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.