Arrest threat over inquiry no-shows
The five senior ministerial staffers failed to appear before a NSW parliamentary inquiry this morning, prompting the chair of the committee to flag 'further action' in what is fast becoming a major constitutional standoff over executive accountability.
The Legislative Council inquiry, chaired by independent MLC Rod Roberts, commenced at 10.45am on Friday but was forced to adjourn for 30 minutes after none of the five summoned witnesses, senior advisers to Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley, arrived. Hon Rod Roberts formally acknowledged the no-show and delivered a lengthy statement criticising the government's ongoing resistance to the inquiry. NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia
The hearing was ultimately abandoned without a vote, after Chair Roberts formally acknowledged the no-show and delivered a lengthy statement criticising the government's ongoing resistance to the inquiry.
'I am disappointed in the government's continued efforts to hinder and frustrate the work of this committee, and ultimately, the role of the Legislative Council to scrutinise the actions of government,' Mr Roberts said.
'The committee will now consider further action in relation to these witnesses under section 7 through 9 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901.'
Those summoned included Mr Minns' chief of staff, James Cullen; two senior advisers from the Premier's office, Edward Ovadia and Sarah Michael; and two staffers from Minister Catley's office, Dr Tilly South and Ross Neilson.
Their appearance was meant to shed light on who in government knew what, and when, regarding the discovery of an explosives-laden caravan in Sydney's northwest in January. James Cullen, Chief of Staff for Premier Chris Minns, is one of five who were summoned. Picture by Max Mason-Hubers Credit: News Corp Australia
The Premier had previously described the incident as a potential 'mass casualty event'. Although the Australian Federal Police later determined it was part of a criminal conspiracy.
The circumstances surrounding the government's response, and whether MPs passed sweeping anti-hate laws in February based on incomplete information, remain under intense scrutiny.
A letter sent to the committee chair on Thursday and signed by the five staffers outlined their refusal to appear. They argued that attending would breach 'the principles of ministerial accountability and comity between the Houses of Parliament,' particularly while a separate privileges inquiry by the Legislative Assembly is ongoing.
The group also took aim at Mr Roberts' earlier media comments, writing:
'Given your comments on breakfast radio yesterday as to the motivation for issuing the summonses, – which make it clear we are 'proxies' because our respective Ministers cannot be compelled as witnesses to the Select Committee – we also consider that they have not
been properly issued,' the letter read.
'In light of the above, we invite you not to press for our attendance at the hearing tomorrow.' NSW Premier Chris Minns had previously described the incident as a potential 'mass casualty event'. Although the Australian Federal Police later determined it was part of a criminal conspiracy. Photo: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia
Mr Roberts rejected those arguments in his closing statement, asserting the inquiry is properly constituted and that ministerial staff are not exempt from appearing.
'The inquiry seeks to examine the actions of the executive, not members of the Legislative Assembly,' he said.
'The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed lights on the events in the lead-up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament.
'The power of committees to summon witnesses and compel them to attend and give evidence is in black and white in the Parliamentary Evidence Act. It is not in doubt.'
Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig has previously condemned the inquiry as 'an incursion upon the privilege' of the Legislative Assembly.
'It expressly seeks to scrutinise the discourse of the House, the conduct of its members, be it backbencher or a member of the executive government, while undertaking the primary function entrusted upon them by their constituents which is to legislate,' Mr Hoenig said during Question Time in May.
He argued the Legislative Council had overstepped its bounds by summoning ministerial staff and attempting to examine lower house proceedings. Mr Roberts rejected the witnesses arguments, asserting the inquiry is properly constituted and that ministerial staff are not exempt from appearing. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
Despite the controversy, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion 47 to 27 to refer the inquiry's terms to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.
In response, Mr Roberts amended the inquiry's terms to narrow its focus to the passage of relevant bills through the upper house. Mr Hoenig, however, insisted the changes 'did not go far enough'.
Opposition MP Alister Henskens said the amendments were sufficient to avoid breaching privilege and labelled the referral motion 'a transparent attempt to frustrate and delay the upper house inquiry'.
Greens MP Jenny Leong said it was 'critical' that the Legislative Council was not prevented from doing its work, warning that any 'unreasonable delay' would raise concerns about the Premier and executive trying to 'subvert' the inquiry.
Speaker Greg Piper defended the committee's progression, saying the changes were not intended to obstruct but instead 'an opportunity to actually examine the issue, the rights and privilege, the exclusive cognisance of the Legislative Assembly'.
The committee has previously heard from senior police officials, including NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb and Deputy Commissioner David Hudson.
With Friday's hearing abandoned and potential legal action looming, the inquiry is now at a crossroads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Severely punished': Outrage after jetskiers filmed stalking pod of dolphins at Adelaide beach
A pair of jetskiers have caused outrage after being caught chasing a pod of dolphins at a South Australian beach. The two men were filmed trailing after the dolphins on Sunday near Brighton beach about 45 minutes southwest of Adelaide. Footage showed one of the men following behind the pod of dolphins while another waits behind. A Department for Environment and Water spokesman told NewsWire they were investigating the incident. 'The Department for Environment and Water is investigating an incident where it appeared that jet skiers travelled through a pod of dolphins near Brighton on August 10,' they said. 'In South Australia, jet skis must maintain a distance of at least 300m from marine mammals and is a legal requirement for the safety of both the animals and the jet ski operators.' All marine mammals, including whales, sea lions and dolphins, are protected in SA waters, and those caught causing harm to the marine life risk facing a $100,000 fine or up to two years imprisonment. Speaking to the Adelaide Advertiser, locals said they 'don't need to have that sort of thing along the coastal areas'. 'They should have everything that the law has thrown against them,' he said. 'While it's understandable to want to see animals up close, he said people needed to take care. 'If you're on a jet ski and you see the things, paddle up to them carefully don't chase them.'
Perth Now
4 hours ago
- Perth Now
Court forced to apologise to ex-MP
A South Australian court has apologised for a system error which logged a guilty finding against an ex-MP who was accused of blackmailing Premier Peter Malinauskas. Annabel Digance is suing Mr Malinauskas for damages, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her to further his own political ambitions and crush a parliamentary inquiry into alleged bullying in the Labor Party. During a hearing in the South Australian Supreme Court in late July, Justice Graham Dart told the court that Ms Digance and her husband Greg had been found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas. The court was told their charges were later dropped, according to court records. Annabel Digance (right) and Greg Digance. NewsWire/Naomi Jellicoe. Credit: News Corp Australia Ms Digance and her husband Greg were charged with blackmailing Mr Malinauskas in 2021. The SA Courts Administration Authority (CAA) said in a statement on Tuesday that neither Ms or Mr Digance had been found guilty. The court said that in April 2023 a nolle prosequi order was made, meaning the prosecution was abandoned. SA Premier Peter Malinauskas. NewsWire/David Beach. Credit: NewsWire 'There were no orders made which involved a finding of guilt against either of the defendants,' the court said in a statement. The court said that a document which stated that a finding of guilt had been made was 'generated in error and is incorrect'. 'The CAA unreservedly apologises to the parties for this error,' the court said in a statement. 'The CAA will review all court matters with orders made in the same circumstances to ensure that court records are accurate. 'The CAA will also commission an external assurance review into this matter.' In Ms Digance's statement of claim in her civil lawsuit, she argued that her arrest and prosecution caused 'injury, loss, damage and harm' and that Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to pursue her. She is suing both the premier and the State of South Australia and is seeking $2.3m in damages. The matter is scheduled to return to court in September.
West Australian
7 hours ago
- West Australian
What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?
Anthony Albanese is now among a growing list of Western leaders vowing to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. The Prime Minister heralded the decision as a step toward breaking 'the cycle of violence in the Middle East' and bringing 'an end to the conflict, suffering and starvation in Gaza'. Though, not everyone agrees. Since making his Palestine declaration on Monday, Mr Albanese has been both accused of 'rewarding' Hamas and praised for joining global push to realise the rights of Palestinians. His more mild critics have argued it will do nothing to end the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. For better or worse, it is historic. So, why now and how will it all work? Why now? The 'momentum towards two states', as Foreign Minister Penny Wong described it, comes amid outrage over severe civilian suffering in Gaza, where Israeli forces have spent nearly two years relentlessly pursuing Islamist militants behind the October 7 attacks in 2023. Hamas, the group responsible, runs Gaza and its operations riddle the densely populated Palestinian territory, with tunnels and armouries nestled in civilian zones. More than 60,000 have been killed in the 22 month-long conflict, according to Gazan health officials. How many of those are Hamas fighters is unclear and because foreign reporters cannot enter Gaza, figures are hard for media to independently verify. But the death toll stacks up with assessments from independent monitors and local journalists working for trusted international agencies. So too do reports that nearly 200 have starved to death due to Israel's chokehold on aid. With the Israeli government rejecting that people were starving, French President Emmanuel Macron said in late July that it was time to break the status quo and make meaningful steps toward a two-state solution – Israelis and Palestinians living within sovereign, internationally recognised borders. The UK and Canada quickly followed suit, paving the way for Australia. Though, Donald Rothwell, a leading international law expert, said 'it's clear the Albanese government had been laying the groundwork' since 2024. 'There was obviously a significant intensity about how the government sought to build and prosecute its case over the course of the last 16 days or so,' he told NewsWire. Mr Rothwell pointed to three key developments that he said likely 'accelerated' Mr Albanese's decision. The first was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing plans to occupy all of Gaza. Australia joined several Western countries in condemning the plans in a statement, saying that actioning them would 'aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians'. The second development was Israeli settlers stepping up efforts to annex land in West Bank – the second Palestinian enclave and only territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The final development was a vote in Israel's parliament that showing overwhelming opposition to Palestinian statehood. Mr Netanyahu mentioned the vote in a press conference on Sunday. He told reporters the 'Jewish public is … against the Palestinian state for the simple reason that they know it won't bring peace'. 'It'll bring war,' he said. Mr Rothman said 'all those factors combined' drove the urgency. How will it work? Mr Albanese named four key commitments he secured from Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The first two include Hamas having 'no role' in a future Palestinian state and the PA recognising 'Israel's right to exist in peace and security'. While Mr Albanese said Mr Abbas 'reaffirmed' his support for the second point, the PA has no presence in Gaza and no control over Hamas. As Mr Rothwell said, 'It's not clear to me at all as to how the Palestinian Authority can achieve that, given that it has no control or authority over Hamas in Gaza.' The PA itself is commonly criticised for its corruption, ineffectiveness and lack of elections. The last presidential vote was in 2005. It also has a radicalisation problem in West Bank and pays families of 'martyrs' – Palestinians wounded or killed in flare ups with Israel. The 'Martyrs Fund' has been heavily criticised as supporting terrorism. Mr Albanese said Mr Abbas also committed to demilitarising and holding elections, and scrapping the payments to martyrs' families as part of broader transparency reforms. On election, Mr Rothwell said he could not see how the PA could hold 'fair and free elections' before the UNGA next month. Instead, he said the Albanese government and others promising to recognise Palestine are 'really trying to hold Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to … free and true elections sometime towards the end of 2025 or early 2026'. In terms of how Australia recognises Palestine, Mr Rothwell said the Albanese government has taken an 'exceptional' pathway. A government can recognise a state at any time – it does not need to be at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). He said that in 'most instances' recognition is made official via a statement, so Mr Albanese announcing it to reporters from the prime ministerial courtyard on Monday 'was quite exceptional'. 'But then to have a two-step process, effectively saying in Canberra on the 11th of August, we're going to recognise, but then we're formally going to recognise that the UNGA … just falls into the notion of a Palestinian exception,' Mr Rothwell said. When Mr Albanese travels to the UN in New York next month, he will vote, alongside the leaders of France, the UK, Canada and several other countries, to join the 147 nations that already recognise Palestine. 'It's obviously a peak forum at which these matters can be discussed,' Mr Rothwell said. 'And in recent years, that peak forum in September has set aside some time for debate and discussion about Palestinian membership of the United Nations.' But he noted that 'the General Assembly vote is just one part of a two part process for a state becoming a member of the United Nations'. 'In the second part of that process is endorsement of that UN General Assembly vote by the Security Council,' Mr Rothwell said. Last year, a vote passed the General Assembly but was vetoed by the US in the Security Council. This has happened several times and the Trump administration is staunchly against Palestinian statehood while Hamas controls Gaza. But Mr Rothwell pointed out that statehood does not require UN membership. For example, Australia recognises Kosovo even though it is not a UN member. 'It's not exceptional that Australia recognises a state which is not a member of the United Nations,' Mr Rothwell said. 'Secondly, there are some states out there that Australia recognises who are not UN members and then membership may well be delayed or deferred or constantly blocked for a number of political reasons.' He added that 'throughout the history of the United Nations, that's not necessarily been exceptional'.
