The NSW Legislative Council Privileges Committee has delivered a significant rebuke of Racing NSW, finding the regulator likely would not have pursued Mark Latham over an altercation at Rosehill Gardens had he not been a prominent parliamentary critic of the organisation.
In an interim report released on Tuesday, the committee said that, despite Racing NSW’s “adamant denials”, its present view was that the investigation and subsequent charges were “retaliatory in motivation”.
“After carefully and diligently considering the matter and taking into account Racing NSW’s adamant denials,” the report said, “the committee is currently simply left on balance with the view that the proceedings would not have been instituted against Mr Latham for this relatively trivial matter if he had not been a vociferous parliamentary critic of Racing NSW.”
It stopped short of making a formal finding of contempt of Parliament, saying that decision should await the determination of former Federal Court judge Steven Rares KC, who was appointed by Racing NSW as the independent adjudicator of the charges against Latham.
The committee said Rares was better placed to make findings on factual matters surrounding the proceedings and has asked him to consider its conclusions about why the investigation was commenced.
Mark Latham | Image courtesy of Mark Latham
“If the committee were to be conclusively satisfied that Racing NSW’s actions were entirely retaliatory or intimidatory in intent, then Racing NSW would undoubtedly be held by the committee to be in contempt of Parliament.”
TTR AusNZ has approached Racing NSW and Australian Turf Club chief executive Steve McMahon for comment.
Altercation sparked two investigations
The matter dates back to April 1, 2025, when Latham and McMahon, then the ATC’s Head of Membership and Corporate Affairs, were involved in a verbal altercation at Rosehill Gardens.
The precise nature of the exchange has been disputed.
Latham has acknowledged swearing at McMahon and apologised for doing so, while McMahon has described the incident in stronger terms, saying he was verbally abused and intimidated.
The ATC investigated and banned Latham from its venues for 12 months.
Racing NSW subsequently began its own investigation after becoming aware of the incident through media reports, despite McMahon not lodging a complaint with the regulator.
Steve McMahon | Image courtesy of Australian Turf Club
Three days after the incident, Racing NSW issued Latham with a notice of investigation. He was later charged over his conduct towards McMahon and separately over his refusal to attend an interview with Racing NSW’s investigator.
Racing NSW has consistently rejected Latham’s claim that its actions were politically motivated, arguing that, as a registered racehorse owner, he was bound by the Australian Rules of Racing and subject to the regulator’s jurisdiction.
Committee questions why matter was pursued
The committee did not find fault with the way Racing NSW conducted the investigation once it had commenced.
It found no evidence of impropriety in the appointment of Rares and acknowledged steps taken by Racing NSW to establish an independent process, its concern centred on the earlier decision to launch the investigation at all.
The committee described the underlying conduct as “relatively trivial”, pointing to the absence of violence or physical danger and noting that the matter had already been investigated and sanctioned by the ATC.
Racing NSW provided previous disciplinary cases in an effort to show that it had acted against participants for improper behaviour in other circumstances.
The committee, however, found none directly comparable.
It noted Latham was a minor owner rather than a licensed professional participant, there had been no complaint to Racing NSW, no physical aggression was alleged, the ATC had already dealt with the incident and Latham was not accused of obstructing an existing Racing NSW investigation.
The report said that if similar conduct routinely prompted Racing NSW investigations, it would have expected the regulator to produce a greater number of comparable examples.
The report also considered Latham’s allegations that other prominent opponents of the proposed Rosehill sale had faced retaliatory action from Racing NSW, including trainer Gai Waterhouse, Save Rosehill campaigner Julia Ritchie, TTR AusNZ owner Vicky Leonard and members of the ATC board who opposed the sale.
While the committee did not investigate those allegations because they fell outside its terms of reference, it said they were relevant to Latham’s argument about Racing NSW’s motivation and found “there is a prima facie case, on the face of these allegations, that Racing NSW engaged in retaliatory conduct against those parties”.
Second warning to Racing NSW
The interim report comes less than 12 months after another Privileges Committee inquiry raised serious concerns about Racing NSW’s conduct.
In October 2025, the committee considered issues arising from the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse.
It described Racing NSW’s provision of detailed adverse allegations about third parties as “deeply inappropriate” and warned that such conduct could discourage witnesses from participating in future parliamentary inquiries for fear of adverse treatment.
The latest report referred directly to those findings. It warned Racing NSW, and regulators more broadly, that regulatory powers must not be exercised for the purpose of intimidating, retaliating against or punishing members of Parliament for performing their parliamentary duties.
For now, however, the question of contempt remains unresolved.
Rares is yet to determine the two Racing NSW charges against Latham. Once his decision is handed down, the Privileges Committee has indicated it will return to the issue and decide whether Racing NSW’s conduct amounts to contempt of Parliament.
