Ita the Imperious, Australia's media queen, swats aside questions over Lattouf sacking
First the courtiers, then the queen.
After a week of testimony from a stream of ABC managers, it was time for Ita Buttrose, former chair of the ABC to take the stand.
Buttrose – a doyenne of Australian media, a household name, with a voice and face familiar even to those who can name no other ABC chair – is the most-anticipated witness in the unlawful termination case brought by Antoinette Lattouf against the ABC.
Buttrose's words have already featured in this case, which centres around a five-day casual presenting gig that Lattouf was given in December 2023. Lattouf was dismissed three days into the contract after posting on social media about the war in Gaza.
Buttrose's emails to managing director David Anderson about Lattouf, saying she was sick of getting complaints about the journalist, and suggesting Lattouf might 'come down with flu' to get her off air, have been read aloud.
Chris Oliver-Taylor, who gave hours of testimony last Friday, conceded he had felt 'pressure from above' after he started getting complaints about Lattouf forwarded directly to him from Buttrose.
The 83-year-old finally arrived on Tuesday afternoon in a wheelchair and received some help from the court officer in manoeuvring between the enormous lever arch files that contained various documents, affidavits and other evidence. But any sense that the former ABC chair was anything but her pin-sharp self was shortly and witheringly dispatched.
Buttrose swatted away barrister Philip Boncardo's questions of cross-examination as if he were an irritant.
When asked questions, Buttrose often answered Boncardo, not with repeated answers of 'yes' but repeated dismissive answers of 'So?'.
Several times she fixed him with a steely look and answered with an arch 'obviously', several times she talked over the judge, several times she talked over the ABC's own barrister as he rose to object to questions being put to her, at one point causing Ian Neil SC to hold up a hand to silence his own witness, as he sought to have the question she'd been happily answering ruled objectionable.
Neil's objections weren't always needed. Buttrose, unflappable, handled some herself.
'That's a hypothetical question and I can't answer it,' she told Boncardo at one point.
'Do you want to take a stab at it?' Boncardo pressed.
'No,' she said calmly.
At one point, as Boncardo took a minute to get a document from his solicitor, she muttered 'Jesus Christ' with a dramatic eye roll – under her breath, but still clearly audible to the court's microphones.
On the key points, Buttrose said she did not pressure Anderson to take Lattouf off air, nor had she been swayed by the many complaints she had received about Lattouf's presence on ABC Radio Sydney. She had forwarded all the complaints onto Oliver-Taylor at the direction of Anderson (something Anderson disputes in his evidence, saying the direction had come from Buttrose herself), because Anderson wanted Oliver-Taylor 'to learn the folly of not checking the references of someone he hired'.
Buttrose told the court it was 'quite apparent' that Lattouf was 'an activist' and said she thought the presenter should not have been hired. She added that as the complaints started coming in about Lattouf, Buttrose thought 'it looked like [Lattouf] was going to lose her job'. Questioned what made her think that, Buttrose said: 'Because I could see which way the wind was blowing.'
Despite this Buttrose insisted she had, until the moment she heard Lattouf had been let go, expected her to remain on air for the full five days for which she was employed.
'That seemed like a perfect solution to me,' said Buttrose, who said when she heard Lattouf had been let go, she was 'surprised' and not pleased.
Asked if she was happy that Lattouf had been fired, Buttrose replied: 'No one's ever happy with a dismissal of anyone. I don't know why you think that. It's the worst thing that can happen to anybody. And I'm not happy. And I wasn't happy. I didn't wish her to be removed. I didn't put pressure on anybody. It's a fantasy of your own imagination.'
Asked about an email in which she wrote to Anderson: 'Has Antoinette been replaced? I am over getting emails about her', Buttrose told the court: 'I didn't want her replaced. I can't replace anybody, the chair can't do that.' But then went on to quip: 'If I wanted somebody removed I'd be franker than that.'
Buttrose's sharp composure broke – for a giggle – as she addressed questions about the email she sent Anderson asking of Lattouf's employment: 'Why can't she come down with flu or Covid or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing.'
Boncardo began his questioning here by asking: 'Was it your practice in 2023 to wish that ABC employees would come down with respiratory illnesses?'
Buttrose laughed. 'That was just a face-saving idea. I thought it might have been an idea for Antoinette. It's an easy way to save face.'
But the comment elicited a very different reaction from the other side of the room, where there was a shocked gasp from Lattouf and her supporters, who looked at each other wide-eyed and disbelieving.
'David didn't pick up on the suggestion so we didn't go ahead with the idea,' Buttrose shrugged. 'It would give her an easy exit, that's all it was.'
As the case enters its seventh day in the federal court on Wednesday, there are no easy exits in sight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
5 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
Flying shoes, a viral BLM speech and that leather jacket: Q+A's most memorable moments
After 18 years, the national broadcasters flagship program, Q+A, is dead. ABC confirmed the axing on Wednesday, a day after staff were warned of cuts. The ABC's news director, Justin Stevens, said it was time for the broadcaster to 'rethink how audiences want to interact and to evolve how we can engage with the public to include as many Australians as possible in national conversations'. The weekly discussion program was launched in 2007 by executive producer Peter McEvoy and host Tony Jones, and in its early years was highly influential, regularly making headlines and setting the news agenda. Let's reflect on some of its most memorable moments. Actor Meyne Wyatt's powerful monologue, in June 2020 at the height of global Black Lives Matter protests, recounted his experiences across the spectrum of racism – from micro-aggressions to outright hatred. 'Silence is violence. Complacency is complicity. I don't want to be quiet. I don't want to be humble. I don't want to sit down,' so part of his speech, pulled from his semi-autobiographical play, City of Gold, went. It racked up more than three million views, and saw him included on 2021's Time100 Next list of emerging leaders. 'It was last minute; George Floyd had died, #BlackLivesMatter was at its height. Q+A wanted to focus on the treatment of Aboriginal people here,' Meyne told Guardian Australia in 2022. 'I was aware I was representing – I had to bring it.' An audience member hurled his shoes at John Howard, the former prime minister who signed Australia up to the Iraq war, after demanding he defend his decision to send 2,000 troops to support the US-led 2003 invasion. 'That's for the Iraqi dead!' Peter Gray shouted as he flung the shoes during a 2010 episode of the program. Gray was then escorted from the studio. Howard had a close relationship with George W Bush and Australia was one of the first countries to commit troops to Bush's 'coalition of the willing'. 'I thought it was justified,' Howard said during the broadcast. 'I think there were errors made after the military operation ended. I think there were too few troops and I think a mistake was made in disbanding the Iraqi army. But I will continue to defend … the original decision on the basis on which it was taken.' At that point, Gray stood up and threw his shoes – mimicking the shoe-throwing protest against Bush in Baghdad in 2009. A criminologist and former detective in the audience lectured politicians in 2024 for failing women and putting politics above the reality of deaths caused by domestic violence. 'How dare you! How dare you go into politics, in an environment like this, when one woman is murdered every four days, and all you … can do is immediately talk about politics? That is just disgraceful,' Vincent Hurley said to federal senators Murray Watt and Bridget McKenzie, and NSW opposition leader Mark Speakman. 'For God's sake, how long do we have to listen to politicians like you … high-horsing about? 'I went to 20 domestics in one night when I was in the police. I held a 10-year-old child in my arms who died from the stabbing from her father … You don't need a royal commission. That money needs to go into frontline services – now.' The clip, shared on ABC's social media went viral, garnering millions of views. Germaine Greer's 2012 crack about former prime minister Julia Gillard is infamous. Greer was responding to an audience question about Gillard's image. She initially defended the first female prime minister as an administrator who got things done, then went on to say: 'What I want her to do is get rid of those bloody jackets! … They don't fit … You've got a big arse, Julia. Get over it.' In a later interview with Channel Nine, Gillard said the incident made her feel 'sorry' for Greer. From 'being the feminist for our times, to end up talking like that for cheap laughs about another woman was a really sad thing,' Gillard said in 2014. Q+A became the most complained about ABC program of 2023, with a single November episode on the war in Gaza receiving almost 1,000 complaints, most of which accused the show of pro-Israel bias. That episode was particularly sensitive, host Patricia Karvelas had said at the start, and was recorded without a live studio audience, and with heavy police presence outside. The tense episode featured Labor MP Tim Watts, former ambassador to Israel Dave Sharma, Israel & Jewish Affairs Council chair, Mark Leibler, Australia Palestine Advocacy Network president, Nasser Mashni, and UN special rapporteur, Francesca Albanese. After the program, Albanese told Crikey the standard of Australia's media discourse was 'very basic'. Many viewers accused Karvelas on social media of not questioning members of the panel – especially Mashni and Albanese – fairly, or giving them equal time to speak. An investigation by the ABC's ombudsman said the episode presented highly polarising views in a fair and balanced way. The program as a whole received 2,100 complaints in 2023, according to ABC's ombudsman. Audience member Duncan Storrar laid out his situation in 2016: 'You're gonna lift the tax-free threshold for rich people. If you lift my tax-free threshold, that changes my life. That means that I get to say to my little girls, 'Daddy's not broke this weekend. We can go to the pictures'.' His question to then assistant treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer continued: 'I've got a disability and a low education, that means I've spent my whole life working for minimum wage … Rich people don't even notice their tax-free threshold lift. 'Why don't I get it? Why do they get it?' The part-time truck driver then became the focus of savage media coverage, particularly in the Newscorp press. ABC broadcaster Jon Faine grilled the outlet on its 'value system'. Many rallied online in support of Storrar, who thanked them, but told ABC's Media Watch, 'I didn't want this'. National director of lobby group GetUp!, Simon Sheikh, lost consciousness live on air in 2012. He slumped over the desk, before sitting back up after a few seconds and being helped off stage. He later posted that he was in hospital. Labor's climate change minister at the time, Greg Combet, rushed over to help. Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella, sitting right next to Sheikh, looked on in surprise and was criticised on social media for her reaction. GetUp! urged people to stop criticising her. 'It was an extraordinary circumstance and everyone was shocked,' the group said in a statement shared online. Mirabella said later: 'I thought initially he was just bent over laughing, because that's what you see, and turned around to try and get a better look and I – like everyone else on the panel – was just stunned.' Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Jacqui Lambie clashed in 2017, after the Tasmanian senator said all Muslims who supported sharia law should be deported from Australia, in a Trump-style ban. The author and Youth Without Borders founder responded that she was frustrated by uninformed comments about Islam, and that people were 'willing to completely negate any of my rights as a human being, a woman, as a person with agency simply because they have an idea about what my faith is about'. Lambie said: 'There is one law in this country and it is the Australian law … it is not sharia law, not in this country. Not in my day.' To which Abdel-Magied protested: 'You don't know anything about my religion,' adding that Islam specified the precedence of 'the law of the land that you are on'. Then-host Tony Jones had to intervene: 'Can I say, shouting at each other does not help. So please stop.' Lambie told Abdel-Magied to 'stop playing the victim. Your ban got lifted, get over it.' Abdel-Magied later wrote about the furious public response to her comments, describing herself as 'the most publicly hated Muslim in Australia'. A pro-Putin member of the audience was dramatically booted out of the studio in 2022 by then host Stan Grant after he asked a pro-Russia question. The audience member asked: 'As someone who comes from the Russian community here in Australia, I've been pretty outraged by the narrative created by our media depicting the Ukraine as 'the good guy' and Russia as 'the bad guy'.' 'Believe it or not, there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included. Since 2014, the Ukrainian government together with Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion have besieged the Russian populations in the Donbas killing an estimated 13,000 people according to the United Nations,' he went on, prompting shouts of 'lies' from the audience. 'My question is: where was your outpouring of grief and concern for those thousands of mostly Russians?' Grant corrected the figures, noting the UN figure referred to the number of people killed in the conflict on both sides to date, and after a brief discussion the program moved on to other issues. But a few minutes later, he brought the conversation back: 'Something has been bothering me, I have to admit … people here have been talking about family who are suffering and people who are dying. You supported what's happening, hearing that people are dying. Can I just say – I'm just not comfortable with you being here. Could you please leave?' The audience applauded, as the audience member initially resisted, then left the studio. Grant said the question was not vetted by producers. The pro-Russian audience member said it was 'not true' the question was unvetted, but that he had made an 'addition' when asking it. Malcolm Turnbull's famous leather jacket made frequent appearances with the former prime minister on the Q+A panel. When Turnbull appeared on Q+A without the jacket, it made headlines. He later auctioned it for charity on eBay and raised $1,800 for Sydney's Wayside Chapel.
The Guardian
20 hours ago
- The Guardian
ABC confirms Q+A to be axed amid wider changes and scores of redundancies across the broadcaster
The ABC's Q+A program has been cancelled after 18 years, the broadcaster has confirmed, amid wider changes that will result in scores of redundancies across the public broadcaster. The round of changes will fund new programming at the ABC under reforms yet to be announced by the new managing director Hugh Marks. Marks, who joined the ABC in March, is set to unveil his first round of reforms at the public broadcaster, which Guardian Australia understands to include at least 80 redundancies across the ABC. 'Q+A was a groundbreaking program that had made a significant contribution to Australian society,' the ABC director of news, Justin Stevens, said. 'We're very proud of Q+A's great achievements over the years. The team has done a terrific job, including a strong performance during the federal election campaign,' he said. 'Discontinuing the program at this point is no reflection on anyone on the show. Q+A presenter Patricia Karvelas, who will remain at the ABC, said she enjoyed spending time with the audience members who came to Q+A late on a Monday night. 'They have always been the reason for this show and I'm forever grateful to them for coming on national TV and having the courage to ask questions of powerful people,' she said. Stevens said the cancellation of the program would result in redundancies 'and the loss of talented colleagues', but it is unclear how many. The ABC said savings will be invested in another audience participation project, Your Say, which was a success during the election, and news documentaries in the vein of Killing Season and Nemesis, Stevens said. 'We're excited about being able to produce additional high impact, premium news documentary programs to complement the ABC's strong factual slate,' Stevens said Stevens said as well as hosting Afternoon Briefing and the Politics Now podcast, Karvelas would do more Four Corners episodes as time permits. The weekly flagship discussion program was launched in 2007 by veteran executive producer Peter McEvoy and host Tony Jones and was highly influential in its early years, regularly making headlines and setting the news agenda. ABC staff were warned of looming cuts on Tuesday by the journalists' union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), which told ABC members of colleagues being called into meetings with managers 'regarding a restructure'. One of the divisions to be folded is the Innovation Lab, which was founded in 2018 to test and experiment with new content and technology to prepare the ABC for the future. Headed up by digital content & innovation chief Angela Stengal, the team is believed to be as big as 10 and staff have been offered voluntary redundancy or the chance to go into a redundancy pool to compete for other positions. Radio National staff in Brisbane, Adelaide and Victoria have been called into meetings, according to union sources.
