Judge questions the validity of a crucial ABC statement in Antoinette Lattouf case as weak.

Share and Follow

A key ABC justification for removing a pro-Palestinian casual radio host might be “rather flimsy”, according to the judge overseeing her unlawful dismissal case.

Antoinette Lattouf was let go after three days of a week-long fill-in stint on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program when she shared a Human Rights Watch post that said Israel used starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza.

She went after the public broadcaster in the Fair Work Commission and escalated the case to the Federal Court, where she has sued for penalties and damages.

On Friday, ABC barrister Ian Neil reiterated the broadcaster’s stance that then-chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor decided to remove Lattouf from her final two shifts because she had breached a direction.

The fill-in host had purportedly been directed not to post anything relating to the Israel-Gaza conflict on social media, although she has denied that claim.

Oliver-Taylor also thought the decision was warranted because the journalist had potentially breached the ABC’s personal social media guidelines, the court heard.

But that position was questioned by Justice Darryl Rangiah.

“Does that sound like a rather flimsy reason to take the applicant off air, that she may have breached the ABC’s policies or guidelines?” the judge asked.

“In context, no,” Neil said.

What does Lattouf claim?

Lattouf claims she was unlawfully dismissed because of her political opinion and race.

She was let go after three days of a week-long fill-in stint on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program when she shared a Human Rights Watch post that said Israel used starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza.

A woman wearing sunglasses outside court.

Journalist Antoinette Lattouf claims she was unlawfully dismissed by the ABC. Source: AAP / Bianca De Marchi

But the sole concern for Oliver-Taylor and others within the ABC was that Lattouf’s social media activity would create a perception that the broadcaster was biased, Neil argued.

While the radio host was let go for breaching a claimed direction, her direct supervisor Elizabeth Green said she never gave an order and merely advised Lattouf to refrain from posting about Israel and Gaza online.

“What does it matter whether somebody labels it a direction, a request, advice?” Neil said.

“It was a clear communication — don’t do this.”

Lattouf said she negotiated with Green to be able to post objective facts from reputable sources.

Justice Rangiah also questioned why the decision to remove the presenter from air could not have simply been undone once she and Green had come forward to say there had been no blanket order barring her from posting.

But Neil said the decision had been enacted at that point, another Mornings host had been found and it was “all over” for Lattouf.

He also took aim at the way the case had been run, saying it was never about political opinion.

Lattouf claimed she was ousted because of pressure from a barrage of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists that went to now-outgoing ABC managing director David Anderson and then-chair Ita Buttrose.

“On the applicant’s case, the posting of the Human Rights Watch story could not have been an expression of opinion,” Neil said.

“On her case, the contents of that story were an incontrovertible fact, not an opinion at all.”

What has the ABC said?

The ABC has argued that the casual fill-in host was not actually terminated, despite findings from the Fair Work Commission to the contrary.

On Friday, Neil argued the organisation was contractually allowed to reduce the presenter’s shifts because, as a casual employee, she had no express right to work.

“She was relieved of any obligation to perform any further work,” he told Justice Rangiah.

The ABC claimed journalist Antoinette Lattouf was not fired, but instead “relieved of any obligation to perform any further work”. Source: AAP / Dan Himbrechts

While the journalist might have felt disappointed at being asked not to work the final shifts, she would only be entitled to modest compensation if the court found that ABC unlawfully dismissed her, Neil argued.

Executives from the broadcaster recently revealed it had spent $1.1 million in taxpayer funds defending the case to date after its failed attempts to reach a settlement.

What else has happened in court?

On Thursday, Lattouf’s barrister Oshie Fagir made closing submissions arguing that the public broadcaster’s executive, including Anderson, wanted her gone after a barrage of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists.

The then-chief content officer Oliver-Taylor used the pretext that Lattouf had breached a supposed order not to post anything regarding the Israeli conflict in Gaza to let her go, but was acting under pressure from higher up in the organisation, Fagir said.

Justice Rangiah has retired to consider his judgment.