Cartoon of the Week

Alister Lockhart

Former Australian Attorney-General and current Minister for Industry, Science and Technology & Liberal MP for Pearce Christian Porter's campaign to rehabilitate his reputation

Crikey 7 June 2021:

After months mired in historical rape allegations, Christian Porter is trying to focus on the fight for his political survival. To do so, the senior Coalition minister is spending more money on social media advertising than any other Australian politician.

Since Porter outed himself as the subject of a letter sent to the prime minister and other MPs accusing him of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl in 1988 — allegations he strenuously denies — attention on him has been through the lens of the accusations.

The sudden end to Porter’s defamation action against the ABC, and NSW Police ruling out reopening the case, means this could be the end of formal proceedings — unless an inquiry into the allegations is called.

But Porter’s not out of the woods yet. His hold on the seat of Pearce is looking less than certain. The once blue-ribbon Liberal seat is set to be redistricted in August, removing many of the traditionally conservative rural voting areas. The ABC’s Antony Green expects this cuts about 2.5% off Porter’s 7.5% margin.

Faced with a reduced margin and months of negative media attention, Porter’s use of social media reveals how he is using digital tools to try win his seat.

Porter has regularly used Facebook advertising to promote Facebook and Instagram posts about his ministerial portfolios and electorate matters. This advertising suddenly stopped on February 28, two days after the letter’s existence was reported.

After a three-month break, just before he entered into mediation with the ABC over the defamation case, the minister’s Facebook began running more than a dozen advertisements.

Last week he was Australia’s eighth largest spender on Facebook ads about social issues, elections or politics. He spent $8627 between March 26 and June 1, more than any other Australian politician or political party. This weekly spend is a third of his total spend on Facebook advertising since it began being recorded in August 2020. Unlike other government ministers advertising on Facebook, each one of Porter’s advertisements were targeted to Western Australian Facebook users — many specifically mention Pearce or policies specific to it.

All but one of the promoted posts don’t feature Porter all. (The sole post depicting him was by far his most promoted, with half the money spent on a video on May 28 featuring him talking about Australian Made Week and his electorate. It cost somewhere between $3500 and $4000 to show the video to more than 90,000 people in WA……

What this shows is that after going to ground, Porter is back with a near singular focus: convincing West Australian voters to vote him back in. And he’s willing to spend like he’s never spent before to change the topic away from allegations that — despite the end of formal proceedings — still haunt him.

Porter v ABC court case not quite over yet - there are now three parties requesting access to unredacted ABC written defence documents which Porter wants removed from court files

 

ABC News, 31 May 21:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Christian Porter has decided to discontinue his defamation action against the ABC and Louise Milligan.

All parties have agreed to not pursue the matter any further. No damages will be paid.

The only costs that the ABC will be paying are the mediation costs.

The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online. It has been updated with this Editor’s Note:

On 26 February 2021, the ABC published an article by Louise Milligan.That article was about a letter to the Prime Minister containing allegations against a senior cabinet minister. Although he was not named, the article was about the Attorney-General Christian Porter.

The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC stands by our investigative and public interest journalism, which is always pursued in the interests of the Australian community.

The ABC stands by Louise Milligan, one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists, and all our journalists in their independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed.

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

ABC response to statements made today by Christian Porter

The 26 February 2021 article remains online without any amendments.

The ABC has not said that it regrets the article. As we have stated, the ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest. The Editor’s Note says: “(B)oth parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC has never and still does not accept that the article suggested guilt on the part of Mr Porter. The ABC did not plead a truth defence to the “guilt” meaning that Mr Porter alleged in his statement of claim.

The article was not “sensationalist”. It was an accurate and factual report on a letter that had been sent to the Prime Minister and two other senior politicians.

Communications concerning the mediation started before the commencement of the Dyer v Chrysanthou proceedings. It is simply incorrect to suggest that evidence in that case led the ABC to seek mediation.

Mediations are very common in defamation matters, and it is important that all litigant parties seek to explore potential resolution options when they can – especially so for the ABC as a model litigant.

As a public broadcaster, the ABC considered the payment of mediation costs to be a responsible course of action. The resolution reached avoids further significant legal costs.

In relation other comments and statements that have been made:

The only costs paid by the ABC, apart from its own, were mediation and related costs.

Four Corners EP Sally Neighbour did not “lie” when she tweeted that “‘No money was paid”. Ms Neighbour meant that no money was paid to Mr Porter, which is correct. Ms Neighbour quickly clarified her tweet to say that “No damages were paid”.

The ABC categorically rejects the claim that Louise Milligan “coached” Jo Dyer. The suggestion is not only an insult to Ms Milligan but also to Ms Dyer’s intelligence and integrity.

Despite the assertion in Mr Porter’s filed reply, Ms Milligan did not attempt to speak to Kate before her death. That suggestion is completely untrue.

The ABC has previously published this statement on the Christian Porter litigation:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

The Guardian, 2 June 2021:

The ABC rejected an offer from Christian Porter to settle his defamation case weeks before the minister agreed to enter mediation, Guardian Australia can reveal.

The former attorney general has claimed a victory in the high-profile case, but it is understood he originally made an offer for a relatively modest financial settlement without an apology or a retraction of the article.

The offer was rejected by the broadcaster in early May and the two parties entered mediation on Friday 28 May, reaching an agreement on Monday.

It comes as a friend of the woman who made an historical rape allegation against Porter – an allegation he strenuously denies – separately sent the former attorney general a legal concerns notice on Tuesday over comments he made during a press conference which she says “impugned my honesty and integrity”.

Jo Dyer – who brought the case that saw Porter’s star barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from acting in his now-defunct defamation bid against the ABC – released a statement on Tuesday saying she had sent a legal notice to Porter after the fiery press conference he held after dropping his case against the public broadcaster.

The decision by Porter to drop the case has not ended hostilities between the parties, with a series of back-and-forth jabs over the deal.

Despite the terms of the agreement being confidential, comments by both Porter and the ABC journalist Louise Milligan have raised significant questions about the timing and circumstances of the out-of-court deal.

At his press conference, Porter said the ABC had approached his lawyers “last Friday” for “an urgent mediation”.

“And we agreed, we consented to go to that mediation. That mediation was requested by the ABC,” he said.

That timeline was disputed on Twitter by Milligan, who wrote that it was Porter who had “proposed a settlement first”.

“If he wants to dispute that, happy to refresh his memory and release the terms he offered,” she wrote……

Read the full article here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 June 2021:

The Federal Court will hear a fight over media access to the ABC’s written defence to Christian Porter’s defamation claim, as lawyers for the federal Liberal minister say 27 pages of the document should be removed from the court file…..

The Federal Court heard on Tuesday that the ABC and Mr Porter had agreed as part of mediation talks to seek a court order that 27 pages of the ABC’s 37-page defence to his claim “be permanently removed from the court file”.

The pages in question have been redacted in the publicly-available version of the defence.

The parties also agreed the proceedings would be discontinued with no order as to legal costs. However, no formal notice of discontinuance had been filed on Tuesday, meaning the case is not officially over.

A temporary non-publication order over the 27 pages was made by Justice Jayne Jagot in May, pending a pre-trial application by Mr Porter to strike out those parts of the defence and remove them from the court file.

His lawyers were seeking to rely on Federal Court rules dealing with “scandalous” and “vexatious” material, or material that is “otherwise an abuse of the process”. That application fell away when Mr Porter dropped the case.

Nine Entertainment Co, the publisher of this masthead, and News Corp have briefed a barrister, Dauid Sibtain, to fight the non-publication order and ultimately to access the unredacted defence.

At a hearing in Sydney on Tuesday, Justice Jagot questioned whether the parties could simply agree now for documents to be removed from the court file.

“It doesn’t then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed,” she told the parties.

Victorian barrister Renee Enbom QC, acting for the ABC, said it was “Mr Porter’s application for an interim suppression order”.

“My clients have done what they were required to do and consent to [an order removing sections of the defence from the court file] ... to the extent that they can consent, but they don’t otherwise wish to be heard or seek to be heard,” she said.

Sydney barrister Barry Dean, acting for Mr Porter, said the agreement to remove the material from the court file was part of a settlement between the parties.

“That’s not the point,” Justice Jagot replied. “There has to be a reason for removal of a document. It’s not just done because a party wants to do it.”

Mr Dean submitted that “orders are made all the time by the consent of the parties”.

“Sure, but not for removal of documents,” Justice Jagot said, adding there was a “fundamental issue” about the integrity of the court file.

Lawyers for Nine, News Corp and Mr Porter will return to court on July 9.

Kangaroo Court of Australia, 5 June 2021:

The Christian Porter v ABC defamation case is far from over with a hearing set down for the 9th of July after the judge refused to rubber-stamp Porter’s attempt to have material removed from the court file and suppressed on a permanent basis. I was also ordered by the court to file and serve all the Attorney-Generals a s78B Notice of a Constitutional matter because I said that I would argue that any tampering with the court file and suppression orders would infringe on the implied freedom of political communication. A copy of the Notice of a Constitutional matter that I filed and served is below……

BACKGROUND

Federal Court of Australia, Christian Porter v ABC Online File at

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

Meme of the Week

via @rationalbitch