Foxy,
I envy your internet connection, you manage to find & copy & paste remarks rather quickly !

Dear Foxy,

Essentially FJ can't use John Barilaro's own words as a truth defence because they were said in parliament.

For instance FJ claimed Barilaro perjured himself on a number of occasions but because he did this in parliament FJ can't use the defense of truth even though everyone accepts that was exactly what Barilaro did.

"In R v Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116 a former New South Wales minister was charged with receiving bribes. Remarks made by him in the New South Wales Parliament were highly relevant to the case and the prosecution attempted to use them to assist in establishing his guilty motive and intention. The question of parliamentary privilege was argued again by the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, and the judge upheld the previously established interpretation of freedom of speech and declined to allow the admission of the statements made in Parliament."
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_02

This has been a lesson to me and I suspect to FJ who faced with, in my opinion, an obviously corrupt politician has had his case notably weakened.

individual,

I specialised in children's literature and children's
fiction during part of my career.
And am very familiar with Roald Dahl's
work. I thought that quote was appropriate.
I'm pleased that you liked it.

Dear Steele,

No wonder the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

Foxy,
Blindfold yes, ear plugs no !

individual,

It seems that in this particular case -
unfortunately - ear plugs YES!