Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about an issue which would be well known to most members of this House—that is, the ongoing saga between Mr Ashby and former Speaker Mr Slipper. This matter has been before the Federal Court. It was last year that Judge Rares of the Federal Court made findings against me. I was never a party to the action, I never appeared in any court and I never gave any evidence, nor was I cross-examined, but I was found to have, in Judge Rares words, 'worked in combination with others', with Karen Doane and Mr James Ashby, to bring harm on behalf of myself and the LNP against Mr Slipper.

As these matters should, they worked their way through the courts and Mr Ashby sought leave to apply to the full bench of the Federal Court. He was able to take his matter there, and last week the full bench of the Federal Court made the following finding regarding me. Before reading this, I should say that they also granted leave for Mr Ashby to have his main case heard before the Federal Court—that is, one of sexual harassment in the workplace. To quote the full bench of the Federal Court at paragraph 124:

We are also of the opinion that there was no basis for the primary judge to conclude that Brough was part of any combination with anyone in respect to the commencement of these proceedings with the predominant purpose of damaging Slipper in the way alleged or at all. Ashby was persuaded to contact Brough by Bradford. Despite Brough's hesitation at seeing Ashby he did so and referred him to Russell QC. There is absolutely nothing untoward about those matters. That he was the recipient of copies of some of Slipper's diary entries does not convert what he did in referring Ashby to Russell QC into something sinister. Beyond this referral there is no evidence which links Brough in any way to the decision by Ashby to commence proceedings or as to what claims would be made in any such proceedings. Evidence that Brough had an 'animus' towards Slipper does not alter this conclusion. Ashby's unchallenged sworn testimony was that he was not commencing his action at the instigation or behest of any member of parliament, State or Federal, or any political party. This evidence is neither inherently improbably nor do we consider that it is contradicted by other evidence.

I have always maintained that what I did in relation to this matter was right and proper and that I would do it again. The day I cease to do that is the day I cease to be worthy of being a member of this parliament. When people come to see us on either side of this chamber, we have a right and a duty to uphold their wishes in trying to give them the best advice that we are able to give. Sadly, there are members who sit in this chamber today who were members of the 43rd Parliament, and there are many members of the press who went way beyond what was reasonable, what was right and what was proper in regard to matters before the courts.

People should have respect for our judicial system. They are right to make commentary once proceedings have been completed, as is the case with Mr Thomson. I remind this House that Mr Slipper's matters, both civil and criminal, are still before the courts. I have never made any judgment about his guilt or otherwise. It is for others to decide that. It would behove us all to raise the level of debate and decorum in this place, to respect our judicial processes and to allow people who feel they have been wronged in the workplace to have recourse. I think it was a very sad occasion when someone who felt they had been wronged was held out for ridicule and had their motives impugned, all for political purpose. What we as a body politic, and particularly those who sit opposite, have done has in many ways dissuaded others who have found themselves in equally heinous situations from coming forward. That does not reflect well upon any of us.

So I would say to all members of the media who like to jump to conclusions, who love to see conspiracies under every rock: take the time to read the judicial response by the full bench of the Federal Court. I invite those who made comments about me and others associated with this action that were unfair, unreasonable and inaccurate to reflect upon them and perhaps at some appropriate time to say something in that regard.

Debate interrupted.

House adjourned at 21:30