, that I can recall, who had the legitimate interests of his constitutes, at heart. Trouble was he was only an Independent, pity really ?

Admit it, Shadow Minister. You're clutching at straws on this one.

>>The settlement of the case included not only the $50 000 cash payment, but an agreement to put procedures in place to prevent further sexual harassment of staffers. Short of a written confession by NR, this is as close as possible to an admission that Slipper's behaviour was inappropriate<<

I think you are ignoring the obvious here, in your enthusiasm to find yet another stick with which to beat Labor, this time via Ms Roxon.

This was a "safe working environment" case. Therefore, it is only to be expected that the settlement included "putting procedures in place". In fact, if you think about, *not* including such a rider would have been a clear admission that the settlement had nothing to do with the working environment, and everything to do with political expediency.

>>This settlement is essentially Labor washing their hands of Slipper, as now the commonwealth isn't fighting the action, it is entirely for Slipper's account, and it appears not to be going well for him.<<

No doubt about the hand-washing. Which is why I regard it as a very smart move by Ms Roxon, both from a protecting-the-public-purse point of view, and the separation of her Party considerations from the outcome of Slipper's case.

Which looks as though it will drag out for some time, now that he has been cut off from the taxpayers' teat, and is crying poor.

If the Government used it's own legal resources I imagine most of the $700,000 costs were incurred in-house by salaried staff - much like the cost of maintaining an Army (who get paid regardless).

The remainder would have been on external searches and so on but there has to be a limit to how much time you would waste on a case that clearly breached the Workplace rules - no matter how vexatious.

I recall that years ago, Telstra (then Telecom) spent over $1million chasing an allegedly bogus car claim of less than $150 by a staff member and were roundly criticised by the presiding judge.

When in comes to waste, I also recall a previous administration spending $65million investigating a Building Union and never releasing the results and blowing another $billion or so on a bungled internal IT project.

Pericles - I could be wrong but I believe what is being done is to avoid a prosecution that is successful would strip him of all benefits and entitlements as well as his indexed for life pension.
So now he gets to keep everything.

Phillip S any relation, other than your posts, to Shadow Minister?

Interesting theory, Philip S

>>Pericles - I could be wrong but I believe what is being done is to avoid a prosecution that is successful would strip him of all benefits and entitlements as well as his indexed for life pension. So now he gets to keep everything.<<

But surely, the settlement of a civil suit does not enable anyone to "avoid a prosecution"?

I suspect that the only case that would cause Slipper to lose his entitlements would have to be a criminal one, to which he is found guilty. For example, if he were to be found guilty of defrauding the Commonwealth through misuse of Cabcharge vouchers - a charge that has not been laid, by the way - I would expect the taxpayer to be freed of their obligations to keep him in luxury.

But what we have right now is a civil complaint that is now a matter to be resolved by the two individuals. As hizzoner stated yesterday, "...the parties... might have to compromise, including withdrawing allegations made against each other, to achieve a resolution."

Still sounds like a smart - and fair - move by Roxon, though.

In his final ruling the judge could say there is a strong prima facie case for criminal proceedings.
Don't forget that the longer it goes more things will come out about what he was doing even the cab charge could come into it.

If it was an ordinary citizen I would agree she did the right thing BUT in this instance I smell a cover up or they protecting him because he knows something they did wrong.

Belly,

PS is no relation except he has a brain.

Wobbles,

good of you to admit that the commonwealth was liable, and that Nicola Roxon lied in claiming it was a vexatious suit.

An intriguing concept, Philip S.

>>If it was an ordinary citizen I would agree she did the right thing<<

The law, surely, should always treat those who appear before it as "ordinary citizens". To do otherwise would be a mockery of the entire legal system.

>>BUT in this instance I smell a cover up or they protecting him because he knows something they did wrong.<<

What you appear to suggest is that Ms Roxon should have somehow handled the case differently to the way she would that of an "ordinary citizen", simply because of Slipper's political connections.

If she had, would you then have accused her of bias, for *not* treating him as an ordinary citizen?

Pericles - The law in a perfect world should treat everyone the same, NOTICE I deliberately use the words "in a perfect world".

What we have at present is not perfect there are many instances of the law being biased in favor of the rich and famous, there are also cases of bias in regard to political figures.

If she had let the matter run its course then there would not be this debate we are having. The future will tell as most things come out eventually.

Your last statement "If she had, would you then have accused her of bias, for *not* treating him as an ordinary citizen?" seems like you are trying to hedge your argument each way.

I amazes and dissapoints me that so many OLO'ers have astonishing intellects and yet seem to miss the main game.

The government has one and only one objective, the opposition has one and only one objective.

The government wishes the slipper/ashby affair to go away without costing them a vote or office. They do not give a rats if it costs the taxpayers a motza.

The opposition wishes that the slipper/ashby affair will not go away and causes the government lots of pain and taxpayer funds with the ultimate outcome being loss of office.

Is there something I missed?

Most of the OLO'ers seem to have driven themselves into a frenzy of content seemingly determined to miss the main game. Focuing on the how and missing the what.

Not really, Philip S

>>Your last statement "If she had, would you then have accused her of bias, for *not* treating him as an ordinary citizen?" seems like you are trying to hedge your argument each way.<<

I was actually pointing out that this was your each-way bet.

You excoriate her for stopping the case going forward, on the basis that by treating him - correctly - as she would any other "ordinary citizen", she was somehow demonstrating political bias. I was merely speculating that if she had treated him differently to any other "ordinary citizen", you would have had cause to leap on this also, as evidence of political interference.

Which would, in fact, have been far more logical.

>>If she had let the matter run its course then there would not be this debate we are having. The future will tell as most things come out eventually.<<

[sigh]

What in your opinion would we have learned from along-drawn-out lawyer's extravaganza on the meaning of "safe" in the phrase "a safe workplace"? And what bearing might it have had, do you think, on the spat between Ashby and Slipper, in the separate case of harassment of one by the other?

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it Ms Roxon made a sound decision, one that was in the direct interests of the taxpayer, and allowed the main game of the catfight between the two individuals to proceed without the distraction of the government being involved, albeit peripherally.

>>In his final ruling the judge could say there is a strong prima facie case for criminal proceedings.<<

Not really. The acts of individuals would be relevant only if they formed a pattern. It is unlikely that the judge would make such a specific comment on the actions of one person. Whoever they might be.

Pericles - I am not going each way with this matter, I am for it should have kept going to final judgement.
We may have learnt many things that have not yet been made public, for example if he was given any gifts or special favors the origin of these could constitute corruption.

Shadow Minister,

Of course the Commonwealth was liable on the basis that all employers must provide a safe workplace and that includes freedom from harassment. That was freely admitted by the offer of a payout once all avenues were examined and tested.

That doesn't preclude the notion that the substance of the case itself could still be vexatious or was contrived for specific motives.

It's like taking a fall in a Supermarket and threatening to sue.

Roxon's decision was not to waste any more taxpayers money on the Workplace aspect. They are now out of their component of the case but there is more to come.

The substance of the allegations themselves are a matter between Ashby and Slipper and are yet to be resolved.

It's possible that the allegations were made on the request or with the assistance of other interested parties and are yet to be proven, particularly since attempts at mediation have failed. Perhaps some witnesses are yet to be called and discoveries of phone and email records are to be concluded.

Wobbles,

Nice try, but the commonwealth is only liable if an incident occurs and an individual suffers "harm" in the work place.

Secondly the policy of defending "vexatious" law suits is to prevent anyone from supplementing their income with phoney suits and convenient settlements. "Convenient" settlements have almost without exception lead to far more tax payer's money being spent on a flood of opportunistic claims. This settlement is either an admission of liability for what happened to Ashby, or an unprecedented breach of Commonwealth policies. The former is by far the most likely.

As with the Suit against David Jones which was settled, David Jones admitted no wrong doing, but the Settlement said it all.

I feel vindicated with regard to saying the law should take its course.

Quote "The Federal Court judge in the Peter Slipper case says it is "very, very troubling" that serious allegations against the federal parliamentary speaker of misusing taxi vouchers were put before the court and later withdrawn."

I will say again it was not done to save money it is to save someone.

There is a lot more to this case than has so far been revealed and now what was revealed is being suppressed.

There is still the personal suit against Slipper by Ashby underway in Federal Court to determine sexual harrassment charges.

Certainly from a fiscal perspective the Roxon decision is a money-saver avoiding a long drawn out and expensive legal process.

However this case is far from simple because of the political ramifications if Slipper were to lose his position. It is no secret that Slipper would not ordinarily be a favoured canddiate for Speaker without the balance of power issues, after the perceived risk of losing Wilkie support with pokies backflip.

Roxon has made a few big blunders in this case, not least the claim that Ashby's legal action was vexatious and the outcome was not about who was 'right or wrong'. Both foolish statements under the circumstances. What is the legal process about if not about who is right or wrong. Justice is not about fiscal balance sheets (considering other waste by government) even as attractive as this might be from a taxpayer POV.

I am not sure if the cabcharge allegations are being pursued by police or not but certainly they should be in the circumstances.

The judicial process is about getting to the truth of a matter. Surely that's what counts otherwise what is the point of the Courts, let's just judge all cases in the court of public opinion.

Pelican,

Litigation is expensive, especially if you lose. Settlement is seldom done except when the litigant has a valid case.

Roxon, as attorney general has the duty to ensure justice. The level of partisanship she displayed is unprecedented, and if she had any decency would resign. However, this is not a feature that she is renowned for.