It was not policy which made me resign many years ago from the ALP, it was internal factionalism which I hated, and deal making. At least the Greens have an absolute grass roots preselection process, where the local membership gets to both question, and vote on prospective candidates, including incumbents. Even if there is only one candidate there is a option of 'no selection' What other party does that?

Churchill on party politics; "The opposition occupy the benches in front of you, but the enemy sit behind you."

shonkysinister,

"The only reason the donation to Porter was "exposed" was that he declared it."

Wow, you sure can get it wrong, now the clowns out on his ear!

Pauliar,

Once again you get it wrong. The donation to CP was only noticed after he declared it. Unlike Labor or the pedogreens that only declare their donations when found out.

I find it really odd that there are unresolved rape
allegations against a previous frontbench Minister
who has actively suppressed all information about
the case, information which, according to his tearful
denials would presumably have exonerated him, and
yet the man remains in Parliament.

And now the former Chief Legal Officer of Australia
wants us to believe that he took unspecified amounts
of money in donations from unknown sources in order to
pay legal fees for his abandoned defamation suit
in a court over which he recently had authority, over
unresolved rape allegations.

Goodness me. For a man with nothing to hide, this Minister
certainly goes to great lengths to keep things hidden.

Foxy,

There are far more substantial unresolved rape allegations against Bill Shorten, yet you are silent here in spite of there being a living coherent complainant.

The allegations against Porter are completely unsubstantiated.

There is no police complaint,
there are absolutely no witnesses,
the complainant was psychotic and has killed herself.
The ABC made an open apology and stated that there is no implied guilt.
The ABC is suppressing the information, not Porter, as releasing it cancel their agreement with Porter that they paid for and will open them to the same suit again.

shadow minster,

We've covered Mr Shorten's case many times in
the past. The case of Mr Shorten and Mr Porter
are totally different. Mr Shorten was questioned
by police. Mr Porter was not. Mr Shorten did not
suppress anything and answered all questions. Porter
issued suppression orders. Mr Shorten's so called
claimant turned out to be disreputable. The police
there was no case to answer.

In Porter's case media organizations, including News
Corp and Nine newspapers were blocked from publishing
any ot the ABC's defence. Porter lodged a suppression
order and only a small part of the defence was ever
made public.

Porter settled with the ABC (no damages paid) before any
of the case could be heard in the Federal Court.
Porter has now quit as a Minister and gone to the back
bench (he should quite Parliament altogether).

He now claims that he took money in donations from unknown
sources in order to pay legal fees.

For a man with nothing to hide, Porter certainly goes to
great lengths to keep things hidden.