ABC managing director David Anderson made decision to pay Milligan’s legal costs without board approval

ABC managing director David Anderson failed to consult his board before he decided taxpayers would cover the legal costs of Louise Milligan’s defamation case.

ABC CEO Melanie Kleyn, left, David Anderson and editorial director Craig McMurtrie appear before Senate Estimates via video link on Tuesday. Picture: AAP

ABC managing director David Anderson failed to consult the public broadcaster’s board before he decided that the taxpayer would cover the legal costs – which stand at $184,000, and rising — of a successful defamation action brought against high-­profile reporter Louise Milligan for a social media post she made on her private Twitter account.

In a tweet posted in March, Milligan falsely suggested federal MP Andrew Laming “upskirted” a woman – her social media post simply read “Laming upskirts”, ­despite the fact the Liberal politician was never charged, let alone convicted, of any crime relating to a photograph he took of a woman at a Queensland workplace.

Louise Milligan. Picture: AAP

Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday night, Mr Anderson took full ownership of the decision to sheet the costs of the Milligan matter back to the taxpayer.

He admitted that even though the legal notice drafted on behalf of Dr Laming was specifically served on Milligan and not the taxpayer-funded media organisation itself, he ruled that it was in the best financial interests of the ABC to pay the journalist’s costs in the matter.

The commonwealth Auditor-General, Grant Hehir, in October found the ABC had “no policy or precedent” that supported the ­decision to pay for Milligan’s ­defence.

Under questioning by Liberal senator Eric Abetz, Mr Anderson said the public broadcaster paid the legal expenses because of the risk of “vicarious liability” arising from “intertwined” litigation ­regarding other social media tweets made about the former federal ­attorney-general, Christian Porter, who was suing the ABC for defamation at the same time.

“It was a decision made based on the circumstances before me in order to effectively protect the fin­ancial exposure of the ABC, on ­advice from my general counsel,” said Mr Anderson, adding that he was told that if the matter wasn’t settled, legal costs could blow out to as much as $700,000.

“The ABC (was advised) it could be vicariously liable for the tweets made on a private social media account, and that we could be very well joined to (the Porter) proceedings later on – had that ­escalated – so I took that advice very seriously.”

Asked by Senator Abetz whether he sought the approval of the ABC board before signing off on a decision to indemnify Milligan, Mr Anderson said: “The board was just informed. I had made that decision.

“I did not seek the board’s approval … effectively, I made that decision on protecting the ABC’s financial position into the future.”

Mr Anderson said he was ­subsequently told the board agreed with his decision to cover Milligan’s costs.

He also claimed the guidelines governing the ABC’s social media policy were unequivocal: “The ABC is not responsible for what an individual would tweet on their personal social media account.”

Senator Abetz asked whether the ABC could be ­potentially liable for fringe benefits tax arising from the settlement of the Dr Laming matter.

ABC chief financial officer Melanie Kleyn told the Senate committee if FBT was found to be payable, total liability to the ABC from the Milligan tweet would be in the vicinity of $400,000.

Mr Anderson, whose remuneration package sits just under $1.1m, said he and his exec­utive team had the full backing of the ABC chair, Ita Buttrose.

Earlier, ABC editorial director Craig McMurtrie said he stood by the public broadcaster’s documentary Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire, despite an external review (which cost $22,000) criticising the ­inclusion of unfounded corruption slurs against former NSW premier Neville Wran.

“The (external) reviewers, Chris Masters and Rod Tiffen, are very complimentary about most of the series … they said it mounts a compelling case for a new investigation,” he said.