A vilification complaint brought by New South Wales politician Alex Greenwich against fellow parliamentarian Mark Latham commenced it’s hearing today in Sydney.
Greenwich launched the proceedings against Latham in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal over allegations of homosexual vilification and sexual harassment following a series of comments on social media and subsequent media interviews.
Greenwich previously won a defamation action against Latham that saw the former One Nation NSW leader being forced to pay $140,000 in damages. He was also held accountable for a large chunk of Greenwich’s legal costs estimated to be around $500,000.
Back in March 2023 Latham posted to social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, a graphic and homophobic tweet that accused Greenwich of engaging in “disgusting” sexual activities. OUTinPerth, like most publishers, has chosen not to republish the comment.
Latham posted the tweet in March in response to comments Greenwich made in the media where he labelled the NSW One Nation leader a ‘disgusting human being”. Latham had been speaking at a event where outside LGBTIQA+ posters were attacked and assaulted by a mob.
Latham deleted the tweet a few hours after he posted it, but brushed off calls for him to make an apology, including a directive from One Nation’s federal leader Pauline Hanson. Latham later quit the party.
The comment was widely criticised by politicians and high profile media figures. Sky News host Andrew Bolt declared that he would no longer have Latham as a guest on his program. Bolt described the comment posted by Latham as something a “scumbag” would write. New South Wales newly elected Premier Chris Minns said his government would have as little to do with the Latham as possible.
Latham then went on to give several media interviews where he commented on Greenwich’s sexuality. He also later told an interviewer that he represented the views of straight men who found the thought of gay sex as something that would make them vomit.
Latham’s team call on NCAT Legal Member to recuse herself from the case
On the first day of the hearing Latham’s legal team called on one of the two Senior Legal Representatives assigned to hear the case step down. They argued that Mandy Tibbey could not be impartial in making a judgement because she had previously voiced views about people who are transgender.
Taking to the stand Latham said an academic lecture delivered by Tibbey which examined the issues surrounding the acceptance of transgender people in the Anglican Church, and an academic article she had authored suggested that she would not be able to remain impartial because the case evolves around “identity politics”.
Latham’s lawyer Zali Burrows also argued that some of the documents in the case relating to Latham’s opposition to Greenwich’s Equality Bill which covered people who are transgender would also be a potential for bias.
Tibbey said the case before them had nothing to do with people who are transgender people, and later determined it would not be appropriate for her to recuse herself.
Burrows also told the court they would likely be putting forward an application for dismissal because Latham was not in New South Wales when he made the post at the centre of the case, at the time he made the post he was visiting the Australian Capital Territory.
Greenwich’s team lay out their reasoning on why the posts should be seen as vilification and harassment on the basis of sexuality.
Lawyer Prue Bridon said sexually harassment was not limited to unwanted sexual advances, but also covered other harassment based on a person’s sexuality.
Delivering her opening address Bridon said she was also expecting Latham’s legal team to suggest that the case could not be considered as workplace harassment because Latham was not a member of parliament at the time he made the post.
In 2023 Latham took advantage of a loop hole in the parliamentary rules where he resigned from his position in the upper house ahead of the election, allowing the party to nominate someone to fill his position as a casual vacancy. He then immediately ran for reelection at the top of the One Nation ticket. For a window of23 days he was not a member of parliament.
She also said she anticipated her opposing counsel to argue that the posts and comments had not caused any real damage to Greenwich’s reputation.
Bridon also argued that by making his statements Latham had likely given “legitimacy and credence to encourage and galvanise” people who already had held negative views on the LGBT community.
“It matters not that the ordinary member of the audience may already be inclined to have prejudices or negative views towards homosexual men.
“The fact that a public figure — a politician — makes those statements, encourages, incites, stirs the people who already have those emotions about homosexual men, to express them and to really crystallise those feelings in the people who had not yet fully formed.” Bridon said according to the ABC.
