Barnaby Joyce, it seems, may be about to escape lasting consequences in relation to his alleged actions in 2016 toward Catherine Marriott, who has accused him of sexual harassment. He is widely expected to replace Michael McCormack as Nationals leader, even if that does not occur this week, despite the failure of the Nationals Party administration to resolve Marriott’s complaint in the face of Joyce’s vigorous denial of the allegations. While most media coverage of the Nationals’ leadership issue noted Joyce had been the subject of a complaint, few journalists seemed to think the unresolved status of the complaint (the party was unable to make a determination after an eight-month investigation) was in any way an impediment to his return to the deputy prime ministership.
If that occurs, the only person who will have suffered consequences is Marriott, who was outed by the Nationals despite her desire for privacy, quite apart from her personal distress that she says was caused by Joyce’s alleged actions. The outing of Marriott was a perfect demonstration of the weird logic of the claim that women invent allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful men for their own benefit; rarely is the process of raising allegations anything other than deeply hurtful to women.
Luke Foley’s case is quite different. The claim that the New South Wales Opposition Leader engaged in sexual harassment of an ABC journalist at a Christmas function was made under parliamentary privilege by a political opponent. The journalist in question has made no complaint. Foley strongly rejects the claim and has invited his accuser to repeat the allegation outside parliamentary privilege, as well as threatening to sue The Australian if it published the allegations. As anyone who remembers the smears about Paul Keating’s personal life in the 1990s can relate, the Liberals have form in peddling sleaze.
Where the cases do intersect, however, is that neither NSW Labor nor the Nationals are actually going to do anything. Indeed, unlike the Nationals, NSW Labor isn’t even carrying out any investigation. Such an investigation may be stymied by the unwillingness of the alleged victim of harassment to co-operate, but things haven’t been permitted to get that far. As a result, it is plausible that Luke Foley will become premier of NSW next year with an allegation of sexual harassment against him unresolved.
Foley has also responded to the allegation by suggesting he has allegations to make against four Coalition frontbenchers if the NSW government pressed the issue. Yesterday, he invited a debate on the claim about him, saying “we welcome it to talk about you and you and you and you [pointing to ministers]. Bring it on.” This appeared to pass unremarked but is astonishing: in effect, Foley has alluded to some form of misconduct — we don’t know what, or whether it relates only to sexual harassment — by ministers of the Crown, but will not raise the issues publicly unless he is attacked first. Foley might be talking about scuttlebutt and gossip, or something more serious. We don’t know.
It’s entirely possible that Foley is the victim of a smear by his opponents. It’s possible, too, that Joyce didn’t engage in any harassment. But it is no longer acceptable that they can compete for high office while the issues remain unresolved.
I cant see how these two events can be considered of equal seriousness. One event has been reported to the wrong authority by the recipient of the unwanted attention, subsequently “investigated” by that organisation and swept under the carpet and left the victim feeling ignored and the issue unresolved. The other has been mentioned under privilege by a political opponent.
I’m no fan of Foley but if the ABC journalist has not complained about his behavior we have only the word of an opponent from within the cowards castle of Parliament that anything at all took place.
Under those circumstance only a fool would step aside.
I don’t think Bernard even argued that though? Both that they were equally serious or that Foley must step aside.
There must be some subtleties in the sentence “Neither Barnaby Joyce nor Luke Foley should be in a position to seek high office while sexual harassment allegations, which they deny, go unresolved.”
As both men are seeking re-election in the next 6 months I naturally concluded from the above that BK was suggesting they should exclude themselves.
Let’s put it this way Draco : neither have been charged (much less convicted – and I include the similar stuff that was applied to Shorten
a few years ago) with any inappropriate behaviour. Such being the case there exists a presumption of innocence. Thirdly, rather than
have Mr K. doing the electorate’s thinking for it let’s leave the matter to the electorate.
They don’t have to be considered of equal seriousness to agree that the extortion attempt by Foley is out of order. If he knows of some immoral or illegal behaviour, he should speak up about it regardless.
Bernard sadly can’t get over his complete and utter antipathy towards the New South Wales’ ALP.
All political pieces he writes or arguments he utters end with a loud denunciation of the NSW branch of the party and a claim that they must never again be allowed to govern the state.
yes well the both the NSW ALP & Coalition have form…they’re both as bad as each other…having lived in Sydney most of my adult life…both sides have had a tendency towards the pig in trough behaviour with political & (various) council’s shady/dodgy dealings, (that were always more than a little questionable)…
Yes, Foley’s retaliation is almost as bad as Michaelia Cash’s idiot threat to make allegations about Bill Shorten’s staffers. At least his innuendo doesn’t smear anyone identifiable, whereas Cash’s innuendo implictly smeared every woman working in Shorten’s office.
People say dumb stuff when angry and under pressure. If Foley actually knows of allegations which he has enough information to report, he ought to come out with them, and if he doesn’t he ought to withdraw what he said.
As for the allegation against him, if the alleged victim isn’t claiming anything and this is solely from a political opponent, how can it be “resolved” without outing the alleged victim and harassing her into saying yay or nay in public, something which should not be regarded as acceptable.
I have been thinking about your last remark for a few days Arky. Contrary to you it is entirely incumbent upon the “alleged victim” to put-up or shut-up. The country is collapsing under moral cowardice and dobbiing with anonymity.
And now she has Kyle. The details of the incident are pretty shocking and now should see the end of Foley’s political career. To give the ABC reporter credit she has been willing to give far more details than the Woman Joyce was alleged to have bothered.
Like Kavanaugh in the US, Joyce’s caravan rolls on.
Flawed and dangerous logic. The lives of people cannot be put on hold because of unproven smears of any nature, sexual, financial, whatever. Otherwise allegations become dreadful life altering events, even though unproven and potentially false. Allegation becomes weaponised.
The world needs less allegation and innuendo right now, the media, including this writer, thrive on it.
This is crap, Bernard. Not analogous at all, the two cases. You’ve made absolutely no case against Foley, other than his unsavoury threats in Parliament. Your assertions are no stronger than those made by the LNP muckraker who raised the ‘allegation’ in the safety zone of Parliament, and which you liken to ‘peddling sleaze’.
It’s almost like Bernard has some generalised non-specific hatred of the ALP in NSW, based on stuff that happened almost a decade ago, involving people who are either no longer in parliament or completely excised from any role in the leadership of the party.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait, that’s exactly what it is
Again, a subjective media – with their own agenda, access and sources to protect – is allowing this to happen without reflection, or regard for a bigger picture :- “Catherine Marriott?????”?
As for Foley – if he is prepared to “let it pass” – “When you turn a blind eye to atrocities, you are complicit in them”.