The special minister of state is under pressure over the Slipper scandal, but what is Ashbygate, why does it matter and what does it have to do with the PM?

Mal Brough, the special minister of state, is under intense political pressure over his role in the downfall of the former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper. Below are answers to key questions about the issue.

Malcolm Turnbull on Mal Brough: 'Guilt or innocence is not determined by public denunciation' – politics live Read more

What is #Ashbygate?

The term refers to an alleged conspiracy to damage Slipper and by extension the Gillard minority government in the 43rd parliament. James Ashby, a former staffer to the then speaker, launched a sexual harassment case against Slipper in April 2012.

The allegations led to Slipper standing aside and ultimately quitting from the role of presiding over the House of Representatives. It was in response to Tony Abbott’s parliamentary motion about Slipper’s explicit text messages that Julia Gillard delivered her well-known “misogyny speech”.

How did the court proceedings play out?

In December 2012, the federal court judge Steven Rares threw out Ashby’s case on the grounds of abuse of process. Rares found the “predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper” and that Ashby “acted in combination” with another Slipper staffer, Karen Doane, and Brough “in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough”.

Ashby challenged those findings and, in February 2014, two of the three federal court judges who subsequently considered the issue set aside the orders. They said the evidence before Rares did not warrant the adverse finding said to constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Despite succeeding in this procedural matter, Ashby later decided to drop the case.

Why is it back in the news now?

Malcolm Turnbull’s decision in September to elevate Brough to the role of special minister of state invited fresh focus on the issue – particularly because his ministerial responsibilities relate to parliamentary entitlements and staffing. (Brough defeated Slipper in the contest for the seat of Fisher at the 2013 election and would become one of Turnbull’s key backers in the leadership challenge).

The day after the ministerial swearing-in ceremony, Guardian Australia revealed the Australian federal police (AFP) were still actively investigating the alleged unauthorised disclosure of Slipper’s official diaries in 2012.

The investigation came to a head on 17 November, with the AFP executing search warrants on several properties on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. Brough confirmed his property was among them, but said he was happy to cooperate and had handed over the same documents that had been presented to the federal court. The investigation remains active and no charges have been announced.

What is Mal Brough accused of?

Brough was named in an extract of a search warrant published by the Australian newspaper. The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, read the warrant allegations into the parliamentary record last week:

Between 23 March and 13 April 2012, Malcolm Thomas Brough, born 29 December 1961, counselled and procured James Hunter Ashby, being a commonwealth officer, to disclose extracts from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Slipper’s 2009 to 2012 official diary, and provide those extracts to third parties without authority, contrary to section 70(1) of the Crimes Act … Between 23 March and 13 April 2012, Malcolm Thomas Brough, born 29 December 1961, counselled and procured James Hunter Ashby … to access restricted data, namely the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Slipper’s 2009 to 2012 official diary, contrary to section 478.1 of the Criminal Code.

Breaching those sections, if proven in a court of law, can attract two-year jail terms.

In parliament, Dreyfus also reprised details of some of the material previously tendered in the federal court: “On 29 March 2012 James Ashby sent a text message to the minister which included pages of the Speaker’s official diary. The minister sent a text back which said, ‘Can that be emailed James it is hard to read Mal.brough2@bigpond.com’.”

Brough denies any wrongdoing. “I stand by all of my actions as being entirely appropriate and entirely honest,” he told parliament this week.

Did Brough mislead the parliament about his 60 Minutes interview?

An interview that originally went to air in 2014 has dominated parliamentary questions about Brough’s alleged conduct, because he spoke about his interactions with Ashby and the diary claims.

Brough invited fresh focus on the 60 Minutes exchange when he told parliament on Tuesday that “what was put to air was not the full question”. This prompted the Nine Network to release a lengthy transcript and video.

The originally broadcast program included this exchange:

Liz Hayes: Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper’s diary for you? Brough: Yes I did.

The newly released material contained the following exchange:

Hayes: Um why then also did you um assis, seek well, [plane noise] did you ask James Ashby to procure um copies of Peter Slipper’s diary for for you? Brough: Yes I did.

The transcript suggests the omission of the false start at the beginning of the exchange did not materially affect the substance of the proposition to which Brough was agreeing – even if in a strict legal sense it was true that part of the question was edited out.

Brough came into the chamber on Wednesday morning to apologise “if my statement yesterday unwittingly added to the confusion rather than clarifying the matter” – but in question time he declined to explain which other part he had thought he was answering. He did, however, provide a categorical “no” when Dreyfus asked the same question that Hayes had asked.

Where does the PM stand on the issue?

Malcolm Turnbull has dismissed calls to sack Brough, saying there have been no new developments and nothing added to the material that had been in the public domain for years.

Turnbull, who expressed cautious confidence in Brough when the AFP search was confirmed, last week left the door open to reconsidering the issue if there were new developments. On Wednesday the prime minister said: “Guilt or innocence is not determined by public denunciation, here or anywhere else.”

Mal Brough firmly denies asking for copies of Peter Slipper's diary Read more

The government may be judging that the political pressure could subside after parliament rises on Thursday evening, because the summer recess will deprive Labor of the opportunity to continue to ask questions under the protection of privilege. But the counter-argument for the prime minister to act early would be to pre-empt potential developments in the AFP investigation.

Why does it matter?

The Slipper diary issue is significant because the AFP is examining whether anyone breached the law in connection with the alleged unauthorised release of that material. To the extent that any allegations relate to Brough, they would carry added significance because the prime minister entrusted him with the portfolio that is closely associated with government integrity matters. The fact that the allegations had been widely publicised prior to Brough’s appointment opens up questions about the standards the prime minister expects of his ministers.