Tribunal says social media a ‘workplace’ for politicians in homophobia ruling

In a landmark judgment that found Mark Latham unlawfully vilified Alex Greenwich, a tribunal confirmed online political exchanges may constitute misconduct in the workplace.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ordered former One Nation MP Mark Latham to pay $100,000 in compensation for the unlawful vilification and sexual harassment of Sydney MP Alex Greenwich.

It is the maximum sum the tribunal is permitted to award.

Latham was also ordered to remove material posted on his website or social media pages that vilified Greenwich on the grounds of homosexuality, and has been prohibited from repeating the vilification.

Partner Nicholas Stewart, who appeared for Greenwich on behalf of boutique LGBTI firm Dowson Turco Lawyers, said it was a landmark judgment that “shows that words have consequences”.

“[NCAT’s decision] also shows that what Mark Latham said about Greenwich was so highly offensive and derogatory that it was both vilifying and sexually harassing,” Stewart said in a statement to media.

Stewart added that the decision confirmed the online space is a “workplace for politicians” and that communications published online against colleagues in the political space “is subject to sexual harassment laws”.

“Greenwich took this action not just for himself but for the wider LGBTQIA+ community, to show that the people who said to harm us must be held accountable,” Stewart said.

The NCAT decision followed a September 2024 finding that Latham defamed Greenwich and ordered the former to pay $140,000 in damages.

Both proceedings related to a tweet published by Latham in 2023, which media – including Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader – refused to repeat.

Latham published the tweet in response to an article that contained comments from Greenwich that were critical of the former’s attendance at a Catholic school to speak about religious freedom and “protecting [non-government] schools from Alphabet Activism and lawfare”.

The “alphabet” in this context refers to LGBTI.

In the NCAT matter, senior member Amanda Tibbey and general member Maryanne Maher also found Latham’s comments to a newspaper, a radio show, and in a response tweet were also capable of inciting an ordinary member of Latham’s audience to have “hatred towards, serious contempt for, or to severely ridicule” Greenwich on the basis of homosexuality.

Greenwich told the tribunal he was the recipient of “actual vitriol and homophobic hatred, contempt and ridicule” as a result, which was unlike anything he has previously been subjected to as a homosexual man.

His office received “bizarre messages” that were threatening, including ones talking of “throwing homosexuals off the cliff”.

“I have never, never sought to have been defined by someone as a disgusting sex act. I have never had a person in my workplace seek to define me as a sex act. Someone in my workplace assume that I’m a threat to children … That has never happened before,” Greenwich said.

The members acknowledged the harassment “touched every aspect” of Greenwich’s life, with evidence suggesting the impact “was unprecedented and much more severe than in any earlier political controversies”.

“The loss and damage the applicant suffered includes suffering in the workplace, at home and in the public space, where his movements were hampered by the humiliation and sense of danger he felt arising from the conduct of the respondent,” Tibbey and Maher said.

NCAT’s written decision said it could not be ignored that Latham was a highly experienced member of parliament, having served federally and spent many years in “very responsible positions”.

“Were he a neophyte, a naïve innocent in the world of politics, perhaps his remarks about ‘not intending’ to stir up hatred, contempt or ridicule by his extreme remarks could more readily be accepted, even if relevant.

“That was not the case. He has been a prominent figure over many years. His continuing references to the remarks he had already made in the primary tweet ‘kept the issue alive’ and continued to stir up his followers, as the continuing torrent of abuse received by the applicant in his electoral office showed,” Tibbey and Maher said.

Citation: Greenwich v Latham [2026] NSWCATAD 121.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.