579;
Texts, emails, voice calls etc etc are all the same.
If they are conveyed by telecommunications they are covered by the
secrecy provisions of the telecommunications acts.

Once presented in court they are on a public record.
What I wrote still stands they could have hushed it all up by speaking
to the Speaker sooner and giving him the option.

SM sure you are not a kid? School yard stuff that.
Slipper was a grub, Labor owned him for 11 months.
Your mob for more years than that.
He is not too bright, he knew your side protects such as him far better than mine, should have stayed hidden.
John Howard looked ready to return very good.
Abbott, he seems to wobble in his cloths like jelly, every thing OK?
Not sure hope he got a chance to be rude to a woman, his day is not the same if he fails to.

Bazz

"Hushing it all up" sounds all very clandestine. Do you really think the Government could have got away with that? I'm not sure it would go down too well in the electorate, let alone in the Coalition, in the name of transparency and the national interest, and all that.

In any event, what makes you think Gillard didn't talk to the Speaker sooner or indeed, give him the option?

No Bazz, Slipper was not going to resign before any of those sleazy messages were made public - he didn't see it in his interest. I would agree though, that may be the reason the Government (as a respondent) cut Ashby loose with $50k knowing Slipper was on a very slippery slope anyway.

Subjudacy seems to be overlooked by many other commenters here Bazz, a criminal offence in itself which could bring a charge of contempt of court. Is that what you think Gillard should have done back then?

The Speaker eventually did do the right thing but unfortunately for him (and fortunately for everybody else) it is not the end of the matter - the Federal Court still has a judgement to make.

Bonmot,
It still would not matter if Slipper got up and resigned the
contents of his texts were public knowledge at that time anyway.
He would have resigned just an hour or two earlier than he did.

I had only watched TV extracts of the Gillard speach so I went and
watched it all. It surprised me that no one asked the speaker to ask
the PM to be relevant to the motion.

The worse part I thought was her petty comment on Abbott looking at his watch.
Would she have said it if he looked at the hour glass instead ?

My wife went to a local ladies do last night and she tells me that
Julia's speach was widely discussed and they were all, except one want
her gone asap.

I suspect women look at such speach by women differently than do men.

Bazz in bonmots post a word you seem unaware of is instructive.
Sub judiciary.
Bet you last dollar John Winston Howard would not have put that motion.
Abbott has hooked you using only a bait not related to the good of the Parliament or country.

Hello Bazz,
Ever since Turnbull and Rudd were 'knifed' the political 'debate' in Australia has been a race to the bottom.

The Government (and its leader) still has to govern, still has to think in the national interest, and still has to get legislation through Parliament. It has and will, until such time the next election is called.

The Coalition, on the other hand, can keep 'slagging' the Government and the Prime Minister for all its worth. Unsurprisingly, this is not a good look for anybody, but is typical of the tactics employed at the behest of the current Opposition leader. Moreover, the speech you (and your wife's lady friends) watched has gone 'viral', the world over.

Now, contrary to what you or your wife/lady-friends think - the world now sees the Prime Minister's speech (retort to the Opposition Leader) as something that should have been said. Tony Abbott can rightly claim primacy to what the world now sees as possibly the next Prime Minister of Australia.

I for one would be ashamed.