The issue is not if he is innocent or guilty, but rather if the parliament thinks he is the BEST representative to hold the high office he was given. Since he has stood down it is a mute point anyway, but if the government had voted to keep him in the speakers chair, it would signal that they thought he was best placed to take on the responsibilities of that role. A great many of those responsibilities are symbolic lets remember.
Brett was never elected to anything, Slipper was, twice. The first by his electorate can not be undone until the next election, but the second can be affected at any time. Every day the government was willing to allow him to stay in the chair is a day they effectively elected him to that role again, saying by extension that he was the best man for the job, and also that no member of the government was as able or more able.
He has saved the government a difficult political decision by stepping down, but Gillards judgment should be called into question for ever putting him there in the first place.
It will be interesting to see if he attempts to vote with the government, and if the government can be forced to disown him entirely.
manlyfan. said:
If found guilty they should definitely boot Slipper..
A note that the harassment charges are civil not criminal, ie. seeking of damages, and therefore will not force him from the parliament, even if he is forced to pay up. That is unless the resulting damages place Slipper in a bankrupt position.
The cab charge issue is a criminal charge however.