Vikki Campion guest post. Abuse of parliamentary privilege. PG rated.

Guide to ratings.

Under her leadership, NSW Labor MP Trish Doyle used parliamentary privilege to outline rape allegations made by a sex worker against a rival MP in a seat with razor-thin margins, and what has it delivered?

A by-election result so poor, her numbers to hold leadership collapsed, her ministry refused to stay on with her, and the 7 per cent swing against Labor in the Upper Hunter reverberated from Macquarie St to Capital Hill where federal Labor is openly at war.

The episode again raises the question of politicians ignoring natural justice and using the legal immunity they enjoy in parliament to air untested allegations about their opponents. Members of Parliament can’t be sued or prosecuted for anything they say in a debate under parliamentary privilege – that’s why we have a full roster of speakers to ensure this total freedom of speech is exercised responsibly.

This is why Ms Doyle’s decision to air rape allegations made against a political rival in parliament is problematic.

With the support of Ms McKay she chose a politically expedient shortcut rather than leaving it to the police to investigate the allegations.

Those attacked under parliamentary privilege never get a fair go – often not even a reply.

Ms Doyle did not name the alleged rapist in parliament but identified him as a government MP.

Former Nationals Upper Hunter MP Michael Johnsen has never been charged but Ms Doyle, acting as a semi-judicial oracle, omitted some relevant facts.

Ms Doyle did not tell parliament that the sex worker met Mr Johnsen for paid sex on two subsequent occasions following the alleged assault. This includes inviting him to her own home where her daughter slept in another room, for paid sex work. She also continued to send him naked photographs weeks afterwards. Bank statements show that over two weeks Mr Johnsen transferred into her account $2000 in $500 sums for car repairs and another $800 in cash for sex. She told him she was having car trouble and could not travel to see him because she couldn’t afford to get her car fixed. It was two days after the first $500 transfer they met for the first time, at Yellow Rock, for oral sex.

Ms Doyle claimed under privilege that after consensual oral sex he moved behind her, raped her and did not pay her. Mr Johnsen denies this. He says that before he penetrated her, they both agreed on a further $200 cash. The day after the alleged rape, she requested more money for car repairs and he sent $500. Eight days after the alleged rape, she invited him inside her home and performed oral sex on him. This detail was not included in Ms Doyle’s speech to parliament or subsequent reports by the ABC. Nine days following the alleged rape, she requested more car money and he transferred $500. Ten days post-assault, she texted a topless picture of herself to him, with a kiss emoji and “xx”. Nearly two weeks later, she had consensual paid sex with him again, at Lennox Bridge, where the next day he transferred another $500 for her car. After he ceased communicating with her, a month after texting him topless pictures, the sex worker told her local member, Ms Doyle, that Mr Johnsen had raped her on that first meeting at Yellow Rock.

Both Ms Doyle and Ms McKay encouraged her to go to the police.

It would be nearly another year before she did, with Ms Doyle telling parliament the sex worker told her she did not trust the legal system.

Hours after Ms Doyle made the allegations in the chamber, the ABC went to air with interviews from the sex worker. She told ABC one of the reasons she – a fierce pro-abortionist – decided to go public was Mr Johnsen – an equally fierce pro-life – made a controversial comparison between Black Lives Matter and abortion on social media.

Despite the sex scandal, on the hustings last weekend only one in five people voted Labor.

The Nationals held on to the seat – and on Friday Ms McKay resigned.

Had Ms McKay urged Ms Doyle to exercise caution in her judgment, and held the state government to account on a host of issues she ignored, she would still have a shot at being premier in 2023.

If politicians continue to abuse parliamentary privilege, they should lose it.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Vikki Campion guest post. Abuse of parliamentary privilege. PG rated.

  1. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    If politicians continue to abuse parliamentary privilege, they should lose it.

    They should never have been allowed it in the first place. I’m not aware of a single instance over the last two decades where the (ab)use of this preposterous privilege has resulted in any positive outcome, but multiple examples of when it hasn’t.

    Cowards’ Castle indeed.

  2. a happy little debunker says:

    If you consent to have sex (for payment) & you don’t get paid – it is not rape, but a breach of contract.

  3. Shy Ted says:

    ATO audit for the sex worker. And her pics in the paper so we can see if our elected reps spend money well.

  4. Andre Lewis says:

    There was an old joke about the prostitute that shouted rape when the cheque bounced but I would not tell it to anyone.

  5. BrettW says:

    Seems rope only became an issue once he stopped communicating with and paying her. Communicates with MP but waits a year to report to police. Good luck getting that to court.

  6. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Great piece from Vikki…..I tried to post it on the open forum earlier which I couldn’t because of various “naughty” words.

    Thanks Rafe for posting it on its own thread.

  7. Cassie of Sydney says:

    I knew there was a stench from the moment the story broke.

  8. Robbo says:

    If it seems to good to be true then it probably isn’t true. That truism fell on the deaf ears of two dumb Labor MPs who forgot to let any facts get in the way of their campaign to discredit a government MP. The same failure applies to the ABC which added to its discreditable record of false claims and sloppy journalism. The Labor Party lost the by-election and it’s Leader. The ABC lost nothing because it has no credibility and no decency and definitely no standards. If the ABC was closed down today it would not even cause a ripple for the majority of Australians. They never watch it or listen to it.

  9. Paul says:

    The rule of law doesn’t satisfy the Marxists mob desire for their own calls of justice.

    The left are dangerous

  10. Up The Workers! says:

    Mon Dieu!

    Shades of the Carmen Lawrence (aka Lying Lawrence of Amnesia)/ Penny Easton scandal.

    And in the Australian Liars Party, of all places!

  11. Adelagado says:

    It’s cute the way lefty feminists promote sex work as a perfectly acceptable career choice yet if anyone on the conservative side actually makes use of those services they are a perverted grub. Pretty obviously it was the fact that he had used a prostitute that was meant to do the electoral damage, not the rape allegation itself

  12. Scott Osmond says:

    This is why without an investigation and a hearing in court where people’s motives and actions can be cross examined I ignore all accusations. Aligations have been miss used a great deal lately to destroy oponents.

  13. Ed Case says:

    The issue was that he was using a prostitute while posing as a family man, that’s the reason he called it quits, not the Raaaayup allegation.
    How you go from that to calling Time on Parliamentary Priviledge beats me.
    Parliamentary Priviledge isn’t used nearly enough, and Priviledges not used may end up being lost.

  14. Ed Case says:

    Pretty obviously it was the fact that he had used a prostitute that was meant to do the electoral damage, not the rape allegation itself

    McKay has paid the price for wrecking the bloke’s career, Labor lost a Quarter of it’s vote, unheard of at a Byelection in a Government seat.

  15. Tom says:

    Smearing For Dummies: How To Get Away With Anything (If You Have a Vagina).

    #CowardsCastle

  16. Ed Case says:

    If elected representatives can’t have Free Speech, who can?
    This woman will be up for reelection in 2023 if she doesn’t retire in the meantime, let’s see how she goes with the voters before shutting Priviledge down.

  17. PB says:

    “Seems rope only became an issue once he stopped communicating with and paying her.”

    No doubt a typo, but brings its own meaning into the discussion, be it pleasure or punishment.

  18. TBH says:

    Can anyone mount a compelling case for why parliamentary privilege should continue to exist? All I’ve ever seen is abuse of said privilege, quite often affecting members of the general public who don’t have the means to fight it.

  19. The Sheriff says:

    Sounds like this woman was disappointed that Johnsen the John ceased to be a customer and the money stopped flowing.

  20. Ed Case says:

    Draconian Libel Laws and stratospheric Legal Costs mean Priviledge is the only Right we’ve got left.
    Sure McKay is a cynical old bag, she got her desired result, but look atb the Big Picture:
    Johnsen was masquerading as a Family Man and AntiAbortionist while paying a Single Mopther Hooker for Roots and BlowJobs.
    The result wasn’t any good for Gladys and Barilaro either and the Greens vote crashed.
    Any way you look at it, Johnsen was exposed as a hypocrite, a light was shone on all the chancers groveling for votes as AntiAbortionists, and the price of a Root in New South Wales is established at $200.
    A win for Parliamentary Democracy, I’d call it.

  21. Timothy Neilson says:

    Can anyone mount a compelling case for why parliamentary privilege should continue to exist?

    Suppose, purely hypothetically, there was a case where all proper processes were ignored (as well as a decision backed by the PM and all state and territory leaders including the Premier of the state in question, who had publicly announced that the decision would be implemented) and a contract worth tens of millions was awarded to a maaaaate of the incumbent government, and over 800 deaths resulted.
    Suppose, also purely hypothetically, that the incumbent government appointed a maaaaate to conduct an inquiry which made no adverse findings against any individual, after having failed to get evidence from the person who signed the contract on behalf of the state as to why he’d done so.
    If a journalist were to question whether such a set of circumstances could possibly have arisen without corruption on the part of the state Premier concerned (let’s hypothetically identify the Premier as “Maximum Leader”), it’s very likely that Maximum Leader could sue for defamation.
    On the other hand, a Parliamentarian could use privilege to make the assertion and demand evidence refuting the assertion. Journalists could then report what was said in Parliament without being liable for defamation.
    That is, privilege, if used properly, should be a way of forcing governments to explain their actions, where the government has been successful in covering up all the evidence which an ordinary citizen would need to have to be safe in making the relevant allegations.
    Of course there’s truth in what you say – privilege is rarely if ever used properly to address actual concerns about government – it’s used to sling bogus mud about matters which have nothing to do with what Parliament is meant to be supervising.

  22. Ed Case says:

    This particular Hooker is a parasite, requests for car repairs are clearly Blackmail, the bottom line is that he was just too dumb to keep his job.
    Why Priviledge has got to be dumped over this dopey MotherFucker has got me beat.

  23. Tom says:

    Can anyone mount a compelling case for why parliamentary privilege should continue to exist?

    It’s not a zero sum game.

    Awarding politicians parliamentary privilege destroys the common law rights of the people they rule, who don’t have parliamentary privilege.

    In other words, parliamentary privilege enhances the privilege of the privileged — the ultimate expression of the anti-democratic bastardry of the elite.

    Removal of parliamentary privilege would discourage Australian politicians from behaving as if they are a law unto themselves.

    It would strengthen our democracy by making politicians subject to the same legal rules that the people they rule are liable for.

  24. Old Lefty says:

    Thanks for this. It is no surprise to learn that the real reason the Academics Lawyers and Perverts Party and Arseholes Broadcasting Communism wanted to punish Johnsen was his opposition to abortion.

    The NSW Labor Right has always had its share of chancers and spivs, but once upon a time it also contained people of ability and integrity like Jack Renshaw, Peter Cox and Kevin Stewart. We won’t see their like again.

  25. Ed Case says:

    Yeah, Cowards Castle, but it still takes guts to get up and say something that offends the powerful.
    One from the history books:
    Liberal MLA Bruce Pie claimed in 1949 that Land Ballots conducted by the Lands Department on the Mackenzie River were being rigged.
    Pie subsequently suffered a fearful beating at the hands of one old Labor Minister, and Fine Cut Foley was forced out of the Labor Party after the findings of the 1950 Royal Commission were released.
    In 1977, Tom Aikens made scurrilous allegations about the extended family of a Labor Member, and lost his seat at the election later that year.

  26. Ed Case says:

    In other words, parliamentary privilege enhances the privilege of the privileged — the ultimate expression of the anti-democratic bastardry of the elite.

    Parliamentarians aren’t The Elite, they face the voters every few years and more often than not, get the arse.
    The vast majority of the time, it’s either a GetSquare, which is fair enough, or it shines a light into places the Media don’t want to look.

  27. Tel says:

    https://mises.org/library/defending-blackmailer

    What exactly is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailed pays the agreed-upon price.

    If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.

    The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking — for a price. In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailed a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning. Is not the person with a secret better off at the hands of a blackmailer than a gossip?

    He’s got a point … if you want to be consistent.

  28. Old Lefty says:

    Labor’s Bert James, who inherited the seat if Hunter from his coal miner father, was a byword in his electorate and beyond for being a buffoon, although an extreme left one.

    But he had enough rat cunning to take abuse of parliamentary privilege to new heights. A bent detective sergeant before entering parliament, he converted his old habit demanding payments from neer-do-wells to avoid prosecution into demanding payments to avoid being named and exposed under parliamentary privilege.

  29. Boambee John says:

    ‘Ed Case

    Parliamentarians aren’t The Elite, they face the voters every few years and more often than not, get the arse.

    Please demonstrate, with actual examples, the truth of the bolded statement. You are suggesting that at least half of all parliamentarians get the @rse at every election.

  30. Rockdoctor says:

    I knew there was a stench from the moment the story broke.

    So did I Cassie and I am on record of being no fan of Michael. The bloke was in the throws of a failed marriage. I bet he wouldn’t be the first MP to engage a sex worker in fact we know that to be true anyway, Thai massages ahem…

    However this is the world we live in. Nationals can’t crow as they are now treading water but if the above is true the ALP have just had an epic fail on this one, especially if they thought they could cause an upset. It appears nearly 70% of voters exhausted after their first vote. Maybe time to entrench OPV somehow because we saw in QLD as soon as OPV started eroding the ALP 2PP they abolished it. In fact I’d like to see it across the country in both state & federal.

  31. Ed Case says:

    … because we saw in QLD as soon as OPV started eroding the ALP 2PP they abolished it.

    The facts are these:
    The LNP won 87% of the seats with 55% of the vote in 2012, with the slogan Just Vote 1.
    LNP used the same slogan in 2015, but the voters had had enough of Newman, C. by then and allocated preferences, enabling a Labor win.

  32. Ed Case says:

    Please demonstrate, with actual examples, the truth of the bolded statement. You are suggesting that at least half of all parliamentarians get the @rse at every election.

    We’re talking about misuse of Parliamentary Priviledge, remember?
    Do abusers get the arse more often than not?
    I’d say ues, either that or they don’t recontest.

  33. Boambee John says:

    ‘Ed Case

    If you say yes, then you must be able to offer examples, from both sides – those “abusers” who got the @rse and those who didn’t.

    No hurry, the next hour will do.

  34. Ed Case says:

    Okay BJ let’s play your silly game.
    Deidre Grusovin.
    Got the arse for abusing Parliamentary Privilege, Yes or No?

  35. Gavin R Putland says:

    If politicians continue to abuse parliamentary privilege, they should lose it.

    There is a possible middle way, namely that a person defamed under parliamentary privilege has a claim against the state rather than against the MP. Any ensuing defamation payout at taxpayers’ expense would become a political liability for the offending MP.

  36. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Why is it that Dick Ed seems to salivate about these lurid sexual stories? It’s like he gets off on it.

  37. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Gavin R Putland says:
    May 29, 2021 at 5:07 pm”

    Agree.

  38. Ed Case says:

    Any ensuing defamation payout at taxpayers’ expense would become a political liability for the offending MP.

    PP is the only Right us Proles have left.
    In a divided society like ours, one side or the other is always going to be bleating about “misuse” of Privilege.
    That doesn’t mean they should be listened to, though.

  39. Ed Case says:

    Hi Cassie
    Every Saturday morning, someone posts the latest from Vicki Campion, and every time she finds something that needs to be taken away from ordinary people.
    It’s as if her columns are written by The Fabian Society.

  40. Boambee John says:

    Ed Case says:
    May 29, 2021 at 4:56 pm
    Okay BJ let’s play your silly game.
    Deidre Grusovin.
    Got the arse for abusing Parliamentary Privilege, Yes or No?

    100% of a sample of one? Not exactly a binding precedent.

  41. Ed Case says:

    So what’s your counter argument, BJ?
    Or don’t you have one and are just Trolling?

  42. Timothy Neilson says:

    There is a possible middle way, namely that a person defamed under parliamentary privilege has a claim against the state rather than against the MP. Any ensuing defamation payout at taxpayers’ expense would become a political liability for the offending MP.

    I’d rather that the nature of it was changed to a form of qualified privilege.

    They wouldn’t just be able to escape liability by saying “I said it in Parliament”, they could escape only if they were also able to lead evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, showed a genuine belief that saying what they said was relevant to their duties as a member of Parliament.

    That way, prurient innuendo on the eve of a bye-election wouldn’t be protected.

  43. Timothy Neilson says:

    Parliamentarians aren’t The Elite, they face the voters every few years and more often than not, get the arse.

    Deidre Grusovin.
    Got the arse for abusing Parliamentary Privilege, Yes or No?

    She got re-elected twice after the abuse.

  44. Ed Case says:

    That way, prurient innuendo on the eve of a bye-election wouldn’t be protected.

    When did this ever happen, Timothy?
    Examples?

  45. Boambee John says:

    ‘Ed Case

    No. You made a claim, I am interested in the validity of that claim.

    PS, Note the comment by Timothy Neilson at 1750, that seems to disprove your point about the only example you have so far offered.

  46. Ed Case says:

    Franca Arena, Timothy.
    Got the arse for abusing Privilege, Yes or No?

  47. Ed Case says:

    BJ, you’re just taking a stab in the dark because you don’t have a clue what your argument is.
    Timothy has now taken up where you failed.

  48. Timothy Neilson says:

    Franca Arena, Timothy.
    Got the arse for abusing Privilege, Yes or No?

    Why should I give a shit either way? I was just correcting your factual error, not making any assertion.

    But, since you ask, she made her comments, but didn’t at that time get punted from the Labor Party. She was only punted after crossing the floor to vote with the Libs on something. Loss of Labor preselection did subsequently result in her losing her seat.
    So I’d say dubious at best as an example supposedly supporting your assertion.

  49. Timothy Neilson says:

    When did this ever happen, Timothy?
    Examples?

    The very one we’re talking about – Doyle’s comments.

  50. Ed Case says:

    Timothy:
    Doyle’s use of Privilege wasn’t on the eve of the Byelection.
    Her speech was the cause of the Byelection.

  51. Timothy Neilson says:

    Point taken – I’ll extend my comment to refer to all prurient innuendo against political opponents, then.

  52. Ed Case says:

    Okay, so give us an example?

  53. Andrew says:

    A pox on all of them.
    Australians deserve better than these pond dwellers.

  54. Squirrel says:

    The fact that NSW Labor went for a leader who sounded like she’d be more at home running a Tupperware party tells you something about the alternatives, and the divisions in that branch.

  55. Rockdoctor says:

    LNP used the same slogan in 2015, but the voters had had enough of Newman, C. by then and allocated preferences, enabling a Labor win.

    Nope, disagree Ed. Palacechook shouldn’t even have had a first term if that serial grub from the Sunshine Coast didn’t become kingmaker but I digress. She would have never had a second term without preferences, I remember the indignation at the time from the LNP. Mander was quite irate about it, probably saw his last chance slipping away. Also voters were saturated with 3 years of propaganda and wall to wall union funded advertising that at times was pure lies. Newman was unfairly painted as worse than Kennett when in fact he was Kennett lite.

    Most plebs are not like us at the Cat drilling down into people or issues, social media or a 5 second grab from the mostly distinctly left leaning media outlets is what most plebs rightly or wrongly make their decisions on around election time.

  56. Timothy Neilson says:

    I said Point taken – I’ll extend my comment to refer to all prurient innuendo against political opponents, then.

    Ed said Okay, so give us an example?

    I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’ve accepted the factual correction about Doyle’s comment, and have qualified my previous comment accordingly.
    In fact I never said that bye-election eve prurient innuendo was a thing, apart from my error about Doyle’s remarks, so I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be giving an example of.

    If it’s an example of “prurient innuendo against political opponents” I’d say Doyle’s remarks still qualify.

    Meanwhile, back at the “Parliamentarians aren’t The Elite, they face the voters every few years and more often than not, get the arse” saloon….

  57. Ed Case says:

    Okay, we’re back at the Abusers of PP Lounge.
    Wilson Tuckey.
    Got the arse for abusing PP, Yes or No?

  58. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Hi Cassie
    Every Saturday morning, someone posts the latest from Vicki Campion, and every time she finds something that needs to be taken away from ordinary people.
    It’s as if her columns are written by The Fabian Society.”

    What a load of garbage. You’re a moron TROLL.

  59. Dot says:

    Ed Case says:
    May 29, 2021 at 5:25 pm
    Hi Cassie
    Every Saturday morning, someone posts the latest from Vicki Campion, and every time she finds something that needs to be taken away from ordinary people.
    It’s as if her columns are written by The Fabian Society.

    Ordinary people have Parliamentary privilege?

    You fuckhead.

    So what, we can get MPs to abuse kit for us?

    Great, let’s have Courts of Star Chamber.

    You despicable idiot.

  60. Timothy Neilson says:

    Okay, we’re back at the Abusers of PP Lounge.
    Wilson Tuckey.
    Got the arse for abusing PP, Yes or No?

    No. He lost because of a redistribution of electoral boundaries.

  61. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Wilson Tuckey.

    Walked out of Parliament before Rudd’s apology to the “Stolen Generations” and called “acknowledgement of country” “Nonsense.”

  62. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    No. He lost because of a redistribution of electoral boundaries.

    Factcheck – true. I was in his electorate, before ending up in “Durack.”

  63. Boambee John says:

    Meanwhile, back at the “Parliamentarians aren’t The Elite, they face the voters every few years and more often than not, get the arse” saloon….

    Starngely, ‘Ed, you did not qualify your comment with a reference to “those who abuse Parliamentary privilege, get the arse”. Oversight, or just sloppy?

  64. FlyingPigs says:

    Good post Vikki Campion and thank you Rafe for putting it up.

  65. Rafe Champion says:

    Thanks Flying Pigs, you are very welcome, thank Cardimona who send the material through bright and early in the morning!

  66. FlyingPigs says:

    thank Cardimona who send the material through bright and early in the morning!

    gotta love that bloke… lol

    thanks Cardimona.

  67. Louis Litt says:

    Why is this fellow being elected. Why are these people being put up .

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.