Our DAY FOUR reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.45am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
@antoinette_news #LattoufvABC Day 4 hearing will begin in 15 minutes.
Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) continues questioning ABC managing director Mr Anderson (A).
Establishes that being fired by Australia's national broadcaster is a serious matter. Reminds A that he said all staff were well aware of ABC policies and guidelines.
OF: I asked if there were other rules not communicated to staff & only in the minds of management.
A: No, I cited sections of the EdPols regarding objectivity, which are in part informed by guidelines.
OF: What is objective journalism? Does that require qualification?
A: Reads extract and claims this to be clear.
OF Your view is that if a person's conduct in their private communications is perceived not to be impartial then that undermines the ABC's integrity?
A: That is the starting point for an investigation.
OF: You recall we spoke about a number of other ABC presenters who had made statements that were clearly not impartial, yet they were not sanctioned.
A: Because they were based on fact.
OF: So it didn't matter that millions of Australian would disagree with the statement "Australia is a racist country and always has been", by Laura Tingle?
A: No
OF: The critical point is whether the statement is true?
A: Yes
OF: Would you agree that the process you describe is arbitrary?
A: No, an investigation ensues & someone senior decides whether there should be a sanction or removal.
OF: Who decides whether a statement is true?
A: A delegate decides whether the statement is accurate.
Judge: Is this a typical process or the process.
A: Sometimes no decision needs to be made since there is no case to answer.
OF: You understand Ms Lattouf was fired because she posted something on social media. Was this process followed?
A: No
OF: You are the ABC's MD & have a deep understanding of its processes for dealing with misconduct. I want to understand your views on these processes.
ABC lawyer objects on relevance. A asked to leave the court.
OF: I want to understand why A took no steps to ensure an investigation took place, as required in the process he describes.
Judge: Are you suggesting A's understanding of the enterprise agreement is relevant?
OF: Yes, and according to ABC processes, I want to determine why he did not assure compliance.
Judge: I deem the line of questioning relevant.
ABC: Word of caution about the actual nature of the pleading.
OF to A: Should a process have been followed that wasn't.
A: I think an assessment was warranted. My understanding is that allegations were not put to Ms Lattouf.
OF: Nor was a support person or outside assessor appointed?
A: No, Ms Lattouf was not approached.
OF: In the case of Laura Tingle she was counseled but not in relation to her comments about racism in Australia?
A: Correct
OF: Complaints have been made about ABC presenter Paul Barry?
A: Yes
OF: He was never taken off air?
A: No
OF: And companies were received about John Lyons & Patricia Karvalas?
A: Yes
OF: Sanctioned or taken off air?
A: No
OF: So expressing political opinion does not necessarily cause sanction or dismissal?
A: No
OF: I'm suggesting ABC processes invite arbitrary decision-making, ultimately resting upon a delegate's own view?
A: There is a process of assessment
OF: And the presenter would normally be aware of what they had done?
A: Yes
Judge asks A to leave the room. Addresses OF. I thought you would ask A why he had not assured due process. Can you do this more directly?
OF: You know Lattouf was not a political reporter for the ABC?
A: Yes
OF: And so her personal social media post could not have had an impact on her partiality in air?
A: It could have.
OF: The ABC was subject to a coordinated campaign about Ms Lattouf?
A Yes, there were about 50 emails that were worded almost the same.
OF: Bearing in mind that it is not uncommon for the ABC to "ruffle feathers", are such communications looked into?
A: Yes
OF: How did you learn about the WhatsApp campaign?
A: I was told by a subordinate that the campaign was coordinated via WhatsApp. The emails were clogging up my email account. They were all the same so I stopped reading them.
OF: They said Ms Lattouf was anti-semitic.
A: Yes.
OF: You knew the campaign was coordinated by Lawyers for Israel?
A: I learned that later.
OF: You came to agree with the complaints that Ms Lattouf's criticism of Israel were ant-semitic?
A: I looked at her social media posts. I can't remember exactly what constituted anti-semitic hatred; whether it was her statements or surrounding statements.
OF: You mean other people's statements?
A: Yes. I became concerned about what Lattouf might say on air.
Establishes that being fired by Australia's national broadcaster is a serious matter. Reminds A that he said all staff were well aware of ABC policies and guidelines.
OF: I asked if there were other rules not communicated to staff & only in the minds of management.
A: No, I cited sections of the EdPols regarding objectivity, which are in part informed by guidelines.
OF: What is objective journalism? Does that require qualification?
A: Reads extract and claims this to be clear.
OF Your view is that if a person's conduct in their private communications is perceived not to be impartial then that undermines the ABC's integrity?
A: That is the starting point for an investigation.
OF: You recall we spoke about a number of other ABC presenters who had made statements that were clearly not impartial, yet they were not sanctioned.
A: Because they were based on fact.
OF: So it didn't matter that millions of Australian would disagree with the statement "Australia is a racist country and always has been", by Laura Tingle?
A: No
OF: The critical point is whether the statement is true?
A: Yes
OF: Would you agree that the process you describe is arbitrary?
A: No, an investigation ensues & someone senior decides whether there should be a sanction or removal.
OF: Who decides whether a statement is true?
A: A delegate decides whether the statement is accurate.
Judge: Is this a typical process or the process.
A: Sometimes no decision needs to be made since there is no case to answer.
OF: You understand Ms Lattouf was fired because she posted something on social media. Was this process followed?
A: No
OF: You are the ABC's MD & have a deep understanding of its processes for dealing with misconduct. I want to understand your views on these processes.
ABC lawyer objects on relevance. A asked to leave the court.
OF: I want to understand why A took no steps to ensure an investigation took place, as required in the process he describes.
Judge: Are you suggesting A's understanding of the enterprise agreement is relevant?
OF: Yes, and according to ABC processes, I want to determine why he did not assure compliance.
Judge: I deem the line of questioning relevant.
ABC: Word of caution about the actual nature of the pleading.
OF to A: Should a process have been followed that wasn't.
A: I think an assessment was warranted. My understanding is that allegations were not put to Ms Lattouf.
OF: Nor was a support person or outside assessor appointed?
A: No, Ms Lattouf was not approached.
OF: In the case of Laura Tingle she was counseled but not in relation to her comments about racism in Australia?
A: Correct
OF: Complaints have been made about ABC presenter Paul Barry?
A: Yes
OF: He was never taken off air?
A: No
OF: And companies were received about John Lyons & Patricia Karvalas?
A: Yes
OF: Sanctioned or taken off air?
A: No
OF: So expressing political opinion does not necessarily cause sanction or dismissal?
A: No
OF: I'm suggesting ABC processes invite arbitrary decision-making, ultimately resting upon a delegate's own view?
A: There is a process of assessment
OF: And the presenter would normally be aware of what they had done?
A: Yes
Judge asks A to leave the room. Addresses OF. I thought you would ask A why he had not assured due process. Can you do this more directly?
OF: You know Lattouf was not a political reporter for the ABC?
A: Yes
OF: And so her personal social media post could not have had an impact on her partiality in air?
A: It could have.
OF: The ABC was subject to a coordinated campaign about Ms Lattouf?
A Yes, there were about 50 emails that were worded almost the same.
OF: Bearing in mind that it is not uncommon for the ABC to "ruffle feathers", are such communications looked into?
A: Yes
OF: How did you learn about the WhatsApp campaign?
A: I was told by a subordinate that the campaign was coordinated via WhatsApp. The emails were clogging up my email account. They were all the same so I stopped reading them.
OF: They said Ms Lattouf was anti-semitic.
A: Yes.
OF: You knew the campaign was coordinated by Lawyers for Israel?
A: I learned that later.
OF: You came to agree with the complaints that Ms Lattouf's criticism of Israel were ant-semitic?
A: I looked at her social media posts. I can't remember exactly what constituted anti-semitic hatred; whether it was her statements or surrounding statements.
OF: You mean other people's statements?
A: Yes. I became concerned about what Lattouf might say on air.
OF: Is this a message exchange between you & Mr Oliver-Taylor?
A: Yes
OF: Was someone sending you screenshots?
A: No
OF: Isn't it unusual for an MD to trawl a 5-day casual presenter's social media account?
A: I was looking into a problem and concerned about what I saw.
OF: Did you have a personal distaste for what you saw?
A: I was concerned
OF : You wrote to Oliver -Taylor: "I think we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of ant-semitic hatred." You personally abhor this kind of speech and personally offended?
A: Not personally. I'm not Jewish. I was concerned Lattouf might repeat some of this on air.
OF: You sent three screenshots. One was the Crikey article. You thought the Crikey article was anti-semitic hatred?
A: I've never read it.
OF: You questioned why Lattouf had been employed?
A: Yes, I thought there were others who were impartial on contentious issue.
OF: Even though her show was not about that issue; that there had been no incident in her shows in the preceding days; and that the expert opinion was that she had done nothing wrong; you continued on the war path to get rid of her?
A: I was concerned she might speak on that issue.
OF On Israel-Palestine?
A: Yes
OF: Why did you send the Crikey article?
A: The feature image said: "Gas the Jews"
OF: Surely you don't think Ms Lattouf posted that image; that it was rather published by the two journalists who wrote the article. Have you read the article?
A: No
OF: You were speaking with Mr Oliver-Taylor. He's not Ms Lattouf's line manager.
A: He said he'd spoken to Mr Ahern.
OF: Mr Ahern was not her line manager either. Her dismissal was handled in an atypical manner.
A: there is much uncertainty about live radio. Advocacy for one perspective by the host is not appropriate.
OF: Your view was that Lattouf should have a "managed exit" from the organisation?
A: My view was that the contentious issue should not be associated with it. We should not allow calls about that.
OF: You knew Lattouf had posted from her show the previous year without incident? And there had been no incident in the previous days? And that there was an understanding in place that there would be no mention of Israel- Palestine on air?
A: Yes
OF: Your view that Ms Lattouf's fate was in O-T's hands?
A: Yes it was his decision.
OF: O-T called you about the @hrw post. Did you read that she has breached our editorial policies by posting on social media? And did you tell him that posting on a personal account was not a breach of editorial policy [which only relates to one air content]?
A: I only said: "Are you sure?" I trusted his judgement to dismiss her. I agree that posting on personal media has nothing to do with editorial policy.
OF: Did you look at the post?
A: No, I just accepted his position. I didn't know the details.
OF: But you already had a deep interest in Lattouf's social media, and knowledge of a prior decision that she had done nothing wrong. A day later your interest had diminished to the extent that you didn't even take a look?
A: I trusted his judgement.
OF: You didn't tell O-T that it would be normal to hear what Lattouf had to say in her defence?
A: No
OF: This process was completely abnormal from start to end. Agree?
A: Yes
OF: You maintained a keen personal interest in Ms Lattouf for the 3 days leading up to her dismissal. You were happy for her to be gone and let it happen with no insistence on due process, because you held a personal view about what she was posting on social media.
A: I was concerned about what she might say before the end of the week. I trusted my subordinates' judgement. O-T and Mr Ahern had the authority to act as they did.
A: Yes
OF: Was someone sending you screenshots?
A: No
OF: Isn't it unusual for an MD to trawl a 5-day casual presenter's social media account?
A: I was looking into a problem and concerned about what I saw.
OF: Did you have a personal distaste for what you saw?
A: I was concerned
OF : You wrote to Oliver -Taylor: "I think we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of ant-semitic hatred." You personally abhor this kind of speech and personally offended?
A: Not personally. I'm not Jewish. I was concerned Lattouf might repeat some of this on air.
OF: You sent three screenshots. One was the Crikey article. You thought the Crikey article was anti-semitic hatred?
A: I've never read it.
OF: You questioned why Lattouf had been employed?
A: Yes, I thought there were others who were impartial on contentious issue.
OF: Even though her show was not about that issue; that there had been no incident in her shows in the preceding days; and that the expert opinion was that she had done nothing wrong; you continued on the war path to get rid of her?
A: I was concerned she might speak on that issue.
OF On Israel-Palestine?
A: Yes
OF: Why did you send the Crikey article?
A: The feature image said: "Gas the Jews"
OF: Surely you don't think Ms Lattouf posted that image; that it was rather published by the two journalists who wrote the article. Have you read the article?
A: No
OF: You were speaking with Mr Oliver-Taylor. He's not Ms Lattouf's line manager.
A: He said he'd spoken to Mr Ahern.
OF: Mr Ahern was not her line manager either. Her dismissal was handled in an atypical manner.
A: there is much uncertainty about live radio. Advocacy for one perspective by the host is not appropriate.
OF: Your view was that Lattouf should have a "managed exit" from the organisation?
A: My view was that the contentious issue should not be associated with it. We should not allow calls about that.
OF: You knew Lattouf had posted from her show the previous year without incident? And there had been no incident in the previous days? And that there was an understanding in place that there would be no mention of Israel- Palestine on air?
A: Yes
OF: Your view that Ms Lattouf's fate was in O-T's hands?
A: Yes it was his decision.
OF: O-T called you about the @hrw post. Did you read that she has breached our editorial policies by posting on social media? And did you tell him that posting on a personal account was not a breach of editorial policy [which only relates to one air content]?
A: I only said: "Are you sure?" I trusted his judgement to dismiss her. I agree that posting on personal media has nothing to do with editorial policy.
OF: Did you look at the post?
A: No, I just accepted his position. I didn't know the details.
OF: But you already had a deep interest in Lattouf's social media, and knowledge of a prior decision that she had done nothing wrong. A day later your interest had diminished to the extent that you didn't even take a look?
A: I trusted his judgement.
OF: You didn't tell O-T that it would be normal to hear what Lattouf had to say in her defence?
A: No
OF: This process was completely abnormal from start to end. Agree?
A: Yes
OF: You maintained a keen personal interest in Ms Lattouf for the 3 days leading up to her dismissal. You were happy for her to be gone and let it happen with no insistence on due process, because you held a personal view about what she was posting on social media.
A: I was concerned about what she might say before the end of the week. I trusted my subordinates' judgement. O-T and Mr Ahern had the authority to act as they did.
OF to ABC MD Mr Anderson: You were aware by Wednesday of all the litigants that were in place, and recited them to ABC Chair Ms Buttrose. You didn't lie to Ms Buttrose? You said ABC has been put in an untenable position, but there were litigants in place.
Your view at all times was that ABC was put in an untenable position. Agree?
A: I thought it was a mistake to hire her and that her exit would be managed by the end of the week.
Court adjourns for lunch.
Your view at all times was that ABC was put in an untenable position. Agree?
A: I thought it was a mistake to hire her and that her exit would be managed by the end of the week.
Court adjourns for lunch.
@antoinette_news Correction: "litigants" should read "mitigants" in the previous post. X inappropriately auto-corrected what was written.
Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir continues his questioning of ABC Managing Director Mr Anderson.
OF: Nowhere in your review of Lattouf's social media did you see her say that Israel does not have the right to exist.
A: I saw something about an illegal occupation
OF You think that is anti-semitic?
A: It can be
OF: So you expressed an opinion that Lattouf should not have been hired, and told Olver-Taylor that you were deeply unhappy about the position the ABC was in.
A: I was unhappy
OF: that's why he was apologetic?
A: Maybe
OF: If you had suggested he conduct a misconduct process it would have happened
A: Possibly
OF On what basis would O-T have the right to tell Ms Lattouf not to post on social media, indeed what to do in her personal time?
A: She was high profile. We didn't want her to speak about a contentious issue that would undermine ABC's reputation of impartiality.
OF: Would you agree ABC has a strong commitment to diversity of race? Are there Lebanese people there?
Objection on relevance. OF asked to rephrase
OF: You understand what people mean by Lebanese race, given the Fair Work Commision's advice is that the term should be accorded a popular interpretation. In your view, is there a Lebanese race?
A. I understand that people may identify that way. I haven't formed an opinion.
OF: Your job is to protect the ABC's reputation for independence & integrity?
A: Yes
OF: Has this case damaged the ABC's reputation?
A: the outcome of this case will determine that.
OF: Are you aware of amended submission by the ABC yesterday?
A: No
OF: Can you mark this document for further discussion
Judge: How will you deal with documents tendered during the chronology?
ABC: We have looked at all documents and have no objection to a new filing.
OF: Nowhere in your review of Lattouf's social media did you see her say that Israel does not have the right to exist.
A: I saw something about an illegal occupation
OF You think that is anti-semitic?
A: It can be
OF: So you expressed an opinion that Lattouf should not have been hired, and told Olver-Taylor that you were deeply unhappy about the position the ABC was in.
A: I was unhappy
OF: that's why he was apologetic?
A: Maybe
OF: If you had suggested he conduct a misconduct process it would have happened
A: Possibly
OF On what basis would O-T have the right to tell Ms Lattouf not to post on social media, indeed what to do in her personal time?
A: She was high profile. We didn't want her to speak about a contentious issue that would undermine ABC's reputation of impartiality.
OF: Would you agree ABC has a strong commitment to diversity of race? Are there Lebanese people there?
Objection on relevance. OF asked to rephrase
OF: You understand what people mean by Lebanese race, given the Fair Work Commision's advice is that the term should be accorded a popular interpretation. In your view, is there a Lebanese race?
A. I understand that people may identify that way. I haven't formed an opinion.
OF: Your job is to protect the ABC's reputation for independence & integrity?
A: Yes
OF: Has this case damaged the ABC's reputation?
A: the outcome of this case will determine that.
OF: Are you aware of amended submission by the ABC yesterday?
A: No
OF: Can you mark this document for further discussion
Judge: How will you deal with documents tendered during the chronology?
ABC: We have looked at all documents and have no objection to a new filing.
End of Lattouf lawyer's questions to ABC MD Anderson
ABC lawyer to Anderson. Establishes what his duties are and covers ground from OF questioning.
Judge: What is the obligation of an ABC employee to comply with editorial policies?
A: Everyone participating is required to comply
Judge: But what is it that requires them ti comply
A: We put it in their job plan
Judge: You refer to a Code of Conduct?
A: We incorporated social media conduct there
Judge: Is it contractual? What is the relationship between Code of Conduct and personal social media content?
A: Personal social media content is not owned the ABC, but we expect it not to undermine a person's ability to be effective on air.
Judge: Any objections to these questions?
OF: No
ABC: You said AL had not been called to speak in her own defence. Correct?
A: Yes
ABC: You sent O-T a screenshot from a Crikey article. Have you ever read that article?
A: No
ABC: When you wrote to Ms Buttrose what was the 1st line you wrote?
A: "Antoinette will finish up on Friday"
ABC What do you mean by "bring the ABC into disrepute"?
A: Undermine public perception of our impartiality
ABC: What does "undermine their effectiveness at work"?
A: Any conduct on social media that might influence perception of the ABC's impartiality.
End of re-examination
ABC lawyer to Anderson. Establishes what his duties are and covers ground from OF questioning.
Judge: What is the obligation of an ABC employee to comply with editorial policies?
A: Everyone participating is required to comply
Judge: But what is it that requires them ti comply
A: We put it in their job plan
Judge: You refer to a Code of Conduct?
A: We incorporated social media conduct there
Judge: Is it contractual? What is the relationship between Code of Conduct and personal social media content?
A: Personal social media content is not owned the ABC, but we expect it not to undermine a person's ability to be effective on air.
Judge: Any objections to these questions?
OF: No
ABC: You said AL had not been called to speak in her own defence. Correct?
A: Yes
ABC: You sent O-T a screenshot from a Crikey article. Have you ever read that article?
A: No
ABC: When you wrote to Ms Buttrose what was the 1st line you wrote?
A: "Antoinette will finish up on Friday"
ABC What do you mean by "bring the ABC into disrepute"?
A: Undermine public perception of our impartiality
ABC: What does "undermine their effectiveness at work"?
A: Any conduct on social media that might influence perception of the ABC's impartiality.
End of re-examination
At the end of re-examination, Justice Darryl Rangiah called both legal representatives into Chambers. It has been about 30 minutes, and they have not yet returned.
Having been able to review the stream, we take the opportunity to convey a missed detail. Complaints had been pouring in for weeks about ABC's reporting on the Middle East for weeks before Lattouf's work began.
Having been able to review the stream, we take the opportunity to convey a missed detail. Complaints had been pouring in for weeks about ABC's reporting on the Middle East for weeks before Lattouf's work began.
@antoinette_news Nothing to report. Justice Darryl Rangiah and both legal representatives are still in Chambers.
@antoinette_news Lattouf v. ABC finished for the day.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
