Racing NSW withdraws Mark Latham charges
Racing NSW acting CEO Graeme Hinton said an earlier Australian Turf Club sanction made further punishment of MP Mark Latham unnecessary, while rejecting a parliamentary committee’s finding that the case was retaliatory.
Racing NSW has withdrawn two charges against independent MP Mark Latham after his confrontation with Australian Turf Club executive Steve McMahon at Rosehill Gardens in April last year.
Racing NSW’s acting chief executive Graeme Hinton told the Sydney Morning Herald that it ended its case because the ATC had already sanctioned Latham.
“We determined to withdraw these charges, considering that Mr Latham had already been punished by the ATC for the same incident, which would have been factored into any penalty,” Hinton said. He rejected any assertion that Latham or others had been targeted.
Racing NSW appointed former Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner Michael Phelan to investigate whether Latham had engaged in improper or insulting behaviour. It laid two charges in August 2025, including one alleging he failed to attend a stewards’ interview. Former Federal Court judge Steven Rares KC was appointed to hear the case.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan NSW parliamentary committee stopped short of finding Racing NSW in contempt of parliament over its investigation into Latham’s conduct, but signalled concern that the racing regulator’s actions were “retaliatory in motivation”.
The committee also questioned whether the underlying conduct, which it characterised as Latham swearing at McMahon, was serious enough to justify regulatory proceedings.
In a statement provided to The Straight last month, McMahon said that the finding diminished the protections offered not only to race club executives but also to others in the industry in the performance of their duties.
“The message it sends is troubling if people believe elected representatives can direct abuse at individuals outside Parliament and then rely on parliamentary privilege as a shield from accountability. Parliamentary privilege exists to protect democratic debate, not personal attacks,” he said.