Why not both?

This is an interesting development:

A former Coalition staffer who was sacked for masturbating on the desk of a female MP has made a report to police alleging he was the victim of revenge porn.

It was leaked by a man the former Morrison staffer met on gay dating app Grindr nearly a decade ago. Both were involved in sex acts in parliament.

Let’s be clear –  I have zero sympathy for the former staffer who was sacked. I cannot imagine why or how anyone could ever defend his behaviour.

But it does seem to me that he is the victim of a crime.

What isn’t clear to me, however, is the extent to which whistle-blowers are protected in this situation. Generally whistle-blowers have extensive protection. But what about this situation?

Does it matter that the whistle-blower reported the incident to the media and not to an appropriate person at the Parliament?

PVO doesn’t think so:

The whistleblower who came to me with images and video of the said staffer – who was the most senior adviser to the Liberal Whip in charge of party discipline ironically – always made it clear he was revealing what had gone on because enough was enough when it came to poor conduct in the nation’s capital.

“Tom’s” (as we called him in the story) willingness to speak out has made him a change agent for good. Ensuring cultural change in parliament. Not that Liberal MP Warren Entsch sees it that way. Thankfully, many of his colleagues do. Including the Prime Minister.

There is a lot to be said for that argument too. But I remain uncomfortable with concluding that it is okay to commit a crime to ensure ‘cultural change in parliament’. That becomes a perfect defence against treason.

Could the whistle-blower have revealed his information without committing a crime? I suspect he could have – I suspect there are other avenues that he could have pursued that did not involve revealing his information to the media in the first instance.

This entry was posted in Rule of law, Tough on Crime, tough on criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Why not both?

  1. Buccaneer says:

    Journalist doesn’t think revenge porn handed to him was a crime because it was a ‘good’ story. It wouldn’t have been had he handed it to police instead of becoming an accessory and benefitting from it..

  2. Entropy says:

    If only we had some system where there was an experienced, disinterested adjudicator oversaw argument on the matter from both sides and a decision was made by a group of peers.

    What do ya reckon?

  3. Entropy says:

    I would also say that PBO is disqualified from any further comment on the matter. Prejudicial and all that.

  4. Richard says:

    I think a better example of this was when the NRL player from Parramatta, was fined because a tape (that was filmed up and over the wall) was released showing him having sex in a public toilet.

    As far as I’m concerned, if the evidence is gathered illegally, it is not evidence at all. I take the view under these circumstances, that the act never happened, and no adverse consequences should follow at all.

  5. Infidel Tiger King says:

    How curious that PVO has deep contacts in the homosexual community.

  6. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “As far as I’m concerned, if the evidence is gathered illegally, it is not evidence at all. I take the view under these circumstances, that the act never happened, and no adverse consequences should follow at all.”

    Agree Richard.

  7. John64 says:

    The [email protected] should be charged using the Pusey law.

  8. Rex Anger says:

    If only we had some system where there was an experienced, disinterested adjudicator oversaw argument on the matter from both sides and a decision was made by a group of peers.

    What do ya reckon?

    Can’t risk it, Entropy.

    Justice might actually get done.

    Not the ‘Just Us’ outcome the activists desire…

  9. Entropy says:

    The Pusey Law!

    Haha!

  10. C.L. says:

    But it does seem to me that he is the victim of a crime.

    Yes, he is.
    Extremely contrived and trite, though, for van Onselen to connect the gay dust-up with the whole “cultural change” thing. I thought the journalistic consensus on the desk/blow job staffers is that they were sterling chaps who just put a foot – or a penis – wrong in the “high pressure” workplace that is Parliament House. They weren’t to be mentioned in the same context as the sexist sexists. The truth is Onselen ran with this because they were Liberal gays. Had they been Labor gays, you still wouldn’t have heard anything about it.

  11. Roger says:

    The truth is Onselen ran with this because they were Liberal gays. Had they been Labor gays, you still wouldn’t have heard anything about it.

    Spot on.

  12. currencylad says:

    Italics sometimes matter…

    Correction:

    The truth is Onselen ran with this because they were Liberal gays. Had they been Labor gays, you still wouldn’t have heard anything about it.

  13. Rex Anger says:

    Italics sometimes matter…

    ***Sounds of angry rapid-fire Sicilian intensifies…***

    😂

  14. H B Bear says:

    I am not comfortable talking about a whistleblower in the context of a leaked gay porn video. Unlike Prof van Wrongselen.

  15. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “The truth is Onselen ran with this because they were Liberal gays. Had they been Labor gays, you still wouldn’t have heard anything about it.”

    Correct.

  16. thefrollickingmole says:

    What do ya reckon?

    I agree, but its probably hate speech to do so by now.

    Im firmly in the “pox on all their houses”mode.
    Everyone involved should suffer .

  17. tombell says:

    if the political staffer who (whistle) blowed wanted to be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure (Cth) legislation he needed to make a report to an authorised PID officer. By phone, in writing or however. But instead he approached a journo entirely outside the remit of this protective legislation -maybe you get paid more that way. And there is zero likelihood of any repercussions.

  18. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    leaked gay porn video

    Any poodles with unusual gaits been contacted for comment about these (entirely unsurprising*) revelations?

    *That parlyfax house is full of wankers

  19. Dave in Marybrook says:

    “Revenge Porn” is a neologism that needs a bit of realistic treatment. Most episodes are neither “revenge” – ie a personally targeted act for some sort of propotionate retribution to a preceeding act – nor “porn”, ie publications of explicit content designed to titillate.
    Having said-
    If the whistleblower had put up the vid on a public or commercial carrier, with the gay staffer identified, and or his naughty bits or adult acts foremost, then it would qualify as revenge porn as we know it.
    But, the bloke’s name, visage, and pudendi were not made public, even if PVO had detailed the bloke’s position and action in the text of his… ahem… journalism.

  20. Snotball says:

    The so called victim, the whistle blower and PVO are all worthless grubs. Why these deviants get any air play is beyond me. A few years ago they would have been jailed for their foul, sick behaviour.

  21. mh says:

    Infidel Tiger King says:
    April 30, 2021 at 12:53 pm
    How curious that PVO has deep contacts in the homosexual community.

    You never watched the show he had on Sky News?

  22. Paul says:

    revealed his information without committing a crime?

    I suspect it could easily have been a set up, a more plausible scenario

    After all the lying left wind msm have been out to smear ScoMo and the libs, because labors election policies are job losers.

  23. Jock says:

    When I was at High School my father advised me to read newspapers from all sides of politics. That way I would know what those on the other side were saying. But I draw the line at PVO, Nikki Saavva and Tingle.

  24. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘I suspect there are other avenues that he could have pursued that did not involve revealing his information to the media in the first instance.’

    Is the whistle-blower also a MOP(S) Act staffer? It isn’t clear and the PVO article is paywalled.

    If he is not a ‘public official’, then the Public Interest Disclosure Act doesn’t apply to him the purpose of the Act is:

    “to ensure that public officials who make public interest disclosures are supported and are protected from adverse consequences relating to the disclosures’.

    So far as I am aware, an ordinary citizen shouldn’t need, and isn’t entitled to, the protection provided by the Act. He could – and maybe should have – simply reported the matter to any senior official or employee at APH.

    If he is a MOP(S) Act staffer, then I’m not sure that the Act and its protections would apply to him. As I understand it, he is not a public official and he is not a Commonwealth employee – his employer is the Minister. I suppose he could be deemed to be a ‘public official’ under s 70(1) if the matter was serious enough.

  25. H B Bear says:

    Any danger he was blown? His cover I mean.

  26. candy says:

    I don’t go for the cultural change idea. A group of gay men up to sexual hijinks in Parliament House probably daring each other and taking pictures, some kind of perverted circle of gay blokes, they all enjoyed themselves until a falling out between 2 pals in the circle and it’s revenge time.

    What is distasteful is the biohazard aspect and cleaners who have to clean up and people use their desks/furniture unknowingly in an unclean environment of various body fluids. Something rather ugly about it all.

  27. Real Deal says:

    Van Onanselan.

    There, somebody had to say it.

  28. Lee says:

    The truth is Onselen ran with this because they were Liberal gays. Had they been Labor gays, you still wouldn’t have heard anything about it.

    No doubt about it at all.
    The double standards of PVO in particular, and the MSM in general are gobsmacking.
    You also wouldn’t have heard about it if they were Labor heterosexuals getting it off in parliamentary offices, Liberals; most definitely yes.

  29. Primer says:

    Who gives a rat’s arse.

  30. Hoogan says:

    I’m not too invested in this subject to take a meaningful position, but history has shown that if PVO holds a particular view on a matter or makes a prediction related to it, the opposite view must be correct.

  31. Tom says:

    Who gives a rat’s arse.

    Correct.

    The only people who give a rat’s arse arse are libertarians whose only useful contribution to Australian society was inventing the Cat.

  32. bela bartok says:

    This whole thing was a timed release of filth designed to besmirch the Liberal government as being horribly sexist, misogynist, women problem to support Brittany ‘I got so wasted I’m a vestal virgin’ H and drum up anti-coalition sentiment before the election. Classic tactics from the US Democrats.
    However, once the terrible, disgusting, vile men were discovered to be nature’s untouchables ( horses’ hooves) the media ran dead.
    So, revenge for a slight, turned to support the Left, then when the cover of heterosexuality was blown, lots of ‘ahem, cough’ and look the other way.
    Burn the whole place down. Close parliament for 2 years (at least). Sack every one of them.

  33. Davo the spy says:

    Why would anyone read the crap he writes….unless it’s changed in the last few years?

    About as useful as Nikki Sava or the shrew from the financial review

  34. Albatross says:

    There is a lot to be said for that argument too

    No there isn’t. It’s dribbling moral grandstanding.

  35. Albatross says:

    Generally whistle-blowers have extensive protection

    Anyone aware of an instrument that protects this creature?

  36. JohnJJJ says:

    What about the furniture? Has anyone thought of the desk? When he tabled his hardwood, was the cabinet watching? Stressed timber.

  37. Rabbi Putin says:

    I don’t want China to take over the country, but you have to wonder if there won’t be some benefits…

  38. jupes says:

    Diversity is a strength?

    Yeah nah. Diversity is a cesspit of perverts.

  39. Arky says:

    Throw everyone involved in jail and throw away the key.

  40. Arky says:

    ..and for God’s sake burn those desks.

  41. Bad Samaritan says:

    WTF is all this whistle-blowers and smuttily sniggering double entendres the Cat should be above all this.

    However, as the Nobel Laureate has already covered these issues about 60 years ago, I’ll quote him here…..”Mr Jones” is believed to be a well-known journalist or academic of the early 1960s….Balla

    “Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you and then he kneels
    He crosses himself and then he clicks his high heels
    And without further notice, he asks you how it feels
    And he says, “Here is your throat back, thanks for the loan”
    And you know something is happening but you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mr. Jones?”

  42. FlyingPigs says:

    staffer who …. masturbating on the desk of a female MP

    Is that sexual assault?

  43. PB says:

    So did the “whistle-blower” (who sounds like he’s blown a lot of whistles) do it for fun and payment?

  44. Yarpos says:

    This whole thing needs to be sent to Bittany Higgins for adjudication on the mount of moral authority.

  45. FlyingPigs says:

    Yarpos says:
    April 30, 2021 at 7:28 pm
    This whole thing needs to be sent to Bittany Higgins for adjudication on the mount of moral authority.

    exactly Yarpos

    an expert arbiter of Parliamentary Office decorum must always be consulted in ‘these’ matters.

  46. Nighthawk the Elder says:

    What the hell is going on with this crap, as well as the Higgins circus, that it all has to play out in the media and at the highest political levels? Are there no HR professionals anywhere near parliament house? Doesn’t matter if they are party appointees or permanent PS.

    For goodness sake, out in the real world beyond the Canberra bubble, if someone so much as inadvertently farts in front of the wrong person, they’re fronting a four person panel enquiry as to why the incident should or should not be considered a precursor to sexual assault.

    Yet here we have a bunch of wankers (literally) attempting to stitch each other up. And then we have some moralising bint, who has never explained why she was in PH in the wee small hours, pissed as a maggot in the first place, demanding the PM (and Opposition Leader) give her undivided attention to deal with crap the bloody HR managers are supposed to have been doing as part of their jobs. Security managers also need a reaming for not controlling the out of hours access, while we’re at it.

    My only guess is this plays out in the media because the media has become breathtakingly stupid and rely on equal levels of stupidity from the great unwashed. They’ve now also proved our political leaders from all sides are just as fucking dumb.

  47. Bruce in WA says:

    It was leaked by a man …

    Please! Phrasing! It’s not that sort of blog!

    (Oh, hang about … )

  48. WDYSIA says:

    AFAIK the whistle-blower is not a staffer. I think he admitted to having participated in certain activities in parliament house but he does not and has never worked there. He also claimed to have compromising photos of an MP. So who would he report this to? Which agency would investigate this without fear or favour?

    I think the whistle-blower also said something on his social media about the revenge porn angle, back when he was being threatened with such legal action. Can’t remember, don’t care. They can sort that out themselves. I think it was right to sack the staffer. Pity they can’t sack Entsch aa well. Useless prick. The whistleblower was doxxed but not by PVO, so he hasn’t received any sort of protection there. He’s unemployed so he is unsackable. Like the sacked staffer, he’s probably unemployable in most circles as well now that he’s been doxxed, at least for a while, so no protection there either. Seems like equality of outcome to me.

  49. Knuckle Dragger says:

    ‘AFAIK the whistle-blower is not a staffer. I think he admitted to having participated in certain activities in parliament house’

    One of the rent boys then.

  50. BorisG says:

    It is obviously revenge porn as we know it (a misnomer but anyway), pretending to be wistleblowing.

    A storm in a teacup as far as I am concerned. Indicating we don’t have bigger problems in the lucky country.

  51. Candy says:

    Parliament House might be the only workplace where a gay group use the premesis for for their sexual encounters. Why not their own homes. Bringing male prostitutes in too.

    The protection is by the media because it is about gays. No chasing down the senior MP who organised the prostitutes. Even using the Prayer Room. Extraordinary how hushed up it is.

  52. The Barking Toad says:

    Van Oscillate is a dribbling idiot.

    That’s why Fox gave him the arse.

    I suspect he dents poo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.