Julia’s determination to swing the IR pendulum in favour of the worker may well be her own undoing.

When she wrote the FAIR WORK Act 2009, she sneakily included in (Div. 7, ANCILLARY RULES: Sec. 361) a grossly unfair and undemocratic “presumption of guilt” (as it applies to the employer when action is taken against him).

In the Ashby v Slipper (and others) case the “employer” in effect is Julia Gillard (the Commonwealth)… the second respondent.

She must have forgotten what she wrote. Her, and all her Ministers’, blustering about how Mr Slipper must be afforded the “presumption of innocence”, flies in the face of her own legislation.

According to Gillard’s FWA Act, Slipper is already guilty of “sexual harassment” in, or associated with, the workplace.

If he is already guilty he cannot resume the Speaker’s Chair until/unless, as Gillard’s FWA Act demands, he proves himself to be innocent.

This Section is not unusual and is similar to the iniquitous “default judgment” Sections of the Acts of other Govt Agencies, like the ATO.

They judge that you owe them money. You need to take them to court to prove them wrong! But can you afford the $100,000 to do that?

Most struggling companies simply hand over $20,000 to the employee the moment a woman (or in this case a man) claims sexual harassment. It’s simply not worth trying to compete against a “legal aid” funded litigant who shifts from company to company, making these claims an art form.

I said, after reading the court Docs, that Ashby’s sexual harassment claim had no chance, but how can we know this until well after the Budget Sitting? Julia’s Act says he is already guilty!

This is yet another example of a government being unaware of the scale of their own incompetence.

A fascinating political scenario is about to unfold in 10 days’ time.

Deputy Speaker, Anna Burke, will feel the warmth of Slipper’s recently departed arse in the Speaker’s Chair.

An ALP hard-liner and (yet another) ex Union Official, she will now be furiously swatting up on Standing Orders. She is hardly the stuff formerly revered and distinguished Speakers were made of but Gillard has little to choose from. Anna will do ok.

Gillard is an accident-prone P-plater with horrific judgment and a menace to everyone on the road. Her elevation of Slipper to Speaker was the stupid brainchild of Albanese. The Slipper move was always going to bite her on the bum… and now it has.

Interestingly it had nothing to do with Abbott or any of the mountain of dirt the Opposition had on him. It had plenty… they had sacked him twice. Slipper’s current alleged criminality and sordid deeds were all done from the Speaker’s Chair.

I said on this Page immediately Slipper was appointed: “That’s the end of Wilkie and his Poker Machine reform.” It was the sole reason for Slipper’s perilous appointment. It gave Gillard the room she needed to break the agreement with Wilkie. And she promptly did.

Poor Wee Willy never even saw it coming… “There is no reason to think the Prime Minister will not hold to her agreement”, he muttered with naive sincerity as he toted all his grand plans to the meeting she had asked for.

I raced to my drawing board and quickly penned the (re-run) cartoon.

So, where does this leave Gillard? Wee Willy now despises the woman who shattered his long-held dream with yet another broken agreement.

It is indeed ironic that Gillard now needs him more than ever… but only because of her ill-conceived Slipper appointment.

Wilkie is a simple man of honor and not born to opportunism. He is not the classic political animal. I doubt he will vote with the Opposition if it conflicts with his philosophy. Wilkie is a good Socialist at heart. He will certainly not vote with Abbott on a Motion of No Confidence to oust Gillard.

Oakeshott and Windsor simply picked the wrong horse. They voted for stability and got anything but that. Still, they are stuck with it. They are aware of the fatal consequences of siding with Abbott.

If one is allowed to extrapolate the latest State election results to Federal Labor, then Oakeshott polled a mere 13% and Windsor 8%. That is a record low for Labor. Voting with Abbott to force an election is tantamount to suicide.

On matters of the heart, or moral issues that align with the Coalition, Wilkie will no doubt embrace Abbott. There will be many parts of Swan’s “horror” budget certain to be anathema to the heart of Wilkie.

His support will result in a tied vote.

A tied vote, eh? Mmmmm. That means Anna Burke will be able to exercise her casting vote. But the Speaker’s vote should only be cast to maintain the status quo. Whoa, hang on, a tied vote on any question or motion means that it is NOT carried. How can an independent (disinterested) Deputy Speaker vote for change?

A Speaker’s impartiality is so sacrosanct that he/she may not even enter a Party Room, is even provided with a separate toilet, cannot debate legislation or vote, except in a tied deadlock, and even then, only to maintain that which already is!

So, a No Confidence Motion won’t get up. A money Bill is safe… but the Budget should not be!

Me thinks another hallowed Westminster convention of Gough proportions is about to be trashed.

Dawn on May 8 will herald an intriguing Budget Sitting… only this time the Governor General is on Gillard’s team.

Ya gotta luv politics, dontya?

“We will stay the course in Afghanistan beyond 2014”, said Julia Gillard as recently as March this year.

Someone has bought Julia a calendar and it says there will be an election well before 2014, so, we can justifiably continue to distrust whatever she utters.

The ADF brass will be throwing coffee cups at the walls. Thirty two families who have lost a loved one to this …hopeless cause will be wondering what it was all about.

But, never mind … Julia can now go to an election with our brave Australian lads tucked safely in bed.

We should never have been there in the first place. Let these Sharia besotted vermin return to their sick existence. We did not a thing about it while we were there so let them also continue to supply 96% of the World’s Opium.

Our real enemy in this arena is Pakistan.

Keep our Aussie boys out of these inane wars.

Let us in future sit in a lounge room chair with a computer that guides drones to pinpoint targets within an inch, anywhere in the World.

The days of this sort of war are surely over.

A High Court challenge to the carbon tax has a better than evens chance of success.

Constitutional challenges can only be made by people with deep pockets. There are many instances where governments and the judiciary daily run foul of the Constitution, but no-one challenges them.

For instance, the separation of Church and State is enshrined in our Constitution. Mmmm,… but they start Parliament with prayers, don’t they?

Free trade between the States is also enshrined. Mmmm, but try trading goods interstate to take advantage of different excise rates. They call that contraband and it carries a gaol sentence.

In law, default penalties are rife but are unconstitutional.

Family Law Courts routinely hand down judgements in blatant defiance of the Constitution… and so it goes on.

Sec. 55 and Sec. 51 of the Constitution should have Gillard and her bunch of dodgy legal advisers reaching for a stiff Scotch.

“The Commonwealth shall not impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.”
“The Commonwealth shall not discriminate between States or parts of States.”

Minerals are NOT listed in the Constitution as an area over which the Federal Parliament has jurisdiction. That will demand some expensive argument.

Does the Qld Govt own the Great barrier Reef? No, not really. It has certain ceded administrative rights but the Commonwealth has sovereignty up to and including the low-water mark under international law. Onshore jurisdiction is a much different matter and even differs between States and the Commonwealth. West Australia can argue it has sovereignty over its “non royal” metals such as iron ore.

I’m no lawyer but when Gillard says Clive’s challenge doesn’t concern her I’m inclined to think she’s a gonner.

Polygamy has no sexual reference in historical terms.

The polygamous man was an economic imperative. Only men went to war and only men’s numbers were decimated (reduced by one tenth) each time a war was, and still is, waged. Women, even today, are not permitted near the front line.

[The Latin derivative “Decimation” describes a Roman military custom of killing one in ten of ...its own soldiers. It was used extensively and encouraged bravery on the battlefield. The soldier considered it far better to fight to the death with reckless abandon rather than be executed in ignominy ]

The Generals needed returning soldiers to maximise the economic re-growth of the community. No fertile uteri could be squandered. If it was, then the community was sentenced to death… the enemy eventually had the advantage of numbers.

Middle Eastern cultures still adhere to this imperative with their harems and seraglios.

Usually the higher-ranked military personnel had the choice of the bereft widows. The successful warriors bore the genetic make-up considered so important to long-term survival.

Women (men with wombs) were prizes of war. Many an army raided a city with the sole aim of capturing women.

It was a Christian instruction to, “take unto thyself thy brother’s wife”. I haven’t heard the reverse. Why not? Because a woman can produce but once a year. A man can produce a thousand times a year. So there was never a need for a woman to engage with multiple men.

But there was an empirical need for a man to engage with multiple women.

Mmmm, I’m not unhappy about the extension of this custom, but when I expound this theory socially, I am rarely successful.

“My front bench will reflect the best chance to take it up to the Opposition”, she said with manufactured authority.

With due respect to the eminent Ms Gillard… what a load of smelly camel shit!

Talent is the last consideration! The rabid dogs are now transparently fighting over the corpse of Kevin.

Foreign Affairs is the most coveted portfolio of all: An unlimited budget to enjoy first-class Qantas travel, five star hotels, limitless credit cards and endless embassy wanky drinkies. The spoils of war.

The recipients of almost all Gillard promotions in the past 18 months, including the despicably partisan “Fair Work Australia”, have been union hacks… the real prime movers of the Labor machine.

Those same hacks gleefully fell into line behind Rudd when he artfully wrested government from Howard. Once the prize was theirs they immediately set about eliminating him in the most sickening way, via the NSW right faction, without reference to Caucus or Cabinet.
Even Abib suffered guilt.

The reason given for the killing of Kevin? “He was unelectable.” So now we have an even more unelectable Prime Minister! Where are the factions that might now rid us of her? Well, they have been paid off, so she is safe. She is safe as long as she can avoid the will of the people.

This vindictive piece of homework, at the behest of the Greens and union lackeys, has set about gazetting odious, socialist legislation that Abbott can’t reverse. She will continue to do this for as long as she remains. Reasonable historians will analyse this approbrium with shame.