Outspoken former federal Labor leader Mark Latham has taken the stand in a tribunal, using it as a platform to accuse his political rival of being unable to handle public criticism. This follows accusations of homosexual vilification and workplace harassment brought against him by New South Wales independent MP Alex Greenwich.
The tribunal proceedings, held on Wednesday, revolve around a sexually explicit tweet that the Federal Court previously ruled as defamatory. The tweet, along with subsequent media appearances, has been at the center of the controversy involving Latham, who now serves as an independent in the NSW parliament’s upper house.
The Courtroom Drama Unfolds
Arriving at the John Maddison Tower in Sydney on August 13, 2025, Mark Latham did not mince words in the witness box. He launched into a lengthy tirade, accusing Greenwich of attempting to silence him through legal action and being overly sensitive to criticism.
“If (Greenwich) has a leak in his roof, he would stomp around his house and say ‘Bloody Latham, bloody Latham’,” Latham quipped during his testimony.
The tribunal allowed Greenwich to present a tweet sent by Latham, which labeled the hearing as “an absurd proposition” and asserted that his previous criticisms of Greenwich were “100 percent true.” Greenwich’s legal team argued that the initial post, sent in 2023, continues to cause harm to their client.
Legal Maneuvers and Tribunal Decisions
Latham’s lawyer, Zali Burrows, attempted to introduce late evidence, including statements where Latham referred to Greenwich as a “spoilt child” and made other personal references. However, Senior Tribunal Member Mandy Tibbey accepted only a limited portion of the affidavit, questioning its relevance to the case.
“I don’t really see how this helps your case,” Tibbey remarked, limiting the scope of the evidence presented.
The tribunal also denied a request from Greenwich’s team to continue updating evidence while preparing final submissions if the alleged harmful tweets persisted. Burrows argued that this could lead to an endless legal battle.
“It is desirable there is a cessation of hostilities between the parties,” Tibbey stated, emphasizing the need for resolution.
The Broader Implications
Outside the courtroom, Alex Greenwich expressed his desire to move forward, stating he was “really relieved” that the two-day hearings had concluded. The case highlights the ongoing tensions between public figures and the impact of social media on political discourse.
Experts note that this case is emblematic of a broader trend where social media posts are increasingly scrutinized in legal contexts. The implications for free speech and the boundaries of acceptable criticism remain contentious issues in the digital age.
As the tribunal prepares to make its final decision, the outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. The resolution of this high-profile dispute will likely influence the dynamics between politicians and their critics, shaping the landscape of political engagement in Australia.
