A little while ago, it was revealed that the Queensland taxpayers were picking up the bill for Campbell Newman’s indefensible defence in a defamation action brought against him and Jarrod Bleijie (aka Boy Wonder) for accusing two Gold Coast lawyers of being bikie criminals, apparently on the sole basis that they were fulfilling the professional obligation of providing some bikies with a defence. The bill amounted to $0.5 million, and was greatly increased because Newman and Bleijie refused to mitigate the damages by apologising.
Now, thanks to the Oz, we learn how we are paying for the new State Executive Building, which Newman and then-Treasurer Tim Nicholls assured us we would get for nothing as part of a complex land deal. In reality, it turns out Newman left us on the hook for a 15-year lease at above market prices. Of course, the Oz being the Oz, this is presented as the fault of the current Labor government, which denounced the deal at the time and has continued to do so.
7 thoughts on “Campbell Newman: the gift that keeps on taking”
Another illustration of the case for euthyna.
And what is at the bottom of this? And is it pretty?
aka Boy Wonder aka The Articled Clerk
Thanks for reading The Australian Pravda, Professor, so we don’t have to.
Re: the new State Executive building. It is my understudying a similarly dumb deal was done by Brisbane City Council (also under Mr Newman’s watch) when they moved to their new (rented) premises on George St.
I agree. It’s not a concept I was familiar with until I looked it up but it makes sense. Politicians speak with grotesquely inappropriate pride of “being humbled by the trust placed in them”. Perhaps it should be borne in on politicians that the humbling will be very real if they breach trust or waste public funds while in office.
John agree but also emphasise for a lawyer and a politically motivated premier[presumably advised] to knowingly skate so close in the law of defamation would only suggest stupidity or a miscalculation of the risk in assuming such an evident high risk position or combinations of the two.
Surely the law, concerning the course of work duty to determine liability of an employer for an employee’s tortuous conduct, should be applied when such a blatant defamation was undertaken for base political advantage and liability for damages should reside with only these two.
I cannot but see the similarity of the Slipper and Thomson “bad-mouthing” by the Coaltion inc. Abbott, Pyne, Branis, Bishop etc. all before both being charged and before trial. These 4 claim to be lawyers also. Slipper was acquitted of all charges Thomson nearly.
It would seem these two lawyers defamed are highly regarded professionally and it is proper they should be compensated and these two punished for their hurtful misconduct. If for no other reason than to raise the quality of future political debate.