Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald
Illustration: michaelmucci.com
Within about 16 hours of James Ashby lodging his sexual harassment claim against Peter Slipper in April, Tony Abbott was dead certain of its implications for the Speaker and also for the government.
"It is untenable that a member of Parliament facing serious allegations of sexual harassment and criminal misuse of entitlements should hold one of the most senior positions in the Australian Parliament.
"… We now have a government in Canberra that is dependent for its survival on two members of Parliament, Craig Thomson and now Peter Slipper, who both face investigation over very serious allegations … the Prime Minister must ensure that no further damage is done to the reputation of one of the most senior offices in the Parliament and she must act today to ensure that Mr Slipper stands down while this matter is dealt with in the courts," he thundered.
But this week when Justice Rares threw the whole thing out of court as a politically motivated abuse of process, the Coalition said it was just this little old thing Ashby did on his lonesome, with no real consequences for anyone else at all.
Redefining the question on Friday, Abbott insisted ''the only issues at stake are did Mr Slipper sexually harass his former staffer and why did the Prime Minister think he was a fit and proper person to be the Speaker in the first place''.
As for Mal Brough, ''He's been quite transparent and upfront about his involvement,'' Abbott claimed.
Or as Joe Hockey said on Wednesday, "The bottom line is an individual has made some claims against a former employer which they are entitled to do, and the court has made a decision which they are entitled to do." So, nothing at all then, really.
In fact the court found thumpingly and unequivocally that sexual harassment was not the only issue at stake. It found that the main issue at stake was a politically motivated attack using sexual harassment as a guise.
And we know it did not amount to nothing, but rather became a life and reputation-destroying thing, a potentially government changing thing, that the former staffer did in conjunction with a former Howard government minister and now candidate for Slipper's seat, Brough (ie, the direct beneficiary if he could knock off Slipper) after discussions with someone who is now a minister in Campbell Newman's Queensland government, and after at least some contact with several serving Coalition frontbenchers.
It may not be a conspiracy to rival Watergate, as Labor is alleging. The Coalition may not be ''rolling in filth'' as Julia Gillard so colourfully put it. It may not even be a conspiracy that goes beyond those already named in the judgment as alleged co-conspirators. But it does raise some questions. And Brough has not been transparent.
Brough has not explained, for example, why he was urging Ashby to copy Slipper's private diary so he could pass it on to a News Ltd journalist, Steve Lewis. The extracts he was asking for had nothing to do with Ashby's claim of sexual harassment and apparently a lot to do with trying to prove misuse of entitlements by Slipper.
In his previous public statements Brough has said it ''would have been a poor reflection on my values as a human being'' if he had not talked to Ashby about his sexual harassment claim when the young man came asking for advice and help. But Justice Rares didn't buy that at all.
He said Lewis was after a story, as any journalist would be, but it was highly unlikely Brough was offering to help Ashby out of ''pure altruism''.
''Realistically, his preparedness to act for them was created and fed by their willingness to act against Mr Slipper's interests and assisting Mr Brough's and the LNP's interests in destabilising Mr Slipper's position as speaker and damaging him in the eyes of the electorate.''
And we need to know how Ashby is paying for the expensive legal action, and also for Slipper's costs, which have been awarded against him. (Ashby has said he may seek leave to appeal).
Harmers Workplace Lawyers took the case on a no win, no fee basis, but Ashby is apparently paying for the services of his three barristers (we say apparently because his PR man, Anthony McLellan, who Justice Rares informs us charges $550 an hour plus GST, would say only that ''we are not in a position to discuss Mr Ashby's legal cost arrangements beyond repeating that no third party is funding his case'').
That cost, added to Slipper's bill, would likely run to hundreds of thousands. In fact, as Justice Rares pointed out, Ashby's costs were so high he would have received virtually nothing himself, even if he had won the case.
Asking those questions does not require the questioner to condone or excuse the texts Slipper sent, which would be difficult to do, or Labor's tricky politics of wooing him with the offer of becoming Speaker, which doesn't look at all clever in hindsight. The issues are separate, although conflating them provides a convenient hide for the Coalition.
The former Speaker had his reputation ruined by the case, in particular by a horrible text about female genitalia - sent before Ashby even joined his staff, he isn't going to get the Speaker's job back and he's set to lose his seat to Brough. A Reachtel poll commissioned by Fairfax Media suggests he could win just 2.7 per cent of the vote.
There are at least some in the Coalition who concede Brough should answer some questions. Speaking to Sky News Abbott's own parliamentary secretary, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, said Brough was a man ''with his heart in the right place''.
But Senator Sinodinos also said that after listening to Ashby in an initial conversation Brough ''should have maybe distanced himself more than was getting involved in trying to facilitate any sort of assistance for Ashby. That should have been left to Ashby and others because it's created this perception that Mal has just cooked all of this up to knock off Slipper … He [Brough] has got some questions to answer.''
