The ABC is at risk of isolating its workforce and diverse communities, the race discrimination commissioner has warned, saying the broadcaster’s handling of the unlawful termination case brought by Antoinette Lattouf has not been a “positive step”.
Giridharan Sivaraman, who was appointed the race discrimination commissioner in 2024, also warns there has been a “visceral increase” in racism in Australia and the country is “going backwards”.
Sivaraman, speaking to Guardian Australia as a series of antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks has shaken Jewish and Muslim communities, is critical of the federal government’s plan to introduce mandatory sentences for hate crimes, warning they are “a real recipe for injustice”.
He is concerned that racism could shape campaigns for the upcoming federal election and is urging political leaders to avoid “weaponising” issues for political gain.
Trust shaky at the ABC
Lattouf was hired as a fill-in presenter on ABC Sydney radio in December 2023 and taken off air three days into a five-day contract after she posted on social media about the Israel-Gaza war. She lodged the suit after the Fair Work Commission found she had been sacked, with the case now before the federal court.
The public broadcaster prompted a furious backlash last week from community groups and among its own staff when it argued that the onus was on Lattouf to prove the existence of a Lebanese, Arab or Middle Eastern race as part of her unlawful termination suit.
On Tuesday, after the outcry, the ABC amended its legal defence to say it accepted “Lattouf is a person of Lebanese and Arab and Middle Eastern descent”.
The controversy followed a 2024 review into racism at the organisation, which detailed anonymous examples of overt and covert racism, including the use of racial slurs, offensive comments about a person’s appearance, stereotyping, a lack of opportunities and mistaking someone for a more junior person based on their racial appearance.
The outgoing managing director, David Anderson, apologised to staff and committed to accept in principle all 15 of the review’s recommendations.
But in light of the damage done by the legal argument made in court, Sivaraman says it is imperative the ABC acts on the review, or risks struggling to “regain the trust of its workforce, particularly its racialised workforce, and the communities that it’s meant to be working with, especially racialised communities”.
“It really should be acting to a higher standard than others and needs to maintain that in mind,” he says.
While Sivaraman acknowledges that the review was a “strong step”, he stresses: “Saying that you’re going to commit to something doesn’t mean anything if you don’t actually take the steps required to do it.
“And part of that are the public positions you take on issues of race … Saying that someone needs to prove their race is clearly not a positive step or one that is in the vein of what [it] was they claimed that they would do once that review into racism was released.”
A spokesperson for the ABC said work to implement some of the recommendations from the report had “progressed”.
“As we stated last year, we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Listen Loudly, Act Strongly review and work has progressed, with a number of recommendations already implemented and a number underway.”
Mandatory sentences ‘a recipe for injustice’
Sivaraman has criticised the federal government’s move to set mandatory jail terms for terrorism crimes and displaying hate symbols, a breach of the Labor party’s previous platform.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, explained that the laws were introduced because he wanted to see people “held to account”.
“I want the entire parliament to work together to make sure that we stamp out antisemitism, that we hold people to account for what are crimes,” he said.
But Sivaraman notes that the Australian Human Rights Commission “has always opposed” mandatory sentences. “They can be a real recipe for injustice, and they undermine the ability of courts to ensure that the punishment fits the particular crime,” he says.
“We think that courts are best placed to consider all the relevant circumstances before imposing an appropriate penalty.”
The consequences of imposing mandatory sentences in these instances could be felt, he adds, by people from “disadvantaged backgrounds”.
A warning on political rhetoric
With the election due in months, Sivaraman says the political context makes it especially important that political and cultural leaders be “careful they don’t dehumanise marginalised communities”.
He says while discussing issues such as immigration and housing is important, it is equally important that politicians remain wary of causing “panic” and “normalising” racism.
“We shouldn’t use dehumanising rhetoric that can often desensitise the public, can normalise racism and create a kind of panic and that is then used against racialised people.”
Political rhetoric that devolves into racism is a “good example of how a structural issue gives permission to interpersonal racism to occur”, he says, “because if your leaders can do it, then people will think anyone can do it”.
“Leaders should set themselves to a higher standard than everyone else.”
Facing racism
But Sivaraman is also at pains to emphasise that he believes the concept of “social cohesion” is not a constructive way to approach issues of racism and marginalisation.
The term has been heard from various political figures, including the prime minister, when he urged pro-Palestine protesters to avoid holding rallies to mark the anniversary of the 7 October Hamas attacks.
“It is not a time to raise the temperature,” he said at the time. “It’s a time to try to make sure that social cohesion in Australia is valued.”
Albanese had used the term a year earlier, in December 2023, saying Australia’s “social cohesion is absolutely critical. And we need to bear that in mind in all of our actions.”
Last July the prime minister announced Peter Khalil as the first special envoy for social cohesion, saying: “We know that in today’s climate, there is a great deal of concern about disharmony.”
But Sivaraman says the term erases conversations about structural racism.
“It’s just a buzzword,” he says. “We need to be able to get along but part of that is having difficult conversations sometimes, and we don’t. We shouldn’t get along at the expense of pretending racism doesn’t exist, and that’s the key.”
He says the widespread use of the phrase “social cohesion” is because “people don’t want to use the word race [or] racism”. The AHRC’s audit of anti-racism work across all levels of government, federal, state and local, revealed “a huge reluctance to use the word,” he adds.
“I’m a bit sick of people telling me, ‘Stop talking about racism, because you’re disrupting the social cohesion.’”
