WEBVTT - Can you be fired for posting about Gaza? 0:00:04.040 --> 0:00:07.400 From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. 0:00:07.760 --> 0:00:12.119 This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday, 0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:18.439 February 10th. There's been a bit going on in the 0:00:18.440 --> 0:00:22.079 world of media in Australia. Just last week, a court 0:00:22.079 --> 0:00:26.040 case began over the ABC's sacking of high profile presenter 0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:30.640 Antoinette Lattouf, while in another case, cricket commentator Peter Lawlor 0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:34.360 was told to pack his bags by a commercial radio station. 0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:38.280 And the drama is all over what they posted on 0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.159 social media about the war in Gaza. But what do 0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:45.760 these cases mean for everyone else? Can your employer sack 0:00:45.800 --> 0:00:50.400 you if you post something about this war? Today, employment 0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:55.000 lawyer Cilla Robinson answers this vexed question, but first, media 0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:57.840 writer Callum Jaspin brings us up to speed with the 0:00:57.840 --> 0:01:05.380 case of the ABC versus Antoinette Lattouf. So, Callum, there's 0:01:05.380 --> 0:01:08.539 been two prominent sackings of journalists who've posted on their 0:01:08.540 --> 0:01:12.059 social media accounts about the war in Gaza. First off, 0:01:12.300 --> 0:01:15.059 you've been in court all week for the Antoinette Lattouf trial. 0:01:15.060 --> 0:01:17.420 So can you tell us what this case is all about? 0:01:17.700 --> 0:01:22.220 Yeah, Lattouf is arguing she was unlawfully terminated three days 0:01:22.220 --> 0:01:25.380 into a five day contract as a fill in presenter 0:01:25.380 --> 0:01:29.980 on ABC Radio Sydney around 14 months ago. 0:01:30.020 --> 0:01:34.179 ABC Radio Sydney mornings with Antoinette Lattouf. 0:01:34.220 --> 0:01:35.820 Filling in for Sarah McDonald. 0:01:36.660 --> 0:01:39.179 Later this hour, it's time for radical honesty. 0:01:39.740 --> 0:01:45.819 The sacking mostly surrounds a post that she reposted on 0:01:45.819 --> 0:01:49.700 her Instagram that quoted a report from Human Rights Watch, 0:01:49.700 --> 0:01:54.180 which is a very well known NGO. She had shared 0:01:54.300 --> 0:01:58.880 this post with the caption HRW R.W. reporting starvation as 0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:03.320 a tool of war. Her lawyers have claimed this week 0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:06.160 in the Federal Court that members of a lobby group 0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:09.840 had conducted a spectacularly successful campaign to have her taken 0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:14.440 off air, which included sending a barrage of complaints to 0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:17.840 the ABC's managing director, David Anderson, and the former chair 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:18.880 Ita Buttrose. 0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:23.480 Before the court accused of sacking Antoinette Lattouf for her 0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:26.919 political beliefs. Mrs. Lattouf, how are you feeling about the case? 0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:33.520 The ABC have denied Lattouf was sacked because she was 0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:37.560 paid out for the full five days of her contract 0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:40.079 at the time, and they've also denied that its most 0:02:40.080 --> 0:02:44.840 senior executives were influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists in their decision making. 0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:51.040 Okay, so there's obviously been a flurry of coverage about 0:02:51.040 --> 0:02:53.720 this case. It's generated heaps of interest, but what are 0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:55.780 the key things that have been have been revealed in 0:02:55.780 --> 0:02:57.140 the trial over the past week. 0:02:57.860 --> 0:03:01.899 Well, we started off on Monday morning with Latif's barrister 0:03:01.940 --> 0:03:08.780 Oshi Phagwara putting together the ABC's opening arguments. Um, in 0:03:08.820 --> 0:03:14.139 that there were referenced to many, many emails and texts 0:03:14.139 --> 0:03:20.340 between the top executives at the ABC in the week 0:03:20.500 --> 0:03:23.460 that Latif was on air. This included a lot of 0:03:23.460 --> 0:03:28.420 internal emails which revealed that Miss Buttrose, she wrote in 0:03:28.419 --> 0:03:30.860 an email to David Anderson, who was the managing director 0:03:30.860 --> 0:03:33.460 at that time, she said, I quote, I have a 0:03:33.460 --> 0:03:36.500 whole clutch of complaints. Why can't she come down with 0:03:36.500 --> 0:03:39.660 the flu or Covid or a stomach upset? We owe 0:03:39.660 --> 0:03:44.180 her nothing. The court was told. The ABC's chief content officer, 0:03:44.180 --> 0:03:49.300 Chris Oliver Taylor, was also told on the evening of 0:03:49.660 --> 0:03:53.840 the first day Latif was on air by David Anderson. 0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:55.880 I think we have an Antoinette issue. 0:03:56.240 --> 0:03:58.280 And do we know who actually made these complaints to 0:03:58.320 --> 0:03:59.000 the ABC? 0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:04.400 Yeah. So in David Anderson's cross-examination on Thursday, he said, 0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:07.360 or at least he confirmed that he was later told 0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:11.000 that these complaints are the nexus of them was in 0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:15.000 a WhatsApp group, and it was described as a campaign 0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:17.730 because he said that there had been about 40 to 0:04:17.730 --> 0:04:20.680 50 emails that came through that were very similar in 0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.400 their nature, but slightly different in the way that they 0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:24.480 were topped and tailed. 0:04:25.320 --> 0:04:28.520 Okay, but Antoinette Lattouf, she's arguing that what she actually 0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:31.160 posted during her few days at the ABC, that it 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:32.719 wasn't controversial. Right? 0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.839 Yeah. She told the court this week that the information 0:04:36.839 --> 0:04:40.560 she posted, um, was done under the belief that it 0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:44.760 was factual information after she had seen that the same 0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:49.600 report that she was referencing, uh, had had been reported 0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:52.910 on by both the ABC and the BBC, which I 0:04:52.910 --> 0:04:57.789 think most people would consider to be reputable sources. She 0:04:58.230 --> 0:05:05.230 had a discussion with the ABC's Sydney content director, Elizabeth Green, 0:05:05.470 --> 0:05:07.750 on her first day. And this is a sort of 0:05:07.790 --> 0:05:12.510 key part to to the whole case. Um, where the 0:05:12.510 --> 0:05:16.030 ABC is arguing she was given a directive not to 0:05:16.070 --> 0:05:20.789 post about this particular topic, that being the Israel-Gaza conflict 0:05:21.230 --> 0:05:25.870 during her five day stint on air, um, at ABC Sydney, 0:05:25.870 --> 0:05:29.870 because there was a risk that the ABC, the ABC's impartiality, 0:05:29.870 --> 0:05:33.630 might be brought into question. Now, Lattouf and her team 0:05:34.670 --> 0:05:37.550 are arguing, or at least positioning themselves, that this wasn't 0:05:37.550 --> 0:05:41.430 a directive. It was more of a suggestion that prompted 0:05:41.430 --> 0:05:44.950 a conversation. And the phrase that's been brought up in 0:05:44.950 --> 0:05:48.109 court quite a few times is that, green said. It 0:05:48.110 --> 0:05:52.170 might be best not to or something to to that effect. 0:05:52.290 --> 0:05:54.089 So is this at the crux of the trial then? 0:05:54.130 --> 0:05:56.210 You know, whether it was a directive that she not 0:05:56.210 --> 0:05:58.650 post about Gaza or whether it was just a suggestion, 0:05:58.650 --> 0:06:01.529 because does this come to the heart of whether Antoinette 0:06:01.570 --> 0:06:05.890 Lattouf actually breached anything in her contract or ABC policies 0:06:05.890 --> 0:06:07.450 by what she's posted online? 0:06:07.529 --> 0:06:11.010 Yeah. That's right. So the ABC has said she was 0:06:11.010 --> 0:06:16.609 removed or taken off air because she didn't follow a directive. Um, 0:06:16.650 --> 0:06:22.410 whereas Antoinette has said in her cross-examination by the ABC's barrister, 0:06:22.450 --> 0:06:26.570 Ian Neil, that she came to an agreement with green 0:06:27.050 --> 0:06:31.330 that she could post factual information from reputable sources. 0:06:32.490 --> 0:06:35.250 I never signed up for this. I didn't sign up. 0:06:37.650 --> 0:06:43.169 To be the target of so much hate and death 0:06:43.170 --> 0:06:46.610 threats from bots and randoms. 0:06:50.750 --> 0:06:54.510 And so also this week, Callum prominent cricket commentator Peter Lawlor. 0:06:54.510 --> 0:06:57.150 He was dumped by radio station Sen. 0:06:57.310 --> 0:07:01.350 Journalist Peter Lawlor has been dismissed as an SN contributor 0:07:01.390 --> 0:07:05.510 over his support online for Palestine Live to Holly Stearns. Now, Holly, 0:07:05.510 --> 0:07:06.029 what's happened? 0:07:06.070 --> 0:07:07.349 So tell us what's happened there. 0:07:07.670 --> 0:07:10.510 Yes, this was a story that came out coming at 0:07:10.510 --> 0:07:12.310 a time where there has been a lot of attention 0:07:12.310 --> 0:07:16.429 on this. Lawlor's feed includes reposts of news stories about 0:07:16.430 --> 0:07:19.630 Israeli attacks in Gaza, and about the release of Palestinian 0:07:19.630 --> 0:07:24.510 protesters from Israeli jails. He, of course, is the former 0:07:24.670 --> 0:07:28.550 chief cricket writer at The Australian, and he released a 0:07:28.550 --> 0:07:31.510 statement on Monday night in which he said he received 0:07:31.550 --> 0:07:37.190 two calls from senior management at RSN. Uh, during the 0:07:37.190 --> 0:07:40.950 final day, I believe, of the Australia Sri Lanka Test 0:07:40.950 --> 0:07:44.470 in Galle, um, to to let him know that he 0:07:44.470 --> 0:07:47.090 would no longer be working for them. He said I 0:07:47.090 --> 0:07:49.850 was told in one call there was serious organisations making 0:07:49.850 --> 0:07:51.970 complaints and another I was told that this was not 0:07:51.970 --> 0:07:55.530 the case. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was told there were 0:07:55.530 --> 0:07:58.850 accusations I was anti-Semitic, which I strongly object to. I 0:07:58.850 --> 0:08:01.850 was told my retweeting was not balanced and insensitive to 0:08:01.890 --> 0:08:06.250 one side that many people had complained. Send chief Craig 0:08:06.290 --> 0:08:09.090 Hutchinson released a statement after saying, Peter and I have 0:08:09.090 --> 0:08:11.650 a different view of the impact of that in the 0:08:11.650 --> 0:08:15.250 Australian community, and cricket is a celebration of differences and 0:08:15.250 --> 0:08:19.290 nationalities and a place where our Asian audience can escape. 0:08:19.530 --> 0:08:22.010 He also said we respect Pete as a journalist and 0:08:22.010 --> 0:08:24.610 a long time contributor to the game, but also acknowledged 0:08:25.010 --> 0:08:28.610 the fear that many families in our community feel right now. 0:08:30.970 --> 0:08:33.730 Well, thank you so much for your time. 0:08:34.370 --> 0:08:34.890 Thank you. 0:08:39.490 --> 0:08:42.810 After the break, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson on if your 0:08:42.809 --> 0:08:49.350 employer can sack you for what you post on social media. So, Cilla, 0:08:49.350 --> 0:08:52.710 thank you so much for joining us on the Morning Edition. Now, 0:08:53.070 --> 0:08:56.310 obviously the Israel-Gaza war has opened up a minefield, really, 0:08:56.309 --> 0:08:58.470 not only in the media but for many companies. So 0:08:58.470 --> 0:09:01.550 can you just take us through the legalities at play here? 0:09:01.590 --> 0:09:04.910 I mean, can an employer formally reprimand or even sack 0:09:04.910 --> 0:09:07.670 an employee for posting about this conflict? 0:09:07.990 --> 0:09:11.790 Look, the short answer to your question is yes, but 0:09:11.790 --> 0:09:16.870 it depends on the circumstances. Employers can absolutely take action 0:09:16.870 --> 0:09:21.310 against employees for their social media posts, including reprimanding them 0:09:21.309 --> 0:09:25.709 with informal or written warnings or even terminating their employment. 0:09:26.070 --> 0:09:30.989 If an employee's social media activity damages the company's reputation 0:09:30.990 --> 0:09:35.709 or breaches company policy. So look, the case law supports 0:09:35.710 --> 0:09:40.030 the notion that they, as employers can can monitor employees 0:09:40.070 --> 0:09:43.770 social media Use beyond the workplace. I think that's a 0:09:43.770 --> 0:09:49.090 really important thing. Um, one of those common misconceptions and 0:09:49.370 --> 0:09:52.490 the concept of bringing the company into disrepute is often 0:09:52.490 --> 0:09:55.930 cited in these cases. So, for example, if an employee 0:09:55.970 --> 0:10:00.850 publicly criticizes their employer, discloses confidential information or says, you know, 0:10:00.890 --> 0:10:04.450 derogatory remarks about a colleague, for example, that could absolutely 0:10:04.929 --> 0:10:10.850 justify dismissal. However, context is key. Employers basically need to 0:10:10.850 --> 0:10:14.730 consider the nature of the post, the employee's role, the 0:10:14.730 --> 0:10:18.569 potential impact on the workplace, and whether there's a connection 0:10:18.570 --> 0:10:22.090 between the social media context and the person's employment before 0:10:22.090 --> 0:10:27.090 deciding to take disciplinary action or terminate their employment. So look, 0:10:27.130 --> 0:10:31.530 most medium sized and large organizations have social media policies 0:10:31.530 --> 0:10:35.330 in place that guide the employees appropriate use to protect 0:10:35.330 --> 0:10:39.370 the employer's interests and reputation, and a breach of such 0:10:39.370 --> 0:10:42.350 a Such a policy, of course, where it adversely impacts 0:10:42.350 --> 0:10:46.430 the employer's image or reputation, can absolutely lead to disciplinary action, 0:10:46.429 --> 0:10:47.470 including dismissal. 0:10:47.870 --> 0:10:50.990 And so are journalists in a particularly unique position in that, 0:10:51.030 --> 0:10:54.429 you know, there's obviously an expectation that we remain impartial. Like, 0:10:54.429 --> 0:10:57.510 are we sort of judged by an even sort of harsher, 0:10:57.550 --> 0:10:58.630 I guess, bar? 0:10:58.670 --> 0:11:02.390 Absolutely. It's a it's a great question. And journalists operate 0:11:02.390 --> 0:11:05.870 in an unusual landscape where their personal social media use 0:11:05.910 --> 0:11:10.790 is closely intertwined with their professional responsibilities. And so they 0:11:10.790 --> 0:11:14.710 do have this unique role that most employees don't necessarily 0:11:14.710 --> 0:11:19.350 have that requires them to maintain impartiality and objectivity. So, 0:11:19.390 --> 0:11:21.510 you know, a journalist has to ensure that their personal 0:11:21.510 --> 0:11:25.750 interests and beliefs don't undermine that professional integrity. And, you know, 0:11:25.750 --> 0:11:28.990 given the digital era that we live in, where social 0:11:28.990 --> 0:11:33.110 media is actually the primary news source for many, maintaining 0:11:33.110 --> 0:11:37.590 that journalistic integrity is is crucial. So personal political opinions 0:11:37.809 --> 0:11:41.890 expressed on social media can absolutely, in some circumstances, conflict 0:11:41.890 --> 0:11:46.610 with a journalist's duty to remain unbiased, potentially affecting not 0:11:46.610 --> 0:11:50.329 only their credibility but the credibility of of their employer. 0:11:51.250 --> 0:11:53.089 Okay. And I really want to broaden this out to, 0:11:53.250 --> 0:11:56.290 of course, companies that are outside the media, as I 0:11:56.290 --> 0:11:59.970 imagine most listeners would be, because is the situation different 0:11:59.970 --> 0:12:02.330 if they're actually a contractor? Because I know that in 0:12:02.330 --> 0:12:05.570 the Antoinette Lattouf case, she said, you know, before she 0:12:05.570 --> 0:12:08.010 started this short stint working for the ABC as a 0:12:08.010 --> 0:12:10.170 fill in presenter, that she thought she would be protected, 0:12:10.170 --> 0:12:12.370 that nobody could fire her because she was, quote, an 0:12:12.370 --> 0:12:14.410 independent and freelance journalist. 0:12:14.770 --> 0:12:18.130 So, look, the situation can differ significantly based on whether 0:12:18.130 --> 0:12:20.650 someone is a permanent employee or a or a contractor. 0:12:20.650 --> 0:12:24.050 So I mean, as you'd be aware, contractors often have 0:12:24.050 --> 0:12:27.650 less job security and fewer protections compared to an employee, 0:12:27.690 --> 0:12:31.690 as their relationship essentially with the organisation is typically governed 0:12:31.690 --> 0:12:34.970 by the terms of their contract. So policies also social 0:12:34.970 --> 0:12:38.790 media policies aren't always expressed to apply to contractors, so 0:12:38.790 --> 0:12:41.430 that couldn't be a technical difference for them. But they 0:12:41.429 --> 0:12:46.630 are absolutely protected by discrimination laws based on political opinion. Um, 0:12:46.710 --> 0:12:50.950 and so, um, you know, employer may have more leeway 0:12:50.950 --> 0:12:53.790 to terminate a contract based on the terms that they 0:12:53.790 --> 0:12:57.670 are agreed upon. Um, and yes, the Lattouf case, her 0:12:57.670 --> 0:13:00.990 belief that the freelance status provided her with greater protections 0:13:00.990 --> 0:13:03.310 does highlight a common misconception. 0:13:03.350 --> 0:13:04.829 Well, I really want to pick up on something that. 0:13:04.830 --> 0:13:07.429 You've just mentioned, which is, you know, the protections that 0:13:07.429 --> 0:13:10.590 employees do have against discrimination. So can you talk us 0:13:10.590 --> 0:13:13.750 through what protections do exist in the law that do 0:13:13.790 --> 0:13:16.710 prevent an employer from sacking an employee because of their 0:13:16.710 --> 0:13:17.670 political opinion? 0:13:18.230 --> 0:13:21.150 Sure. So as I mentioned, you've got the Fair Work Act. 0:13:21.150 --> 0:13:24.630 So that provides protections for employees against adverse action based 0:13:24.630 --> 0:13:30.189 on their political opinion. So this protection isn't absolute. Employers 0:13:30.190 --> 0:13:33.810 can impose reasonable requirements on social media use to used 0:13:33.809 --> 0:13:37.569 to protect their interests and maintain their reputation. So for journalists, 0:13:37.570 --> 0:13:40.410 the obligation to remain impartial adds that extra layer of 0:13:40.450 --> 0:13:44.209 complexity that we spoke about. So while those political opinions 0:13:44.210 --> 0:13:48.890 are protected, if an employee's expression in these opinions conflicts 0:13:48.890 --> 0:13:51.569 with their job responsibilities or the employees interests, it can 0:13:51.570 --> 0:13:54.330 lead to these challenging situations like we have in in 0:13:54.330 --> 0:13:58.050 the case. So I think employers basically have to carefully 0:13:58.050 --> 0:14:03.170 balance considerations to ensure that they're not infringing upon the 0:14:03.170 --> 0:14:06.929 protected rights of the employees whilst maintaining, you know, their 0:14:06.929 --> 0:14:08.530 operational integrity. 0:14:08.530 --> 0:14:09.410 So it seems like there's. 0:14:09.410 --> 0:14:13.010 Two real key factors, I guess, that are almost potentially 0:14:13.010 --> 0:14:15.250 competing against each other. You know, you've got the protection 0:14:15.250 --> 0:14:17.530 of political opinion and then you've got the employer's social 0:14:17.530 --> 0:14:20.330 media policy. So does one trump the other, like how 0:14:20.450 --> 0:14:22.410 is an employee meant to balance this? 0:14:22.570 --> 0:14:24.970 It can be a complex issue. And, you know, ordinarily 0:14:24.970 --> 0:14:27.530 you think, you know, legislation sits up here or a 0:14:27.530 --> 0:14:30.450 policy sits, you know, down here in terms of order 0:14:30.450 --> 0:14:33.880 of significance, but it is a complex issue. Social media 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:37.760 policies are designed to protect the company's reputation, while the 0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:41.920 legal protections for political opinion safeguard employees rights. So in 0:14:41.920 --> 0:14:44.920 these cases where there is a conflict, the specifics of 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:49.479 the situation, including the nature of the post and its impact, um, 0:14:49.520 --> 0:14:52.880 will determine which takes precedent, essentially. So employers need to 0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:56.960 balance these considerations quite carefully, ensuring that their policies are 0:14:56.960 --> 0:15:01.440 reasonable and don't infringe upon protected rights while still safeguarding 0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:04.960 their interests. And, you know, you'll see that, you know, 0:15:05.000 --> 0:15:08.480 media organizations, social media policies are quite different from your 0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:11.440 average organization. It's a more complex issue for them. But 0:15:11.440 --> 0:15:14.400 I think, you know, defining boundaries is really important so 0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:18.480 that the companies can help employees navigate the line between 0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:21.400 personal freedom and professional obligations by just giving them clear 0:15:21.440 --> 0:15:26.120 guidelines and training so that employees can understand that their 0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:29.880 social media activity, even outside of work hours, in their 0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:33.580 in their personal capacity. Can absolutely have professional consequences. And 0:15:33.580 --> 0:15:36.940 I think also companies should foster an environment where employees 0:15:36.940 --> 0:15:39.860 do feel comfortable expressing themselves. We want people to bring 0:15:39.860 --> 0:15:42.860 their full selves to work, but they do need to 0:15:42.860 --> 0:15:46.060 understand the potential impact on on their careers as well, 0:15:46.620 --> 0:15:48.260 if they're seen to overstep. 0:15:48.540 --> 0:15:50.780 And do you have any guidelines? I guess, like, what's 0:15:50.780 --> 0:15:53.980 the takeaway here for listeners who may rightly feel strongly 0:15:53.980 --> 0:15:57.460 about expressing their opinion on the Israel-Gaza conflict? I mean, 0:15:57.500 --> 0:16:00.500 can they express their opinions on this issue, or should 0:16:00.500 --> 0:16:02.900 they just not be saying anything on social media? 0:16:03.380 --> 0:16:06.980 Oh, look, I think that's the million the million dollar question. Um, 0:16:06.980 --> 0:16:11.140 it is it's fraught with risk even for, um, people 0:16:11.140 --> 0:16:17.180 that aren't, uh, journos. Um, because quite often, um, you know, 0:16:17.180 --> 0:16:19.620 especially for talking about something like LinkedIn, for example, where 0:16:19.620 --> 0:16:22.420 your company is, is front and center. So I think 0:16:22.700 --> 0:16:25.580 it's important that if people are expressing views that they 0:16:25.580 --> 0:16:27.780 are doing so and making clear that it is their 0:16:27.780 --> 0:16:31.560 views and not the views of their organization. Um, ideally 0:16:31.560 --> 0:16:36.880 their presenting views in a factual way, um, that aren't inflammatory. Employers, 0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:40.400 if they're doing the right thing, are looking for impartiality. 0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:44.000 They're looking for fairness on how their employees present information, 0:16:44.040 --> 0:16:48.520 particularly on contentious issues. But there is always a risk 0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:53.040 that even if you're, you know, an accountant or, you know, 0:16:53.040 --> 0:16:56.440 a PA or whatever, um, you know, a customer, some 0:16:56.440 --> 0:17:00.200 stakeholder might see that and it might cause significant implications 0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:02.880 for your business. So I don't think that anyone has 0:17:02.880 --> 0:17:07.399 just carte blanche to do whatever they want. Um, you know, 0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:09.480 if there's a link to the employer, if there's a 0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:12.560 nexus to your employment, there is always a risk that 0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:14.920 it could come back to, to bite you. 0:17:17.480 --> 0:17:20.480 Well, thank you so much for your time. 0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:21.240 My pleasure. 0:17:34.140 --> 0:17:37.740 Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Tammy Mills, 0:17:37.740 --> 0:17:41.820 with technical assistance by Tom Compagnoni. Our head of audio 0:17:41.940 --> 0:17:45.179 is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of 0:17:45.180 --> 0:17:47.820 The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy 0:17:47.820 --> 0:17:50.419 the show and want more of our journalism. Subscribe to 0:17:50.420 --> 0:17:53.460 our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what 0:17:53.460 --> 0:17:59.820 we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign 0:17:59.820 --> 0:18:02.900 up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive 0:18:02.900 --> 0:18:06.300 summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights 0:18:06.300 --> 0:18:09.620 in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. 0:18:10.380 --> 0:18:14.220 I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks 0:18:14.220 --> 0:18:14.859 for listening.