Could someone please explain -
why is it that Mr Porter's claims are in
the public domain and the ABC's are not?

It appears that Christian Porter has asked the
Federal Court to throw out the bulk of the
ABC's defence to his defamation claim. His lawyers
are relying on a section of the Federal Court rules
dealing with "scandalous"and "vixatious"
or material that is : otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court."

However as articles on the web explain - "the principles of
"open justice"require that the proceedings be reported in a
fair and accurate way, not on a one-sided way, or a way that
only suits one party.

Dear Foxy,

My understanding is that redacted material can still be considered by the Court and form part of the defense but just not presented to the public.

Or the items may have been redacted because their admissibility is still under consideration.

I'm not sure where it stands in this case though.

Dear Steele,

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds
and what the Federal Court decides.
I have high hopes that it will be fair, just, and
hopefully transparent.

Dear Steele,

The ABC defence has argued that former Attorney General
Christian Porter is trying to control how a defamation
proceeding is reported and what information is made
public.

Renee Enborn QC representing the public broadcaster and
journalist Louise Milligan has stated that it was unfair
to publish all 13 pages of Mr Porter's submission while
significant parts of their defence were being suppressed.

At the same time the presumption of innocence is
fundamental to our society. What we have at present is
an allegation. What makes it more difficult is this lack
of transparency and the legal games that are being played
by Porter and his lawyers.

Not sure what that is all about.

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting article:

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-s-defamation-case-is-no-sure-fine-way-to-find-the-truth-20210315-p57aze.html

Porter wants to stop the ABC from having assertions that are of a "scandalous, frivolous or vexatious nature"...are "evasive or ambiguous, or are otherwise an abuse of the process of the court" put into the court documents.

One reading is that the ABC wants to put other unverified or defamatory claims in the court record so that they can be then reported on with impunity.

The whole aim of this whole process was to destroy an ideological opponent of the ABC and getting as many scurrilous but unprovable tales out is all they care about. Fairness, due process...not so much.

Still haven't seen any indication that the ABC is going to argue truth as a defence. And no indication that the usual ABC apologists see a problem with that.