Our DAY FIVE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 9.30am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
We arrived at a point yesterday where David Anderson, the Managing Director of the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) testified that @antoinette_news' mention of "Illegally occupied territories" of #Gaza could be interpreted as anti-semitic hate speech.
The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.
The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.
Court in session. Calling Christopher Nicolas Oliver-Taylor (O-T), Chief Content Officer (COT) for ABC.
Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.
Screenshot shown from Teams meeting
Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath
O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer
OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people
OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?
O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?
OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?
O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play
OF: You were also bound by EdPols?
O-T: Yes
OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.
OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?
O-T: Yes
OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?
O-T: No
OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.
O-T: Nods
OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.
O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.
OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not
OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes
OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No
OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?
O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...
OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?
ABC lawyer: Objection
Judge asks O-T to leave the room
OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category
OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.
OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.
OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?
O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.
OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: I didn't know she held that view
OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.
OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: No
OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?
O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment
OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer
OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.
OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.
OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?
O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer
OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.
O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.
OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances
OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?
O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)
OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.
OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.
OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?
O-T: Yes
OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.
OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media
O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?
O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.
OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.
O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?
O-T: I don't agree with that statement.
OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter
OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?
O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?
OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes
OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?
O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.
OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.
OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?
O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?
O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes
OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?
O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.
OF: You had no idea what she was posting?
O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.
OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?
O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.
O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.
OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.
Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.
Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.
Screenshot shown from Teams meeting
Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath
O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer
OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people
OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?
O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?
OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?
O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play
OF: You were also bound by EdPols?
O-T: Yes
OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.
OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?
O-T: Yes
OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?
O-T: No
OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.
O-T: Nods
OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.
O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.
OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not
OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes
OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No
OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?
O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...
OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?
ABC lawyer: Objection
Judge asks O-T to leave the room
OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category
OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.
OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.
OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?
O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.
OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: I didn't know she held that view
OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.
OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: No
OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?
O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment
OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer
OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.
OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.
OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?
O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer
OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.
O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.
OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances
OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?
O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)
OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.
OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.
OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?
O-T: Yes
OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.
OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media
O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?
O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.
OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.
O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?
O-T: I don't agree with that statement.
OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter
OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?
O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?
OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes
OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?
O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.
OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.
OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?
O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?
O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes
OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?
O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.
OF: You had no idea what she was posting?
O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.
OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?
O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.
O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.
OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.
Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.
OF to O-T: You knew by the evening of Dec 18 that Lattouf was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: I knew that via MD Anderson's communications. I had not checked myself.
OF: You believed MD?
O-T: Yes and I agreed we had a problem because we were live. MD asked if you had a staff posting an article like this what would you do? Said it was hugely problematical & I agreed.
OF asks about more material sent by Anderson. O-T isn't sure where the material comes from.
OF: You told your staff you had a problem with Lattouf socials & that was difficult to let her remain on air. You didn't mention that it was if such material had been posted during her period of employment, did you?
O-T: I don't know
OF: In your affidavit you mention 4 considerations. Your memory was sufficiently clear on Oct 24 last year to remember this detail?
O-T: These are simple points
OF Concern 1 was impartiality re Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes
OF: You knew whether it was pro or anti-Israel
O-T: I'm not an expert. I knew she had a strong view that had been published.
OF: You were concerned she might say something on air
O-T: yes
OF refers to instruction not to post anything on socials.
OF: You were still getting messages about her posts, going back months.
O-T: Yes
OF: Comms suggest everyone was aware of Lattouf's strong views. Do you remember Melkman's advice to tread lightly with disciplinary action, for fear of blowback if she were taken off air? He said she had done nothing wrong. You were aware of a risk?
O-T: Yes, that was his view? He's a fine colleague.
OF: You were aware that there was an established process for giving the person procedural fairness etc. Di you seek advice P & C?
O-T: I assumed Mr Ahern was checking with the right people.
Court adjourned for 20 mins
O-T: I knew that via MD Anderson's communications. I had not checked myself.
OF: You believed MD?
O-T: Yes and I agreed we had a problem because we were live. MD asked if you had a staff posting an article like this what would you do? Said it was hugely problematical & I agreed.
OF asks about more material sent by Anderson. O-T isn't sure where the material comes from.
OF: You told your staff you had a problem with Lattouf socials & that was difficult to let her remain on air. You didn't mention that it was if such material had been posted during her period of employment, did you?
O-T: I don't know
OF: In your affidavit you mention 4 considerations. Your memory was sufficiently clear on Oct 24 last year to remember this detail?
O-T: These are simple points
OF Concern 1 was impartiality re Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes
OF: You knew whether it was pro or anti-Israel
O-T: I'm not an expert. I knew she had a strong view that had been published.
OF: You were concerned she might say something on air
O-T: yes
OF refers to instruction not to post anything on socials.
OF: You were still getting messages about her posts, going back months.
O-T: Yes
OF: Comms suggest everyone was aware of Lattouf's strong views. Do you remember Melkman's advice to tread lightly with disciplinary action, for fear of blowback if she were taken off air? He said she had done nothing wrong. You were aware of a risk?
O-T: Yes, that was his view? He's a fine colleague.
OF: You were aware that there was an established process for giving the person procedural fairness etc. Di you seek advice P & C?
O-T: I assumed Mr Ahern was checking with the right people.
Court adjourned for 20 mins
Oshie Fagir (OF) to Oliver-Taylor: Do you understand what procedural fairness is? That it means giving someone their say? And that taking someone off air would be a serious matter?
O-T: I think she was given fair warning. Yes it's serious.
OF: You were influenced by MD's position on the matter and kept him aware of what was going on?
O-T: Melkman sent you a report that said he had not seen any breach of Ed Pols. He said there may be hidden breach of guidelines but as far as he could see there was no reason to take AL off air.
O-T: Yes
OF: He suggested you advise Al to keep a low profile, but your understanding was that she had been given a direction. Did you tell him that?
O-T: He only gives advice.
OF: How come you relayed Melkman's advice to the ND if there was already a direction in place?
O-T: There were lots of views.
OF: You knew AL's 'Mornings' show was unrelated to the war. Why is there nothing in your emails to MD that you fear she might go off track and introduce this issue?
O-T: There was always a concern
OF: You email the MD with "our" position, that he might need to pivot. Ir was from you and the team. You knew Anderson was disturbed by by what he sent you, but the view from the team was that she had done nothing wrong?
O-T: I didn't know his state of mind but yes, that was our view.
OF: You were in a difficult position: MD wants one thing and expert advice say otherwise?
O-T: I think that's fair.
O-T: I think she was given fair warning. Yes it's serious.
OF: You were influenced by MD's position on the matter and kept him aware of what was going on?
O-T: Melkman sent you a report that said he had not seen any breach of Ed Pols. He said there may be hidden breach of guidelines but as far as he could see there was no reason to take AL off air.
O-T: Yes
OF: He suggested you advise Al to keep a low profile, but your understanding was that she had been given a direction. Did you tell him that?
O-T: He only gives advice.
OF: How come you relayed Melkman's advice to the ND if there was already a direction in place?
O-T: There were lots of views.
OF: You knew AL's 'Mornings' show was unrelated to the war. Why is there nothing in your emails to MD that you fear she might go off track and introduce this issue?
O-T: There was always a concern
OF: You email the MD with "our" position, that he might need to pivot. Ir was from you and the team. You knew Anderson was disturbed by by what he sent you, but the view from the team was that she had done nothing wrong?
O-T: I didn't know his state of mind but yes, that was our view.
OF: You were in a difficult position: MD wants one thing and expert advice say otherwise?
O-T: I think that's fair.
OT refers to O-T affidavit re email sent at 1.16pm on Tuesday Dec 19.
O-T: My main connection was with Mr Latimer
OF: You speak about Ms Green having given an instruction to Lattouf not to post anything about the Israel-Gaza war. You're not saying she shouldn't post anything that shows she is impartial about the issue?
O-T: I think what Green said was not the direction we had given
OF: What was your understand of the instruction given?
O-T: Not to post anything about the war.
OF: Were there 2 directions? One, not to post anything about the war, or not post anything that would suggest you are partial. Are they the same thing?
O-T: I was trying to ensure there could be no risk of partiality with someone who had a live mic to Sydney.
OF: If she were to post "War ends" that would be not impartial?
Objection to hypothetical question
OF You wrote that Green had told Lattouf not to talk about Israel-Gaza on her shows this week. You thought that to be a reiteration of a direction re social media?
O-T: No, that's about on the show.
OF: So the sentence in your affidavit is wrong and we can count it as a mistake?
O-T: My state of mind is that the direction had not changed.
OF: There's no direction (about social media?)
O-T: How Ms Green interpreted the direction I don't know.
OF: Couldn't you have called Lattouf? Didn't you want to hide the fact that you were involved?
O-T: The MD was advising me
OF: You were managing the entire process of the dismissal?
O-T: Not every step.
OF refers to discussions with MD, re meeting between him and ABC Chair, & O-T's reception of complaints bundle. You forward these to Melkman & Latimer and suggest breach of Code of Practice. Melkman advises not to move against Lattouf.
O-T: That was his opinion.
OF refers to Latimer being designated the task of passing on direction Lattouf not to post for the rest of the week about the war. Your understanding at this point was that the direction had already been given. Why do it again?
O-T: This was to be a stronger direction, to clarify things for Ms Green.
OF: Melkman suggest how to respond to complainants. You agree with is suggestion, including proposal that Antoinette is an excellent broadcaster?
O-T: Yes
O-T: My main connection was with Mr Latimer
OF: You speak about Ms Green having given an instruction to Lattouf not to post anything about the Israel-Gaza war. You're not saying she shouldn't post anything that shows she is impartial about the issue?
O-T: I think what Green said was not the direction we had given
OF: What was your understand of the instruction given?
O-T: Not to post anything about the war.
OF: Were there 2 directions? One, not to post anything about the war, or not post anything that would suggest you are partial. Are they the same thing?
O-T: I was trying to ensure there could be no risk of partiality with someone who had a live mic to Sydney.
OF: If she were to post "War ends" that would be not impartial?
Objection to hypothetical question
OF You wrote that Green had told Lattouf not to talk about Israel-Gaza on her shows this week. You thought that to be a reiteration of a direction re social media?
O-T: No, that's about on the show.
OF: So the sentence in your affidavit is wrong and we can count it as a mistake?
O-T: My state of mind is that the direction had not changed.
OF: There's no direction (about social media?)
O-T: How Ms Green interpreted the direction I don't know.
OF: Couldn't you have called Lattouf? Didn't you want to hide the fact that you were involved?
O-T: The MD was advising me
OF: You were managing the entire process of the dismissal?
O-T: Not every step.
OF refers to discussions with MD, re meeting between him and ABC Chair, & O-T's reception of complaints bundle. You forward these to Melkman & Latimer and suggest breach of Code of Practice. Melkman advises not to move against Lattouf.
O-T: That was his opinion.
OF refers to Latimer being designated the task of passing on direction Lattouf not to post for the rest of the week about the war. Your understanding at this point was that the direction had already been given. Why do it again?
O-T: This was to be a stronger direction, to clarify things for Ms Green.
OF: Melkman suggest how to respond to complainants. You agree with is suggestion, including proposal that Antoinette is an excellent broadcaster?
O-T: Yes
Oshie Fagir to Oliver-Taylor:
OF: You were under a lot of pressure, under rock and a hard place, between the MD & expert advice.
O-T: Yes, but I felt we were managing it and Lattouf was performing well on air. I was confident with the advice she was given.
OF: You spoke with Latimer about the pressure you were under?
O-T: Yes
OF: You then get copied in on emails from the ABC Chair, asking if Lattouf has been replaced yet. This was dealing up the pressure?
O-T: Yes
OF: Anderson said it was a "managed exit". Did you write to ask what that meant?
O-T: No, it was a correspondence between the Chair and MD. I just acknowledged it.
OF: And responsibility for the fate of Ms Lattouf was not yours either?
O-T: I believe it was sir.
OF: You just replied "Thank you"
O-T: Yes
OF: You were then sent another 45 emails?
O-T: yes
OF: You then became aware the Chair said "Why can't she just come down with flu or Covid?" What do you think she meant by "We owe her nothing. We're copping criticism because she wasn't honest when appointed"?
O-T: I don't know
OF: Was it clear the Chair wanted Lattouf out before Friday?
O-T: I can't be sure but we can all read it.
OF: Your reaction is that the blowback will be phenomenal, that we hold until Friday.
O-T: Yes that's one point I made to the MD.
OF: You thought Anderson would make the call
O-T: I didn't like the comments by the share
OF: He sent you a message about "sharing the pain".
O-T: I didn't like the situation
OF: Tuesday: Melkman's position to keep Lattouf is clear; and you're apologising to the MD for that position.
O-T: That's the short version
OF: Wednesday: Chair is now emailing you directly and has nominated you as the person dealing with the matter. Why you?
O-T: That was unexpected. I didn't know why I was being being named. It was abnormal.
OF: There's been no breach to date, right. Why was the team's position described as unacceptable?
O-T: I'm not sure. What was unusual was the Chair writing to and naming me.
OF cites more correspondence about complaints & mention of his name. The Chair said the complaints would keep coming until Lattouf dismissed. Question O-T about use of the words untenable position.
OF Can I suggest that the untenable position was the tension between top level management & expert advice.
O-T: I think you described it best as being between a rock and a hard place.
OF: More emails came from Buttrose.
O-T: Yes, there was a view that we had put the wrong person on air but no evidence she had done anything wrong. The Chair was forwarding more complaints and naming me as the person designated to resolve the issue.
OF: You were put in a deeply unfair position.
O-T: It was difficult, given the live-to-air context of Lattouf's presence.
OF: There were the usual safeguards in the live environment?
O-T: yes, and instruction not to post.
OF: Then The Australian (news outlet) stared coming after you...
Court adjoined for lunch.
OF: You were under a lot of pressure, under rock and a hard place, between the MD & expert advice.
O-T: Yes, but I felt we were managing it and Lattouf was performing well on air. I was confident with the advice she was given.
OF: You spoke with Latimer about the pressure you were under?
O-T: Yes
OF: You then get copied in on emails from the ABC Chair, asking if Lattouf has been replaced yet. This was dealing up the pressure?
O-T: Yes
OF: Anderson said it was a "managed exit". Did you write to ask what that meant?
O-T: No, it was a correspondence between the Chair and MD. I just acknowledged it.
OF: And responsibility for the fate of Ms Lattouf was not yours either?
O-T: I believe it was sir.
OF: You just replied "Thank you"
O-T: Yes
OF: You were then sent another 45 emails?
O-T: yes
OF: You then became aware the Chair said "Why can't she just come down with flu or Covid?" What do you think she meant by "We owe her nothing. We're copping criticism because she wasn't honest when appointed"?
O-T: I don't know
OF: Was it clear the Chair wanted Lattouf out before Friday?
O-T: I can't be sure but we can all read it.
OF: Your reaction is that the blowback will be phenomenal, that we hold until Friday.
O-T: Yes that's one point I made to the MD.
OF: You thought Anderson would make the call
O-T: I didn't like the comments by the share
OF: He sent you a message about "sharing the pain".
O-T: I didn't like the situation
OF: Tuesday: Melkman's position to keep Lattouf is clear; and you're apologising to the MD for that position.
O-T: That's the short version
OF: Wednesday: Chair is now emailing you directly and has nominated you as the person dealing with the matter. Why you?
O-T: That was unexpected. I didn't know why I was being being named. It was abnormal.
OF: There's been no breach to date, right. Why was the team's position described as unacceptable?
O-T: I'm not sure. What was unusual was the Chair writing to and naming me.
OF cites more correspondence about complaints & mention of his name. The Chair said the complaints would keep coming until Lattouf dismissed. Question O-T about use of the words untenable position.
OF Can I suggest that the untenable position was the tension between top level management & expert advice.
O-T: I think you described it best as being between a rock and a hard place.
OF: More emails came from Buttrose.
O-T: Yes, there was a view that we had put the wrong person on air but no evidence she had done anything wrong. The Chair was forwarding more complaints and naming me as the person designated to resolve the issue.
OF: You were put in a deeply unfair position.
O-T: It was difficult, given the live-to-air context of Lattouf's presence.
OF: There were the usual safeguards in the live environment?
O-T: yes, and instruction not to post.
OF: Then The Australian (news outlet) stared coming after you...
Court adjoined for lunch.
Court resumes.
OF to O-T: So The Australian was chasing you?
O-T: Yes, I don't know if they knew who they were talking to.
OF: the pressure flows downstream to Ahern. There was a view circulating by Wed 20 that Lattouf shouldn't have been hired for live-to-air. Was that your view?
O-T: I thought more work should have been done to vet her.
OF: Was a statement by Latimer in an email was wrong, about Lattouf not being allowed to post anything on socials for the rest of the week? Did you correct him about it only being in relation to the war?
O-T: Yes wrong, and I didn't correct him.
OF: You spoke to Ben (Latimer) and asked for a screenshot. We don't see any screenshot in your evidence. Why can't it or any screenshots be located?
O-T: I don't know.
On Wed 20, there's an email saying "we have to see the posts". You didn't answer it, right.
O-T: Correct
Wednesday meeting: discussion about Lattouf's posts prompts you to say she may have breached the social media guidelines. Did you believe that at the time & do recall what you said to Fair Work Commission?
OF You have said you were sure there was a breach and there was a potential breach.
O-T: There were mixed feelings with in the group but I can't say who held which view. Melkman was likely the one who said there was no breach.
OF: Melkman was the expert, right?
O-T: One of them, but I personally wasn't knowledgable enough to know what was a breach or controversial. My instruction was that Lattouf should not post anything about the war.
OF: You say Lattouf posting about the Israel-Gaza war was the critical factor in her dismissal?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you are confident she was told not to do this? By whom?
O-T: It went through Mr Latimer and on through his staff.
OF: And you decided this was the only thing to do
O-T: Yes we did.
OF: You saw in an email that Ahern had met with Lattouf in presence of Green & Spurway. He quoted what he said to her. He said: "You were asked..." twice. He doesn't say "directed". Did you tell him he had made a mistake, or was Lattouf only asked, or advised not to post?
O-T: Direct, suggest, request... they are all the same thing.
OF: We all know that's nonsense.
O-T: If I ask my team to do something that's what I expect to happen.
OF: You wrote in an email "She was asked". Did you know that 3 team members had not said a direction had been given? Did you see Ms Green's affidavit?
O-T: No
OF: Can I suggest the only time you used the word "direct" was in text messages to the MD Mr Anderson?
You said she failed to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything while with us. You knew that to be a factually incorrect statement?
O-T: I didn't have to spell it out
OF: There was confusion about what had been said to Lattouf?
O-T: I checked with my team that everything had been done.
OF: You took her off air because her views were problematic and you had pressure coming from multiple directions, including the MD & Chair.
O-T: I had tried to make an arrangement that would enable us to keep her. I felt now that we had no other option
OF: What was impartial about the view in her post?
O-T: I wasn't concerned about the view. She wasn't allowed to post at all.
OF: You said to the MD: It looks like she has breached our editorial policy on impartiality. I think we can agree that this has nothing to do with editorial policy.
OF: You speak in another email about "editorial guidelines".
O-T: I think that was Latimer's language I used.
OF: You were an expert in ABC's editorial policies?
O-T: I had to work with them. I don't know who is an expert.
OF refers to another communication mentioning "breach of editorial policy".
OF: Can I suggest an ABC executive knows the difference between EdPols and Social media guidelines.
O-T: They are quite intertwined
OF: You were asked by a media person whether it was an EdPols or socials guidelines issue. And you didn't answer that question?
O-T: No
OF: You then spoke about breach of impartiality rules. How did you form the view that the post breached impartiality? You said the day before that you weren't concerned about partiality. How did the post breach social media guidelines?
O-T: Partiality. Bias. It was about the risk she might say anything live on air.
OF: Your evidence is shambolic because you never once mentioned social media guidelines. Your boss wanted this Lebanese woman off air and you assured it got done, regardless of what she had said and her work contract.
O-T: Not correct
OF There was total lack of clarity about what was said to Lattouf. It was specific to her. Did anyone else receive such direction.
O-T: Not to my knowledge
OF: You said she breached a policy but never said which policy.
O-T: I did everything to keep her
OF: You didn't check that the action taken was consistent with AL Enterprise Agreement
O-T: I relied in colleagues.
OF: You recall an email from Lattouf the day she was taken off air? She was asking for information about why she was taken off air. You could have answered her questions. It would have been an act of common courtesy to reply, right?
O-T: Yes but I didn't.
OF: You didn't because you had no defendable answers. She said she thought she had been unfairly dismissed.
She wanted to know which social media guideline she had breached.
O-T: As soon as I saw the words unfair dismissal I passed the matter on to others.
OF: You could have told Lattouf she was still an employee, established that Ms Green had not made clear what the direction was, and had her back the next day for her shift. It was irrelevant what Green had said because Lattouf had to be gone.
O-T: I had other things to do.
OF: She said The Australian had published their story before she got home. You know how they got the story, right?
O-T: No
OF: You had a goal to get rid of Lattouf and beat the story. To be seen not have caved to pressure by The Australian.
O-T: No
OF: The Australian was reporting she had been sacked. You knew that was't true. Did you take steps to correct that?
O-T: Not my job
OF: How did The Australian get some of the information in their article? Did you leak it?
O-T: Of course not
OF asks O-T about more detail in The Australian's article. He cites one fact that only 5 ABC senior staff members were aware of.
O-T: How did the Guardian know in advance that I was going to resign? They have ways into the ABC.
OF: Who called you from The Australian?
O-T: Sophie Ellsworth. I usually say no comment to these people.
OF: You knew The Australian was going to run a yarn. Did you discuss that at the meeting?
O-T: No
OF: You fired Lattouf because of her expressions of opinion on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: They were made public.
Objection from ABC lawyer and question is reviewed.
OF: Your view is that AL published an opinion that may lead to a perception that she was not impartial.
O-T: She published a number of things expressing opinions. The nature of the opinions didn't matter.
OF: You knew she published opinions supporting Palestinians' human rights?
O-T: Can't remember
OF: You knew she had written about fake footage of "Gas the Jews" chants at the Opera House?
O-T: Can't remember
End of cross examination.
OF to O-T: So The Australian was chasing you?
O-T: Yes, I don't know if they knew who they were talking to.
OF: the pressure flows downstream to Ahern. There was a view circulating by Wed 20 that Lattouf shouldn't have been hired for live-to-air. Was that your view?
O-T: I thought more work should have been done to vet her.
OF: Was a statement by Latimer in an email was wrong, about Lattouf not being allowed to post anything on socials for the rest of the week? Did you correct him about it only being in relation to the war?
O-T: Yes wrong, and I didn't correct him.
OF: You spoke to Ben (Latimer) and asked for a screenshot. We don't see any screenshot in your evidence. Why can't it or any screenshots be located?
O-T: I don't know.
On Wed 20, there's an email saying "we have to see the posts". You didn't answer it, right.
O-T: Correct
Wednesday meeting: discussion about Lattouf's posts prompts you to say she may have breached the social media guidelines. Did you believe that at the time & do recall what you said to Fair Work Commission?
OF You have said you were sure there was a breach and there was a potential breach.
O-T: There were mixed feelings with in the group but I can't say who held which view. Melkman was likely the one who said there was no breach.
OF: Melkman was the expert, right?
O-T: One of them, but I personally wasn't knowledgable enough to know what was a breach or controversial. My instruction was that Lattouf should not post anything about the war.
OF: You say Lattouf posting about the Israel-Gaza war was the critical factor in her dismissal?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you are confident she was told not to do this? By whom?
O-T: It went through Mr Latimer and on through his staff.
OF: And you decided this was the only thing to do
O-T: Yes we did.
OF: You saw in an email that Ahern had met with Lattouf in presence of Green & Spurway. He quoted what he said to her. He said: "You were asked..." twice. He doesn't say "directed". Did you tell him he had made a mistake, or was Lattouf only asked, or advised not to post?
O-T: Direct, suggest, request... they are all the same thing.
OF: We all know that's nonsense.
O-T: If I ask my team to do something that's what I expect to happen.
OF: You wrote in an email "She was asked". Did you know that 3 team members had not said a direction had been given? Did you see Ms Green's affidavit?
O-T: No
OF: Can I suggest the only time you used the word "direct" was in text messages to the MD Mr Anderson?
You said she failed to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything while with us. You knew that to be a factually incorrect statement?
O-T: I didn't have to spell it out
OF: There was confusion about what had been said to Lattouf?
O-T: I checked with my team that everything had been done.
OF: You took her off air because her views were problematic and you had pressure coming from multiple directions, including the MD & Chair.
O-T: I had tried to make an arrangement that would enable us to keep her. I felt now that we had no other option
OF: What was impartial about the view in her post?
O-T: I wasn't concerned about the view. She wasn't allowed to post at all.
OF: You said to the MD: It looks like she has breached our editorial policy on impartiality. I think we can agree that this has nothing to do with editorial policy.
OF: You speak in another email about "editorial guidelines".
O-T: I think that was Latimer's language I used.
OF: You were an expert in ABC's editorial policies?
O-T: I had to work with them. I don't know who is an expert.
OF refers to another communication mentioning "breach of editorial policy".
OF: Can I suggest an ABC executive knows the difference between EdPols and Social media guidelines.
O-T: They are quite intertwined
OF: You were asked by a media person whether it was an EdPols or socials guidelines issue. And you didn't answer that question?
O-T: No
OF: You then spoke about breach of impartiality rules. How did you form the view that the post breached impartiality? You said the day before that you weren't concerned about partiality. How did the post breach social media guidelines?
O-T: Partiality. Bias. It was about the risk she might say anything live on air.
OF: Your evidence is shambolic because you never once mentioned social media guidelines. Your boss wanted this Lebanese woman off air and you assured it got done, regardless of what she had said and her work contract.
O-T: Not correct
OF There was total lack of clarity about what was said to Lattouf. It was specific to her. Did anyone else receive such direction.
O-T: Not to my knowledge
OF: You said she breached a policy but never said which policy.
O-T: I did everything to keep her
OF: You didn't check that the action taken was consistent with AL Enterprise Agreement
O-T: I relied in colleagues.
OF: You recall an email from Lattouf the day she was taken off air? She was asking for information about why she was taken off air. You could have answered her questions. It would have been an act of common courtesy to reply, right?
O-T: Yes but I didn't.
OF: You didn't because you had no defendable answers. She said she thought she had been unfairly dismissed.
She wanted to know which social media guideline she had breached.
O-T: As soon as I saw the words unfair dismissal I passed the matter on to others.
OF: You could have told Lattouf she was still an employee, established that Ms Green had not made clear what the direction was, and had her back the next day for her shift. It was irrelevant what Green had said because Lattouf had to be gone.
O-T: I had other things to do.
OF: She said The Australian had published their story before she got home. You know how they got the story, right?
O-T: No
OF: You had a goal to get rid of Lattouf and beat the story. To be seen not have caved to pressure by The Australian.
O-T: No
OF: The Australian was reporting she had been sacked. You knew that was't true. Did you take steps to correct that?
O-T: Not my job
OF: How did The Australian get some of the information in their article? Did you leak it?
O-T: Of course not
OF asks O-T about more detail in The Australian's article. He cites one fact that only 5 ABC senior staff members were aware of.
O-T: How did the Guardian know in advance that I was going to resign? They have ways into the ABC.
OF: Who called you from The Australian?
O-T: Sophie Ellsworth. I usually say no comment to these people.
OF: You knew The Australian was going to run a yarn. Did you discuss that at the meeting?
O-T: No
OF: You fired Lattouf because of her expressions of opinion on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: They were made public.
Objection from ABC lawyer and question is reviewed.
OF: Your view is that AL published an opinion that may lead to a perception that she was not impartial.
O-T: She published a number of things expressing opinions. The nature of the opinions didn't matter.
OF: You knew she published opinions supporting Palestinians' human rights?
O-T: Can't remember
OF: You knew she had written about fake footage of "Gas the Jews" chants at the Opera House?
O-T: Can't remember
End of cross examination.
@antoinette_news ABC lawyer to Oliver-Taylor, confirming he had a lot of other things to do that week. O-T lists them.
End of re-examination.
End of re-examination.
@antoinette_news The hearings will resume on Tuesday 11th of February at 10.15am. There are 5 witnesses and it is expected to last 2 days. Addresses will be on 27-28 Feb. More documents submitted.
Court adjourned.
Court adjourned.
@antoinette_news @threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
