At the same time that Bill Clinton’s depraved behaviour has entered the American political debate, we have “the Jamie Briggs affair” to consider. This is the sentence from the story in The Oz that needs to be focused on first:

Because of … concerns that any action taken against Mr Briggs might be seen as vindictive towards a supporter of Tony Abbott …

We certainly wouldn’t want to have that. So what exactly is alleged. First there is this:

At one point, the staffer, a legal graduate on her first overseas posting, complained to Mr Eaton that Mr Briggs was standing too close to her. Mr Eaton suggested she stand next to him, which the staffer did until the night out wrapped up about 2am.

Then there is this:

The consular staffer told the investigator Mr Briggs had told her she had “piercing” eyes and had placed his arm around her and kissed her on the neck.

But then there is Brigg’s version:

Mr Briggs, a South Australian conservative, has told colleagues he told another person in the bar the staffer had “beautiful eyes”, had only placed his arm around her when posing for a photograph and gave her a goodnight kiss on the cheek. There was no independent witness to the incident.

And this is how the story ends:

Senior government sources have confirmed cabinet governance committee members were concerned about the precedent that would be set by a sacking or resignation over such a borderline incident.

The claim against Mr Briggs did not contain any specific allegation of sexual harassment but rather “inappropriate” attention, but the committee members also recognised there were no sanctions available other than a sacking or resignation.

The process was seen by some to direct the outcome because once the committee was presented with a declaration that ministerial guidelines had been breached, it had little option but to endorse it.

The story did not say which ministerial guidelines in particular had been breached.