NSW MP Mark Latham has been ordered to pay $100,000 in compensation after a court found he had committed unlawful vilification and sexually harassed independent MP Alex Greenwich.
Greenwich sued the former One Nation NSW leader- who now sits in the NSW Parliament as an independent -in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal last year, alleging that a social media post by Latham and subsequent media statements constituted workplace harassment and homosexual vilification under the NSW Anti‑Discrimination Act.
The tribunal has now released its judgment, ruling in Greenwich’s favour and ordering Latham to pay $100,000 in compensation. It also ordered him to refrain from making any further comments of a similar nature.
Alex Greenwich has commented on the judgement.
“The judgment 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 judgment also makes clear that politicians should be careful when making comments to journalists about others.
“This decision sends a clear message: public figures are not above the law, and online platforms are not a space for unlawful vilification.” he said.
This finding is additional to a 2024 defamation decision over the same comments which saw Latham ordered to pat $140,000 in damages, plus substantial court costs. That decision is currently under appeal.
Dowson Turco Lawyers, who represented Greenwich, also welcomed the decision, noting that the Tribunal rejected attempts to characterise the conduct as political commentary, free speech, or good faith. It found that the use of graphic, sexualised, and demeaning stereotypes was inherently harmful and unlawful.
“This decision reinforces that laws protecting people from vilification apply equally in online spaces. Posts on social media platforms are not exempt from legal accountability, particularly where harmful conduct is amplified by individuals with significant public influence. The judgment also underscores the responsibility of public figures, including elected representatives, to engage in public discourse in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of others,” the legal firm said.
They described the decision as an important outcome for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and for the protection of LGBTQ+ people from harm, saying it sends a clear message that no one is above the law and that unlawful vilification and harassment will not be tolerated, whether offline or online.
“This is a landmark judgment. It shows that words have consequences. It also shows that what Mark Latham said about Mr Greenwich was so highly offensive and derogatory that it constituted both vilification and sexual harassment,” said Nicolas Stewart from the firm.
“The Tribunal has awarded maximum damages to Mr Greenwich to demonstrate the seriousness of its findings against Mr Latham.”
“This decision rightly confirms that the online space is a workplace for politicians, and that commentary online about colleagues in the political sphere is subject to sexual harassment laws.”
“Mr Greenwich took this action not just for himself, but for the wider LGBTQIA+ community, to show that those who seek to harm us must be held accountable.”
Latham respondes to judgement calling the commission a ‘publicly-funded Mad Hatter’s Tea Party’
Mark Latham has responded to the court’s judgment, describing it as a “woke, left-wing political judgment, wrong at law and riddled with factual errors.”
The MP described the Tribunal as a “publicly funded Mad Hatter’s tea party” and argued that one of the two commissioners who heard the case should have been removed because they had previously shown support for transgender people.
“NCAT should be embarrassed and ashamed by what has happened in its grossly political and incompetent handling of this matter at every level,” Latham said in a response posted on social media.
