Related Story: Slipper's departure sparks slanging match over sexism
Related Story: Gillard v Abbott on the Slipper affair
Video: Watch Peter Slipper's resignation speech to the House of Representatives (ABC News)
As the Peter Slipper drama unfolded in Federal Parliament this week there was much mention of principle, but precious little use, writes Annabel Crabb.
Julia Gillard enjoys watching Midsomer Murders with her knitting. Tony Abbott, as we now know from his wife Margie, prefers Downton Abbey.
But what was on show yesterday, in the Parliament of Australia, resembled nothing quite so much as The Slap. That is to say, it was a bleak Australian drama involving a tangled cast of characters, among whom barely a redeeming figure could be found.
A drama in which just about everyone involved wept or yelled or fulminated in an agony of self-righteousness. A drama in which, of "principle", much mention was made, but precious little use.
Let's consider the cast of characters.
There's Peter Slipper himself, a man with whom no delicately-minded diner would now share a marinara.
He joins the disconsolate ranks of male politicians who have immortalised, in text messages, sentiments that ought never to have seen the light of day. (He also joins the - mercifully - sparser ranks of political gents who have boutique ideas about ladies' downstairs equipment. Like the Republican representative Todd Akin, who famously claimed that the female reproductive system shuts down when it detects "legitimate rape".)
Mr Slipper returned briefly to the Speaker's chair last night in order to relinquish it forever, on the grounds that he could not allow his own personal interests to imperil the dignity and honour of the parliament.
Principle! Well, yes - sort of. Until you consider the fact that Mr Slipper had just been informed, by a delegation of cross-benchers, that they would do him in themselves if he didn't shuffle off under his own steam. Mr Slipper was much applauded last night for his judgment and discretion, but it should never be forgotten that he employed that judgment and discretion only when the last shred of an alternative evaporated.
Then there's Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, for whom it seems neither flocks of daughters nor countless flight-hours watching period dramas can dispel the Government's steely conviction that he is an inveterate and sexist pig.
Yesterday, he took it upon himself to seek vengeance, on behalf of the ladies of Australia, against Mr Slipper, who had described their intimate parts in terms so salty they would make Lady Grantham faint clean away. Mr Slipper, thundered the Leader of the Opposition, was not fit to be Speaker.
(Mr Abbott was also avenging his colleague Sophie Mirabella, who was described in another Slipper text message as an "ignorant botch", thus becoming the first woman in Parliament to be formally insulted by Spellcheck.)
Principle! Well yes - sort of. Until you consider the fact that Mr Slipper today is essentially the same person he has been for countless years, during which familiarity with his personal attitudes and rococo approach to parliamentary expenses did not preclude his ritual re-endorsement by the Coalition.
"This is not about Mr Slipper," announced Labor MP Daryl Melham yesterday, as the Labor Party rallied its queasy troops to vote in defence of Mr Mussels.
"This is about principles."
The principle to which Mr Melham referred here is not the "zero tolerance for people saying icky things about women" principle, to which the Prime Minister spent much of Question Time so passionately pursuing with exclusive respect to Mr Abbott.
Mr Melham was referring here to the "no interference with matters currently undergoing judicial attention of any kind" principle.
This is a principle the Government likes to apply flexibly. In the case of Craig Thomson, it was applied right up to the point at which Ms Gillard decided to abandon it. In the Slipper case, it's a principle the Government has applied rigorously to the defendant (Mr Slipper), but ignored with respect to the plaintiff, James Ashby, whom the Attorney General herself has deemed to be a vexatious litigant.
Which brings us to the Prime Minister herself.
There is no doubt that our first female PM has been tried extensively by references, attacks and criticism that would never have been made of her male predecessors. Much of it has gained public ventilation thanks to a communications revolution that now allows front-bar remarks to achieve a national audience.
In a coruscating speech that went around the world, Ms Gillard finally let rip with her frustration about all this, and left no doubt about whom she considers to be responsible.
"The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office," said the Prime Minister, with the cold fluency she reserves for moments of genuine anger.
"Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation."
Principle! Well, yes, sort of. Until you consider that the PM's distaste for sexist remarks stopped at the door of her own Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, she decided to speak with the voice of principle but vote with clay feet. Subsequent events show she needn't have; the Government now finds itself defending the ghost of the Speaker with the shreds of its principle.
Annabel Crabb is the ABC's chief online political writer. View her full profile here.
