Lattouf v. ABC will resume in the Federal Court of Australia in about 20 minutes time & we'll hear from five witnesses over the two days. Updates are on this thread & the proceedings can be viewed on this link.
@antoinette_news Day Six of Lattouf v. ABC in session. Judge makes announcement about violations of the confidentiality of complainants' names & addresses - and the uploading of unredacted material to the publicly available online files. ABC lawyer apologises for the human error.
@antoinette_news Today we will hear from Ahern, Buttrose & Green. Statement from ABC: does not deny the existence of the Lebanese race or ethnic extraction & that Ms Lattouf is Lebanese. Does deny this has anything to do with her dismissal.
Stephen Roderick Ahern (A) called.
Lattouf lawyer 1 refers to his affidavit, concerning an email he sent, then another. Then a third to Latimer & Oliver Taylor.
Lattouf lawyer 2: Were you aware of ABC ratings? Tell us what the numbers were for 'Mornings'.
A: Hundreds of 1000s
LL2: Lattouf reported to line manager Green & Spurway?
A: Yes
LL2: You policed ABC policy & acted when misconduct reported?
A: Yes
LL2: You also gave employees the right to explain themselves?
AL Yes
LL2: And you can confirm rules are different between personal & ABC social media accounts.
A: I think so
LL2: So personal social media content is not assessed against EdPols?
A: Correct
LL2: Did you understand that there had been a complaint about misconduct in relation to the Enterprise Agreement?
A: Yes
LL2: There was no obligation in EdPols forbidding posting anything on social media that was not impartial?
A: I think there was an obligation not post on socials in a way that could bring ABC into disrepute by not appearing impartial
LL2: That's in the social media guidelines, not the EdPols?
A: Correct
Lattouf lawyer 1 refers to his affidavit, concerning an email he sent, then another. Then a third to Latimer & Oliver Taylor.
Lattouf lawyer 2: Were you aware of ABC ratings? Tell us what the numbers were for 'Mornings'.
A: Hundreds of 1000s
LL2: Lattouf reported to line manager Green & Spurway?
A: Yes
LL2: You policed ABC policy & acted when misconduct reported?
A: Yes
LL2: You also gave employees the right to explain themselves?
AL Yes
LL2: And you can confirm rules are different between personal & ABC social media accounts.
A: I think so
LL2: So personal social media content is not assessed against EdPols?
A: Correct
LL2: Did you understand that there had been a complaint about misconduct in relation to the Enterprise Agreement?
A: Yes
LL2: There was no obligation in EdPols forbidding posting anything on social media that was not impartial?
A: I think there was an obligation not post on socials in a way that could bring ABC into disrepute by not appearing impartial
LL2: That's in the social media guidelines, not the EdPols?
A: Correct
LL2: On Dec 18 you got an email from Oliver Taylor about Lattouf, which you passed on to Green & Spurway, indicating her socials needed to be monitored. He then sent you a number of complaints about her.
A: Yes
LL2: There was an erroneous claim made by a complainant that she was hired to talk about Middle East. That was wrong. Her engagement had nothing to do with this subject.
A: Correct.
LL2 reads from a complaint alleging breach of code of conduct by hiring Lattouf. Simply hiring someone is not a breach.
A: Correct
LL2: You read the Crikey article she wrote. You found it to be solid journalism & that complaints were hyperbolic.
A: Yes
LL2: You understood Lattouf's posts expressed views critical of the State of Israel.
A: Views against Israel's attacks on Gaza
LL2: You learned and taken notes about AL being Lebanese?
A: Yes
LL2: You made Ms Green aware AL was Lebanese & there had been complaints?
A: Yes
LL2: Were you was they were from lobby groups?
A: I learned that from reading it in The Sydney Morning Herald.
LL2: On Monday 18 you sent Oliver Taylor al. a report summarising your investigation. You mention she is Lebanese, said she talks publicly about being a migrant but in your view had not positioned herself as biased.
A: At that time, yes.
A: Yes
LL2: There was an erroneous claim made by a complainant that she was hired to talk about Middle East. That was wrong. Her engagement had nothing to do with this subject.
A: Correct.
LL2 reads from a complaint alleging breach of code of conduct by hiring Lattouf. Simply hiring someone is not a breach.
A: Correct
LL2: You read the Crikey article she wrote. You found it to be solid journalism & that complaints were hyperbolic.
A: Yes
LL2: You understood Lattouf's posts expressed views critical of the State of Israel.
A: Views against Israel's attacks on Gaza
LL2: You learned and taken notes about AL being Lebanese?
A: Yes
LL2: You made Ms Green aware AL was Lebanese & there had been complaints?
A: Yes
LL2: Were you was they were from lobby groups?
A: I learned that from reading it in The Sydney Morning Herald.
LL2: On Monday 18 you sent Oliver Taylor al. a report summarising your investigation. You mention she is Lebanese, said she talks publicly about being a migrant but in your view had not positioned herself as biased.
A: At that time, yes.
LL2: You said Lattouf had expressed only one view about Israel-Gaza & that had caused you concern.
A: My concern was that there was a public perception forming.
LL2: That's not what you said. You said she was unbiased.
A: The two are not mutually exclusive. ABC is very aware of the perceptions of its audience.
LL2: You read 3 complaints. You understood they were complaining about Lattouf being selected, because of her views?
A: Yes
LL2: You emailed Melkman & Latimer on the 18th. Did you ever speak to either of them?
A: Not sure. Maybe spoke to Latimer on the phone.
LL2 shows Ahern transcript of his testimony at Fair Work Commission. You were asked if you spoke to Oliver Taylor. He asked your advice & you said he asked you to check with Ms Green, that she tell Lattouf "not to post anything controversial about Israel-Gaza". Correct?
A: Yes
LL2: You are then asked about a conversation with Latimer, and asked if he had raised the matter of Lattouf on Monday. Can I suggest you didn't talk about AL's obligations with Melkman or Latimer on Monday?
A: I don't think that's accurate. There was group discussion.
LL2: What was discussed is in the FWC transcript?
A: Yes
LL2: You don't say in 3.32 pm 18 Dec there was an agreement on Monday Lattouf should be reminded of her obligations not to post anything controversial?
A: Correct.
LL2: You then raise another matter about her signing the journalists' letter to the media outlets? You don't mention speaking with Lattouf in that email either. That's because you had not discussed & agreed with Melkman & Latimer on Dec 18?
A: That's not correct.
LL2: You get an email from O-T, saying he will respond to Managing Director's Office. You didn't think of telling him that Lattouf should be spoken to first?
A: After the email was sent I spoke to Green, telling her to ask Lattouf she should not post anything controversial about Israel-Gaza.
LL2: You didn't tell O-T on the 18th that Lattouf had been spoken to?
A: I think it came up in discussions.
LL2: We do not see any emails mentioning it.
A: But we had discussions.
LL2: Is that in your affidavit? Let's take a look.
A can not find any reference to such discussions in his affidavit but says he spoke with Green.
LL2: I asked you about Oliver-Taylor.
A: Yes it's not in there.
LL2: That's because it never happened.
A: I can't remember clearly.
LL2: You didn't speak with him on Dec 18
A: I'm not sure
LL2: You are very precise about the timing of comms. You mention Green saying not to worry, she had spoken to Lattouf. When was that?
A: I think it was at 2.35pm
LL2: Green affidavits says she did not speak to Lattouf until 3.44pm. Your evidence is just wrong.
A: There were a number of conversations.
LL2: You never mentioned Green saying she had spoken to Lattouf in any of these conversations with O-T. In your evidence to FWC, when asked by O-T about AL being aware of her obligations, you never mention anything about Lattouf being told not to post. That's because you never instructed Green to tell Lattouf not to post, correct?
A: No, that's not accurate.
A: My concern was that there was a public perception forming.
LL2: That's not what you said. You said she was unbiased.
A: The two are not mutually exclusive. ABC is very aware of the perceptions of its audience.
LL2: You read 3 complaints. You understood they were complaining about Lattouf being selected, because of her views?
A: Yes
LL2: You emailed Melkman & Latimer on the 18th. Did you ever speak to either of them?
A: Not sure. Maybe spoke to Latimer on the phone.
LL2 shows Ahern transcript of his testimony at Fair Work Commission. You were asked if you spoke to Oliver Taylor. He asked your advice & you said he asked you to check with Ms Green, that she tell Lattouf "not to post anything controversial about Israel-Gaza". Correct?
A: Yes
LL2: You are then asked about a conversation with Latimer, and asked if he had raised the matter of Lattouf on Monday. Can I suggest you didn't talk about AL's obligations with Melkman or Latimer on Monday?
A: I don't think that's accurate. There was group discussion.
LL2: What was discussed is in the FWC transcript?
A: Yes
LL2: You don't say in 3.32 pm 18 Dec there was an agreement on Monday Lattouf should be reminded of her obligations not to post anything controversial?
A: Correct.
LL2: You then raise another matter about her signing the journalists' letter to the media outlets? You don't mention speaking with Lattouf in that email either. That's because you had not discussed & agreed with Melkman & Latimer on Dec 18?
A: That's not correct.
LL2: You get an email from O-T, saying he will respond to Managing Director's Office. You didn't think of telling him that Lattouf should be spoken to first?
A: After the email was sent I spoke to Green, telling her to ask Lattouf she should not post anything controversial about Israel-Gaza.
LL2: You didn't tell O-T on the 18th that Lattouf had been spoken to?
A: I think it came up in discussions.
LL2: We do not see any emails mentioning it.
A: But we had discussions.
LL2: Is that in your affidavit? Let's take a look.
A can not find any reference to such discussions in his affidavit but says he spoke with Green.
LL2: I asked you about Oliver-Taylor.
A: Yes it's not in there.
LL2: That's because it never happened.
A: I can't remember clearly.
LL2: You didn't speak with him on Dec 18
A: I'm not sure
LL2: You are very precise about the timing of comms. You mention Green saying not to worry, she had spoken to Lattouf. When was that?
A: I think it was at 2.35pm
LL2: Green affidavits says she did not speak to Lattouf until 3.44pm. Your evidence is just wrong.
A: There were a number of conversations.
LL2: You never mentioned Green saying she had spoken to Lattouf in any of these conversations with O-T. In your evidence to FWC, when asked by O-T about AL being aware of her obligations, you never mention anything about Lattouf being told not to post. That's because you never instructed Green to tell Lattouf not to post, correct?
A: No, that's not accurate.
LL2: On the evening of Dec you got an email from Oliver-Taylor. He forward email from MDO containing screenshot from Lattouf's Instagram. Did you think this had been posted on Dec 18?
A: Unsure
LL2: Melkman said there was nothing wrong with the post & he was the editorial content expert?
A: Yes & yes, but he was not a decision-maker.
LL2: You met with Melkman & Latimer on Dec 19. Your affidavit outlines Melkman's advice : asking Lattouf to keep a low profile on socials & possibly switch her account to private or protected, correct?
LL2: It makes no sense for Melkman to give this advice if you had already established with Lattouf (through Green) how to proceed. You don't mention a direction already given.
A: I should have elaborated on prior discussions.
LL2: You understand what a direction is.
A: Yes
LL2: You say Green had already been spoken to. Why did it need to be done again?
A: I was asked to check again by O-T.
LL2: There's no record of that on the 19th
A: I was very aware that I should be sure Green had spoken to Lattouf.
LL2 refers to email sent to group. You say Melkman's analysis is an excellent account & that there was nothing more to add.
A: I said I "reiterated" that Green had spoken to Lattouf about not speaking about Israel-Gaza.
LL2: That was about on her shows, correct?
A: Yes, and added to that was the suggestion not to post anything on her socials, so that was a reiteration.
LL2: We don't see the word reiteration appear there, and you said Green "suggested". you understood it was a suggestion.
A: I wasn't party to the conversation between Green & Lattouf.
LL2: There's a world of difference between a direction and a suggestion.
A: Yes
LL2: Your understanding was that it was a suggestion?
A: I didn't phrase it as a direction but it should have been understood.
LL2: You didn't tell green to direct Lattouf not to post?
A: I don't think I used this words.
LL2: You said: " Please have a word with Antoinette about her social media. She should keep a low profile and not post anything controversial."
A: Yeah, something like that.
LL2 refers to email from A to Green & Spurway, mentioning background material from the MD. What's that about.
A: I think I'd received something more from O-T.
LL2: was that relate to Mr Anderson
A: Don't recall.
LL2 refers to email sent to Latimer about positive audience feedback about Lattouf. You had a "dump button" in place and an agreement about Gaza not being mentioned. Were you surprised by email from O-T about your decision to hire her as a presenter being "ill-informed"?
A: I wasn't surprised. I was disappointed but that's the way things go.
LL2: Did you ask O-T why he thought your decision was ill-informed?
A: No
LL2: He wanted to know what background checks had been done & an assurance that there would be no trouble. Was this pressure?
A: This is the media in Australia. It was just a question.
LL2: Did you fear disciplinary action from MD?
A: No
LL2: You attended an all staff meeting where Mr Spurway said Lattouf was sounding great on air. And you agreed with that?
A: Yes
LL2 refers to A's FWC testimony in reference to a Teams meeting, where he talks about Lattouf's @hrw post. Said he was not aware of it about before the meeting. he was asked about the timing of conversations with Latimer & O-T.
LL2: You said you were not aware of this HRW post and had not made any recommendations. Said you had not attended any teams meeting or spoken to O-T before speaking with Latimer.
A: I was confused about what I was being asked, and the timing. I was mistaken about the timing.
LL2: You said you knew nothing about the fate of Ms Lattouf. You said had made a recommendation
A: There were several meetings. At the FWC, I got the times wrong. Sorry.
LL2: At the Teams meeting you said "Guess we will have to take her off air."
A: Yes
LL2: That's a recommendation
A: It's an agreement with the consensus forming in the meeting.
LL2: So your testimony to FWC on March 2024 is false. You said you had no memory of attending a Teams Meeting.
A: I gave a copy of my Teams log.
LL2: I call for that document. The point is you told FWC you had not attended a teams metting
A: I was mistaken about the time
LL2: You were asked about having attended a Teams meeting at all and denied it.
A: That's not correct. I was asked about the time.
LL2: You say what caused you to realised your FWC evidence was false was a review of emails. There are no emails attached to your affidavit relating to this meeting.
A: There were a lot of emails
LL2: You don't mention your error about the timing of the teams meeting in you affidavit, which is evidence you have given for the first time today.
A: Let me have a look at the whole affidavit... no, I don't think I explicitly say that.
LL2: You have made it up today to explain your evidence at FWC.
A: No
LL2 refers to annexe to Melkman's affidavit, correcting timing and specifying attendees at group meeting, including Green. Green said she had not given directive to Lattouf.
A: That's inconsistent with what she was telling me.
LL2: Why did you omit Green's presence at this meeting? Is that because she said she had not given a direction?
A: I was focusing on my participation
LL2: Melkman said Green had given a direction to Lattouf and Green said she had given no such direction.
A: No I don't remember that.
LL2: She said she had advised against posting but she didn't consider that to be a direction.
A: I don't remember that last part.
LL2: Just the last part?
A: Yes
LL2: When did Green say she had given a direction to Lattouf?
A: Monday. She said "I have already had that conversation" about her obligations
LL2: Can I suggest that Green made it clear in the group meeting with you, Melkman & Latimer that she had never given a direction to Lattouf.
A: She told us what she had said to Lattouf and it seemed like clear guidance that she should not post anything that was not impartial (as per O-T)
A: Unsure
LL2: Melkman said there was nothing wrong with the post & he was the editorial content expert?
A: Yes & yes, but he was not a decision-maker.
LL2: You met with Melkman & Latimer on Dec 19. Your affidavit outlines Melkman's advice : asking Lattouf to keep a low profile on socials & possibly switch her account to private or protected, correct?
LL2: It makes no sense for Melkman to give this advice if you had already established with Lattouf (through Green) how to proceed. You don't mention a direction already given.
A: I should have elaborated on prior discussions.
LL2: You understand what a direction is.
A: Yes
LL2: You say Green had already been spoken to. Why did it need to be done again?
A: I was asked to check again by O-T.
LL2: There's no record of that on the 19th
A: I was very aware that I should be sure Green had spoken to Lattouf.
LL2 refers to email sent to group. You say Melkman's analysis is an excellent account & that there was nothing more to add.
A: I said I "reiterated" that Green had spoken to Lattouf about not speaking about Israel-Gaza.
LL2: That was about on her shows, correct?
A: Yes, and added to that was the suggestion not to post anything on her socials, so that was a reiteration.
LL2: We don't see the word reiteration appear there, and you said Green "suggested". you understood it was a suggestion.
A: I wasn't party to the conversation between Green & Lattouf.
LL2: There's a world of difference between a direction and a suggestion.
A: Yes
LL2: Your understanding was that it was a suggestion?
A: I didn't phrase it as a direction but it should have been understood.
LL2: You didn't tell green to direct Lattouf not to post?
A: I don't think I used this words.
LL2: You said: " Please have a word with Antoinette about her social media. She should keep a low profile and not post anything controversial."
A: Yeah, something like that.
LL2 refers to email from A to Green & Spurway, mentioning background material from the MD. What's that about.
A: I think I'd received something more from O-T.
LL2: was that relate to Mr Anderson
A: Don't recall.
LL2 refers to email sent to Latimer about positive audience feedback about Lattouf. You had a "dump button" in place and an agreement about Gaza not being mentioned. Were you surprised by email from O-T about your decision to hire her as a presenter being "ill-informed"?
A: I wasn't surprised. I was disappointed but that's the way things go.
LL2: Did you ask O-T why he thought your decision was ill-informed?
A: No
LL2: He wanted to know what background checks had been done & an assurance that there would be no trouble. Was this pressure?
A: This is the media in Australia. It was just a question.
LL2: Did you fear disciplinary action from MD?
A: No
LL2: You attended an all staff meeting where Mr Spurway said Lattouf was sounding great on air. And you agreed with that?
A: Yes
LL2 refers to A's FWC testimony in reference to a Teams meeting, where he talks about Lattouf's @hrw post. Said he was not aware of it about before the meeting. he was asked about the timing of conversations with Latimer & O-T.
LL2: You said you were not aware of this HRW post and had not made any recommendations. Said you had not attended any teams meeting or spoken to O-T before speaking with Latimer.
A: I was confused about what I was being asked, and the timing. I was mistaken about the timing.
LL2: You said you knew nothing about the fate of Ms Lattouf. You said had made a recommendation
A: There were several meetings. At the FWC, I got the times wrong. Sorry.
LL2: At the Teams meeting you said "Guess we will have to take her off air."
A: Yes
LL2: That's a recommendation
A: It's an agreement with the consensus forming in the meeting.
LL2: So your testimony to FWC on March 2024 is false. You said you had no memory of attending a Teams Meeting.
A: I gave a copy of my Teams log.
LL2: I call for that document. The point is you told FWC you had not attended a teams metting
A: I was mistaken about the time
LL2: You were asked about having attended a Teams meeting at all and denied it.
A: That's not correct. I was asked about the time.
LL2: You say what caused you to realised your FWC evidence was false was a review of emails. There are no emails attached to your affidavit relating to this meeting.
A: There were a lot of emails
LL2: You don't mention your error about the timing of the teams meeting in you affidavit, which is evidence you have given for the first time today.
A: Let me have a look at the whole affidavit... no, I don't think I explicitly say that.
LL2: You have made it up today to explain your evidence at FWC.
A: No
LL2 refers to annexe to Melkman's affidavit, correcting timing and specifying attendees at group meeting, including Green. Green said she had not given directive to Lattouf.
A: That's inconsistent with what she was telling me.
LL2: Why did you omit Green's presence at this meeting? Is that because she said she had not given a direction?
A: I was focusing on my participation
LL2: Melkman said Green had given a direction to Lattouf and Green said she had given no such direction.
A: No I don't remember that.
LL2: She said she had advised against posting but she didn't consider that to be a direction.
A: I don't remember that last part.
LL2: Just the last part?
A: Yes
LL2: When did Green say she had given a direction to Lattouf?
A: Monday. She said "I have already had that conversation" about her obligations
LL2: Can I suggest that Green made it clear in the group meeting with you, Melkman & Latimer that she had never given a direction to Lattouf.
A: She told us what she had said to Lattouf and it seemed like clear guidance that she should not post anything that was not impartial (as per O-T)
Lattouf lawyer to Ahern: What's partial about an @hrw post saying Israel is using starvation as a tactic, or words to that effect? What's partial about that?
A: well in the context of our ABC editorials & guidelines, impartial means not stating a view on one side or another of a controversial issue. Or it means if you do give a view, you should give some weight to counter-views.
LL: Reporting what another organisation had said is not expressing a view, is it?
A: Context of social media posts... we had to consider everything that had been posted already, so yes.
LL: You said Green had given clear guidance. She hadn't given a direction, right?
A: I don't think she used that word.
LL: Assuming Green told Melkman & Latimer she had not given a direction, that would have been something to pass on to Oliver Taylor, correct?
A: Yes
LL: Green left the meeting when O-T joined.?
A: yes
ABC interrupts to suggest Ahern's call logs be looked at not.
LL: You knew Green had not given a direction during the meeting.
A: No
LL: I suggest Green made it clear she had not given a direction and your denials now are untrue.
A: No
LL: At a later planning meeting w/ Green, Spurway & O'Shea you got a call from Latimer. Did he tell you to activate the plan?
A: He said we have decided to take AL off air. I assumed further discussions would take place. I knew this was going up the line.
LL: To Mr Anderson
A: I didn't know.
LL: After Latimer instructed you to tell Lattouf her services would no longer be required on Thursday-Friday, did you tell your colleagues at the meeting?
A: Yes
LL: Did you tell them it was because of the Human Rights Watch post?
A: Said she had posted something controversial about the war and had been asked not to do that.
LL: Green disagreed. Said it would be best to keep her for 2 more days, that the HRW story had been on the ABC.
A: Yes
LL: And Spurway agreed with her?
A: Yes
LL: Why did you omit what they said from your affidavit?
A: I was relating what I said.
LL: You didn't think it helpful to the ABC's case?
A: No
LL you didn't argue with Green
A: No, my instructions were clear.
LL: You wrote notes before getting Lattouf into the dismissal meeting. They reflect what you intended to say. 1/ Green spoke about bias on Israel 2/ Green advised nothing perceived controversial 3/ You understood...
I added that because we were in the office together & Green was commenting on what I proposed to write
LL: Can I suggest Green was not checking you. She did not participate in the writing of this notes?
A: No true. She did
LL: let's go on. You wrote 3/ "20 hours ago you shared a post that could be considered not balanced.
A: Yes
LL: And then 4/ "In context of other posts this could be considered a breach of ABC policies". You said those words?
A: No, as I thought about it, the 2 details I had were that she had been told not to post & did it. I didn't want to go into territory I wasn't sure of.
LL: But you understood that in context it was a breach of ABC policies.
A: social media guidelines, yes.
LL: You then write that it's not in ABC's interest to keep you on air?
A: I wrote but didn't say that
LL: You then have the word "factual". Did you use that word?
A: No
LL: Did Lattouf use it?
A: Yes
LL: Then the last line says: "So we won't need you on air on Thursday or Friday". Is there a word after Friday?
A: I think it's "stay".
Court adjourned for lunch
A: well in the context of our ABC editorials & guidelines, impartial means not stating a view on one side or another of a controversial issue. Or it means if you do give a view, you should give some weight to counter-views.
LL: Reporting what another organisation had said is not expressing a view, is it?
A: Context of social media posts... we had to consider everything that had been posted already, so yes.
LL: You said Green had given clear guidance. She hadn't given a direction, right?
A: I don't think she used that word.
LL: Assuming Green told Melkman & Latimer she had not given a direction, that would have been something to pass on to Oliver Taylor, correct?
A: Yes
LL: Green left the meeting when O-T joined.?
A: yes
ABC interrupts to suggest Ahern's call logs be looked at not.
LL: You knew Green had not given a direction during the meeting.
A: No
LL: I suggest Green made it clear she had not given a direction and your denials now are untrue.
A: No
LL: At a later planning meeting w/ Green, Spurway & O'Shea you got a call from Latimer. Did he tell you to activate the plan?
A: He said we have decided to take AL off air. I assumed further discussions would take place. I knew this was going up the line.
LL: To Mr Anderson
A: I didn't know.
LL: After Latimer instructed you to tell Lattouf her services would no longer be required on Thursday-Friday, did you tell your colleagues at the meeting?
A: Yes
LL: Did you tell them it was because of the Human Rights Watch post?
A: Said she had posted something controversial about the war and had been asked not to do that.
LL: Green disagreed. Said it would be best to keep her for 2 more days, that the HRW story had been on the ABC.
A: Yes
LL: And Spurway agreed with her?
A: Yes
LL: Why did you omit what they said from your affidavit?
A: I was relating what I said.
LL: You didn't think it helpful to the ABC's case?
A: No
LL you didn't argue with Green
A: No, my instructions were clear.
LL: You wrote notes before getting Lattouf into the dismissal meeting. They reflect what you intended to say. 1/ Green spoke about bias on Israel 2/ Green advised nothing perceived controversial 3/ You understood...
I added that because we were in the office together & Green was commenting on what I proposed to write
LL: Can I suggest Green was not checking you. She did not participate in the writing of this notes?
A: No true. She did
LL: let's go on. You wrote 3/ "20 hours ago you shared a post that could be considered not balanced.
A: Yes
LL: And then 4/ "In context of other posts this could be considered a breach of ABC policies". You said those words?
A: No, as I thought about it, the 2 details I had were that she had been told not to post & did it. I didn't want to go into territory I wasn't sure of.
LL: But you understood that in context it was a breach of ABC policies.
A: social media guidelines, yes.
LL: You then write that it's not in ABC's interest to keep you on air?
A: I wrote but didn't say that
LL: You then have the word "factual". Did you use that word?
A: No
LL: Did Lattouf use it?
A: Yes
LL: Then the last line says: "So we won't need you on air on Thursday or Friday". Is there a word after Friday?
A: I think it's "stay".
Court adjourned for lunch
Lattouf lawyer to Ahern: More questions re his notes before dismissal meeting of Lattouf.
You told AL that because of a social media post she was fired. Did you refer to the post?
A: Yes & yes
LL: Did AL say Green said she could post if it was from a reputable source, such as Amnesty & Committee to Protect Journalists.
A Yes, I didn't engage because I thought it irrelevant to what I had been instructed to do.
LL: In your FWC testimony you were asked if she said that, and then Green confirmed? You said that's right.
A: Agree.
LL: At FWC you were asked if you said: You were asked not to post and you did". Then Lattoff asked how it had breach policy since her show was not about that. You then told her to collect her things and leave?
A: Yes
LL: Green & Spurway said to AL that they were sorry. Were you sorry?
A: No
LL: You then received an email w/ 3 questions - 1/ Why was I dismissed one hour after being told was great". You could have answered that.
A: Yes
LL: Lattouf also asked how the story had got to The Australian so quickly. Did you answer any of her questions?
A: No
Judge questions details of Ahern's affidavit. Wants to know how many times he asked Green to speak with Lattouf. Also about specifics of what Oliver Taylor said to him. Asks if he can clarify exactly what was said to Lattouf - anything controversial or anything about Israel-Gaza.
A says the subject was controversial, and he had confidence Green had made the message clear.
LL challenges what A said to judge. Asks if the instruction was not to post anything about Israel-Gaza or anything controversial about Israel-Gaza.
Judge: Was it possible for Lattouf to post anything about Israel-Gaza that was not controversial?
A: if we took it in context of her previous posts, anything would be controversial.
Judge: What if she reposted an ABC post.
A: She was not allowed to post anything about it.
End to cross-examination.
ABC lawyer: Did you accept that not anything and not anything controversial were the same thing.
A: Yes
ABC: You said you first heard about lobbyists being behind complaints in SMH, true?
A: Yes
ABC asks A to explain chain of command between you and ABC executive. Then asks what he meant by the statement "Whatever the words, the message would be clear"
A: There had been discussions about Antoinette not speaking about Israel-Gaza on her show, and posting on socials.
ABC: You said re your pre-dismissal meeting notes: "I would have said it in the sequence I had written it our".
End of re-examination
LL requests that A's FWC transcript be tendered in its totality, due to so much of being included in cross-examination today.
No objection
Court temporarily adjourned before next witness.
We see Ita Buttrose take the stand.
You told AL that because of a social media post she was fired. Did you refer to the post?
A: Yes & yes
LL: Did AL say Green said she could post if it was from a reputable source, such as Amnesty & Committee to Protect Journalists.
A Yes, I didn't engage because I thought it irrelevant to what I had been instructed to do.
LL: In your FWC testimony you were asked if she said that, and then Green confirmed? You said that's right.
A: Agree.
LL: At FWC you were asked if you said: You were asked not to post and you did". Then Lattoff asked how it had breach policy since her show was not about that. You then told her to collect her things and leave?
A: Yes
LL: Green & Spurway said to AL that they were sorry. Were you sorry?
A: No
LL: You then received an email w/ 3 questions - 1/ Why was I dismissed one hour after being told was great". You could have answered that.
A: Yes
LL: Lattouf also asked how the story had got to The Australian so quickly. Did you answer any of her questions?
A: No
Judge questions details of Ahern's affidavit. Wants to know how many times he asked Green to speak with Lattouf. Also about specifics of what Oliver Taylor said to him. Asks if he can clarify exactly what was said to Lattouf - anything controversial or anything about Israel-Gaza.
A says the subject was controversial, and he had confidence Green had made the message clear.
LL challenges what A said to judge. Asks if the instruction was not to post anything about Israel-Gaza or anything controversial about Israel-Gaza.
Judge: Was it possible for Lattouf to post anything about Israel-Gaza that was not controversial?
A: if we took it in context of her previous posts, anything would be controversial.
Judge: What if she reposted an ABC post.
A: She was not allowed to post anything about it.
End to cross-examination.
ABC lawyer: Did you accept that not anything and not anything controversial were the same thing.
A: Yes
ABC: You said you first heard about lobbyists being behind complaints in SMH, true?
A: Yes
ABC asks A to explain chain of command between you and ABC executive. Then asks what he meant by the statement "Whatever the words, the message would be clear"
A: There had been discussions about Antoinette not speaking about Israel-Gaza on her show, and posting on socials.
ABC: You said re your pre-dismissal meeting notes: "I would have said it in the sequence I had written it our".
End of re-examination
LL requests that A's FWC transcript be tendered in its totality, due to so much of being included in cross-examination today.
No objection
Court temporarily adjourned before next witness.
We see Ita Buttrose take the stand.
ABC lawyer to former ABC Chair Ita Buttrose:
[After "All Stand" she doe nit stand}
Confirm your name, occupation, ABC role etc.
Lattouf lawyer: The ABC board is the governing body & maintains standards.
IB: Yes
LL: It does not manage day to day affairs. That is delegated to the MD?
IB: yes
LL: As a journalist you would not take allegations at face value. Operational matters would be handled by the MD Mr Anderson.
IB: yes
LL: One duty of the board would be to develop policy and impartiality & diversity were a part of that?
IB: Diversity is core
LL: You agree it would be a great opportunity to be employed by ABC & great loss to be fired? Should someone accused of misconduct be accorded procedural fairness?
OB: depends on circumstances. Difficult to answer a hypothetical.
LL: Do you want to take a stab at it?
IB: No
LL: You had net AL on the set of Studio Ren?
IB: Yes, but I couldn't remember her.
LL: There were a lot of complaints received about Lattouf. Did you notice similar wording in them?
IB: Yes, it's often like that
LL: You did you infer coordination, and that these complaints were about hiring Lattouf because of her views?
IB: It was about her being not impartial, an activist. Her view was irrelevant.
LL: What was her view?
IB: I think she was critical of Israel.
LL: This was one of the complaints. Please read. It asks why AL is employed by ABC as a ME correspondent. You knew she had never been employed to report on ME.
IB: Complaints are often wrong.
LL cites another complaint sent to board, asserting Lattouf is hired by ABC to report on ME, and that ABC is in breach of editorial policies. Once again, factually incorrect.
IB: Often are.
LL: And yet you responded to these factually incorrect assertions?
IB: My concern is impartiality
LL: Did you make any effort to investigate whether any of these complaints were truthful & legitimate?
IB: That's the MD's job.
LL: Very unusual for a Chair to be involved at at
IB: Complaints were written to the board
LL: You do not support the hiring activists on any cause?
IB: No
LL: Where did you learn she was Lebanese.
IB: Don't recall
LL: You met with Anderson and Dec 19 & discussed AL. You said "What's going on? We have complaints".
IB: That's a valid question
LL: What did he say?
IB: He said background checks hadn't been done. I drew the conclusion that she shouldn't have been hired if she was an activist.
LL: Did Anderson tell you she was a pro-palestinian activist?
IB: No
LL: Is suggest the only way you knew was from the complaints. You responded to every one of them.
IB Yes
LL: And forwarded them to Anderson?
IB: I don't think so.
LL refers to complaint received by board & forwarded almost immediately to Anderson. Was it marked 'Urgent'?
IB: There was nothing new, so as to warrant the attention of Anderson at 8.49pm.
LL: You wrote: "Has Antoinette been replaced?"
IB I was just asking for an update
LL: That is NOT asking for an update. You were getting sick and tired of the complaints, right? You wanted her taken off air, right?
IB: No. I'm used to complaints.
LL: What was the issue?
IB: Whether she was going to remain on air.
LL: You drew a distinction?
IB: yes
LL: was it your wish in 2023 that ABC employees come down with respiratory illnesses?
IB: (laughs) That was just a face-saving option if she wanted to take it. David Anderson didn't take it up.
LL: Why did you need to say this was a face saving option? You were hostile to my client.
IB: No I could see which way the wind was blowing.
LL: So ABC gets complaints and normally caves to pressure?
IB: No
LL: You said she had lied about her position before she was hired.
IB: She should have said she was an activist.
LL: Anderson replied that the ABC was in damage control. How did you understand ABC in damage control?
IB: They had looked at the consequences of pulling her off air prematurely & measures that had been taken to mitigate risk.
LL: You had said ABC should be in damage control and not managed exit mode. What did you mean?
IB: We had to look after the listeners.
LL refers to email from Anderson on Dec 20 in relation to the WhatsApp email campaign. What was that?
IB: I don't know
LL: The ABC did not get any complaints on WhatsApp. It was a campaign that was being coordinated there. Did you know that?
IB: No
LL refers to paragraph saying "this protects ABC & staff". If we remove her there will be accusations of doing so with our cause. We have caved to pro-Israeli lobbying" Do you see that? Was ABC subject to pro-Israeli lobbying?
IB: Ask Anderson. You have been trying to make an inference about pro-Israeli lobbying.
LL: I have been...??
IB: Never mind
LL: Have you been watching the proceedings?
IB: No
LL: You took it upon yourself to send complaints to Oliver-Tayor.
IB: Anderson was going on holiday.
LL: You told people you had sent complaints to O-T?
IB: Yes
LL: And you sent even more complaints to him with the subject "the complaints keep coming"
IB: So?
LL: Then another email saying we will keep getting these complaints until Antoinette leaves. He apologises and you say it goes with the job.
IB: yes
LL: You kept at him because you wanted him to understand that you were displeased AL was not gone.
IB: No
LL: You were in the habit of emailing O-T?
IB: No, but Anderson told me to do that?
LL: At you lunch Anderson got a call from O-T?
IB: I didn't know that & I didn't know AL was taken off air until Anderson told me on the way home. I was told AL would remain on air until the end of the week. I was as surprised as Anderson was at the news she was removed.
LL: Did you know The Australian was doing a story on the dismissal?
IB: No, but that's not unusual
LL: You have a good relationship and open in your communications with Laura Tingle?
IB: Yes
LL: You had been talking with Tingle about your upcoming address at the NPC?
IB: You see Tingle expresses deep concern about the ABC's treatment of Lattouf. Whether or not she breached social media code, the leaking of the story by someone senior at ABC to The Australian was almost as spectacular and damaging to its reputation.
ABC lawyer objects on relevance.
LL: Buttrose astutely ignores everything Tingle says.
Judge: Irrelevant
LL: You received emails of complaints on Dec 20 after she had been sacked by O-T.
IB: I don't think the word "sacked" was used.
LL refers Buttrose to an email sent to O-T, saying that she had replied to inform complainants that Lattouf no longer works at ABC.
IB: Yes
LL: You had no reason to contact complainants. You were pleased she was gone.
I was shocked.
[Unfortunately this is all we have from the Buttrose testimony. We were a few minutes behind and the media was put offline before we got to the end].
[After "All Stand" she doe nit stand}
Confirm your name, occupation, ABC role etc.
Lattouf lawyer: The ABC board is the governing body & maintains standards.
IB: Yes
LL: It does not manage day to day affairs. That is delegated to the MD?
IB: yes
LL: As a journalist you would not take allegations at face value. Operational matters would be handled by the MD Mr Anderson.
IB: yes
LL: One duty of the board would be to develop policy and impartiality & diversity were a part of that?
IB: Diversity is core
LL: You agree it would be a great opportunity to be employed by ABC & great loss to be fired? Should someone accused of misconduct be accorded procedural fairness?
OB: depends on circumstances. Difficult to answer a hypothetical.
LL: Do you want to take a stab at it?
IB: No
LL: You had net AL on the set of Studio Ren?
IB: Yes, but I couldn't remember her.
LL: There were a lot of complaints received about Lattouf. Did you notice similar wording in them?
IB: Yes, it's often like that
LL: You did you infer coordination, and that these complaints were about hiring Lattouf because of her views?
IB: It was about her being not impartial, an activist. Her view was irrelevant.
LL: What was her view?
IB: I think she was critical of Israel.
LL: This was one of the complaints. Please read. It asks why AL is employed by ABC as a ME correspondent. You knew she had never been employed to report on ME.
IB: Complaints are often wrong.
LL cites another complaint sent to board, asserting Lattouf is hired by ABC to report on ME, and that ABC is in breach of editorial policies. Once again, factually incorrect.
IB: Often are.
LL: And yet you responded to these factually incorrect assertions?
IB: My concern is impartiality
LL: Did you make any effort to investigate whether any of these complaints were truthful & legitimate?
IB: That's the MD's job.
LL: Very unusual for a Chair to be involved at at
IB: Complaints were written to the board
LL: You do not support the hiring activists on any cause?
IB: No
LL: Where did you learn she was Lebanese.
IB: Don't recall
LL: You met with Anderson and Dec 19 & discussed AL. You said "What's going on? We have complaints".
IB: That's a valid question
LL: What did he say?
IB: He said background checks hadn't been done. I drew the conclusion that she shouldn't have been hired if she was an activist.
LL: Did Anderson tell you she was a pro-palestinian activist?
IB: No
LL: Is suggest the only way you knew was from the complaints. You responded to every one of them.
IB Yes
LL: And forwarded them to Anderson?
IB: I don't think so.
LL refers to complaint received by board & forwarded almost immediately to Anderson. Was it marked 'Urgent'?
IB: There was nothing new, so as to warrant the attention of Anderson at 8.49pm.
LL: You wrote: "Has Antoinette been replaced?"
IB I was just asking for an update
LL: That is NOT asking for an update. You were getting sick and tired of the complaints, right? You wanted her taken off air, right?
IB: No. I'm used to complaints.
LL: What was the issue?
IB: Whether she was going to remain on air.
LL: You drew a distinction?
IB: yes
LL: was it your wish in 2023 that ABC employees come down with respiratory illnesses?
IB: (laughs) That was just a face-saving option if she wanted to take it. David Anderson didn't take it up.
LL: Why did you need to say this was a face saving option? You were hostile to my client.
IB: No I could see which way the wind was blowing.
LL: So ABC gets complaints and normally caves to pressure?
IB: No
LL: You said she had lied about her position before she was hired.
IB: She should have said she was an activist.
LL: Anderson replied that the ABC was in damage control. How did you understand ABC in damage control?
IB: They had looked at the consequences of pulling her off air prematurely & measures that had been taken to mitigate risk.
LL: You had said ABC should be in damage control and not managed exit mode. What did you mean?
IB: We had to look after the listeners.
LL refers to email from Anderson on Dec 20 in relation to the WhatsApp email campaign. What was that?
IB: I don't know
LL: The ABC did not get any complaints on WhatsApp. It was a campaign that was being coordinated there. Did you know that?
IB: No
LL refers to paragraph saying "this protects ABC & staff". If we remove her there will be accusations of doing so with our cause. We have caved to pro-Israeli lobbying" Do you see that? Was ABC subject to pro-Israeli lobbying?
IB: Ask Anderson. You have been trying to make an inference about pro-Israeli lobbying.
LL: I have been...??
IB: Never mind
LL: Have you been watching the proceedings?
IB: No
LL: You took it upon yourself to send complaints to Oliver-Tayor.
IB: Anderson was going on holiday.
LL: You told people you had sent complaints to O-T?
IB: Yes
LL: And you sent even more complaints to him with the subject "the complaints keep coming"
IB: So?
LL: Then another email saying we will keep getting these complaints until Antoinette leaves. He apologises and you say it goes with the job.
IB: yes
LL: You kept at him because you wanted him to understand that you were displeased AL was not gone.
IB: No
LL: You were in the habit of emailing O-T?
IB: No, but Anderson told me to do that?
LL: At you lunch Anderson got a call from O-T?
IB: I didn't know that & I didn't know AL was taken off air until Anderson told me on the way home. I was told AL would remain on air until the end of the week. I was as surprised as Anderson was at the news she was removed.
LL: Did you know The Australian was doing a story on the dismissal?
IB: No, but that's not unusual
LL: You have a good relationship and open in your communications with Laura Tingle?
IB: Yes
LL: You had been talking with Tingle about your upcoming address at the NPC?
IB: You see Tingle expresses deep concern about the ABC's treatment of Lattouf. Whether or not she breached social media code, the leaking of the story by someone senior at ABC to The Australian was almost as spectacular and damaging to its reputation.
ABC lawyer objects on relevance.
LL: Buttrose astutely ignores everything Tingle says.
Judge: Irrelevant
LL: You received emails of complaints on Dec 20 after she had been sacked by O-T.
IB: I don't think the word "sacked" was used.
LL refers Buttrose to an email sent to O-T, saying that she had replied to inform complainants that Lattouf no longer works at ABC.
IB: Yes
LL: You had no reason to contact complainants. You were pleased she was gone.
I was shocked.
[Unfortunately this is all we have from the Buttrose testimony. We were a few minutes behind and the media was put offline before we got to the end].
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
