Taxpayers are now facing a potential bill exceeding $2 million following the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) unsuccessful legal battle over the dismissal of journalist Antoinette Lattouf. In a ruling by the Federal Court, Lattouf was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination, which followed her dismissal just three days into a five-day casual radio shift in December 2023. This termination stemmed from a concerted effort by pro-Israel lobbyists who lodged complaints against her.
Lattouf had shared a post from Human Rights Watch alleging that Israel was using “starvation as a weapon of war” in Gaza, which preceded her termination. ABC senior officials disclosed during a Senate hearing in February that they had spent $1.1 million on external legal fees and had attempted to settle the case on several occasions. ABC managing director Hugh Marks acknowledged that total expenses could surpass $2 million, emphasising that the litigation was not a wise use of taxpayer funds. He expressed regret that the matter could not have been settled earlier, noting that Lattouf had proposed a settlement of $85,000 in July, which was declined.
Her lawyer, Josh Bornstein, indicated that Lattouf’s settlement offer included additional conditions, such as an apology and further radio shifts—conditions Marks suggested could compromise ABC’s editorial independence and invited external influence on its operations. Justice Darryl Rangiah’s ruling illustrated that Lattouf was unlawfully dismissed for her expressions of political opinion, marking a significant victory for her.
Former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth stated the judgement validated Lattouf’s reposting of an accurate report already covered by the ABC and questioned why the broadcaster had invested so much in fighting the case. He described the decision as a detrimental outcome for the ABC, stating they had exacerbated a bad situation.
Legal experts have highlighted the significance of this ruling, underscoring its implications for the treatment of employees’ political opinions expressed outside working hours. Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta labelled the decision “groundbreaking,” although he acknowledged lingering ambiguities about the delineation of acceptable political opinions in the workplace.
The case has reignited discussions regarding a national human rights act in Australia, with Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC drawing attention to the absence of a constitutional right to free speech. Overall, the judgement serves to clarify and potentially reshape the employer-employee relationship in relation to political expression, amid ongoing debates about the boundaries of speech in Australia.