EXCLUSIVE Revealed: The first man to feel the wrath of Mark Latham's porn star ex - who had to beg a court for protection, as wild new details emerge from her past
The man met Nathalie Matthews when they were both working in the transport and logistics industry more than a decade ago and spent about a year in a relationship.
He says after Ms Matthews moved out of his Sydney apartment she returned to pick up a basket of belongings and pulled down a large mirror, which broke.
The man - who is about 20 years older than Ms Matthews - told Daily Mail Australia she later made allegations against him which he vehemently denied and police did not act upon.
Police subsequently sought an apprehended violence order against Ms Matthews to protect the man but it was withdrawn - he says at his request - in June 2015 at Downing Centre Local Court.
Ms Matthews is seeking a restraining order against Latham following the messy break-up of what the independent NSW upper house MP has called a 'sexed-up, consensual, open arrangement'.
The 37-year-old alleges Latham, 64, inflicted 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial and emotional abuse against her for almost three years.
She further alleges Latham threw a dinner plate at her and committed degrading sexual acts 'including defecating on me before sex and refusing to let me wash'.
Daily Mail Australia can reveal Ms Matthews has a criminal history which includes offences of receiving stolen goods and shoplifting.
Ms Matthews was charged under her maiden name Darrough with stealing goods worth less than $2,000 from the Camilla fashion boutique at Westfield Miranda in Sydney's south in 2017.
She pleaded guilty in Sutherland Local Court to shoplifting and receiving and was placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond without conviction in February the next year.
Magistrate Glenn Bartley made a separate order that Matthews pay $449 to the Camilla store at Miranda Westfield.
Three years earlier, police had sought an apprehended violence order against Ms Matthews, again as Nathalie May Darrough, for the protection of a former partner.
That man, whose relationship with Ms Matthews predated her marriage, laughed long and hard when Daily Mail Australia first mentioned her name to him on Tuesday.
'There's so many similarities,' he said. 'Don't get me wrong, I think Mark Latham's a f***ing d***head.'
The man said his relationship with Ms Matthews had been normal - 'I suppose' - and that until they parted ways 'everything was fine'.
Eventually, some incident the man could no longer recall occurred and Ms Matthews told him she would be moving out of his apartment.
'She went a bit funny in the head,' he said. 'She said, 'I'm moving out'. I went, 'Righto, no drama'.'
The man wondered, with hindsight, if his nonchalant attitude to Ms Matthews moving out of his home had allegedly set her off.
He claimed that when Ms Matthews came around to pick up a basket of clothes 'she went crazy' and broke a mirror which was hung behind a television set.
Following that incident, according to the man, Ms Matthews became further annoyed.
'There was something that she was demanding, I can't remember what it was,' he said. 'And I said, 'Nah, that's not going to happen'.
'She said, 'If you don't do this, I'll go the coppers.' I went, 'Go your hardest'.
'Whatever she wanted didn't happen so a week later she went to the coppers.'
The man said he was interviewed by police but the only action they took was to apply for an apprehended violence order against Ms Matthews.
'I had nothing to be concerned about,' he said. 'I answered all their questions and spoke the truth.'
The man said when the AVO application reached Downing Centre Local Court in June 2015 he did not wish it to proceed.
Instead, he wanted Ms Matthews to give a private undertaking she would stay away from him for a certain period of time, which he said she agreed to do.
'The sole reason I didn't go through with the AVO is I'm not an a***hole and I didn't want to ruin her entire life,' he said.
Ms Matthews declined to comment on the restraining order police had sought to protect her former boyfriend or about any events after that relationship ended.
Daily Mail Australia accepts Ms Matthews has never been found guilty of any domestic violence-related offence.
The man had been vaguely aware Ms Matthews and Latham were in a relationship due to social media posts and read about her AVO application last week.
Latham has denied all abuse accusations, claiming that he had 'scores of documents' which would vindicate him, and enjoyed a 'fantastic' sex life with Ms Matthews
'When this came out my mother rang me,' he said. 'She said, 'This looks familiar, doesn't it?''
Latham has said what he called his 'situationship' with Ms Matthews ended on May 27 when she confronted him covered in mud.
Since the existence of the AVO application was revealed by The Australian on July 15, intimate text messages between Latham and Ms Matthews have been leaked.
Latham has denied all abuse accusations, claiming that he had 'scores of documents' which would vindicate him, and enjoyed a 'fantastic' sex life with Ms Matthews.
Daily Mail Australia revealed last Friday that Ms Matthews worked as an OnlyFans porn star for years before she started dating the former federal Labor leader.
Ms Matthews posted graphic images and videos of herself under the name Bondi C** Sl** from 2019 to 2023.
OnlyFans followers typically pay creators for exclusive, usually adult and often explicit, content.
Ms Matthews' posts - where she enhanced her appearance with AI face-tuning technology - included raw video footage of herself engaged in sexual intercourse with another person, as well as hundreds of explicit images.
Her account has since been taken down from OnlyFans, but the material she posted had spread to online fan sites and forums.
The dates of the postings also coincided with her unsuccessful bid to be elected a Liberal councillor in south Sydney's Sutherland Shire in 2021.
Although Ms Matthews is thought to have been living in the Cronulla area at the time, it is understood she believed the OnlyFans venture would bring in more revenue by using 'Bondi' rather than 'Sutherland' in her online profile.
Ms Matthews declined to comment on her OnlyFans past but her lawyer told Daily Mail Australia her client 'has been subjected to character assassination, reputational damage and trial by media'.
'Domestic violence is a serious issue in our society,' solicitor Sarah McMahon said.
'Any individual in genuine fear should have the right to seek protection without vilification.'
Ms Matthews was previously married to British expat Ross Matthews. Both were members of the Liberal Party at the time. Their marriage reportedly ended in 2022, before she began dating Latham.
Mr Matthews has distanced himself from his ex-wife, breaking his silence on social media to address the furore.
'Please stop messaging me,' he posted on X after the scandal erupted. 'I don't speak to Nathalie and do not care. Thank you.'
Leaked WhatsApp messages reported by The Daily Telegraph showed sexually explicit exchanges between Latham and Ms Matthews.
'Very hard thinking about you,' he wrote to Ms Matthews during parliamentary sitting hours, shortly after 11am on February 20.
'Need badly to taste you,' he wrote that afternoon, alongside an emoji of a tongue.
'Made it back for first vote after dinner,' he said at 8.38pm.
Latham told Daily Mail Australia the reproduction of the WhatsApp messages was 'not accurate' and has insisted the communications did not impact his work.
Matthews describes herself as the managing director of Skynet Global Logistics, a company engaged in freight forwarding, a role she has held for 19 months according to LinkedIn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Billionaire David Geffen, 82, lashes out at sex and drugs claims made by husband, 32, in explosive divorce war
Billionaire mogul David Geffen has rubbished his estranged boytoy husband's explosive claims that he's a sex and drug-crazed abuser. Geffen, 82, branded 32 year-old Donovan Michaels' divorce filing allegations 'false and pathetic'. Donovan Michaels, 32, alleges that his billionaire beau Geffen, 82, forced him to take drugs, subjected him to abusive sex and controlled his every move, according to the latest lawsuit in their messy divorce battle. The most jaw-dropping part of the suit alleged that Geffen forced Michaels to have all his body hair lasered off and that he'd once flown into a rage at the sight of an ingrown hair. The pair met in 2016 on a dating website often used by rich people looking for younger partners. Geffen, a movie and music producer worth about $9 billion, allegedly paid Michaels $10,000 for sex on the night they met, according to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The pair would go on to form a relationship and ultimately married in 2023 without a prenup, according to the complaint. Michaels said in the complaint that he was targeted by Geffen because he was a vulnerable, marginalized young gay black man who spent the majority of his life bouncing around in the foster care system before turning to erotic dancing to make ends meet. The lawsuit claims that Geffen commanded Michaels to use drugs like cocaine and molly (MDMA) alongside the entertainment mogul's friends on his 450-foot superyacht, The Rising Sun. The suit also claims that Geffen enjoyed physically dominating his sexual partners and causing them pain, which triggered Michaels' childhood trauma. This allegedly caused him digestive issues, headaches and a desire to isolate himself. David Geffen, 82, has been sued by his husband Donovan Michaels, 32. He claims Geffen forced him to take drugs, subjected him abusive sex and controlled his every move Much of the wrongdoing alleged by Michaels was said to have occurred on Geffen's 450-foot superyacht, the Rising Sun The complaint further alleges that Geffen told Michaels 'where to go, what to wear, what to read, what to watch, and what to say.' The lawsuit even accused the billionaire of making Michaels to undergo painful cosmetic treatments. Geffen is also alleged to have told Michaels he had to be constantly available to him, preventing him from being able to pursue a modeling career, according to the suit. In May of this year, Geffen filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences as the reason for the split, according to a petition seen by Daily Mail. Michaels' lawsuit claims that Geffen did this because after years of being 'a prop in Geffen's theater of virtue,' Michaels finally approached his husband and asked to renegotiate the terms of their union. He 'wanted a new beginning wherein he could stand shoulder to shoulder with Geffen as an equal free from power dynamics that existed,' the suit said. Michaels claimed that Geffen rejected this, cut him off financially and immediately demanded a divorce. Michaels is suing Geffen for breach of contract, alleging that he promised to take care of him financially but left him near broke and without a home. 'It was a sick game,' the complaint states. 'Michaels became a prop in Geffen's theater of virtue, paraded around as evidence of Geffen's supposed altruism, while privately used as a sexual commodity.' Michaels is suing Geffen for breach of contract, alleging that he promised to take care of him financially but left him near broke and homeless The complaint also alleges that while Geffen was at the Jeff Bezos–Lauren Sanchez wedding in Venice he ordered Michaels to 'immediately vacate' their New York property, leaving him without a home (Geffen is pictured with Kris Jenner and Corey Gamble in Venice for the wedding) Geffen's attorney Patty Glaser hit back at the allegations, denying them completely. 'There was no contract — express, written, oral, or implied — that has ever existed,' she said in a statement to Daily Mail. 'We will be vigorously and righteously defending against this false, pathetic lawsuit.' The complaint also alleges that while Geffen was at the Jeff Bezos–Lauren Sanchez wedding in Venice in late June, he ordered Michaels to 'immediately vacate' their New York property, leaving him without a home. The suit claims that 'at the very same time, Geffen was decadently and extravagantly partying and dancing the night away in Venice, Italy with the other .0001% of the wealthiest people on the planet.' In one of the divorce documents prepared by Geffen's lawyer, Laura A. Wasser, it states that the pair separated in on February 22, 2025, months before the Bezos wedding. As well as Michael's claims about their final days together, the lawsuit includes a series of astonishing allegations about what went on during their relationship. 'Geffen also found additional ways to satisfy his unquenchable thirst for control over Michaels,' the lawsuit claims. The former model turned go-go dancer claimed in his lawsuit that Geffen 'used Michaels' tragic story not as a reason to offer genuine support, but as a grooming tool – casting himself as savior, "white knight," mentor, and gatekeeper to a better life' 'With backhanded insults and put-downs about Michaels' past and lack of sophistication, Geffen cultivated Michaels' insecurity and self-doubt. He critiqued every aspect of Michaels' appearance and exercised strict control over his body hygiene.' The billionaire record executive is accused in the lawsuit of ordering his ex-lover to 'undergo extensive, painful' treatments to conform to his idea of 'perfection.' 'Geffen required Michaels to undergo extensive, painful laser and dental treatments. Even something as minor as an ingrown hair could provoke Geffen's ire and prompt a barrage of instructions to correct the imperfection,' according to the complaint. Michaels claims he was 'awestruck by Geffen', a 'philanthropist' who 'talked the talk' when the younger man revealed issues 'during his underprivileged upbringing,' during the ill-fated couple's first meeting nine years ago. In his complaint, Michaels said he 'opened up to Geffen', confiding in him 'about the painful realities of his life – his traumatic upbringing in the Michigan foster care system, his lack of a real family, his instability, and his prior run-ins with the law'. He went on that he 'spoke candidly, not to gain sympathy from Geffen, but because he believed he had finally found someone who could understand and maybe even care'. But Michaels claims his then future husband 'weaponized [his] vulnerability to fulfill his own personal fantasies', including the lucrative financial transaction he alleges was made on the first night they met. The former model turned go-go dancer claimed in his lawsuit that Geffen 'used Michaels' tragic story not as a reason to offer genuine support, but as a grooming tool – casting himself as savior, "white knight," mentor, and gatekeeper to a better life'. The younger man claims he became a 'private sexual object and a public prop' that Geffen allegedly used to show off his 'self-proclaimed altruism to impress his powerful network'. 'From that moment forward, Geffen began transporting Michaels across the globe as his paid sex worker,' the complaint continued.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Two-year-old sexually abused at family daycare by man living at the premises, mother claims
A mother has claimed her two-year-old daughter was sexually abused at a family daycare service by a man she did not know was living there. The alleged offender was the partner of the woman running the service, located at a private home in New South Wales. Police, the Department of Education and the Department of Communities and Justice investigated, but the woman told Guardian Australia that, without physical evidence, no charges were able to be laid and no action was taken against the man or the service, which is still operating. Jennifer* said her daughter Ava* was two years old and attending a family daycare centre – a service run by an individual in their home, but which still receives the federal childcare subsidy – when she started talking about interactions with a man she didn't know. Some were innocuous, others rang alarm bells. 'It was sort of like, 'Who is [this person]?' It was just a bit off, it was just strange,' said Jennifer, who says she had no idea there was a man living at the home where the service operated. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Jennifer called the woman running the centre to ask her about it. 'I, in good faith, rang [her] the next day, thinking that there would actually be an explanation for it all.' But Jennifer said the response from the woman about the man – who was the woman's partner – was defensive and angry, something that raised 'red flags' for Jennifer, so she un-enrolled Ava. In the months that followed, Jennifer said Ava's behaviour changed. 'She regressed in toilet training, she'd just become sort of more anxious than she'd ever been and getting scared all the time, like really bizarre stuff like screaming … which she'd never been before.' By this point nearly three years old, Ava then disclosed that the man had exposed himself to her and he had touched her private parts, Jennifer said. Ava's disclosures came after seeing something that reminded her of the family daycare. She told her parents that some of the incidents occurred when she was in the daycare's sleep room. Jennifer reported the alleged incidents to police, who investigated, taking a statement from Ava and from her parents. Ava had to undergo a medical assessment by a specialist doctor who deals with potential child victims of sexual abuse but there was no physical evidence of assault. The man was not charged with any offences against Ava. Jennifer said that before reporting to police, she consulted with friends in the police force, who told her that a conviction or even a charge against the man was very unlikely. 'Basically, this has been everyone's advice the whole time: you won't get a conviction unless she's got an STD, or there's semen, or physical evidence. You won't get a conviction. But if there's a record of investigation, it might help someone in 20 years' time, basically. That's what it was for … in 20 years' time, when people start reporting things … there's something on record.' Jennifer praised the police and the Department of Communities and Justice, which served as a liaison with the family and organised support, including counselling, for them, but said the process was still incredibly distressing for Ava. 'She knew what was going on. She's a pretty smart chicken. Even though she was so young, she sort of knew … she remained upset and anxious for quite some time.' An assessment of Ava's behaviour, from a new daycare service that Jennifer eventually enrolled Ava in, seen by Guardian Australia, said Ava 'shows signs of anxiety' and an 'ongoing difficulty to separate from parents' as well as 'distress around sleeping'. The education department also conducted an investigation into the childcare service after the reports were made to police but, in a summary of its findings, seen by Guardian Australia, it wrote: 'There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the National Law and Regulations. Insufficient evidence to determine [the man] posed a risk to children. No further action was taken by the department. The case was closed.' Jennifer says the department of education investigation left her with more questions. Had they looked into whether the man was present at the service when the children were there? Had they looked into whether the woman running the service left some children alone while she was getting the other children to sleep? 'Why can't they tell us these key points?' she says. 'You don't have confidence because they don't give you answers. 'The investigation… absolutely made me even more distrustful.' In response to general questions about its procedures, the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority said that if a police investigation does not result in charges, the authority still conducts its own investigation and has the power to take strong action. It said it had issued 211 prohibition notices to people working in early childhood education and care in NSW over the last four and a half years and had prosecuted 34 providers, nominated supervisors and individuals since 2021. None of the prosecutions were for incidents involving alleged sexual abuse. Family daycare centres provide care to more than 71,000 Australian children, including around 22,000 in NSW, making up 5.1% of all early childhood education and care services. The service Ava attended is still operating. Guardian Australia has not confirmed whether the man is still living at the premises. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Jennifer said that she was shocked to learn that family daycare centres have no regulatory obligation to inform parents of who lives at the home, although every member of a household where a family daycare operates must have a working with children check. She says she had no idea that the woman running the service had a partner living in the home. 'It wasn't until Ava came home and started talking about [him], and we're like, 'Who is [this person]?'' Jennifer would like to see this change, to make it mandatory for all family daycare centres to inform parents of who lives at or will be present while their children are in care. She would like to see reform to the way investigations into those working with children – or in close proximity to them – happen, so action can be taken against people who have had credible allegations made against them, even if the level of proof does not reach that required for a criminal conviction. 'That's a hard one because, you know, you don't want innocent people to be punished,' she said. '[But] the level of evidence required for a conviction in court is so high; for beyond reasonable doubt. And when you've got no physical evidence and you've got the words of the two-year-olds, it's not going to stand up in court.' But she says the Department of Communities and Justice, when it met with the family, had a more 'child-centred' focus in talking about the case. 'They came to the house and sat down with us and went through everything and they were amazing and they explained how even though there's no evidence doesn't mean that it didn't occur. It was just more of an open finding. 'They were more believing. And so I feel like there needs to be more of a child-centred approach … rather than a criminal approach. 'I feel like whatever the DCJ were doing felt more holistic without outright coming out and saying like, yes, he's guilty.' Jennifer suggested there could be a threshold of proof, lower than the criminal threshold, that allowed regulators to take actions or impose prohibitions, when there were credible allegations. 'So maybe, I don't know, [this man] shouldn't be in the house when she's operating her family daycare,' she suggests. The incident happened a number of years ago and Jennifer says Ava is, for the most part, doing well. She has friends, thrives at sport and in school, but 'she has her moments, she'll melt down and sometimes we're like: is that part of it? Sometimes you wonder what part of the trauma carries through.' Jennifer and her partner debate what to tell Ava about it when she is older. 'That's a real struggle for us, how do we handle this in the future? Do you want to know this when you're older? Do we have a duty to tell her? It's a quagmire.' 'For my partner and I, we think about it all the time. Occasionally we say to each other, 'God, I was thinking about that today. Like, I can't believe … I've been able to hold it together.'' *Names have been changed to protect privacy In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via
