Christian Porter, after discontinuing his defamation suit against the ABC, is in the same position as before he commenced the ill-fated litigation. In the absence of an independent inquiry into the allegations of sexual assault from the 1980s, he can’t remain in cabinet.
When he commenced the suit, Porter’s lawyers made much of his willingness to deny the claims under oath. Yesterday, Porter was still insisting “I was willing to go under oath and to say what I have always said that the things alleged did not happen”.
Even some in the media have parroted this line. “Porter indicated through his lawyers in March that he was willing to give evidence under oath. Now he will not have that chance,” wrote one journalist today.
Except the only person denying him that chance is Porter himself. If denying the allegations under oath was so important, Porter didn’t have to withdraw his suit — which he did so in exchange for a bland statement of the obvious from the ABC, that some readers of the article in question had wrongly interpreted it as an accusation of guilt.
Insisting after the event that he would have defended himself isn’t the same as doing it.
An independent judicial inquiry, in which Porter would be required to give evidence under oath, could fix Porter’s concern quickly and easily.
Deprived, if only by his own assessment of his prospects for success in a defamation suit, of a chance to defend himself, Porter would surely welcome an independent inquiry appointed by the federal government. It would be considerably cheaper than a defamation case, for starters.
Put another way, Porter and his media defenders — including at News Corp where, apparently, he has inflicted the mother of all defeats on the ABC — can’t have it both ways.
While the allegations against Porter — and the circumstances in which NSW police failed to investigate them — remain untested, Porter cannot credibly remain in cabinet. The solution is straightforward — an independent judicial inquiry initiated by the prime minister.
Porter’s conduct in relation to the ABC’s reporting have shone a light on why Porter seemed to have had so much difficulty living up to the requirement that, as attorney-general, he be a “model litigant”. As Crikey has detailed, Porter and his barrister were chipped three times by three separate ACT magistrates for their obstruction of the Bernard Collaery case under the guise of national security.
Last year Porter threatened to sue the ABC over Four Corners‘ revelations of allegations of affairs and “being drunk in public and making unwanted advances to women” by Porter, but never followed through. When he finally sued the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over her story about allegations against an unnamed cabinet minister, he:
- sought to prevent the ABC’s defence from being made public (in a very clear echo of his efforts as attorney-general to ensure Bernard Collaery was prosecuted in secret and prevent Collaery from seeing evidence used against him)
- used a platform provided by the government’s media allies to demand the ABC act “expeditiously” on his trial (even, hilariously, demanding the ABC “conduct the litigation according to their obligations as a model litigant”)
- pleaded the right to retain his conflicted barrister Sue Chrysanthou on the basis that “it is a critically important right for any citizen in legal proceedings to choose his or her own counsel” after he had tried to delay Bret Walker SC from joining Collaery’s legal team (Porter later hired Walker himself).
Porter then misrepresented the terms of his discontinuation of his suit yesterday by saying the ABC did not defend his claim and “explicitly stated that they regret the outcome of the article and the reporting contained in it”, which was untrue. He alleged that Milligan had coached witnesses to destroy evidence and accused producer Sally Neighbour of lying about the fact that the ABC will not be paying damages and only the costs of mediation.
Hardly “model litigant” stuff from a man who used to be the first law officer of the nation. Porter now generously says that he doesn’t want his old job back. In the absence of an independent inquiry, he shouldn’t have a job in cabinet at all.
I found amazing Mr Porter announcing so instantly, so forcefully and so confidently: I won, I won, I won, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah. The sign of winning is when the offending article is ordered to be expunged from the ABC web-site, yet I understand that this has not been ordered. I think that Mr Porter’s return to bombastic talk-up is a sign of the absolute over-confidence and the power of self-entitled bullshit that masquerades as competence in the present crop of politicians. His return to the me-Tarzan approach I found an unconvincing contrast to the snivelling self-pitying persona he presented when he outed himself (btw only after being named in alternative media, not by ABC). Mental health issue my arse.
All the ABC needed to do was issue an editorial apology attached to the article apologising for the “consequences of publishing the article.” That doesn’t sound like an apology to me. That’s like me telling a racist joke, you getting offended and me apologising for the fact I offended you, rather than for the substance of the joke!
Apologise for what, Mike? They never once mentioned Porter’s name, nor did they even imply that the Minister in question was guilty of the crime mentioned in the document. Porter outed himself, made a defense of himself that made him look *more* guilty, then decided to try and punish the ABC for his idiotic mistake. I think the qualification added to the original article is extremely generous on the part of the ABC, and more than Porter deserved.
You are right that the ABC’s statement does not read like a real apology. That is the point. It is not an apology, it should not be read as an apology, and it would be a matter of regret if someone took it as an apology.
Alan Jones got à wet lettuce slap much harder than the ABC
I’d say Porter’s declration of total vindication is no more than standard operating procedure. There are countless examples from others. Jeffrey Archer, (author, Tory politician and dreadful liar) comes to mind, after he sued sex worker Monica Coughlan in 1987 for revealing their relationship. The trial was sensational in a number of ways. Archer boasted exorbitantly about the result of that case completely vindicating him, until in 2001 he was convicted of perjury during the earlier trial and sentenced to four years prison. A long way short of justice for Monica Coughlan, though. Her life was ruined and she died horribly, hit by a stolen car, just before Archer was convicted and her story vindicated.
Wow, poor Diana
What is your point?
You should be proud of that succinct yet perfect description of events. He will eat his own arse to save it.
He doesn’t want to defend himself (or the indefensible). He just wants it to all go away without having to do that and somehow, miraculously, be declared innocent.
Whilst also proclaiming that continuing on with the defamation trial would have caused great pain to the deceased woman’s family and friends, so he is glad that it is not continuing. Where was this concern whilst the woman was alive?
It’s what his entire life life, having risen without trace, has led him to expect – “Effort? Moi?”.
He is a slease.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, during the mediation session, the ABC showed him all the material they collected in their research and said, “We had a lot of information that we didn’t run with out of concern of genuinely defaming you, do you want to take this through the courts?”
The ABC has ended this by issuing an apology for the fallout but not for the article itself (Which is like one of those classic, “I apologise for any offence caused” non-apologies) and CP gets to exit this and save face.
Very likely indeed. The prospect of weeks of witnesses relaying allegations would have been very damaging to him, whatever the outcome.
Incidentally, hilarious that News Corp is amongst the parties objecting to Porter’s bid to have some details expunged from court files.
Indeed. And with an early election a distinct possibility all this filthy washing flapping about in public for weeks won’t do the Liberals’ chances much good either. Maybe Scotty put the hard word on him.
It’s so News Corp. The smell of juicy scandal makes them forget whose side they’re supposed to be on.
Chance to set those uppity Sandgropers straight, nay ?
A lot of us Sandgropers would be very pleased if Mr Porter “retired” at the next election.
Along with the 9 media, release of the information would keep their profits soaring. Lots to write about would be their drift and for some time.
And then there’s always the possibility that the court case might inconveniently jog the memories of a few other women.
The ABC did not issue an apollogy. It said only that it regretted that some people had misinterpreted its report on an accusation of rape that it was reporting that Porter was guilty as alleged. It did not regret publishing its story or any other “fallout”.
Given his efforts to remove the ABCs defense from public records, very likely
Yes, give the speed and strenuousness of his efforts to strike out the ABC’s supporting documentation I would think it contains damning material. He then had to discontinue the action so that the documents wouldn’t be made public.
Absolutely spot-on, Mike. The cessation of his case against the ABC was entirely predictable. Whatever the result of the aborted trial might have been, Porter was going to come out of it more shamed and ridiculed than before. There can’t be any other reason for his pathetic attempt to have the ABC’s evidence hidden from public view.
Even by the “standards” of the Morrison government, this has been an ignoble and inglorious episode. Porter has behaved like the arrogant entitled prep school boy that he still is at heart. The taxpayers have watched the highly-respected ABC have to spend precious funds indulging Porter in his unprecedented attack on the national broadcaster, and still be denied resolution of the case against him. He is unfit to continue as a Federal MP.
Would a liar care about an oath? “A liar is not believed even though he tells the truth” Cicero.
What about the little boy who cried wolf.Riddle me that?
What about him? He lied repeatedly and then no one believed him when he told the truth.
The point is not so much that terror of breaking his oath would of itself compel truth (though it presumably has that effect on a few sufficiently pious individuals), but that being proven to have lied on oath has consequences, potentially very serious, that almost any liar would indeed care about.
Doesn’t seem to bother the PM……..
He has a brand based on it. He is great at it too. I love listening to him when he wofts off on a rant
Like trumpnuffies that rejoiced trump bs it fills the lungs, narcs the brain and leaves you sated
Step on Scotty
Has the PM lied on oath? I’m not suggesting it’s impossible, just that I’m not aware of an occasion he gave evidence on oath.
He has lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, to Parliament which is an offence equivalent to perjury.
Once upon a time that was a sackable offence.
Isn’t he kind of under oath every time he speaks in Parliament? Multiple examples of him being untruthful in that setting. I’m sure fellow Crikers can cite some examples.
Many of which have been well documented here for the last week.
Not really. There was briefly a period in England in the 17th C when Parliament’s sovereignty was actual rather than theoretical. Now ministers do not answer to Parliament in any real way, and the only arbiter of ministerial conduct is the PM. Morrison marks his own homework.
If he was “under oath” the courts ought to have some role in controlling his lying or penalising it, once proven by due process and so on. Of course they don’t.