By Michaela Whitbourn
The ABC has been blasted for wasting more than $1 million in taxpayer money defending Antoinette Lattouf’s lawsuit after a court found the broadcaster unlawfully sacked her from Sydney radio in a “state of panic” amid complaints about her views on the Israel-Gaza war.
In a decision on Wednesday, Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah ordered the ABC to pay Lattouf $70,000 in compensation after finding it terminated her employment in 2023 to “appease … pro-Israel lobbyists” because “she held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza”.
ABC managing director Hugh Marks conceded on the broadcaster’s News 24 channel that “many millions of dollars have been spent that shouldn’t have been spent”.
He acknowledged in a statement that “the matter was not handled in line with our values and expectations”.
The ABC had “let down our staff and audiences”, Marks said, and the matter had “caused concerns to be expressed about the ABC’s independence and integrity”.
“Any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any of its employees must always be guarded against,” he said. He extended the ABC’s “sincere apologies” to Lattouf.
Lattouf said outside court that she was “punished for my political opinion”.
Antoinette Lattouf outside the Federal Court in Sydney after her court win against the ABC.Credit: Oscar Colman
Her lawyer, Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, said the court found the ABC “capitulated to a campaign of lobbying”.
“This unlawful decision goes right to the top of the ABC,” he said. “The ABC rejected an offer last July to settle the case for $85,000, instead blowing over $1 million in taxpayer money to discredit itself.”
Rangiah made a declaration that the broadcaster breached the Fair Work Act by sacking Lattouf for reasons including her political opinion and by contravening its enterprise agreement in failing to give her an opportunity to respond to allegations against her.
Lattouf had sought compensation and pecuniary penalties. A separate hearing on pecuniary penalties, which would be paid to Lattouf, will be held at a later date.
The journalist and presenter was removed as a fill-in host of ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program in December 2023 after sharing a post critical of Israel from non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch on social media and adding the caption: “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war.”
Rangiah said the post was “bound to be controversial” and triggered a “state of panic” within the ranks of the ABC’s senior management.
Lattouf’s actions were “ill-advised and inconsiderate of her employer”, the judge said, but she had not been directed to refrain from posting about the war on social media while employed by the ABC.
Antoinette Lattouf and her legal team outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Wednesday.Credit: Oscar Colman
Rangiah found Lattouf was “merely provided with advice that it would be best not to post anything controversial about the war”.
The broadcaster had already received complaints about Lattouf’s appointment because of her views about the war, which were not expressed on radio.
“The complaints asserted she had expressed antisemitic views, lacked impartiality and was unsuitable to present any program for the ABC,” Rangiah said.
“It became clear that the complaints were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air.”
Lattouf was sacked about 48 hours after the complaints started, three days into a planned five-day hosting stint.
Rangiah found that Chris Oliver-Taylor, the ABC’s then chief content officer, made the decision to sack Lattouf against the backdrop of The Australian asking questions about her appointment.
“I infer that Mr Oliver-Taylor sought to mitigate the anticipated deluge of complaints ... by taking her off air and ‘beat[ing] the story’.
“In that sense, the decision was made to appease the pro-Israel lobbyists who would inevitably escalate their complaints about the ABC employing a presenter they perceived to have antisemitic and anti-Israel opinions in such a public position.”
He said Oliver-Taylor “sought to appease members of the public who would attribute to Ms Lattouf the holding of anti-Israel and antisemitic opinions”, and his reasons for sacking her “included his desire to mitigate further complaints”.
The ABC maintained Lattouf was not sacked. It said her employment concluded after five days as planned, but she was not required to host the last two shows. Lattouf was paid in January 2024 for all five days.
But Rangiah said Lattouf “was required to cease work immediately and leave the workplace without completing her shift”.
“The policies she was alleged to have breached were not identified, nor was she given any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations,” he said.
The Lattouf case lifted the lid on the turmoil within the ABC’s upper echelons as the complaints rolled in.
At 8.39pm on Tuesday, December 19, 2023, the ABC’s then-chair, Ita Buttrose, had emailed the then-managing director, David Anderson: “Has Antoinette been replaced. I am over getting emails about her.”
Lattouf was removed from the air the next day, but Buttrose told the court she “didn’t put pressure on anybody”.
Rangiah said “the pressure exerted by Mr Anderson and Ms Buttrose” in forwarding complaints to Oliver-Taylor “did not materially contribute to the decision” to sack her.
However, he said Anderson did make “a material contribution” to the decision by “conveying his opinion that Ms Lattouf held antisemitic views”, and that Anderson’s opinion was “adopted” by Oliver-Taylor.
“To be fair to Mr Oliver-Taylor, he had already been placed under a great deal of pressure over Ms Lattouf’s engagement through the public complaints and Mr Anderson’s and Ms Buttrose’s trenchant criticism of him and his staff.”
Antoinette Lattouf after the Federal Court’s decision on Wednesday.Credit: Oscar Colman
Separately, some pro-Israel letter-writers who urged the ABC to sack Lattouf are pushing for contempt proceedings to be initiated against The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age over an alleged breach of a suppression order made during the Lattouf case.
Rangiah heard submissions from the parties on Wednesday. Further submissions will be made at a later date.
Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the letter-writers, said the court should hold “well-resourced media organisations” to account “as a matter of public interest”.
But Tom Blackburn, SC, for the media parties, said there had been no breach of the order and “no contempt of court”.
With Josefine Ganko
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.