This Flat White article is written by a guest author.

---

This is a tale of two Liberal leaders in Australia: one federal, one state. These are two men who both made a similar decision to remove a sitting member from their Parliamentary parties.

It is a tale of similarities, but also one of difference.

Peter Dutton and John Pesutto are the same age. It cannot be argued they came from different eras impacted by different mores and the like.

The Law links, and separates, these men. They come from different sides of the legal aisle: Dutton was a policeman and detective in Queensland, Pesutto a suburban lawyer in Melbourne.

They also have in common the original speed with which they reacted to their party room exiles.

But the chasm between them roars open when one looks at the reasoning and behaviour of each in executing these matters.

Pesutto led the sacking of a female for sticking up for females. Moira Deeming had attended a pro-women rally in Melbourne in March. Deeming not only spoke in the Parliament about her intention to attend the rally, but she also told her leader beforehand. He did nothing to stop her.

Unfortunately for Deeming, the rally was gate-crashed by men sympathising with Nazis, or at the very least, pretending to. Pesutto’s reaction? He gathered his leadership team, and by the next day, Deeming was told she would be dumped from the party room.

His weapon of choice was a 14-page Wikipedia-inspired dossier to back allegations she was aligned to, and had associated with, Nazi sympathisers. Even before the dossier was complete, he had announced to the media her guilt, describing the dossier as an effective compilation of proof.

His intention to expel her was also told to the media first, and party room second. Critically, he failed to display an even hand by advising the media that Deeming had refuted the allegations and already denounced the Nazis and Nazism.

A party room vote days later, caused Pesutto to gulp.

All MPs were allowed a say on the proposed expulsion, but none could continue with the vote after Deeming spoke. She articulated multiple rapes, extolled a quintessentially Liberal set of beliefs, and most importantly, a revelation that she had been partly raised by a holocaust survivor. She was no Nazi sympathiser and Pesutto looked silly.

He was forced into scrapping together a face-saving alternative, a 9-month suspension from the party room, with conditions attached, including full exoneration of the Nazi imputation.

Yet weeks later, in what we can call ‘Meeting 2’, he ultimately got his way in a 19-11 vote for Deeming to be sacked. He cited no evidence. Deeming, meanwhile, claimed that he had not upheld his conditions from ‘Meeting 1’, a position that led her to consider legal action to defend her family name.

It was a sordid multi-week mess, and it lingers on.

In contrast, Peter Dutton completed his response in Canberra within 24 hours of being presented with accusations of a sexual nature regarding one of his male senators.

The allegations raised sparked the second accusation, this time from a former female MP (also a former lawyer). The second complaint had the benefit of contemporaneous notes from 2020. It’s understood a third accusation has also been made.

One day later, Senator David Van resigned from the Liberal Party – unhappy and smarting at what he described as a ‘disregard for due process and natural justice’, indeed ‘a travesty of justice’. He has strongly denied all allegations.

That said, the differences between Dutton and Pesutto are evident.

Dutton had unanimous party room support for his decision to remove the Senator from the parliamentary party. Pesutto did not have unanimous support – in fact – only 5 votes had to change for Deeming to be still sitting in the room alongside her elected colleagues, fighting for women – not against them – under the Liberal banner.

Pesutto presented three versions of minutes of Meeting 1 in which Deeming was ultimately suspended. He still can’t say with clarity what she did wrong to bring about Meeting 2 during which she was sacked.

Dutton, in contrast, had three people provide alleged evidence of potential wrongdoing. Upon recognising the seriousness of the accusations, and without imposing guilt, he stepped away from further judgment by putting the investigatory responsibility into the hands of the federal Parliament’s new independent workplace authority, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS.

Who knows if it will go further than that.

Dutton made it clear why he acted.

Pesutto is yet to convince many, including in his own party room, of what Deeming has done wrong. The lawyer in him maintained the vagaries.

Dutton had face-to-face discussions directly with those involved – and with little time wasted, sent it to the PWSS. It is understood (although not confirmed) that Pesutto has neither spoken to, nor met with Deeming, since the day after the women’s rally.

Both exiled MPs claim to have done no wrong and assert an absence of procedural fairness.

Both face serious outcomes: the reason for one emanating from attending a women’s rally, the other for allegations of bad behaviour towards women.

Both leaders of these MPs are judged, and will be judged, on the outcomes of their actions in these matters. For one, at least, the court may decide their ultimate fate.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in