Once again, irrelevant.
The main point is that CP is unable to cross examine his accuser. As such, there is no enquiry that would fulfull any threshold of fairness that western democracy would find acceptable.
The attempt to conflate the judicial process with an individual's personal suitability to be a Minister of the Crown is, and will always remain, ludicrous. So Ministers should be fair game to do anything and everything up to actively breaking the law?
Porter had multiple opportunities to contest the allegation in Parliament, an independent setting, or open court, and actively fled from every one of them.
Parliamentary inquiry? Nup. Got the PM to run interference instead.
Independent inquiry? As above.
Contest the ABC's truth defence? Took one look at it and instead opted to bottle it for the price of his mediation costs, then had it buried rather than attempting to contest it.
Refute the allegations on the campaign trail? Nah, runs off into retirement instead.
Echoes how he's fled from the consequences of his largely inept political career (rising crime rates and recidivism as WA AG, record budget deficits as State Treasurer).
And for all the howling at the moon he's done re his love for the rule of law, he'll go down in history as the Social Services Minister who reversed the onus of proof for welfare recipients (Robodebt) and the AG who oversaw the kafkaesque star chamber trials of Witness K and Bernard Colleary. No rules of evidence there!
The Emperor's New Clothes of politicians - as soon as someone burst his protective bubble, he was always done.