Why was Slipper charged?

[***super_nova***]

Under the Minchin protocol, when questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back.  Slipper offered to pay.  So why the double standard?  Charge them all or let Slipper go.

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/

if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

When the AFP charged Peter Slipper, I broke the story that he had been treated differently than other MPs. Under the Minchin Protocol, if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

When the AFP charged Peter Slipper, I broke the story that he had been treated differently than other MPs. Under the Minchin Protocol, if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

FR I think you are conveniently overlooking due process.

"the decision to issue the summons was made by the Australian Federal Police, an independent statutory office.

"The investigation and charging of any person is a matter for the law enforcement authorities - the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions,"

---

Thats part of the problem, who referred this matter to the federal police when the usual practice is to go before the parliamentary priveleges committee ? it's become obvious slipper is not the worst offender, so his claim of political motivation stands up... especially in light of the judge's scathing assessment of the Ashby farce. its a very murky business, possibly murkier than slippers recreational habits.

[i-once-was-bump]

When Ms Gillard announced there would be an election in September from that time on it could be found that all travel within Australia from that time onwards was for political gain and nothing to do with good governing. Ms Gilllard should be paying back alot of money or maybe at least prove that she was not campaigning at any time after announcing the date of the election.

We can go back and forth for days picking one pollitician  each from each side of the house but it will get us no where. The pollies can claim this money and it is very unclear what rules they have to meet for the claim to be granted.

Slipper is different in that he is alleged to have falsified his claims.

Just give them an extra payment and don't let them have a cent more no matter what they do or where they go.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

As for those events that Tony Abbott claimed for. The question I ask is would this event be done even though he was not in the political position he was in? Chances are no... if he were just Joe Bloggs he would probably not travel to these locations and do what he did. (1)

Along with the adulation politicians get they also get a lot of abuse along the way... they do not just do things because they enjoy them.. they do them as part of their jobs. (2)

Labor MP's claim to visit Union meetings and Union get togethers and people seem to think that that is all ok. The difference is that they seem to have an obvious tie yet in reality they are just back slapping to get the particular union on side to help keep them in power. In comparison the Coalition MP's visit everone else that is not in a union at the functions that they go to. 

If Tony cant visit a charity event and claim then Shorten can't visit union delegations and claim. 

_________________________

You are defending the indefensible again.

(1)  Nonsense. Many people travel to take part in charity events. My husband (your average Joe Bloggs) went to Tassie last year with a friend to take part in a biking event that I think was for Down Syndrome. There were plenty of interstate people there. No one claimed their expenses. Lots of Joe Bloggs out there.

(2) Firstly I will ignore your comment about abuse that is levelled at politicians as no-one copped abuse on the scale that Gillard did. Yet this was deemed acceptable even by you. Secondly, Abbott always made out that he was doing these events because he DID enjoy them, not because they were part of his job. His enterouge regularly made him out to be a generous giver of his time and an all round good bloke for 'volunteering'. So I suggest this isn't really a good point to bring up. Thirdly, what about other politicians that gave up their time (and money) for many of the same events? Oakeshott is one good example - attended many of the same events and did not claim a single cent.

(3) Union events and meetings are legitimate business on both sides of politics. I can't fathom how it is that you can't tell the difference between a union event or a colleagues wedding? In the same way that a politician might claim expenses for a lunch for an event for small businesses.  Or the sports minister might claim expenses for a conference dinner to celebrate an Olympians life. The link to what their job is about is very specific. But weddings are PERSONAL business. There is no link to what their job is.

[monman12]

Ll: "who referred this matter to the federal police when the usual practice is to go before the parliamentary priveleges committee ? it's become obvious slipper is not the worst offender,"

"who referred this matter to the federal police"?, come on LL, it was Ashby when he made his sexual harassment charge against Slipper,  and the AFP were obliged to  follow due process.

"it's become obvious slipper is not the worst offender" Codswallop, or they (whoever),  would also be investigated by the Plod.