It is official. The Australian Federal Police have wimped out on the entire Bronwyn Bishop saga and I now have the letter from them to confirm it, with one Commander Jennifer Hurst claiming responsibility.

The attention in Parliament and elsewhere focuses on the types of expenditure by Bishop and the unreasonable quantum of specific claims. But under current arrangements, the Department of Finance is the appropriate point of investigating in the first1_1_vd-bronnie-scowls-2-620x349 instance albeit one that has a pretty pathetic record of not doing much. However there is a very serious aspect of the Bishop affair that most certainly IS a matter for the Crime Operations.

  1. In 2006 Bronwyn Bishop MP claimed some $600 in expenses to travel to Albury NSW.
  2. In subsequent discussion of the matter, former-Speaker Bishop publicly declared the travel was to attend to ‘official business.’
  3. More recently staff from former-Speaker Bishop’s office publicly confirmed that the ‘official business’ was ‘committee chair’ business.
  4. An investigation by Fairfax Media confirmed that official documentation in then-MP Bishop’s handwriting confirmed the claim as being for ‘committee chair’ business.
  5. The Fairfax investigation also confirmed that the only committee of which then-MP Bishop was chair in 2006 did NOT have any official or scheduled business in the city of Albury at any time that year.
  6. Consequently it would appear that Bronwyn Bishop has claimed travel expenses from the Commonwealth for non-existent business and the official statements in respect of the matter make it clear that this would not have been an accidental claim.

In other words it very much appears that Bronwyn Bishop has made a completely fraudulent claim on the Commonwealth. Why? Because apparently just as Tony Abbott originally did, she believed – and her refusal to ever admit any wrong-doing in this means she continues to believe – the Australian taxpayer should have funded her travel to attend the wedding of her parliamentary colleague, Sophie Mirabella. The difference of course is that Abbott at least had the brains to repay the funds once it came to public attention. But in sticking to her guns, Bishop actually  provided the impetus for the investigation which has shown her to have every appearance of being a damned liar.

882295-peter-slipperWhat were the grounds for the AFP to commence investigating Peter Slipper for potential fraud? On the information received that he had done things that had the appearance of fraudulent conduct. But we now have a clearly documented public record of Bronwyn Bishop claiming expenses for completely non-existent ‘committee chair’ business. Surely this is just as much a prima facie case of potential fraud as the Slipper case was.

For the record, in regard to the Peter Slipper matter it should be noted that the Court ultimately did not find he had failed to do the acts as accused but rather there was a deficiency in the prosecution of the case thus leaving him innocent by virtue of not having been proved guilty.

This whole matter raises a very important question. Why did the AFP rush to investigate one matter yet when faced with another matter which revolves around the exact same principle and initial evidentiary basis, decide to simply wimp out?

Am I the only person smelling the stench of political interference and pressure?

Comments
  1. […] Posted: August 6, 2015 in Ranting Tags: Australian Federal Police, fraud, Bronwyn Bishop, australian federal politics, Peter Slipper,Speaker 0 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.