ABC News: Mark Latham ordered to pay Alex Greenwich $100k and delete posts in vilification case ruling
Michael Barnett OAM
Mark Latham ordered to pay Alex Greenwich $100k and delete posts in vilification case ruling
Sydney MP Alex Greenwich, (left), won a defamation case against Mark Latham in 2024. (ABC News: Keana Naughton / AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
In short:
Mark Latham has been ordered to pay openly gay MP Alex Greenwich $100,000 after a tribunal found he vilified and sexually harassed the politician.
Mr Latham's graphic comments at the centre of the case were in posts linking to a news article in which Mr Greenwich called him a "disgusting human being".
It is the second civil case between the pair that Mr Latham has lost, having been ordered to pay Mr Greenwich $140,000 in damages after a 2024 Federal Court defamation case.
Former One Nation MP Mark Latham has been ordered to pay Sydney MP Alex Greenwich $100,000 after a tribunal found he unlawfully vilified and sexually harassed the openly gay politician.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has ordered Mr Latham to delete within 24 hours any social media posts that vilify Mr Greenwich because of his sexuality.
Mr Latham has also been ordered to refrain from continuing or repeating any unlawful homosexual vilification of Mr Greenwich.
The case related to two tweets by Mr Latham, a follow-up statement to the Saturday Telegraph newspaper and comments in an interview with online radio station TNT Radio.
Mr Latham has now lost two civil cases centring around his treatment of Mr Greenwich. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)
His initial tweet was a graphic comment in response to a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article in which Mr Greenwich called Mr Latham a "disgusting human being" over a talk he gave at a church that drew a protest.
Queer and LGBTQIA+ community support services:
- Lifeline on 131 114
- ACON
- QLife on 1800 184 527
- Twenty10 on (02) 8594 9555
- The Gender Centre Inc. on (02) 9519 7599
- Headspace on 1800 650 890
- LGBTIQ+ Health Australia on (02) 7209 6301
- Black Rainbow
- Trans Pride Australia
- Emergency services on triple-0 if you need immediate care
Senior NCAT Member Amanda Tibbey and General Member Maryanne Maher found Mr Latham's tweet described a presumed sexual act of Mr Greenwich in "crude and explicit language".
The members said it was "capable of inciting an ordinary member of [Mr Latham's Twitter] audience to have hatred towards, serious contempt for, or to severely ridicule" Mr Greenwich on the basis of his homosexuality.
The tribunal accepted Mr Latham's initial tweet unleashed a "barrage" of hateful mail and comments and that the vilification caused Mr Greenwich to suffer a psychological injury.
"They also unleashed a campaign of terror and harassment, with police making an arrest of a person, electoral office workers having to wear gloves to open some mail in case it contained dangerous substances," the members wrote.
I pursued this matter not only for myself: Greenwich
Mr Greenwich said the decision sent a clear message that public figures were not above the law and online platforms were not a space for vilification.
"I pursued this matter not only for myself, but for the many people across the LGBTQIA + community who experience similar abuse and are told to accept it as part of public life or online debate," Mr Greenwich said.
Mr Latham told the ABC he intended to appeal the decision.
NSW MP for Sydney Alex Greenwich outside court in Sydney on 22 May 2024. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)
He was also found to have vilified Mr Greenwich in comments to the newspaper, insinuating he was "going into schools to groom children" and raising "fears of paedophilic behaviour".
His comments in the online radio interview with Chris Smith describing Mr Greenwich's presumed sexual practices as "puke worthy" were also found to be homosexual vilification.
Mr Latham's response to a tweet by Greens MP Abigail Boyd, in which he gave a sarcastic apology for not liking such activity, also breached the state's Anti-Discrimination Act.
Latham responds
Mr Latham took aim at the decision on Thursday in a lengthy statement on X under the heading "THE NCAT LADIES", describing it as "woke, left-wing political judgement".
"One of the two tribunal members is a prominent transgender activist who was asked to recuse herself but failed to do so," Mr Latham wrote.
"She's straight from the Greenwich school of Alphabet Politics and naturally, has been hostile to me."
The MP said his appeal would focus on the "bizarre definition of the parliamentary workplace" and the "absurd" finding Mr Greenwich was damaged.
"NCAT should be embarrassed and ashamed by what has happened in its grossly political and incompetent handling of this matter, at every level."
Social media is 'workplace' for politicians
Mr Latham's tweets and media comments were also found to constitute unlawful sexual harassment.
The Act specifically prohibits an MP from sexually harassing another MP at the workplace of both parties.
The tribunal found the word "workplace" was intended to include the airwaves and social media.
"Politicians have unusual work, in that their work requires them to be in the public eye. Attending such interviews and posting material is part of their parliamentary and political work," the members wrote.
Mr Greenwich said: "The judgement makes clear that social media is plainly capable of being a vehicle for unlawful vilification, particularly where the conduct is engaged in by a public figure with a large audience.
"The judgement also makes clear that politicians should be careful when making comments to journalists about others."
The tribunal rejected Mr Latham's claims that his comments were made "reasonably and in good faith" for "academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes" or for "discussion or debate".
"The nastiness of asserting that sexual acts by homosexual males are 'unhygienic' or inevitably involve faecal matter is not a matter of abstract public purpose discussion," the members wrote.
"They were words landed as verbal 'blows' against a political opponent, insults of a crude and gross type, likely to goad or encourage base emotions."
In 2024, Mr Greenwich was awarded $140,000 in damages after the Federal Court found Mr Latham defamed him on social media and in quotes to the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Latham has appealed that judgement.