Mark Latham's comments about Sydney MP were unlawful homosexual vilification, sexual harassment, court told

Australia Broadcast Center

6 hours ago

Four public statements by former One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham about Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich allegedly constituted unlawful homosexual vilification and sexual harassment in the workplace, a tribunal has heard.
A case initiated by Mr Greenwich in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) involves the same graphic tweet previously at the centre of successful defamation proceedings against Mr Latham in the Federal Court.
It was made in March 2023 after Mr Greenwich was quoted in the media about violence against LGBT protesters outside a church in Sydney's west, where Mr Latham was scheduled to speak.
Mr Greenwich referred to Mr Latham as a "disgusting human being" and in reply, Mr Latham took to Twitter, now X, to say: "Disgusting How does that compare with …" before describing sexual activity in graphic terms.
The NCAT case alleges the post breached the state's Anti-Discrimination Act, as did comments Mr Latham made in The Daily Telegraph newspaper, on a radio show and in a different tweet as he later replied to another MP.
Mr Greenwich's counsel, Prue Bindon, told the tribunal each of the statements constituted both unlawful homosexual vilification and sexual harassment.
In an opening address, she said Mr Greenwich, an openly gay MP who has held his seat for over 12 years, is a vocal advocate for the LGBT community.
Ms Bindon said the "crude, explicit language" of the statements to describe the presumed sexual acts of Mr Greenwich was "designed to promote severe disgust or strong aversion".
The tribunal heard that Mr Greenwich is not required to show the statements did incite an ordinary member of the audience, but the evidence showed there were "numerous people" who felt the need to express themselves publicly and to Mr Greenwich's office.
As part of his defence, Mr Latham has argued against the evidence of "incitement" by suggesting there was an independent factor — existing attitudes of members of the public towards Mr Greenwich and his politics.
He's also flagged an application to dismiss the case based on a jurisdictional argument, which is yet to be fully explained before the tribunal.
Ms Bindon said a "significant portion" of the audience for each statement would likely have shared Mr Latham's views, including views on the LGBT community.
"The fact Mr Latham is a high-profile politician gave the four statements legitimacy and credence to encourage and galvanise those people who already share the emotions to feel free and justified in expressing them," Ms Bindon said.
"It matters not that the ordinary member of the audience may already be inclined to have prejudices or negative views towards homosexual men.
Earlier, Mr Latham's lawyer, Zali Burrows, attempted to have senior member Mandy Tibbey recuse herself from hearing the matter on the grounds of apprehended bias.
Mr Latham stepped into the witness box on that application, telling the tribunal much of the case concerns "identity politics" which is a "keenly contested aspect of modern politics".
He highlighted the 2024 Sharwood Lecuture by Ms Tibbey, which he alleged may create an apprehension of bias because of a perception the senior member was an advocate for identity politics "like Mr Greenwich".
But Ms Bindon said the lecture didn't satisfy the test for apprehended bias, given its contents included "neutral discussion" of the way churches have dealt with discrimination law, among other topics of little relevance to the issues in the case.
Ms Tibbey declined the recusal application.
The defamation proceedings resulted in Mr Latham being ordered to pay $140,000 for non-economic loss and aggravated damages, and substantial costs.
Mr Greenwich is expected to give evidence in the tribunal on Wednesday.