Sweeping move-on police powers blasted by protesters
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
2 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Arrest push on senior Minns, Catley staffers after they fail to attend caravan plot inquiry
Five senior government staffers face possible arrest in a dramatic escalation of a probe examining officials' knowledge about an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney 's outskirts. The high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley failed to appear as summonsed on Friday at an upper house inquiry. Committee chair independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff, James Cullen, and four other staffers on Friday before the committee set in motion a process to seek arrest warrants. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to appear, the staffers say appearing before the inquiry 'would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability'. Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. 'The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament,' Roberts said. Protest legislation Controversial protest legislation was rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, anti-Semitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's northwest on January 19. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately dubbed it. It later emerged to be a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. The premier on Thursday attacked the upper house for 'on a routine basis' trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries 'almost like they're criminals and under investigation, or they should front some kind of Star Chamber inquiry'. 'And if not, they're under threat of arrest,' he said. As members of the lower house, Minns and Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. Staffers, however, can be forced to appear. The committee believes they were present during police briefings to the ministers. Another staffer named in the motion, Minns' deputy chief of staff, Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee as he was on leave at the time and did not attend any meetings. The committee will ask the upper house president, independent Ben Franklin, to go to the NSW Supreme Court and seek warrants for their arrest. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including parliamentary hearings, press conferences and question time.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Breaking up is hard to do but there comes a time
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The wedding, only weeks away, is off. Dreams have dissolved in a swirling fog of bitterness, betrayal and resentment. But it's a gut-wrenching sadness that will linger, not only for the couple involved but for friends and family grieving a future that will never arrive. When something you believe in falls apart, anger eventually turns to sorrow for all that is lost. These friends of ours spent a year planning their celebration. An apartment was bought. Rings and outfits purchased. Guests had paid for flights and accommodation. How to make sense of something when love abruptly turns to cold silence? You sift through the rubble looking for those tell-tale signs of cold feet and gnawing doubts that only the aftermath reveals; how one partner clung to the dream more than the other; how others saw worrying signs but looked the other way, choosing fantasy over reality. Then the hardest thing: moving on. Australia faces a similar dilemma over its alliance with the US. We now have a sullen and aloof partner who wants different things. Donald Trump is swinging a wrecking ball through a century's worth of carefully-crafted international diplomacy, treating historic loyalties as nothing more than leverage and Australia as a second-class ally whose phone calls are no longer returned. Trump's administration is actively reviewing AUKUS - the security pact promised to be the cornerstone of our future defence. He questions the value of NATO, blithely undermines long-standing commitments to the Pacific region and is openly cynical about the old world order. He not only flirts with dictators but courts them. The US is an old lover grown contemptuous of traditional values. Australia is the still-believing partner, too quick to forgive, desperately believing the relationship can still be retrieved. It's time to move on. The Australian public certainly thinks so. The latest annual survey by the US-based Pew Research Centre shows we rank behind only Sweden when it comes to anti-Trump sentiment, viewing him as dangerous and a threat to peace and the global economy. To alienate so many old friends in a few months is no mean achievement. Or an accident. Enter Anthony Albanese, his historic election victory all but forgotten in a world punch drunk from endless economic and military crises. His task - almost certainly the legacy-defining mission of his prime ministership - is to ease Australia from an increasingly unreliable relationship with the US and steer a new path for our nation. There is a blueprint of sorts for him to follow. Paul Keating saw this moment coming years ago. After decades of burying our dead in America's wars because we believed it would do the same for us, Keating said it was time for us to end our US dependency and embrace Asia, the dynamic, complex and rapidly emerging region in which we live. The former PM was ridiculed for saying we needed to grow up and stop acting like a deputy sheriff. At the time China was still a rising power. It has now risen. India is on the same path. Nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are our neighbours, trading partners and should be our strategic peers. Yet we continue treating them like brief stopovers on our way to the glamour of old London and Washington. But nostalgia is not a strategy. Growing up and moving on means investing in regional alliances, not relying on a nation teetering on the brink of civil breakdown. Trust can only be established in southeast Asia by making decisions in the best interests of us and our region, not parroting US policy that these days is increasingly erratic and unhinged. No one says we should completely walk away from America. We've long had a close and co-dependent relationship - culturally and militarily. Completely severing ties would be foolish. But like the sudden relationship implosion and hastily cancelled wedding of my friends, Australia faces two choices: to wallow in the loss of an alliance growing increasingly distant, or accept that a once strong and mutually beneficial partnership has become too one-sided. The healthy alternative? Get out into the world and make some new friends. We stopped clinging to England's skirts a long time ago. Surely we are a nation with enough ingenuity, resilience and self-belief to walk away from another damaged relationship and preserve our sense of self-worth. It might be Donald Trump's lasting contribution to international diplomacy: follow America's lead and put yourself first. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia distance itself from the US and forge greater military and economic partnerships in Asia? Do you still trust the US to support Australia in the event of a conflict? Do you find Trump's disdain for the old world order refreshing or a calamity causing greater instability? Have you or someone you know been left at the altar? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - An election promise to implement a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has been abandoned by the Northern Territory as it vigorously pushes for more mining and energy projects. - New Zealand has suspended millions of dollars in budget funding to the Cook Islands, as the relationship between the two constitutionally linked countries continues to deteriorate amid the island group's deepening ties with China. - Up to 105 cases of land clearing, mainly for farming, could soon be under investigation by authorities after a citizen science project uncovered 90,000 hectares of bush bulldozed over the past five years. THEY SAID IT: "The view here (in Australia) is that the US will rescue us if we ever really have a problem. And I don't think that's true ... I think you're unwise for believing it's true." - Tucker Carlson YOU SAID IT: There's nothing like curling your toes in front of a roaring fire. But if you can smell the smoke it's most likely doing you harm. David thinks wood heaters should be banned: "I've had a gutful and a lung full of the smoke seeping into my house on winter evenings and filling my lungs in the backyard, not to mention polluting my freshly hung washing. I have several friends who are 'green' in many respects, but will not give up their beloved wood-fired heaters. The science is uber clear; in the ACT these heaters contribute to between 11 and 63 deaths each year. The ACT government needs to step up and fulfil its duty of care obligation to Canberrans." "I live in Hadspen near Launceston and both towns are surrounded by hills which trap smoke in still conditions," writes Rowan. "Launceston has the worst air quality of any city in Australia - beating Sydney. The love of wood fires in Tasmania is immutable. Despite new housing being built with reverse-cycle heating (called heat-pumps down here) and electricity at 15c per kWh, people still install these stink-heaters. I feel sorry for the wildlife that cannot escape and for their habitat which is often illegally logged to feed these heaters." Murray writes: "I have a bit of lung disease caused by smoking, back in the day when everyone smoked. So when we bought our cottage in the country the first thing we did was pull out the log burner. It was out of the ark anyway. When I go out on a still, cold morning and smoke is in the air, my breathing is awful. Does that mean our neighbours must get rid of their fires? Of course not." "I loved my wood fire back in the day, but I've bowed to the knowledge it was bad for me, my neighbours and the environment," writes Keith. "However, I can't wean myself off the comfort of the bouncing flame in the living room so I've installed an electric fire. It's not quite the same but it can still generate a feeling of wellbeing on a cold morning or evening." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The wedding, only weeks away, is off. Dreams have dissolved in a swirling fog of bitterness, betrayal and resentment. But it's a gut-wrenching sadness that will linger, not only for the couple involved but for friends and family grieving a future that will never arrive. When something you believe in falls apart, anger eventually turns to sorrow for all that is lost. These friends of ours spent a year planning their celebration. An apartment was bought. Rings and outfits purchased. Guests had paid for flights and accommodation. How to make sense of something when love abruptly turns to cold silence? You sift through the rubble looking for those tell-tale signs of cold feet and gnawing doubts that only the aftermath reveals; how one partner clung to the dream more than the other; how others saw worrying signs but looked the other way, choosing fantasy over reality. Then the hardest thing: moving on. Australia faces a similar dilemma over its alliance with the US. We now have a sullen and aloof partner who wants different things. Donald Trump is swinging a wrecking ball through a century's worth of carefully-crafted international diplomacy, treating historic loyalties as nothing more than leverage and Australia as a second-class ally whose phone calls are no longer returned. Trump's administration is actively reviewing AUKUS - the security pact promised to be the cornerstone of our future defence. He questions the value of NATO, blithely undermines long-standing commitments to the Pacific region and is openly cynical about the old world order. He not only flirts with dictators but courts them. The US is an old lover grown contemptuous of traditional values. Australia is the still-believing partner, too quick to forgive, desperately believing the relationship can still be retrieved. It's time to move on. The Australian public certainly thinks so. The latest annual survey by the US-based Pew Research Centre shows we rank behind only Sweden when it comes to anti-Trump sentiment, viewing him as dangerous and a threat to peace and the global economy. To alienate so many old friends in a few months is no mean achievement. Or an accident. Enter Anthony Albanese, his historic election victory all but forgotten in a world punch drunk from endless economic and military crises. His task - almost certainly the legacy-defining mission of his prime ministership - is to ease Australia from an increasingly unreliable relationship with the US and steer a new path for our nation. There is a blueprint of sorts for him to follow. Paul Keating saw this moment coming years ago. After decades of burying our dead in America's wars because we believed it would do the same for us, Keating said it was time for us to end our US dependency and embrace Asia, the dynamic, complex and rapidly emerging region in which we live. The former PM was ridiculed for saying we needed to grow up and stop acting like a deputy sheriff. At the time China was still a rising power. It has now risen. India is on the same path. Nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are our neighbours, trading partners and should be our strategic peers. Yet we continue treating them like brief stopovers on our way to the glamour of old London and Washington. But nostalgia is not a strategy. Growing up and moving on means investing in regional alliances, not relying on a nation teetering on the brink of civil breakdown. Trust can only be established in southeast Asia by making decisions in the best interests of us and our region, not parroting US policy that these days is increasingly erratic and unhinged. No one says we should completely walk away from America. We've long had a close and co-dependent relationship - culturally and militarily. Completely severing ties would be foolish. But like the sudden relationship implosion and hastily cancelled wedding of my friends, Australia faces two choices: to wallow in the loss of an alliance growing increasingly distant, or accept that a once strong and mutually beneficial partnership has become too one-sided. The healthy alternative? Get out into the world and make some new friends. We stopped clinging to England's skirts a long time ago. Surely we are a nation with enough ingenuity, resilience and self-belief to walk away from another damaged relationship and preserve our sense of self-worth. It might be Donald Trump's lasting contribution to international diplomacy: follow America's lead and put yourself first. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia distance itself from the US and forge greater military and economic partnerships in Asia? Do you still trust the US to support Australia in the event of a conflict? Do you find Trump's disdain for the old world order refreshing or a calamity causing greater instability? Have you or someone you know been left at the altar? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - An election promise to implement a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has been abandoned by the Northern Territory as it vigorously pushes for more mining and energy projects. - New Zealand has suspended millions of dollars in budget funding to the Cook Islands, as the relationship between the two constitutionally linked countries continues to deteriorate amid the island group's deepening ties with China. - Up to 105 cases of land clearing, mainly for farming, could soon be under investigation by authorities after a citizen science project uncovered 90,000 hectares of bush bulldozed over the past five years. THEY SAID IT: "The view here (in Australia) is that the US will rescue us if we ever really have a problem. And I don't think that's true ... I think you're unwise for believing it's true." - Tucker Carlson YOU SAID IT: There's nothing like curling your toes in front of a roaring fire. But if you can smell the smoke it's most likely doing you harm. David thinks wood heaters should be banned: "I've had a gutful and a lung full of the smoke seeping into my house on winter evenings and filling my lungs in the backyard, not to mention polluting my freshly hung washing. I have several friends who are 'green' in many respects, but will not give up their beloved wood-fired heaters. The science is uber clear; in the ACT these heaters contribute to between 11 and 63 deaths each year. The ACT government needs to step up and fulfil its duty of care obligation to Canberrans." "I live in Hadspen near Launceston and both towns are surrounded by hills which trap smoke in still conditions," writes Rowan. "Launceston has the worst air quality of any city in Australia - beating Sydney. The love of wood fires in Tasmania is immutable. Despite new housing being built with reverse-cycle heating (called heat-pumps down here) and electricity at 15c per kWh, people still install these stink-heaters. I feel sorry for the wildlife that cannot escape and for their habitat which is often illegally logged to feed these heaters." Murray writes: "I have a bit of lung disease caused by smoking, back in the day when everyone smoked. So when we bought our cottage in the country the first thing we did was pull out the log burner. It was out of the ark anyway. When I go out on a still, cold morning and smoke is in the air, my breathing is awful. Does that mean our neighbours must get rid of their fires? Of course not." "I loved my wood fire back in the day, but I've bowed to the knowledge it was bad for me, my neighbours and the environment," writes Keith. "However, I can't wean myself off the comfort of the bouncing flame in the living room so I've installed an electric fire. It's not quite the same but it can still generate a feeling of wellbeing on a cold morning or evening." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The wedding, only weeks away, is off. Dreams have dissolved in a swirling fog of bitterness, betrayal and resentment. But it's a gut-wrenching sadness that will linger, not only for the couple involved but for friends and family grieving a future that will never arrive. When something you believe in falls apart, anger eventually turns to sorrow for all that is lost. These friends of ours spent a year planning their celebration. An apartment was bought. Rings and outfits purchased. Guests had paid for flights and accommodation. How to make sense of something when love abruptly turns to cold silence? You sift through the rubble looking for those tell-tale signs of cold feet and gnawing doubts that only the aftermath reveals; how one partner clung to the dream more than the other; how others saw worrying signs but looked the other way, choosing fantasy over reality. Then the hardest thing: moving on. Australia faces a similar dilemma over its alliance with the US. We now have a sullen and aloof partner who wants different things. Donald Trump is swinging a wrecking ball through a century's worth of carefully-crafted international diplomacy, treating historic loyalties as nothing more than leverage and Australia as a second-class ally whose phone calls are no longer returned. Trump's administration is actively reviewing AUKUS - the security pact promised to be the cornerstone of our future defence. He questions the value of NATO, blithely undermines long-standing commitments to the Pacific region and is openly cynical about the old world order. He not only flirts with dictators but courts them. The US is an old lover grown contemptuous of traditional values. Australia is the still-believing partner, too quick to forgive, desperately believing the relationship can still be retrieved. It's time to move on. The Australian public certainly thinks so. The latest annual survey by the US-based Pew Research Centre shows we rank behind only Sweden when it comes to anti-Trump sentiment, viewing him as dangerous and a threat to peace and the global economy. To alienate so many old friends in a few months is no mean achievement. Or an accident. Enter Anthony Albanese, his historic election victory all but forgotten in a world punch drunk from endless economic and military crises. His task - almost certainly the legacy-defining mission of his prime ministership - is to ease Australia from an increasingly unreliable relationship with the US and steer a new path for our nation. There is a blueprint of sorts for him to follow. Paul Keating saw this moment coming years ago. After decades of burying our dead in America's wars because we believed it would do the same for us, Keating said it was time for us to end our US dependency and embrace Asia, the dynamic, complex and rapidly emerging region in which we live. The former PM was ridiculed for saying we needed to grow up and stop acting like a deputy sheriff. At the time China was still a rising power. It has now risen. India is on the same path. Nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are our neighbours, trading partners and should be our strategic peers. Yet we continue treating them like brief stopovers on our way to the glamour of old London and Washington. But nostalgia is not a strategy. Growing up and moving on means investing in regional alliances, not relying on a nation teetering on the brink of civil breakdown. Trust can only be established in southeast Asia by making decisions in the best interests of us and our region, not parroting US policy that these days is increasingly erratic and unhinged. No one says we should completely walk away from America. We've long had a close and co-dependent relationship - culturally and militarily. Completely severing ties would be foolish. But like the sudden relationship implosion and hastily cancelled wedding of my friends, Australia faces two choices: to wallow in the loss of an alliance growing increasingly distant, or accept that a once strong and mutually beneficial partnership has become too one-sided. The healthy alternative? Get out into the world and make some new friends. We stopped clinging to England's skirts a long time ago. Surely we are a nation with enough ingenuity, resilience and self-belief to walk away from another damaged relationship and preserve our sense of self-worth. It might be Donald Trump's lasting contribution to international diplomacy: follow America's lead and put yourself first. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia distance itself from the US and forge greater military and economic partnerships in Asia? Do you still trust the US to support Australia in the event of a conflict? Do you find Trump's disdain for the old world order refreshing or a calamity causing greater instability? Have you or someone you know been left at the altar? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - An election promise to implement a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has been abandoned by the Northern Territory as it vigorously pushes for more mining and energy projects. - New Zealand has suspended millions of dollars in budget funding to the Cook Islands, as the relationship between the two constitutionally linked countries continues to deteriorate amid the island group's deepening ties with China. - Up to 105 cases of land clearing, mainly for farming, could soon be under investigation by authorities after a citizen science project uncovered 90,000 hectares of bush bulldozed over the past five years. THEY SAID IT: "The view here (in Australia) is that the US will rescue us if we ever really have a problem. And I don't think that's true ... I think you're unwise for believing it's true." - Tucker Carlson YOU SAID IT: There's nothing like curling your toes in front of a roaring fire. But if you can smell the smoke it's most likely doing you harm. David thinks wood heaters should be banned: "I've had a gutful and a lung full of the smoke seeping into my house on winter evenings and filling my lungs in the backyard, not to mention polluting my freshly hung washing. I have several friends who are 'green' in many respects, but will not give up their beloved wood-fired heaters. The science is uber clear; in the ACT these heaters contribute to between 11 and 63 deaths each year. The ACT government needs to step up and fulfil its duty of care obligation to Canberrans." "I live in Hadspen near Launceston and both towns are surrounded by hills which trap smoke in still conditions," writes Rowan. "Launceston has the worst air quality of any city in Australia - beating Sydney. The love of wood fires in Tasmania is immutable. Despite new housing being built with reverse-cycle heating (called heat-pumps down here) and electricity at 15c per kWh, people still install these stink-heaters. I feel sorry for the wildlife that cannot escape and for their habitat which is often illegally logged to feed these heaters." Murray writes: "I have a bit of lung disease caused by smoking, back in the day when everyone smoked. So when we bought our cottage in the country the first thing we did was pull out the log burner. It was out of the ark anyway. When I go out on a still, cold morning and smoke is in the air, my breathing is awful. Does that mean our neighbours must get rid of their fires? Of course not." "I loved my wood fire back in the day, but I've bowed to the knowledge it was bad for me, my neighbours and the environment," writes Keith. "However, I can't wean myself off the comfort of the bouncing flame in the living room so I've installed an electric fire. It's not quite the same but it can still generate a feeling of wellbeing on a cold morning or evening." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The wedding, only weeks away, is off. Dreams have dissolved in a swirling fog of bitterness, betrayal and resentment. But it's a gut-wrenching sadness that will linger, not only for the couple involved but for friends and family grieving a future that will never arrive. When something you believe in falls apart, anger eventually turns to sorrow for all that is lost. These friends of ours spent a year planning their celebration. An apartment was bought. Rings and outfits purchased. Guests had paid for flights and accommodation. How to make sense of something when love abruptly turns to cold silence? You sift through the rubble looking for those tell-tale signs of cold feet and gnawing doubts that only the aftermath reveals; how one partner clung to the dream more than the other; how others saw worrying signs but looked the other way, choosing fantasy over reality. Then the hardest thing: moving on. Australia faces a similar dilemma over its alliance with the US. We now have a sullen and aloof partner who wants different things. Donald Trump is swinging a wrecking ball through a century's worth of carefully-crafted international diplomacy, treating historic loyalties as nothing more than leverage and Australia as a second-class ally whose phone calls are no longer returned. Trump's administration is actively reviewing AUKUS - the security pact promised to be the cornerstone of our future defence. He questions the value of NATO, blithely undermines long-standing commitments to the Pacific region and is openly cynical about the old world order. He not only flirts with dictators but courts them. The US is an old lover grown contemptuous of traditional values. Australia is the still-believing partner, too quick to forgive, desperately believing the relationship can still be retrieved. It's time to move on. The Australian public certainly thinks so. The latest annual survey by the US-based Pew Research Centre shows we rank behind only Sweden when it comes to anti-Trump sentiment, viewing him as dangerous and a threat to peace and the global economy. To alienate so many old friends in a few months is no mean achievement. Or an accident. Enter Anthony Albanese, his historic election victory all but forgotten in a world punch drunk from endless economic and military crises. His task - almost certainly the legacy-defining mission of his prime ministership - is to ease Australia from an increasingly unreliable relationship with the US and steer a new path for our nation. There is a blueprint of sorts for him to follow. Paul Keating saw this moment coming years ago. After decades of burying our dead in America's wars because we believed it would do the same for us, Keating said it was time for us to end our US dependency and embrace Asia, the dynamic, complex and rapidly emerging region in which we live. The former PM was ridiculed for saying we needed to grow up and stop acting like a deputy sheriff. At the time China was still a rising power. It has now risen. India is on the same path. Nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are our neighbours, trading partners and should be our strategic peers. Yet we continue treating them like brief stopovers on our way to the glamour of old London and Washington. But nostalgia is not a strategy. Growing up and moving on means investing in regional alliances, not relying on a nation teetering on the brink of civil breakdown. Trust can only be established in southeast Asia by making decisions in the best interests of us and our region, not parroting US policy that these days is increasingly erratic and unhinged. No one says we should completely walk away from America. We've long had a close and co-dependent relationship - culturally and militarily. Completely severing ties would be foolish. But like the sudden relationship implosion and hastily cancelled wedding of my friends, Australia faces two choices: to wallow in the loss of an alliance growing increasingly distant, or accept that a once strong and mutually beneficial partnership has become too one-sided. The healthy alternative? Get out into the world and make some new friends. We stopped clinging to England's skirts a long time ago. Surely we are a nation with enough ingenuity, resilience and self-belief to walk away from another damaged relationship and preserve our sense of self-worth. It might be Donald Trump's lasting contribution to international diplomacy: follow America's lead and put yourself first. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia distance itself from the US and forge greater military and economic partnerships in Asia? Do you still trust the US to support Australia in the event of a conflict? Do you find Trump's disdain for the old world order refreshing or a calamity causing greater instability? Have you or someone you know been left at the altar? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - An election promise to implement a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has been abandoned by the Northern Territory as it vigorously pushes for more mining and energy projects. - New Zealand has suspended millions of dollars in budget funding to the Cook Islands, as the relationship between the two constitutionally linked countries continues to deteriorate amid the island group's deepening ties with China. - Up to 105 cases of land clearing, mainly for farming, could soon be under investigation by authorities after a citizen science project uncovered 90,000 hectares of bush bulldozed over the past five years. THEY SAID IT: "The view here (in Australia) is that the US will rescue us if we ever really have a problem. And I don't think that's true ... I think you're unwise for believing it's true." - Tucker Carlson YOU SAID IT: There's nothing like curling your toes in front of a roaring fire. But if you can smell the smoke it's most likely doing you harm. David thinks wood heaters should be banned: "I've had a gutful and a lung full of the smoke seeping into my house on winter evenings and filling my lungs in the backyard, not to mention polluting my freshly hung washing. I have several friends who are 'green' in many respects, but will not give up their beloved wood-fired heaters. The science is uber clear; in the ACT these heaters contribute to between 11 and 63 deaths each year. The ACT government needs to step up and fulfil its duty of care obligation to Canberrans." "I live in Hadspen near Launceston and both towns are surrounded by hills which trap smoke in still conditions," writes Rowan. "Launceston has the worst air quality of any city in Australia - beating Sydney. The love of wood fires in Tasmania is immutable. Despite new housing being built with reverse-cycle heating (called heat-pumps down here) and electricity at 15c per kWh, people still install these stink-heaters. I feel sorry for the wildlife that cannot escape and for their habitat which is often illegally logged to feed these heaters." Murray writes: "I have a bit of lung disease caused by smoking, back in the day when everyone smoked. So when we bought our cottage in the country the first thing we did was pull out the log burner. It was out of the ark anyway. When I go out on a still, cold morning and smoke is in the air, my breathing is awful. Does that mean our neighbours must get rid of their fires? Of course not." "I loved my wood fire back in the day, but I've bowed to the knowledge it was bad for me, my neighbours and the environment," writes Keith. "However, I can't wean myself off the comfort of the bouncing flame in the living room so I've installed an electric fire. It's not quite the same but it can still generate a feeling of wellbeing on a cold morning or evening."
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Staffers face arrest after caravan plot inquiry no-show
Five senior government staffers face possible arrest in a dramatic escalation of a probe examining officials' knowledge about an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. The high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley failed to appear as summonsed on Friday at an upper house inquiry. Committee chair independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers on Friday before the committee set in motion a process to seek arrest warrants. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to appear, the staffers say appearing before the inquiry "would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability". Mr Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. "The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament," Mr Roberts said. Controversial protest legislation was rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, anti-Semitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's northwest on January 19. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately dubbed it. It later emerged to be a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. The premier on Thursday attacked the upper house for "on a routine basis" trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "almost like they're criminals and under investigation, or they should front some kind of Star Chamber inquiry". "And if not, they're under threat of arrest," he said. As members of the lower house, Mr Minns and Ms Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. Staffers, however, can be forced to appear. The committee believes they were present during police briefings to the ministers. Another staffer named in the motion, Mr Minns' deputy chief of staff Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee as he was on leave at the time and did not attend any meetings. The committee will ask the upper house president, independent Ben Franklin, to go to the NSW Supreme Court and seek warrants for their arrest. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including parliamentary hearings, press conferences and question time. Five senior government staffers face possible arrest in a dramatic escalation of a probe examining officials' knowledge about an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. The high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley failed to appear as summonsed on Friday at an upper house inquiry. Committee chair independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers on Friday before the committee set in motion a process to seek arrest warrants. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to appear, the staffers say appearing before the inquiry "would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability". Mr Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. "The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament," Mr Roberts said. Controversial protest legislation was rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, anti-Semitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's northwest on January 19. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately dubbed it. It later emerged to be a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. The premier on Thursday attacked the upper house for "on a routine basis" trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "almost like they're criminals and under investigation, or they should front some kind of Star Chamber inquiry". "And if not, they're under threat of arrest," he said. As members of the lower house, Mr Minns and Ms Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. Staffers, however, can be forced to appear. The committee believes they were present during police briefings to the ministers. Another staffer named in the motion, Mr Minns' deputy chief of staff Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee as he was on leave at the time and did not attend any meetings. The committee will ask the upper house president, independent Ben Franklin, to go to the NSW Supreme Court and seek warrants for their arrest. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including parliamentary hearings, press conferences and question time. Five senior government staffers face possible arrest in a dramatic escalation of a probe examining officials' knowledge about an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. The high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley failed to appear as summonsed on Friday at an upper house inquiry. Committee chair independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers on Friday before the committee set in motion a process to seek arrest warrants. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to appear, the staffers say appearing before the inquiry "would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability". Mr Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. "The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament," Mr Roberts said. Controversial protest legislation was rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, anti-Semitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's northwest on January 19. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately dubbed it. It later emerged to be a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. The premier on Thursday attacked the upper house for "on a routine basis" trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "almost like they're criminals and under investigation, or they should front some kind of Star Chamber inquiry". "And if not, they're under threat of arrest," he said. As members of the lower house, Mr Minns and Ms Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. Staffers, however, can be forced to appear. The committee believes they were present during police briefings to the ministers. Another staffer named in the motion, Mr Minns' deputy chief of staff Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee as he was on leave at the time and did not attend any meetings. The committee will ask the upper house president, independent Ben Franklin, to go to the NSW Supreme Court and seek warrants for their arrest. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including parliamentary hearings, press conferences and question time. Five senior government staffers face possible arrest in a dramatic escalation of a probe examining officials' knowledge about an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. The high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley failed to appear as summonsed on Friday at an upper house inquiry. Committee chair independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers on Friday before the committee set in motion a process to seek arrest warrants. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to appear, the staffers say appearing before the inquiry "would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability". Mr Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. "The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament," Mr Roberts said. Controversial protest legislation was rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, anti-Semitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's northwest on January 19. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately dubbed it. It later emerged to be a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. The premier on Thursday attacked the upper house for "on a routine basis" trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "almost like they're criminals and under investigation, or they should front some kind of Star Chamber inquiry". "And if not, they're under threat of arrest," he said. As members of the lower house, Mr Minns and Ms Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. Staffers, however, can be forced to appear. The committee believes they were present during police briefings to the ministers. Another staffer named in the motion, Mr Minns' deputy chief of staff Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee as he was on leave at the time and did not attend any meetings. The committee will ask the upper house president, independent Ben Franklin, to go to the NSW Supreme Court and seek warrants for their arrest. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including parliamentary hearings, press conferences and question time.
