The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) owes Antoinette Lattouf $150k. This ruling comes on the heels of her unlawful termination in December 2023. Lattouf’s dismissal from her casual position on the Mornings program at ABC Radio Sydney was due to her political views. This became especially clear recently after a highly criticized Instagram post she published on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stirred up sensitivities.
In his decision, Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC had breached Australian employment law. They acted illegally in firing Lattouf only three days into a five-day hosting assignment. The dismissal was prompted by a non-public Instagram post. In it, Lattouf accused Israel of employing starvation as a “weapon of war” against Gaza. The decision came after an extraordinary Federal Court hearing in June. The court ruled that Lattouf’s political beliefs were a motivating factor in her termination.
The ABC has faced devastating monetary hardships due to this case. According to reports, they have spent more than $2 million in taxpayer funds defending their actions against Lattouf’s allegations. In September, Lattouf’s barrister, Oshie Fagir, made an emotional plea for a $350,000 penalty. He reiterated the immediate need for accountability in the wake of the illegal firing. Except the final penalty that the public broadcaster paid was a little more than half of that figure.
On Tuesday, Lattouf went to X to express her displeasure at the sanction. She went on to speak about what her case means for the broader community.
“Whatever the penalty, for me this was never about money — it’s always been about accountability and the integrity of the information our public broadcaster gives us,” – Antoinette Lattouf
The ABC issued a statement in response to the court’s ruling lamenting the decision. Lattouf’s barrister rejected these feelings as “performative.” Yet, as he pointed, they completely missed the mark in addressing the fundamental issues brought to light by the dismissal.
On Wednesday, the authorities confirmed that penalty. It showcases the current cultural clashes around freedom of expression and the role of public broadcasters playing out in Australia today. Conversations about workplace rights, political expression, and freedom of speech in the media continue to be important. This case should be an important learning dog whistle for all journalists and employers.
