ABC boss asked to hand over documents on Louise Milligan’s breach of social media

The public broadcaster’s managing director will be asked to hand over documents relating to the internal handling of reporter Louise Milligan’s social media breach.

ABC journalist Louise Milligan. Picture: AAP Image/Luis Ascui

ABC management will be asked to disclose information about the internal handling of Four Corners’ reporter Louise Milligan’s breach of social media use after its reasons behind keeping documents on the matter private were disputed by a senior parliamentary official.

The public broadcaster’s managing director David Anderson, who is due to face Senate estimates on Tuesday, refused to provide details of Milligan’s breach of the ABC’s code of conduct – which resulted in a defamation payout – when he was asked to do so at a previous Senate hearing.

However, in written correspondence seen by The Australian, Senate clerk Richard Pye told Liberal senator Sarah Henderson, who has been pursuing the matter, that more information could be requested.

ABC managing director David Anderson. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

Senator Henderson intends to challenge the ABC’s public interest immunity claim and said she will be requesting that the ABC publicly disclose further information about the matter.

Mr Pye has questioned the ABC’s PII claim and notes that information regarding the social media breach “would not appear to be commercially sensitive”. He also says the ABC has failed to disclose how the “particular information sought would harm the public interest”.

In 2021 Milligan used her own social media account to tweet, “Laming upskirts”, falsely accusing former Liberal MP Andrew Laming of taking a lewd photo of a woman without her permission.

The ABC journalist did not apologise for making the defamatory tweets about the Queensland politician and the ABC engaged external legal firm Bird and Bird to deal with the matter. The taxpayer-funded broadcaster ultimately paid Milligan’s legal costs and damages to Dr Laming.

In total, the ABC spent more than $200,000 resolving the matter.

Milligan received counselling over the incident and the ABC subsequently updated its social media guidelines and warned all staff of the need to follow the organisation’s guidelines on the use of the various platforms.

At an estimates hearing in November, Senator Henderson requested Mr Anderson provide “all relevant correspondence, emails, briefing documents and messages” in relation to the matter, to which he declined to do so.

“I think there’s a confidentiality that goes with people’s employment that is important to protect when you’re trying to run an organisation,” he told Senate estimates.

“I suspect I’ll be claiming public interest immunity with regard to this.

“Ms Milligan was counselled at the time.”

Senator Henderson said on Friday the ABC has “failed the transparency test” and she would continue to pursue the matter.

“Under the Senate’s rules, the ABC is required to answer all questions in estimates unless it can properly make out a claim of public interest immunity,” she said.

“Ms Milligan’s breach of the ABC’s social media code which resulted in her receiving a $200,000 financial benefit, using taxpayers’ money, is a matter of profound public interest.

“It is not tenable for the ABC to argue that all documents relating to this breach are part of Ms Milligan’s private employment records and therefore immune from disclosure.”

Senator Sarah Henderson. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

If approved, a public interest immunity claim does not compel information to be disclosed on the grounds that if made public it “would be prejudicial to the public interest”.

In his letter, Mr Pye also wrote: “The claim seems to amount to a generic argument that disclosure of any confidential employee record undermines the ABC’s commercial position.

“It provides no information as to how disclosure of particular information sought would harm the public interest.

“On that basis, it may be that the committee would require additional information from the ABC before determining the matter.”

He concluded his letter by stating: “The committee might also like to consider whether there is a basis for the ABC to provide at least some of the documents sought, with redactions for material in relation to which a cogent PII claim might apply.”