If the ABC is required to show that whatever it said is true than one way to do so must be to have Porter take a police polygraph test in order to show that whatever the ABC said is not false.

I suppose he will have to respond to a question such as "Did you have sexual relations with such and such?" If the answer is YES than I think case closed and the ABC walks.

Does anyone recall this famous case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

Does anyone know if Clinton took the polygraph test?

"A French schoolgirl has admitted to spreading false claims about a teacher before he was murdered last year.

Samuel Paty was beheaded in October after showing students cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The girl, whose complaints sparked an online campaign against Paty, has now admitted that she was not in the class."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56325254

and that shews what unsubstantiated accusations can do.

Opinion,

"In virtually every jurisdiction, the answer is a resounding no. Though called lie detectors, the reality is that a polygraph machine does not have any capacity for detecting the truth or falsity of a statement. Rather, it measures a person's biological processes to determine if they are experiencing a physiological event, such as an increase in blood pressure or heart rate. These conditions are considered to be indicators that someone may be lying, as the increased stress of telling a falsehood creates a subtle, but measurable change in one's vital readings.

Unfortunately, dozens of other factors can also affect the readings detected by a polygraph machine. For instance, nervousness of any kind could read with the same increase in activity as a lie. This nervousness could simply be caused by being concerned about the test giving a false positive, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, some polygraph administrators, particularly in law enforcement, are given training on how to induce a false positive response or to ask questions in a fashion that makes them difficult to answer with a yes or no. On the other hand, those taking the test have reported being able to evade the detection of a lie by using various techniques such as faking a cold, squeezing the muscles of one's posterior, and so forth. These techniques would cause a reading on the polygraph that would show increased physiological activity even when the person is not lying, making it difficult to detect any variation when the person does tell a falsehood.

As a result, polygraphs have been successfully challenged on several occasions in various jurisdictions on the basis of their scientific uncertainty. Because the results of a polygraph test can mean many things and are so unreliable in detecting actual lies, they do not rise to the level of reliability required for scientific evidence in a courtroom and polygraph test results are usually inadmissible as evidence."
http://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-a-polygraph-test-admissible-as-evidence-31737

Any more nonsensical ideas?

Mr uneducated.

Now with the court case, the ABC will have to prove that Kate was raped by Porter. Perhaps Louis Milligan should take the polygraph test.

PORTER SUING (FourCorners') LOUISE MILLIGAN AND ABC

Following up mhaze's tip.

ABC 15 March 2021 reports http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-15/abc-christian-porter-sued-allegations-defamation/13248408

Attorney-General...Porter has launched defamation action against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan. The proceedings relate to an article

[ABC published February 26 2021 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-26/pm-senators-afp-told-historical-rape-allegation-cabinet-minister/13197248 ]

that reported a letter had been sent to...Scott Morrison containing a historical allegation of rape against a serving Cabinet minister.

Mr Porter has denied the allegation and his lawyers said the article made false allegations against him. While the article did not name Mr Porter, his lawyers argue he was easily identifiable to many as the subject of the allegations. His lawyers said the Attorney-General had been subject to a "trial by media", which they said should now end with these proceedings.

They said Mr Porter would use the opportunity to give evidence under oath.

An ABC spokesperson said the ABC would be defending the action.
At a press conference two weeks ago, Mr Porter identified himself as the Cabinet minister referenced in the letter that made the historical allegation. The letter had formed the basis of an ABC story.

Mr Porter said he had known the woman who had made the allegation, but denied the allegation. "I can say categorically that what has been put in various forms and allegations simply did not happen," he said.

A statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court by the lawyers of Mr Porter set out their argument for aggravated damages. The document claims the ABC and Ms Milligan knew Mr Porter would be "readily identifiable" in the article, he would "ultimately be compelled to publicly respond", and they intended to harm him.

"Milligan acted with malice knowing of the impossibility of any finding of guilt or civil liability in the circumstances and believing that a public campaign designed to damage his reputation would be a more effective substitute against Porter in replacement of the process of the justice system," it states.

The woman who made the allegation took her own life last year.

Mr Porter is currently on medical leave. His office said he had nothing further to add."

I suppose much will hinge on the claim Porter was "readily identifiable", is his lawyer going to argue the line, as a well known sleaze bag PORTER was "readily identifiable". Interesting.