WEBVTT - A woman’s place is in journalism

0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:08.520
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to the fronts on your smart sneaker

0:00:08.640 --> 0:00:12.760
<v Speaker 1>every morning to hear the latest episode, just say play

0:00:12.800 --> 0:00:14.320
<v Speaker 1>the news from The Australian.

0:00:23.200 --> 0:00:26.640
<v Speaker 2>From the Australian, here's what's on the front. I'm Christian Amiot.

0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:32.720
<v Speaker 2>It's Thursday, September nineteenth. Childcare should be free for families

0:00:32.720 --> 0:00:36.200
<v Speaker 2>earning under eighty thousand dollars, according to the Productivity Commission.

0:00:36.840 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 2>Its new report to the Government says all families with

0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:42.240
<v Speaker 2>kids under five should have access to at least thirty

0:00:42.280 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 2>hours of high quality early childhood education for forty eight

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:55.920
<v Speaker 2>weeks per year. Court action is on foot over allegations

0:00:55.920 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 2>of inappropriate language at the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:03.080
<v Speaker 2>The case, which is heading for the Federal Court, includes

0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:05.760
<v Speaker 2>a woman's allegation she was made to feel awkward and

0:01:05.920 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 2>uneasy at work, something the accused man strongly denies. Wellness,

0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 2>me too, and the place of women in journalism. Those

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.319
<v Speaker 2>are the topics some of The Australian's journalists covered in

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:28.080
<v Speaker 2>a special panel discussion celebrating the paper's sixtieth anniversary on

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:32.120
<v Speaker 2>Wednesday night. Claire Harvey, the Australian's editorial director and the

0:01:32.160 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 2>regular host of the Front, was joined by columnist jet Albritton,

0:01:35.800 --> 0:01:40.360
<v Speaker 2>literary editor Caroline Overington, and legal affairs correspondent Ellie Dudley.

0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 2>Subscribers get access to live events like this one all

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 2>year round. Join us at the Australian dot com dot au.

0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:49.760
<v Speaker 2>In today's episode of The Front, we're bringing you some

0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:51.280
<v Speaker 2>of that fascinating discussion.

0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:01.520
<v Speaker 1>As you may know, Moy Redeeming, who is a Victorian

0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 1>member of the Upper House, is suing the Victorian Liberal

0:02:05.040 --> 0:02:08.360
<v Speaker 1>leader John Pursuito for defamation because she's very vocally pro

0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:12.600
<v Speaker 1>women's rights, pro women's spaces. She appeared at a rally

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>where some neo Nazis showed up. The Liberal leader sacked

0:02:16.720 --> 0:02:18.760
<v Speaker 1>her from the party, saying that she was associating with

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 1>the wrong kind of people. She's now suing him for defamation.

0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:23.640
<v Speaker 1>But it has really made me think that it's not

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:28.400
<v Speaker 1>that long ago that this issue, women's rights, women's spaces,

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 1>trans rights, gender diversity was all we were talking about

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:35.320
<v Speaker 1>before we got obsessed with Israel and Gaza. So I

0:02:35.360 --> 0:02:37.640
<v Speaker 1>thought I might ask you, Janet a very twenty twenty

0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 1>two question, what is a woman?

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:44.519
<v Speaker 3>Well, yes, isn't it sad that we asked that question

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:47.680
<v Speaker 3>at all and that people fumble the answer. I'm not

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:49.400
<v Speaker 3>going to answer it because we know what a woman is.

0:02:49.480 --> 0:02:53.520
<v Speaker 3>It's just become so silly. But constantly we see the

0:02:53.560 --> 0:02:57.720
<v Speaker 3>word woman expunged, we see chest feeders, and the language

0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.240
<v Speaker 3>around that's being used to get rid of women is

0:03:02.000 --> 0:03:05.480
<v Speaker 3>I think so detrimental to women, And there's absolutely nothing

0:03:05.520 --> 0:03:09.560
<v Speaker 3>wrong with someone like Mara Deming supporting that. That's the problem, though,

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:11.360
<v Speaker 3>isn't it when you turn up to those events that

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 3>rat bags turn up. They try to destroy what's going on,

0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:17.280
<v Speaker 3>and the neo Nazis will do that all the time.

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:19.640
<v Speaker 3>It happens everywhere. You can't pick and choose who you

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 3>appear with. You just have to stay true to what

0:03:21.919 --> 0:03:24.519
<v Speaker 3>you believe in, and I think that she was absolutely

0:03:24.680 --> 0:03:27.360
<v Speaker 3>entitled to do that at the Liberal Party in Melbourne.

0:03:27.400 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 3>Is a curious creature that it feels uncomfortable with those issues.

0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:34.080
<v Speaker 3>But as you say, it was one of those issues

0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:36.360
<v Speaker 3>that we were talking about so much a couple of

0:03:36.400 --> 0:03:38.640
<v Speaker 3>years ago, but it hasn't gone away. I look at

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 3>what JK. Rowling has done in many ways. I think

0:03:40.920 --> 0:03:44.360
<v Speaker 3>that her most important work has been how she has

0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:48.800
<v Speaker 3>responded and confronted and challenged the more radical parts of

0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:51.320
<v Speaker 3>the trans movement. As much as we love for Harry

0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 3>Potter books, she really has been at the forefront of

0:03:53.920 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 3>doing that and giving cover to a lot of people

0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 3>who wanted to raise their hands and say, well, we're

0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 3>what a woman is, and we won't have any of

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:04.880
<v Speaker 3>this expunging the word woman from our language.

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>Carolin, you covered the literary world in the world of books.

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:11.720
<v Speaker 1>How did JK. Rowling avoid being canceled?

0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:14.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, I'm not sure that she hasn't been entirely canceled.

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 4>I know that some of the actors who appeared in

0:04:16.080 --> 0:04:18.240
<v Speaker 4>her films no longer have anything to do with her,

0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:20.400
<v Speaker 4>and many people say that they no longer read the books.

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:22.600
<v Speaker 4>So I'm not quite sure that she hasn't been canceled,

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:24.800
<v Speaker 4>at least at the margins. I mean, I think what's

0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:27.600
<v Speaker 4>really interesting about JK. Rowling is that she was herself

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.040
<v Speaker 4>the victim of domestic violence or male violence. She was

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:33.359
<v Speaker 4>in a relationship with somebody who was violent towards her.

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 4>There's no doubt about that. That was a matter of

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:39.719
<v Speaker 4>police attention, and so she has always in her private

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:44.359
<v Speaker 4>life funded refuges for women who are escaping domestic violence,

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:47.680
<v Speaker 4>and she wanted to keep those spaces free of men.

0:04:48.120 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 4>But it's become difficult to do because, as we've seen

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:53.520
<v Speaker 4>in various court cases, if men decide that they want

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 4>to enter women's spaces and vice versa, those barriers are

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:58.960
<v Speaker 4>now falling. And we've we've seen it both ways. We've

0:04:59.000 --> 0:05:02.280
<v Speaker 4>seen men wanting to women female only pools, and we've

0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:05.680
<v Speaker 4>seen women wanting to enter men's only clubs. What she

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:09.520
<v Speaker 4>was saying is I want to fund spaces that where

0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:13.479
<v Speaker 4>women who are escaping violence can feel safe, and she

0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:15.840
<v Speaker 4>was told it through various avenues that that was not

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 4>possible that men would be welcome in these spaces, and

0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:21.840
<v Speaker 4>that was how she became involved in the whole drama.

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.479
<v Speaker 4>But it has I think it's heartening in a way

0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:27.919
<v Speaker 4>that women are now such full citizens of democracy that

0:05:28.000 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 4>they are often at the forefront now of these freedom movements,

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 4>if you will. It was also Lionel Shreiver, the writer

0:05:35.200 --> 0:05:37.360
<v Speaker 4>who was at the front of the campaign to say

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 4>that people should be able to write whatever books they like,

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:43.880
<v Speaker 4>regardless of whether they're staying in their lane. You might

0:05:43.920 --> 0:05:47.039
<v Speaker 4>remember that she turned up in Brisbane controversially wearing a

0:05:47.160 --> 0:05:49.800
<v Speaker 4>sombrero on her head, and she said, if I want

0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:51.840
<v Speaker 4>to write a Mexican character, I will. If I want

0:05:51.880 --> 0:05:54.160
<v Speaker 4>to write a disabled character, I will. If I want

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:56.680
<v Speaker 4>to pretender that I'm gay or trans or whatever, I will.

0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 4>Because I'm a writer and I'm a creator, and I'm

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:01.839
<v Speaker 4>entitled to tell the stories that I want to tell,

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:05.280
<v Speaker 4>and you, as the audience, will judge me. You will

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:08.679
<v Speaker 4>decide whether or not I'm any good. You very rarely

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:10.920
<v Speaker 4>see men entering this space. They seem to be a

0:06:10.920 --> 0:06:14.120
<v Speaker 4>little shy when it comes to standing up for some

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:16.960
<v Speaker 4>of these issues, which are basically about censorship.

0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:19.680
<v Speaker 1>What's been your perspective on that, Ellie. You're part of

0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 1>a generation who are putting their pronouns on their email signatures.

0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>They are very open to the notion that trans people

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 1>are vulnerable and that they have been excluded from society,

0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:32.719
<v Speaker 1>and that this is an opportunity to give them some

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 1>rights and some recognition. And yet every day you are

0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:37.760
<v Speaker 1>covering the law where things tend to be a little

0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:40.040
<v Speaker 1>bit more black and white. What's your take on all

0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 1>of that, especially coming from the generation that you do well.

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:45.600
<v Speaker 5>I think it's just become normal Now that's just the expectation,

0:06:45.800 --> 0:06:49.359
<v Speaker 5>the expectations that you've got your pronouns and your email signature,

0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.520
<v Speaker 5>and that you would be of course welcoming and accepting

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 5>to anybody from any walks of life, as you should

0:06:54.640 --> 0:06:57.120
<v Speaker 5>be anyway. I cover the law and I've spent a

0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:01.400
<v Speaker 5>lot of time in family court watching cases fathers and

0:07:01.560 --> 0:07:04.599
<v Speaker 5>mothers fighting over whether or not their young children should

0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 5>be prescribed puberty blockers. You know, instances where parents may

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:10.800
<v Speaker 5>have transitioned and the impact that they may have had

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:15.000
<v Speaker 5>on their child. It's incredibly complex. The law, as you mentioned,

0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 5>is black and white, but it seems like these cases

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:20.680
<v Speaker 5>are so gray. And yet when they're entering these spaces,

0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:23.080
<v Speaker 5>you can see these judges sitting behind the bench thinking,

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:25.680
<v Speaker 5>oh my gosh, how am I going to possibly deal

0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:27.880
<v Speaker 5>with this and how can we bring justice? And how

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:30.640
<v Speaker 5>in family court cases, how are we going to find

0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:32.960
<v Speaker 5>what's best for this child? It's incredibly difficult.

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:40.240
<v Speaker 2>Coming up after the break more from our sixtieth anniversary

0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 2>Women in Journalism panel, we'd love it if you could

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.240
<v Speaker 2>join one of our live events. They're available exclusively for

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.840
<v Speaker 2>subscribers to The Australian Plus. There's access to breaking news,

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.680
<v Speaker 2>lively commentary and expert analysis around the clock. Check us

0:07:54.680 --> 0:07:57.120
<v Speaker 2>out at the Australian dot com dot au and we'll

0:07:57.120 --> 0:07:58.360
<v Speaker 2>be back after this break.

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:10.480
<v Speaker 5>Well.

0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 1>Consent legislation around consent is one of the biggest changes

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 1>that we have seen in the past decade. I suppose

0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>in law all jurisdictions in Australia now have affirmative consent

0:08:20.680 --> 0:08:25.520
<v Speaker 1>laws which require enthusiastic, ongoing participation to sex. Janet, what's

0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:29.960
<v Speaker 1>your take on that? Perhaps consequence lit corollary to the

0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:32.640
<v Speaker 1>me too movement and the way it is shaking out

0:08:32.640 --> 0:08:33.200
<v Speaker 1>through the law.

0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:36.280
<v Speaker 3>It was probably an inevitable part of the me too

0:08:36.360 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 3>movement in the sense that we believe all women necessarily

0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:44.960
<v Speaker 3>meant that the moment that a woman had raised an

0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:47.840
<v Speaker 3>allegation of sexual assault, we had to believe that woman.

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:53.480
<v Speaker 3>So therefore you had to have this thing called affirmative consent,

0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 3>which means basically, at every stage of sex you are

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:01.720
<v Speaker 3>giving consent. I've never really worked out how in practice

0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 3>it operates. I genuinely believe it's one of these theoretical

0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:09.199
<v Speaker 3>things that in practice, how do you decide that there

0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:13.520
<v Speaker 3>is enthusiastic consent? The whole way through, and I think

0:09:13.559 --> 0:09:16.920
<v Speaker 3>we will see more and more cases which expose that

0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 3>something that sounds okay to the me too movement, maybe

0:09:20.840 --> 0:09:23.200
<v Speaker 3>when it's applied in a court of law, when you

0:09:23.280 --> 0:09:25.760
<v Speaker 3>have to actually produce evidence is much harder.

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:28.200
<v Speaker 1>What do you think about that, Ellie, You've grown up

0:09:28.200 --> 0:09:30.520
<v Speaker 1>in a generation who are much more comfortable talking about

0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:33.040
<v Speaker 1>this kind of issue than my generation. What's your take

0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:36.320
<v Speaker 1>on the kind of agitation that some in society have

0:09:36.400 --> 0:09:37.520
<v Speaker 1>felt about those laws.

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:39.679
<v Speaker 5>I think the consent is incredibly important, and I think

0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:42.600
<v Speaker 5>that seeking consent is an incredibly important thing that needs

0:09:42.640 --> 0:09:45.360
<v Speaker 5>to be done. I had an argument with somebody recently.

0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 5>He was about, oh gosh sixty five or so about

0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:50.679
<v Speaker 5>whether or not saying I need to take a break

0:09:51.080 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 5>is a withdrawal of consent or not. Those are the

0:09:53.800 --> 0:09:56.240
<v Speaker 5>sort of questions that the court's coming up against. Is

0:09:56.280 --> 0:09:59.640
<v Speaker 5>what does that affirmative consent look like? And what does

0:09:59.640 --> 0:10:02.280
<v Speaker 5>a withd rowle of consent look like? If you're consenting

0:10:02.320 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 5>at the beginning, but then you stop midway through, what

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:07.200
<v Speaker 5>does that look like? And honestly, it is one of

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:10.319
<v Speaker 5>the greyest areas of law that we've got, and I

0:10:10.640 --> 0:10:12.840
<v Speaker 5>don't think anyone really knows what the solution is to

0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:16.600
<v Speaker 5>ensure that women are safe in that predominantly women are

0:10:16.640 --> 0:10:19.120
<v Speaker 5>safe in their sexual encounters, but also to ensure that

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:21.960
<v Speaker 5>men aren't being put in prison for a crime that

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:24.200
<v Speaker 5>they either didn't realize that they were committing or.

0:10:24.120 --> 0:10:26.480
<v Speaker 3>Or didn't commit at all. One thing that doesn't change

0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:28.640
<v Speaker 3>in many of these cases is that it comes down

0:10:28.720 --> 0:10:31.520
<v Speaker 3>to ahesage. She said, yeah, situation. So unless you have

0:10:31.559 --> 0:10:34.760
<v Speaker 3>it in writing, you can claim that you got consent

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:37.360
<v Speaker 3>or you can claim that you gave consent, and that

0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 3>part of the sexual assault equation doesn't change, and that's

0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:44.920
<v Speaker 3>what has always made sexual assault so fraught.

0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Well, one of the most detailed examinations of consent that

0:10:48.160 --> 0:10:50.440
<v Speaker 1>I've seen, and I'm sure many of you watched it too,

0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:54.160
<v Speaker 1>was just as Michael Lee's granular examination of what happened

0:10:54.160 --> 0:10:58.480
<v Speaker 1>between Brittney Higgins and Bruce Lahman on that night in

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:03.079
<v Speaker 1>twenty nineteen when she says she went back to Parliament

0:11:03.120 --> 0:11:05.520
<v Speaker 1>House with him thinking that they were going to be

0:11:05.520 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 1>collecting some documents or maybe collecting his keys, he said,

0:11:09.200 --> 0:11:11.880
<v Speaker 1>they went back to work on some French submarine documents.

0:11:12.440 --> 0:11:15.240
<v Speaker 1>Justice Michael Lee found that in fact, whatever they went

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 1>there for that she did not consent to what ultimately happened.

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>That was Justice michael Lee's finding. Janet, that was in

0:11:23.440 --> 0:11:26.160
<v Speaker 1>the middle of an epic judgment that we all were

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:28.680
<v Speaker 1>digesting very quickly. What was your take on the way

0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:31.320
<v Speaker 1>Justice michael Lee worked his way through that reasoning in

0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:32.240
<v Speaker 1>the defamation matter.

0:11:32.760 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 3>I thought mostly it was a very good judgment and

0:11:35.559 --> 0:11:37.200
<v Speaker 3>he put a great deal of work into it, and

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:39.320
<v Speaker 3>it was the first time really that a judge had

0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:42.240
<v Speaker 3>gone through and looked at this because, of course Bruce

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 3>Lheman's criminal trial was aborted, so we never had a

0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:49.280
<v Speaker 3>resolution to this. But remember this is not a criminal resolution.

0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:52.760
<v Speaker 3>It's in a defamation case. It's on the balance of probabilities.

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:57.680
<v Speaker 3>And Michael Lee went through the facts forensically, and that

0:11:57.840 --> 0:11:59.920
<v Speaker 3>was always a risk for Bruce Lehman that that would

0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:04.000
<v Speaker 3>be the finding. From the moment that this case started,

0:12:04.040 --> 0:12:06.560
<v Speaker 3>I was never and I don't want this to sound callous,

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:09.880
<v Speaker 3>but I was never terribly interested in what happened that night.

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:12.760
<v Speaker 3>I was interested in whether there could be a fair trial.

0:12:13.600 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 3>And I think the moment that it became trial by media,

0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:22.040
<v Speaker 3>trial by parliament, trial by just about every institution, in

0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:27.040
<v Speaker 3>this country that coalesced against the presumption of innocence, including

0:12:27.040 --> 0:12:28.640
<v Speaker 3>a Prime minister at the time. He got up in

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:31.160
<v Speaker 3>Parliament and said that he was apologizing for things that

0:12:31.200 --> 0:12:35.319
<v Speaker 3>had happened that night and subsequent to that night. It

0:12:35.360 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 3>was impossible to have a fair trial. It wasn't just

0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:41.960
<v Speaker 3>unfair to a defendant who had been charged and not

0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:44.040
<v Speaker 3>yet heard in a court of law, but it was

0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 3>terribly unfair to two women who were at the center

0:12:46.520 --> 0:12:48.960
<v Speaker 3>of that. And that was of course, on the other

0:12:49.040 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 3>allegation which became, as Michael Lee said, the major motif,

0:12:52.679 --> 0:12:55.640
<v Speaker 3>which was the political cover up allegation. There were two

0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:57.960
<v Speaker 3>women at the center of that who had been accused

0:12:58.320 --> 0:13:01.480
<v Speaker 3>of a horrendous act of cring up. And I think

0:13:01.480 --> 0:13:03.880
<v Speaker 3>at the Australian we have done such a tremendous job

0:13:03.920 --> 0:13:06.480
<v Speaker 3>of making sure that we have covered this case from

0:13:06.600 --> 0:13:09.440
<v Speaker 3>just about every angle that we could, because it seemed

0:13:09.480 --> 0:13:13.280
<v Speaker 3>to us that much of the media were not interested

0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 3>in hearing from other women in this case. That believe

0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:20.880
<v Speaker 3>all women only applied to Britney Higgins. That when Linda

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:23.560
<v Speaker 3>Reynolds claimed that she in fact did everything that she

0:13:24.480 --> 0:13:27.720
<v Speaker 3>thought she could to support Brittany Higgins in the days after,

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:31.600
<v Speaker 3>and when Fiona Brown said the same thing, they weren't

0:13:31.640 --> 0:13:35.280
<v Speaker 3>given as much credibility, and I think that was really

0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:38.240
<v Speaker 3>sad to watch. And certainly the other part of Michael

0:13:38.280 --> 0:13:42.520
<v Speaker 3>Lee's judgment that I found particularly riveting because there was

0:13:42.559 --> 0:13:45.800
<v Speaker 3>literally no evidence to support an allegation of a political

0:13:46.040 --> 0:13:49.160
<v Speaker 3>cover up, and he finally put that to bed, and

0:13:49.200 --> 0:13:53.040
<v Speaker 3>we had been waiting a long time for that to happen, Ellie.

0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:56.080
<v Speaker 1>Now we're seeing another defamation matter spinning out of this

0:13:56.360 --> 0:14:00.319
<v Speaker 1>story which has grown so many heads it's quite remindable

0:14:00.360 --> 0:14:02.559
<v Speaker 1>and as it ended, quite a few careers along the way,

0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:06.600
<v Speaker 1>by the way, the defamation of cases, of course, Senator

0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:10.000
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds suing Brittaney Higgins and in a separate preceding

0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:14.240
<v Speaker 1>her husband David Scheraz, over tweets that they made, which

0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:17.520
<v Speaker 1>she says implied imputed that she did not care for

0:14:17.520 --> 0:14:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Britney Higgins' welfare and that the conspiracy was true. What's

0:14:21.800 --> 0:14:25.360
<v Speaker 1>been your sense of the point of defamation action? Is

0:14:25.400 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>it worth it? Is it worth suing for defamation?

0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.760
<v Speaker 5>It's life ruining. It's absolutely life ruining, As Justice Michael

0:14:31.800 --> 0:14:33.920
<v Speaker 5>Lee said, Bruce Leman went back for his hat, went

0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:36.400
<v Speaker 5>back into the Lions, done for his hat, and that

0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:38.720
<v Speaker 5>was a terrible result for him. We know that Linda

0:14:38.760 --> 0:14:40.920
<v Speaker 5>Reynolds has put up her house as part of all

0:14:40.960 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 5>of this. It's a terrible situation that bankrupts people all

0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:48.640
<v Speaker 5>in in search of a vindication of a reputation. So look,

0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:50.960
<v Speaker 5>if you're certain that you're gonna win by all means.

0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 5>But I think that we had an explosion of defamation

0:14:53.720 --> 0:14:56.480
<v Speaker 5>cases over the past few years. But I think that

0:14:56.520 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 5>this is just the latest of them that is probably

0:14:58.480 --> 0:15:01.360
<v Speaker 5>going to be incredibly damaging the many parties involved.

0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:03.520
<v Speaker 4>The first thing I would disagree about is whether or

0:15:03.560 --> 0:15:06.160
<v Speaker 4>not there could have been a fair trial, because I

0:15:06.240 --> 0:15:08.400
<v Speaker 4>did cover criminal cases for a very long time, and

0:15:08.400 --> 0:15:11.040
<v Speaker 4>I understand that some of these cases are civil. But

0:15:11.440 --> 0:15:15.480
<v Speaker 4>I believe very much in the juris system, and I

0:15:15.520 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 4>have seen juries go into courtrooms where the accused is

0:15:19.880 --> 0:15:22.320
<v Speaker 4>very well known. An example of that would be Ivan Malatt.

0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:26.560
<v Speaker 4>And also I covered a case in Queensland where the

0:15:26.640 --> 0:15:30.320
<v Speaker 4>murdered child was David Daniel Molcombe and that was a

0:15:30.360 --> 0:15:33.440
<v Speaker 4>case that everybody in Queensland knew everything about. And yet

0:15:33.600 --> 0:15:36.800
<v Speaker 4>when you sit twelve members of the Australian public down.

0:15:37.200 --> 0:15:39.920
<v Speaker 4>They are such good people by and large, and you,

0:15:40.000 --> 0:15:42.560
<v Speaker 4>as a judge can say to them, I want you

0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:45.440
<v Speaker 4>to forget everything you have heard up until now. The

0:15:45.560 --> 0:15:49.440
<v Speaker 4>responsibility on your shoulders is solemn and serious, and I

0:15:49.480 --> 0:15:51.720
<v Speaker 4>want you to listen only to me and only to

0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:53.840
<v Speaker 4>the evidence that you hear in this courtroom, and you

0:15:53.920 --> 0:15:56.880
<v Speaker 4>come to your decision honestly. And if people say to

0:15:56.880 --> 0:15:59.880
<v Speaker 4>you afterwards, well you got it wrong. Obviously he did

0:15:59.920 --> 0:16:01.400
<v Speaker 4>it or she did, or he didn't rape her or

0:16:01.400 --> 0:16:04.960
<v Speaker 4>she did or whatever, then you can honestly say, from

0:16:04.960 --> 0:16:08.240
<v Speaker 4>the good position in which you sit, I sat in

0:16:08.240 --> 0:16:11.680
<v Speaker 4>the room, I listened to the evidence, I heard both sides,

0:16:11.920 --> 0:16:14.480
<v Speaker 4>and I made my decision, and I think we can

0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:17.200
<v Speaker 4>trust them. I think we can trust Australians in that way.

0:16:18.000 --> 0:16:19.080
<v Speaker 2>As listeners to the Front.

0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:19.160
<v Speaker 3>No.

0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 2>Bruce Lamon is appealing that finding in the Federal Court

0:16:22.120 --> 0:16:27.120
<v Speaker 2>and has always vehemently denied any wrongdoing. Claire Harvey is

0:16:27.160 --> 0:16:30.080
<v Speaker 2>The Australian's editorial director and the regular host of the Front.

0:16:33.080 --> 0:16:37.360
<v Speaker 2>She was joined by colonist Janet Albretson, literary editor Caroline Overington,

0:16:37.600 --> 0:16:41.520
<v Speaker 2>and legal affairs correspondent Elie Dudley. To register for special

0:16:41.560 --> 0:16:44.520
<v Speaker 2>events like this one, go to the Australianplus dot com

0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:45.080
<v Speaker 2>dot au