‘Deeply troubling’: Sydney MP Alex Greenwich slams Greens support to adjourn condemnation of Mark Latham

Sydney MP Alex Greenwich says it is “deeply troubling” the Greens voted to adjourn a motion to condemn Mark Latham after he was accused of sharing confidential government information. The motion, moved by NSW Labor, would have condemned Mr Latham over allegations he disclosed “authorised information” under parliamentary privilege. It was alleged Mr Latham referenced confidential information from a psychologist’s report prepared for the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in action brought by Mr Greenwich. The motion was adjourned with support from the Coalition and the crossbench, including the Greens. In a statement, Mr Greenwich said “given the seriousness of the issues raised, and the public outrage, it’s deeply troubling that Greens voted to protect Mark Latham”. Premier Chris Minns, speaking on Wednesday morning, warned of a “series of personal attacks used under parliamentary privilege over the last couple of weeks and in the weeks ahead” by Mr Latham. “That’s his modus operandi,” he said. “He goes after anyone who holds him to account. “I think there’s probably been a reluctance (to hold Mr Latham to account) not because he’s a big fish but because mostly for the previous government and the current government he’s been an irrelevance.” Upper house leader Penny Sharpe said she was “very disappointed” that the motion was adjourned. “The House had an opportunity to condemn what I think every ordinary person in every workplace would accept, that the leaking of confidential material, the use of people’s private medical records and the general attitude that’s done towards colleagues is something that we would be able to contend.” Ms Sharpe said parliamentary privilege was something that needed to be “used responsibly and judiciously”. Motion to condemn Mr Latham fails Mr Latham told the Legislative Council on Tuesday night that his comments were based on publicly available information, including affidavits signed by Mr Greenwich. “This is not a state secret,” Mr Latham said. Mr Latham claimed the information was under a non-publication order, not parliamentary privilege, when he viewed it. During the lengthy debate, Mr Latham reportedly further criticised Mr Greenwich, who previously sued him for defamation over homophobic tweets. He also criticised journalists present at the NCAT hearing, brought about over claims of an unsafe work environment, and said he would share it again if he had the chance. The motion was brought by Ms Sharpe. She moved that the House condemn Mr Latham for “abusing the parliamentary privilege conferred on him by disclosing privileged and protected information without authorisation”. The motion was adjourned until October 13 after being blocked by the opposition. Members of the government, including Ms Sharpe and Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, opposed the adjournment. It was supported by the opposition and the crossbench, including Greens and the independents. During the debate, Ms Sharpe said revealing personal medical records about a fellow member necessitated that the House take a stand. “This is an important motion … The government believes very strongly that the House should make a stand in relation to those things,” she said. Transport Minister John Graham echoed the remarks. “If we do not uphold the rules around parliamentary privilege, that has implications for members,” he said. “That has implications for the House. That is why these matters should be addressed, and members should take heed of the comments made today.” Mr Latham denied breaching any standing orders but was ultimately referred to the privileges committee, according to the ABC. The referral relates to the alleged sharing of information in a privileged report by the NSW Police Force in a separate incident. Mr Latham accused Ms Sharpe of “slandering” his lawyer, Zali Burrows, over the “very clear inference that my lawyer gave” him the report. “She has done no such thing. The leader of the government has misused the privilege,” he said. “She has become the thing that she is complaining about.” The motion comes after a bruising few weeks for Mr Latham following allegations by his ex-partner, Nathalie Matthews, of abuse. Mr Latham has denied the allegations and is fighting an application for a private apprehended violence order. He is separately facing allegations of covertly photographing female colleagues, sending explicit messages from the chamber, and sex acts within the parliament building.