TV pundit ‘made up’ X-rated goat joke: court

Political pundit and television personality Peter van Onselen has admitted in court he did not read the final deed for his departure from Channel 10 that could gag him for life.

The former host of the The Project was offered redundancy by Ten in March after the company told him his role would be moved to Canberra.

Mr van Onselen, who was also Ten’s political editor, was then sued by the network for allegedly breaching his contract following an opinion piece in The Australian.

The article allegedly breached a non-disparagement agreement because of Mr van Onselen’s claims about Channel 10 and owner Paramount’s profitability.

Appearing via Zoom, Mr van Onselen told the NSW Supreme Court that he left the terms of his departure “in the hands” of his lawyer and had not read the final document before signing.

The document had gone through multiple iterations, with Mr van Onselen claiming he could not “believe” Ten could put a lifelong gag order in place.

Nonetheless, the court was told that Mr van Onselen had called Paramount’s vice-president of human resources Anthony McDonald: “I assume the deed doesn’t shut down my right to talk about the network forever.

“If the CEO f**ked a goat and everyone was piling on, I would be able to?”

The court was told Mr McDonald allegedly laughed, replying: “Yeah, of course mate.”

Ten’s lawyer Arthur Moses grilled Mr Onselen over the “goat comment” amid allegations that it and other conversations between the pair did not happen.

“You made up the conversation to get away from the impact of the non-disparagement clause in the deed, didn’t you?” Mr Moses asked Mr van Onselen.

Mr van Olesen denied the allegations, stating that he had only sought to “double check” the agreement and he did not believe it would be applied that way.

The court was told the first draft deed for Mr van Onselen resignation was sent on February 22, with changes made by his lawyer and those at Ten made in the following weeks.

On March 2, the Australian Financial Review leaked news of Mr van Onselen’s departure while the political pundit was overseas, lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC told the court.

Ms Chrysanthou claimed the orders sought by the free-to-air network and its US-based owner Paramount could bar Mr van Onselen from criticising the companies in perpetuity.

“On the orders sought in the summons, van Onselen would be restricted from ever disparaging Network 10, as well as Paramount and all of its employees,” lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC said.

“That would expose him to contempt of court if he was dissatisfied with his streaming service and wrote to them to complain about the quality.

“It would also put him in breach if he complained to his wife about something someone said during Network Ten news or if he was in the pub.

“If van Onselen said to his friends, ‘I'm surprised Network 10 purchased that program, it’s not very good’, he would find himself in breach.”

Ms Chrysanthou told the court that Paramount, which owns Network Ten, employs as many as 35,000 people across companies including CNN and MTV.

The court was told the summons would prohibit Mr van Onselen from negatively commentating on those employees, including the “tea lady in New York”.

“This summons is a lifetime order against a person whose profession it is to talk and to talk about politics and the media,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“This order would mean my client would have to ensure that when he is criticising other media, he doesn't criticise Network Ten – one of the few free-to-air TV stations

“Only being able to speak about Network Ten for his entire lifetime in glowing terms would impact his standing as an academic and a commentator.

“Its strange for a media company to pursue something of this breadth.”

Mr van Olesen has since returned to a full-time role at the University of Western Australia as a public policy professor, and appeared via AVL from overseas.

His Twitter accounted featured pictures from Italy as well as a column in The Australian from June 24.

Mr van Onselen continues to pen a regular column with the paper, with recent articles covering the Voice to parliament.

The hearing continues.