Alex Greenwich claims Mark Latham has ‘abusive obsession’ with him during evidence in homosexual vilification case

An MP has claimed he was “dehumanised” by Mark Latham in what he described as an “abusive obsession” during a tribunal hearing into the former One Nation leader’s homosexual vilification case.

A homophobic post and further comments made by Mr Latham on X and in media interviews are at the centre of a homosexual vilification and sexual harassment case launched by independent MP Alex Greenwich against Mr Latham in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Mr Latham was previously ordered to pay Mr Greenwich $140,000 after the Federal Court ruled that the primary post could convey the meaning that Mr Greenwich “engages in disgusting sexual activities”.

Mr Greenwich on Tuesday claimed Mr Latham had an “abusive obsession” with him that began with the primary tweet but had not stopped during his evidence in the NCAT on Tuesday.

“I’m here … in the hope it will stop,” Mr Greenwich told the tribunal.

He said it was the first time in his political career that he had been “so fundamentally attacked for who I am, for my sexuality”.

“I have been in public life for some 20 years. In that time I have never been diminished … dehumanised by someone, let alone a work colleague, as a vile sex act,” he said.

“This is the first time in my political career where someone has targeted me based on their perceptions of my sexuality, their perceptions of my sex life.”

Ms Burrows’ questioning hit a brief snag when she asked Mr Greenwich if he was a “virgin” during a bid to argue he could not seek damages “on something that is true”.

The question was ultimately not allowed by senior legal member Mandy Tibbey, who asked her how it was relevant and to “please move on”.

The tribunal was told Mr Greenwich called Mr Latham a “disgusting human being” in comments to a journalist following an incident outside a church Mr Latham was expected to speak at in 2023, prior to the primary tweet.

Mr Greenwich rejected suggestions his commentary was “inflammatory” and maintained he was simply responding to the information he had when pressed by Ms Burrows if it would have been “prudent to check the information” with Mr Latham before calling him “disgusting”.

He agreed he did not contact Mr Latham following the incident and said he relied on information from media reports and journalists in making his response, which was made in the context of a state election.

Mr Latham was often spotted shaking his head and sighing during the proceedings, even mumbling a few interjections before the gallery was told to remain silent.

Mr Greenwich had branded a question on whether he would have made the comments to the journalist if he’d known Mr Latham didn’t arrive at the church until after the alleged incident as “hypothetical”. 

“It’s not hypothetical, it’s what happened,” Mr Latham piped up.

“It’s not appropriate for anyone to be commenting while a witness is giving evidence,” Ms Tibbey said.

‘Absurd’: Latham’s online rant while at court

Earlier, Mr Greenwich’s team sought to tender an updated affidavit, including posts made “up to and including today”, on Tuesday morning.

The court was adjourned so Mr Latham and Ms Burrows could view the affidavit, and it appeared Mr Latham used the brief break to post claims that Mr Greenwich had made an “absurd” proposition on X.

“Here at NCAT dealing with the absurd proposition that Alex Greenwich, the MLA for Sydney, is the first politician in history who should never be publicly criticised,” Mr Latham wrote on X.

Ms Burrows objected to the affidavit, arguing her client didn’t know who had made the posts outlined in the document, that Mr Latham was not in control of who posted them, and that the tweets could have been fabricated or orchestrated as evidence.

“They could have had a prior, previous gripe with Mr Greenwich,” Ms Burrows said.

She also claimed it was a “bit of an ambush at the last minute” to be given a document while at the bar table; Mr Greenwich’s barrister replied it was not unusual to have “updating evidence of harm” in damages cases.

Ms Tibbey ultimately allowed the document to be tendered after Ms Burrows and Mr Latham had time to consider it.

Ms Bindon earlier claimed Mr Latham’s comments had incited hatred, contempt or severe ridicule, and that sexual harassment allegations related to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature where a reasonable person would have anticipated it to cause humiliation or intimidation. It was not to do with unwanted sexual advances.

Ms Bindon also anticipated the defence would claim Mr Greenwich’s reputation was to some extent not damaged.