In Peter Hartcher’s op ed, which may have been written by Oakeshott and Windsor, we are told that Slipper’s demise is due entirely to the behind-the-scenes efforts of Windsor and Oakeshott, because
Slipper would not be forced out by a vote of Parliament, a signal dishonour. But their support was on condition that he announce his resignation by the end of the day.
A dishonour that was entirely appropriate – Slipper should not have been allowed to resign, he should have been sacked as Speaker.
On the other point, due process.
They [Oakeshott and Windsor] had thought the opposition would respect the processes of the Federal Court, which had reserved its judgment in the sexual harassment matter. But politics has a long and inglorious record of riding roughshod over the courts. … The principle of “due process” commonly is treated as a matter of political convenience rather than jurisprudential principle in the Federal Parliament
I do not accept the due process argument. Section 35 of the Constitution gives the power to select the Speaker to the House of Representatives
35. The House of Representatives shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a member to be the Speaker of the House, and as often as the office of Speaker becomes vacant the House shall again choose a member to be the Speaker.
The Speaker shall cease to hold his office if he ceases to be a member. He may be removed from office by a vote of the House, or he may resign his office or his seat by writing addressed to the Governor‑General.
In other words, the Speaker serves at the pleasure of the House.
Imagine if a Speaker was charged with murder or paedophilia, but was pleading not guilty. Does anyone think that the House should not then remove the Speaker?
But that would then be a breach of ‘due process’ surely? Then it comes to a matter of judgement: how serious is the crime which the Speaker has been alleged to have committed. A judgement which must be exercised by the House of Representatives.
Now I don’t hold to the due process argument. But those that do must accept, surely, that a Speaker charged with murder or paedolphilia who is pleading not guilty should be allowed to remain as Speaker if he or she does not resign.
no one complained when Rod Blagojevich was impeached in record time.
Wow, the left created another social norm and called “Due Process” and dictate that everyone follow this previously unknown rule.
How unusual.
Nothing to do with due process at all, as a number of commenters have pointed out. The motion to sack Slipper was on the basis of his inappropriate texts, nothing to do with the substance of the court case.
I’m sure they’ll be telling us that a vote of no confidence in the PM, a fundamental of parliamentary democracy is an abuse of this newly created “Due Process”.
AKA “Natural Justice”.
Both concepts are bullshit, but we knew that already…
No, there is such a thing as natural justice, it’s just that voting to remove Slipper is not against natural justice. Let’s remember, if he serves at the Parliament’s pleasure than they do not even need to have a reason to remove him.
DB has the right of it. Speaker of the House is a political office; and the decision of who should fill it is a political one. The debate and vote of the House IS “due process” in this case.
I think it raises the question about the role that Tony Abbott’s playing.
(H/T Tim Blair)
“Presumption of innocence” has become a shibboleth of this government.
The Dependents were worried about setting a precedent. The precedent was set for the hooker-loving Thommo. No one was sacked for burning down houses with faulty insulation. No one was sacked for drowned hundreds of seekers. Why should they start with Slipper?
What idiots like Hartcher don’t seem to understand is that the court case had nothing to do with it. The position of speaker is second in order of rank to the Prime Minister in the lower house.
Slipper’s texts to his subordinate was the reason he had to go. If he had won his court case he is still not a fit and proper person to hold the position of speaker.
As for the two “independents” once again they have beclowned themselves. They want it known that they were responsible for his resignation, yet they still voted for Slipper to continue as speaker.
Apparently they did this to deny Abbott a victory. Yet Abbott still got his victory and the added bonus of Hansard recording the names of every hypocritical mp who voted to keep a sicko as speaker.
Utter morons.
The “due process” argument is a crock.
The standards of proof in the harassment case are far higher than the behaviour test required to judge fitness to occupy the speakers chair.
For example, Parliament may choose to remove a Speaker who regularly polished off 750ml of Gilbey’s at breakfast time – not a criminal act, not actionable in civil courts but possibly a case for removal.
So the “due process” to remove a Speaker and the “due process” in the harassment case can both proceed without either informing or prejudicing the other.
The “sub-judice” argument is a crock for a couple of reasons.
Firstly the matters which led to Slippery’s demise were not contested and a matter of public record
I note that those two independent fuckwits are crawling over each other to remonstrate with that fool of an AG over her clear failure to respect the processes of the Federal Court. They are such a pair of dickwits. But Stevie feels their pain.
Whoops … Pressed post too soon.
The argument about “due process” above stands but what I meant to say about sub-judice is ….
Sub-judice does not apply to uncontested facts already written into the record, unless you choose to dispute mattes of fact accepted by the court.
Sub-judice could be compromised where, for example, someone called a witness “a kabuki actor” before he gave evidence, or where an Attorney-General publicly defamed a witness declaring “abuse of process” on a matter before the court.
Also sub-judice standards are more stringent in jury trials than trials before judge(s) alone. I see very little sign of Justice Rares being badgered or compromised by ANYONE.
I suspect the faux legalistic gymnastics of the ALP and their “independent” henchmen is all about preservation of power.
Another black mark in the history books against Windsor and Oakeshott. A bitter old man and a clown that will be condemned by the passage of time.
DB – please state your definition of natural justice – in my experience, lefties regard the two concepts as one and the same – i.e. obfuscation by any other name.
Rabz, i’m pretty sure d-b is going to have a thorough definition, and it’ll be a corker.
I find it nauseating that politicians who these days are voting for ever more laws that reverse the onus of proof see no irony in using ‘presumption of innocence’ as a purported shield when caught out in alleged improprieties and illegalities.
There’s no irony! Presumption of innocence is for people of circumstance.
Remember how Harry Jenkins was removed? Due party politically process.
I dont understand why the court process is considered an issue at all – unless to obsficate the issue of his suitability as Speaker – it was clear the problem was his character and standing in the community after the text messages were made piblic ………not whether he was guilty of sexual harassment
I dont understand why the court process is considered an issue at all – unless to obsficate the issue of his suitability as Speaker – it was clear the problem was his character and standing in the community after the text messages were made piblic ………not whether he was guilty of sexual harassment
Isn’t it a criminal offence to induce a member of parliament to resign? At the very least aren’t Oakshott and Windsor sailing close to the blackmail wind by saying to Slipper “resign now or we will vote you out” ?
Rabz, natural justice is a part of natural law and right. Basically it is about procedural fairness. All of which was given to Slipper because the motion was put to the House, speeches were made in favour and in opposition to the motion, and there was a vote on the floor. Whichever way the vote went, natural justice was served, and nothing that occurred in the Parliament could be said to have prejudiced the deliberations of the judge.
Yes, but it still won’t bear any resemblance to the lefties’ definition, as I’ve alluded to above.
His will be correct – and as I also understand it – but we need a formal definition to prove the dissonance.
Rabz – Natural justice is a discrete and well established body of common law. While I’m a bit rusty on the law, it generally applies when a judicial or quasi-judicial body is making decisions which may have adverse consequences on an individual. Basically it requires that the case and evidence against the person is put to them and they have the opportunity to respond. It appears a lot in the refugee status cases.
I’m not sure whether it would apply to parliament or not – I very much doubt it. Parliament and its procedure occupies a special place with respect to the courts, for example privilege and justiciability; generally it is superior to them. Parliament is always the highest law making body for the powers granted to it.
The arguments around Slippery Pete and the Federal Court proceedings were always an irrelevant smokescreen. Unless you are an uninformed Fairfax journalist.
Why didn’t Slipper agree to resign, let Windsor and Oakeshott vote with the government to keep him in the Speaker’s chair, then shaft them? What are they going to do? Hit the media, have a whine about the broken promise and make themselves look like twats? Tell Abbott to move another no-confidence motion against Slipper – and Abbott would of course have to be completely honest about why he had to hold another no-confidence motion, and why that pair of fuckwits had suddenly changed their vote?
Slipper should have just double-crossed those two fuckers.
Yes – that’s my understanding of it.
True – I was wrwobwbworo – NJ does exist, but I will not resile from stating quite bluntly that most lefties regard “due process” as both part of and an (unnecessary) extension of NJ.
Hence all the unacceptable ruffo bollocks.
Hence “due process’ is
oftenobfuscatory bullshit, as is many lefties’ interpretation of NJ.Windsor and Oakeshott couldn’t have scripted a bigger disaster for Gillard if they tried.
AKA “due process” which is, as I stated above, invariably obfuscatory bullshit designed to allow sleazebags to escape the law.
Beautiful in all it’s ugliness ……
Asked this on open thread, but you are over here. Did you go to the Sydney FC game Rabz?
Laz, I was going to, but I’ve now banned going to sydney* following the recent (latest) hezbollocks disturbances.
One of my best mates went, 1st row, goalside.
Better him than me. Watched it live and did see the del Piero free kick – awesome in its beauty…
*take note o’barrell – you fat, stupid, gutless piece of shit.
What hezbollocks is that? Last year, towards the end, there were barely enough people at the games to cause a disturbance. SFC were so bad.
It took maniac Melbourne Victory fans to cause a disturbance.
Apparently they did this to deny Abbott a victory. Yet Abbott still got his victory and the added bonus of Hansard recording the names of every hypocritical mp who voted to keep a sicko as speaker.
Utter morons.
Quite so.
Slipper should have just double-crossed those two fuckers.
It would be very amusing if Slipper came out and made a media statement that Oakshott and Windsor had no conversation of any kind with him that day.
Sadly, the last thing Slipper wants to do is talk to the press, so I can only conclude that it raises the question about the role that Tony Abbott’s playing.
Laz – I’m born, bred and most of my life in sydney – the hezbollocks riot about six weeks ago in the pitt st mess.
No more.
Either the gliberals do something about that filth, or I send some brief form letters to the retailers in the pitt st mess setting out why they will never get any more of my moolah.
Simple, really.
Then I bring o’barrell down.
We have a society and a country to preserve.
Rabz, you should add in your letter to retailers this is another reason that more people are buying online in the safety of their own home rather than running the gauntlet of lawless shopping precincts.
Splat – excellent point. I’ve been going crazy with the online shopping of late, picking up lots of stuff you can’t get here for about 2/3 of the price of buying locally – and yes, that includes postage (with bonus 2-3 days delivery).
They have no fucking idea, basically.
What bollocks. It’s like saying you can’t be sacked at your job unless you commit a crime. Parliament gets to choose its own speaker. End of story.
Apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph, Slippery is in hock to the tune of $450k for legal fees.
Things are so bad he will have to sell 2 of his 8 (eight) investment properties …. well boo frickin’ hoo.
Andrew Bolt is even suggesting some form of indemnity insurance for pollies.
This is bullshit!
If we remove the personal dimension of the moral hazard implicit in some of the more loony Legislation passed by the Parliament.
Hopefully, there will be more than one pollie reflecting on the possible personal consequences the next time some ludicrous vilification or equal opportunity legislation is put forward.
Incidentally, re post above about Slippery’s forced sale of investment properties to pay $450k to the ambulance chasers …… can anyone advise how many taxi chits it takes to get to $450k?