June 26, 2025 • 11 mins
The ABC unlawfully dismissed journalist Antoinette Lattouf by cutting short her week-long radio hosting role, the federal court has ruled. Lattouf was sacked after sharing a Human Rights Watch post on social media in December 2023. She accused the public broadcaster of unfairly dismissing her for holding a political opinion – an argument the ABC rejected, but the court upheld.In today’s deep dive, we’ll take you through the Lattouf ruling and what it means for Australian media.
Hosts: Harry Sekulich and Sam Koslowski
Producer: Elliot Lawry
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday,
the twenty seventh of June. I'm Harry Sekulich.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
The Federal Court has ruled the ABC unlawfully dismissed journalist
Antoinette Latouf by cutting short her week long radio hosting role.
Latouf was sacked after sharing a Human Rights Watch post
on social media. She accused the broadcaster of unfairly dismissing
her on the basis of her political opinion. The ABC
rejected this argument, but in a judgment handed down on Wednesday,
(00:44):
the court sided with Latouf. In today's Deep Dive, we'll
take you through the ruling and what it means for
Australian media.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Harry, I feel like often on this podcast we say
at the end of an episode and when there's some
us in this case, will make sure to bring it
to you, and I want to make sure that we
actually do, which is why we're talking about this judgment today.
We have covered this case on the podcast in the past.
Now we have a judgment. Let's start with the case itself.
Tell me what actually happened here and who Antoninette Latouf
(01:16):
is so.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Antoinette Latouf is a Lebanese Australian who is a broadcaster
and author who founded the not for profit Media Diversity Australia.
She was hired in December twenty twenty three by the
ABC to fill in as a presenter on their local
radio program in Sydney. So during this time, Latouf said
(01:37):
she was told by her line manager that she was
doing a good job. The audience feedback was really good
and at one point she even talked about in the
lead up to Christmas she was getting a bit of
audience feedback on their favorite Michael Booblez song. So it
was very festive and not exactly like a news and
current affairs type of gig. Sure, So the Federal Court
(01:58):
was told later on that during this week long hosting gig,
Antoinette Latoufe was given some advice and that's a really
key term here against posting on the Israel and Palestinian conflict,
which at that stage was two months after the October
seven attacks and Israel had started invading Gaza. But she
was told that sharing factual information from reputable sources was
(02:22):
quote fine. During that week, Latouf had shared a Human
Rights Watch video with the caption quote the Israeli government
is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.
This was a video that the ABC had also reported on,
and the following day, Latouf was told to leave the
ABC for sharing a post that could be considered quote
(02:44):
controversial and wouldn't complete her final two rostered days of
presenting as a fill in host.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Okay, so just to recap, we have Antoninette Latouf covering
a week of Sydney radio for the ABC, given some
advice not to post anything about conflicts that wasn't from
a reputable source.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
She then posts something from Human Rights Watch that seems
to be crossing the line for the ABC, and the
ABC dismissed her with two days left. Then this whole
legal drama kicked off. How did we land up in court?
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Though?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Because a lot has to happen from a dismissal for
it to actually ended a fair work commission hearing.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
The story quickly became a lot bigger than a presenter
being dismissed from her role. Part Way through, Latouf argued
that she was unfairly dismissed for multiple reasons. Among them
were three areas that are identified as protections in our
fair work laws in Australia, so that is holding a
political opinion. She was dismissed because of her race and
(03:42):
her national extractions, her identity as a Lebanese woman. She
initially took this complaint to the Fair Work Commission and
that then later escalated to the Federal Court after some
attempts to settle the matter out of court had fallen over.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, So normally the employer and the employee or the
ex employee who feels like they were unfairly dismised will
go to the Fair Work Commission for mediation and try
and settle this normally financially without it proceeding to a hearing.
But that didn't work, so that's when they went to
the hearing.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Right, that's right. So they couldn't reach the settlement. They
couldn't talk it out outside of court, so it needed
to escalate to the trial that we have seen play
out over the last year or so. So. The ABC,
for its part, had contested Latufe's claims, its central argument
being that she had breached their social media policy when
she shared the Human Rights Watch post which it said,
(04:34):
had veered into a matter of controversy. It also argued
that she wasn't really dismissed at all because she had
been paid for the full five days that she had
been contracted to fill in as a host. But during
these legal proceeding sys is where it started to build
up and gain a bit more national prominence. It was
revealed that some of the senior ABC figures, which had
(04:55):
included the former chair Eida Buttros, had been receiving a
lot lot of complaints from what the court described as
pro Israel lobbyists who had been asking for Latouf to
be taken off air due to previous comments she had
made about the conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I want to ask you a few more questions about this,
but let's get a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
So this was a big case and it dragged on
for some time. This week we got a decision. Take
me through what the court ruled here.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, So Justice Darryl Rangier handed down his judgment a
little earlier this week. He characterized the response of some
very senior people within the ABC, which included Ida Bartrose
and the former head of content, Chris Oliver, Taylor as
turning from quote consternation into what he termed a state
of panic. Right, And this is a quote that I'm
(05:46):
going to read out from the judgment because I think
it's quite compelling. 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 an
anti Semitic and anti Israel opinions in such a public position.
So Justice Rangier also found that Latouf was unfairly dismissed
(06:08):
on two key grounds. The first was for expressing a
public opinion when she shared the Human Rights Watch post,
which he ruled amounted to holding a public opinion, which
is the official language in the legislation. He didn't accept
the argument that Latouf had put forward that she was
dismissed based on her race or national identity.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So there were those three arguments that outlined right at
the top, and he basically said that on the first argument,
she in fact was unfairly dismissed on that, but the
second and third was not.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
So one of her fair work protections was breached in
this case. He then elaborated that the ABC had breached
its enterprise agreement by not giving Latouf an opportunity to
respond to claims of misconduct while she had been employed
at the broadcast right.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Which is more of a kind of procedural point, and
that prosidual argument, And there was also this interesting argument
about social media that was coming through, and I would
be you know, it'd be remissive me as a co
founder of a social media based news organization to not
look at this really carefully and examine kind of how
the court viewed reposting another NGOs or another organization's media post.
(07:20):
Tell me a bit more about that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yeah, So it was a really interesting tension that cropped
up in this case. So the legal question related to
whether Latouf had breached the ABC's social media policy when
she shared that Human Rights Watch post. The court ruled
that she hadn't received either a direction or instruction to
not post about Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza, and
(07:43):
Justice Rangia elaborated that she was simply given advice but
told that sharing factual information from a reputable source was fine.
And after this decision was delivered, Latouf addressed the media
outside the court, and this was her take on the judgment.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing
facts about these war crimes is also legal. I was
punished for my political opinion. Okay, So what happens from here?
What are the consequences for the ABC now?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
So, in the immediate term, the ABC needs to pay
Antoinette Latouf seventy thousand dollars for what's known as non
economic losses. That covers things like the psychological distress that
she experienced in the aftermath of being dismissed. It also
covers things like hurt reputation and a lowered perception of
integrity in her work. There'll also be a separate hearing
(08:42):
to determine what's known as a pecuniary penalty, which is
just a legal way of saying a fine. And Antoinette
Latouf had initially asked for the ABC to acknowledge its
wrongdoing in a public statement. So we heard a little
earlier this week the ABC's new managing director, Hugh Marx,
who wasn't around at the time of Latouf's dismissal. He
(09:02):
said in a public statement quote, it's clear the matter
was not handled in line with our values and expectations,
and further on, he gave a pretty clear signal about
the issue of outside pressure influencing the broadcaster's decisions. He added, quote,
any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any
of its employees must always be guarded against. I might
(09:27):
just end by mentioning the ABC, which is a taxpayer
funded organization, spent more than one million dollars on legal
fees in taking this case to the federal court sure
defending themselves against Latoof's claims.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It's often said that in cases like these, and this
is not unique to this situation, but in fact all
around the world, that the real winners in something like
this tend to be lawyers and those who can bill
for their time. How do we know, though, how much
they spent.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
So that's because of what's known as Senate estimates, and
this happens a few times a year. That's this where
Senators get to ask questions to government departments who are
receiving money after a federal budget allocation. And because the
ABC is a taxpayer funded organization, they also have to
face up to Senate estimates. This inquiry that's very public,
(10:19):
and so I think i'll just end on this note.
There's been a lot of commentary around following this case
with Antoinette Latouff. But I think it was quite telling
to hear from some former ABC bosses, including Alan Sunderland,
who used to be the editorial chief at the ABC.
He suggested that there was some serious shortcomings in this
(10:39):
process and that the ABC, in being a publicly funded organization,
needed to consider another approach rather than going to trial.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
A really interesting case, if anything, from the perspective of
employment law in Australia and how that relates to social
media posting, which I know has become more of a
topic of conversation in workplaces across the country, not just
in newsrooms. But that brings to the end this year
long saga in the Frewek Commission in Federal Court. Harry,
(11:09):
thank you for joining us to don pot anytime, sir,
and that's all we've got for you this Friday morning
on the Daily Ods We're going to be back in
your ears this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have
a fantastic day and watch out to you later. My
name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda bunjelung
(11:29):
Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily Oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait
island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday,
the twenty seventh of June. I'm Harry Sekulich.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
The Federal Court has ruled the ABC unlawfully dismissed journalist
Antoinette Latouf by cutting short her week long radio hosting role.
Latouf was sacked after sharing a Human Rights Watch post
on social media. She accused the broadcaster of unfairly dismissing
her on the basis of her political opinion. The ABC
rejected this argument, but in a judgment handed down on Wednesday,
(00:44):
the court sided with Latouf. In today's Deep Dive, we'll
take you through the ruling and what it means for
Australian media.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Harry, I feel like often on this podcast we say
at the end of an episode and when there's some
us in this case, will make sure to bring it
to you, and I want to make sure that we
actually do, which is why we're talking about this judgment today.
We have covered this case on the podcast in the past.
Now we have a judgment. Let's start with the case itself.
Tell me what actually happened here and who Antoninette Latouf
(01:16):
is so.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Antoinette Latouf is a Lebanese Australian who is a broadcaster
and author who founded the not for profit Media Diversity Australia.
She was hired in December twenty twenty three by the
ABC to fill in as a presenter on their local
radio program in Sydney. So during this time, Latouf said
(01:37):
she was told by her line manager that she was
doing a good job. The audience feedback was really good
and at one point she even talked about in the
lead up to Christmas she was getting a bit of
audience feedback on their favorite Michael Booblez song. So it
was very festive and not exactly like a news and
current affairs type of gig. Sure, So the Federal Court
(01:58):
was told later on that during this week long hosting gig,
Antoinette Latoufe was given some advice and that's a really
key term here against posting on the Israel and Palestinian conflict,
which at that stage was two months after the October
seven attacks and Israel had started invading Gaza. But she
was told that sharing factual information from reputable sources was
(02:22):
quote fine. During that week, Latouf had shared a Human
Rights Watch video with the caption quote the Israeli government
is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.
This was a video that the ABC had also reported on,
and the following day, Latouf was told to leave the
ABC for sharing a post that could be considered quote
(02:44):
controversial and wouldn't complete her final two rostered days of
presenting as a fill in host.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Okay, so just to recap, we have Antoninette Latouf covering
a week of Sydney radio for the ABC, given some
advice not to post anything about conflicts that wasn't from
a reputable source.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
She then posts something from Human Rights Watch that seems
to be crossing the line for the ABC, and the
ABC dismissed her with two days left. Then this whole
legal drama kicked off. How did we land up in court?
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Though?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Because a lot has to happen from a dismissal for
it to actually ended a fair work commission hearing.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
The story quickly became a lot bigger than a presenter
being dismissed from her role. Part Way through, Latouf argued
that she was unfairly dismissed for multiple reasons. Among them
were three areas that are identified as protections in our
fair work laws in Australia, so that is holding a
political opinion. She was dismissed because of her race and
(03:42):
her national extractions, her identity as a Lebanese woman. She
initially took this complaint to the Fair Work Commission and
that then later escalated to the Federal Court after some
attempts to settle the matter out of court had fallen over.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, So normally the employer and the employee or the
ex employee who feels like they were unfairly dismised will
go to the Fair Work Commission for mediation and try
and settle this normally financially without it proceeding to a hearing.
But that didn't work, so that's when they went to
the hearing.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Right, that's right. So they couldn't reach the settlement. They
couldn't talk it out outside of court, so it needed
to escalate to the trial that we have seen play
out over the last year or so. So. The ABC,
for its part, had contested Latufe's claims, its central argument
being that she had breached their social media policy when
she shared the Human Rights Watch post which it said,
(04:34):
had veered into a matter of controversy. It also argued
that she wasn't really dismissed at all because she had
been paid for the full five days that she had
been contracted to fill in as a host. But during
these legal proceeding sys is where it started to build
up and gain a bit more national prominence. It was
revealed that some of the senior ABC figures, which had
(04:55):
included the former chair Eida Buttros, had been receiving a
lot lot of complaints from what the court described as
pro Israel lobbyists who had been asking for Latouf to
be taken off air due to previous comments she had
made about the conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I want to ask you a few more questions about this,
but let's get a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
So this was a big case and it dragged on
for some time. This week we got a decision. Take
me through what the court ruled here.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, So Justice Darryl Rangier handed down his judgment a
little earlier this week. He characterized the response of some
very senior people within the ABC, which included Ida Bartrose
and the former head of content, Chris Oliver, Taylor as
turning from quote consternation into what he termed a state
of panic. Right, And this is a quote that I'm
(05:46):
going to read out from the judgment because I think
it's quite compelling. 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 an
anti Semitic and anti Israel opinions in such a public position.
So Justice Rangier also found that Latouf was unfairly dismissed
(06:08):
on two key grounds. The first was for expressing a
public opinion when she shared the Human Rights Watch post,
which he ruled amounted to holding a public opinion, which
is the official language in the legislation. He didn't accept
the argument that Latouf had put forward that she was
dismissed based on her race or national identity.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So there were those three arguments that outlined right at
the top, and he basically said that on the first argument,
she in fact was unfairly dismissed on that, but the
second and third was not.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
So one of her fair work protections was breached in
this case. He then elaborated that the ABC had breached
its enterprise agreement by not giving Latouf an opportunity to
respond to claims of misconduct while she had been employed
at the broadcast right.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Which is more of a kind of procedural point, and
that prosidual argument, And there was also this interesting argument
about social media that was coming through, and I would
be you know, it'd be remissive me as a co
founder of a social media based news organization to not
look at this really carefully and examine kind of how
the court viewed reposting another NGOs or another organization's media post.
(07:20):
Tell me a bit more about that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yeah, So it was a really interesting tension that cropped
up in this case. So the legal question related to
whether Latouf had breached the ABC's social media policy when
she shared that Human Rights Watch post. The court ruled
that she hadn't received either a direction or instruction to
not post about Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza, and
(07:43):
Justice Rangia elaborated that she was simply given advice but
told that sharing factual information from a reputable source was fine.
And after this decision was delivered, Latouf addressed the media
outside the court, and this was her take on the judgment.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing
facts about these war crimes is also legal. I was
punished for my political opinion. Okay, So what happens from here?
What are the consequences for the ABC now?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
So, in the immediate term, the ABC needs to pay
Antoinette Latouf seventy thousand dollars for what's known as non
economic losses. That covers things like the psychological distress that
she experienced in the aftermath of being dismissed. It also
covers things like hurt reputation and a lowered perception of
integrity in her work. There'll also be a separate hearing
(08:42):
to determine what's known as a pecuniary penalty, which is
just a legal way of saying a fine. And Antoinette
Latouf had initially asked for the ABC to acknowledge its
wrongdoing in a public statement. So we heard a little
earlier this week the ABC's new managing director, Hugh Marx,
who wasn't around at the time of Latouf's dismissal. He
(09:02):
said in a public statement quote, it's clear the matter
was not handled in line with our values and expectations,
and further on, he gave a pretty clear signal about
the issue of outside pressure influencing the broadcaster's decisions. He added, quote,
any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any
of its employees must always be guarded against. I might
(09:27):
just end by mentioning the ABC, which is a taxpayer
funded organization, spent more than one million dollars on legal
fees in taking this case to the federal court sure
defending themselves against Latoof's claims.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It's often said that in cases like these, and this
is not unique to this situation, but in fact all
around the world, that the real winners in something like
this tend to be lawyers and those who can bill
for their time. How do we know, though, how much
they spent.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
So that's because of what's known as Senate estimates, and
this happens a few times a year. That's this where
Senators get to ask questions to government departments who are
receiving money after a federal budget allocation. And because the
ABC is a taxpayer funded organization, they also have to
face up to Senate estimates. This inquiry that's very public,
(10:19):
and so I think i'll just end on this note.
There's been a lot of commentary around following this case
with Antoinette Latouff. But I think it was quite telling
to hear from some former ABC bosses, including Alan Sunderland,
who used to be the editorial chief at the ABC.
He suggested that there was some serious shortcomings in this
(10:39):
process and that the ABC, in being a publicly funded organization,
needed to consider another approach rather than going to trial.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
A really interesting case, if anything, from the perspective of
employment law in Australia and how that relates to social
media posting, which I know has become more of a
topic of conversation in workplaces across the country, not just
in newsrooms. But that brings to the end this year
long saga in the Frewek Commission in Federal Court. Harry,
(11:09):
thank you for joining us to don pot anytime, sir,
and that's all we've got for you this Friday morning
on the Daily Ods We're going to be back in
your ears this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have
a fantastic day and watch out to you later. My
name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda bunjelung
(11:29):
Kalkotin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily Oz acknowledges that
this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait
island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com