NSW premier was guided by police when he characterised explosive-laden caravan as terrorism, Minns' team says
On Friday, five staffers from the offices of the NSW premier, Chris Minns, and the police minister, Yasmin Catley, appeared before the inquiry after they were threatened with arrest for failing to attend last week.
The inquiry – launched with the support of the Coalition, the Greens and crossbench MLCs – is examining the handling of information about the caravan plot amid concerns parliament may have been 'misled' before controversial laws aimed at curbing antisemitism were rushed through parliament.
After police announced in January that a caravan had been found laden with explosives at a residential property in Dural, in greater Sydney, Minns said it had the potential to be a 'mass casualty event', and that 'there is only one way of calling it out, and that is terrorism'. But in March, the Australian federal police revealed they believed it was a 'con job' by organised crime figures seeking to divert police resources and influence prosecutions.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Minns' chief of staff, James Cullen, appeared alongside two of Minns' deputy chiefs of staff, Edward Ovadia and Sarah Michael. The police minister's chief of staff, Ross Neilson, and deputy chief of staff, Tilly South, also appeared.
But it was mainly Cullen who came under intense questioning by the committee.
Cullen told the hearing that the premier characterised the incident as a terrorist attack during a press conference on 29 January, shortly after the incident was leaked to the media, because that was 'the language and the briefing the police provided the premier'. He said the same was true for Minns labelling it a 'potentially mass casualty event'.
'The language 'potential mass casualty event', was not a line dreamed up by the premier. It was in briefings from New South Wales police provided to the government, provided to the premier,' he said.
Cullen then reminded the inquiry that the deputy police commissioner, David Hudson, had made it clear during the same press conference, and also during an appearance on 2GB the following day, that there were alternative lines of inquiry.
Independent MP and chair of the inquiry, Rod Roberts, responded to this by asking why the premier did not tell the public there were other possibilities, saying: 'Now I watched that news, and I believed what the premier told me. I believed it right. He says there's no alternative to terrorism at that stage.'
He also pointed out that neither Hudson, nor the then police commissioner Karen Webb used the word terrorism when describing the event.
Cullen asserted the premier's comments were 'based on the latest advice from police, and which was... there was a [joint counter-terrorism team] investigation looking at a potential mass casualty event, and there was lines of inquiry in relation to that'.
'I just think there's a very convenient rewriting of history here and squashing of time and of concepts.'
Cullen did not directly answer multiple follow-up questions about what the premier was briefed in regards to alternative lines of investigation, saying it involves a 'delicate investigation'.
'Put it this way, there were … alternative lines of investigation that were clearly being explored, early on, and really didn't, for want of a better term, get shaken out until the 21st of February,' he said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
The inquiry heard in earlier evidence during a hearing in May that the briefings between police and cabinet ministers about the incident was 'pens down'. Cullen, after questioning from Nationals MP Wes Fang, said he wouldn't characterise it as such and that no one instructed for it to be so.
Fang later asked how a meeting where the premier was being briefed 'on a potential terrorism episode' in which his office did not keep notes was responsive to the State Records Act.
Cullen asserted that Minns' office didn't breach the act because it wasn't a decision-making meeting.
Following questions by Labor MP Bob Nanva, Cullen agreed it would have been 'irresponsible' to not treat the caravan incident as a 'potentially mass casualty' event given that it was being investigated by the joint counter-terrorism investigation.
Cullen told the hearing that the legislation aimed at curbing antisemitism – which was passed on 21 February, the day police said they ruled out the Dural caravan as a terrorism event although they had not yet made this public – did not relate to the alleged terrorism event.
'There were a lot of things going on for an extended period of time. I mean, these conversations didn't start on the 19th of January, the 20th of January or the 29th of January,' he told the hearing.
Cullen was also grilled by Greens MP Sue Higginson on whether the premier had instructed the five staffers to not attend the inquiry.
Last Tuesday, days before the staffers did not appear and were then threatened with arrest, Minns told 2GB 'we've had extensive discussions with them about it, but I don't want them to'.
Cullen said: 'There was absolutely no formal [or] informal direction from the premier. I must be really clear about that.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
Explosive and chemical experts attend Basildon property
Police have said they are working alongside explosives and chemicals experts after items were discovered at a had initially attended the property in Britten Avenue, Basildon, for what they said were unrelated were making all items safe and there was no threat to the public, Essex Police services remained in the area. Police did not elaborate on the nature of the items. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Four-day work week? Six weeks of holidays? Australians have a choice about how to bank productivity gains
One of the ideas that has captured many peoples' attention amid the flurry of proposals ahead of the economic roundtable is the Australian Council of Trade Unions' vision of a four-day working week. The peak union body argued that working less could actually be productivity enhancing, although the studies behind those claims aren't too rigorous. While many Australians would certainly welcome a three-day weekend, Jim Chalmers has made it clear that working towards a national four-day working week is not on the government's agenda, while reaffirming Labor's commitment to flexible work. Employer groups have been scathing, and it's not likely to be a big discussion point on day two of the three-day roundtable. Clearly not on board with the treasurer's 'open hearts and open minds' approach to this week's talkfest, the Australian Industry Group's chief executive, Innes Willox, called the four-day working week idea 'another populist, anti-productivity thought bubble'. Willox calculated that at the current dismal rate of productivity growth it would take 26 years to get to the point where we could drop a day's work without going backwards economically. But as the ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, explained to the Conversation's Michelle Grattan: the labour movement doesn't expect a revolution in the working week to happen overnight. 'To be clear, we weren't asking for a change to the workplace laws for the government to do something,' McManus said. 'We were raising this in the context of a discussion both around productivity and around AI as an important part of the distribution of the benefits of productivity growth or, for that matter, productivity growth out of less jobs, out of AI.' The longer arc of Australian history has been towards shorter working weeks and longer holidays. But that progress stopped a few decades back, settling on the current set-up of a 38-hour full-time job, two-day weekend and four weeks' paid leave. But there has been progress in other ways (assuming 'progress' is working less – many believe hard work is an end in and of itself). For example, since the turn of the century, the share of full-time employed Australians who say they work longer than 50 hours weekly has gone from 25% to 15%. Meanwhile, part-time work has flourished, fed in particular by a surge in women entering the jobs market. (Which means households overall are probably working harder.) Since the turn of the century, the female employment to working-age population ratio has climbed from 50% to over 60%, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (The equivalent workforce participation rate for men is just under 68% and hasn't moved much over 25 years.) Of course, the working from home phenomenon that emerged with Covid has been a revolution for many, particularly working families. Thankfully, employers are on board and hybrid work looks set to stay. But to many Australians juggling work and other commitments, time still feels like the greatest luxury. In which case, why shouldn't the reward for lifting productivity growth be fewer working hours for the same pay? Some fascinating research earlier this year by Rusha Das, an economist at the Productivity Commission, showed we would have a three-day working week today if we had collectively decided in 1980 to spend all the productivity gains of the following decades on leisure time instead of higher incomes. Das calculated that Australians used only a quarter of the productivity 'dividend' from the past 40-plus years to work less, while we banked the remaining three-quarters as higher income. 'We have largely traded it for higher incomes, and more and better stuff,' she said. One of the great things about a more efficient and dynamic economy is that it can give us more choices about what we want to do – how much more we want to buy, how much more we want to work and how much more we want to devote to family, hobbies or helping others. This may be getting ahead of ourselves – we have to raise our economic speed limit before we decide how much faster we want to drive. But we'd be mad to limit our thinking to the notion higher productivity is all about generating more income. The ACTU's four-day work week proposal is a good reminder of that.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
More than two-thirds of NSW public land suitable for housing sold to private developers
The New South Wales government has sold more than two-thirds of publicly owned sites identified as surplus and suitable for housing to private developers as a result of its much-vaunted statewide property audit. Many sites are being sold without requirements for social or affordable housing. Despite a Labor policy directing that government land suitable for housing should be prioritised for public housing, Homes NSW has bought just three of the 55 sites that have been identified for sale. It is now in the planning stage to construct 208 homes. It has expressed interest in a further seven sites. 'Homes NSW and Landcom have a first right of refusal on all sites identified as part of the land audit. Approximately a third of all sites identified have been transferred to or are currently undergoing due diligence by Homes NSW or Landcom,' a spokesperson for the Department of Lands said in a statement. Another way of putting it: more than two-thirds of the land is going to private developers. 'It's increasingly clear that this land audit is actually a scam – and it's those struggling with the housing crisis who will suffer from this broken promise,' the NSW Greens MP Jenny Leong said. 'What was an election commitment to identity public land in order to deliver more social and affordable housing has been exposed for what it really is – a systematic way of selling off public land to the highest bidder with no requirement for any social or affordable housing,' she said. The sale of surplus land is part of the Minns Labor government's plan to deliver up to 30,000 homes through the $6.6bn Building Homes for NSW program announced in the 2024-25 budget. Sign up: AU Breaking News email The government promised to build 8,400 new public homes and a further 21,000 affordable and market-rate homes. But progress has been slow. Leong said not a single new home has been built two years into the program. Despite the acute shortage of public housing and long waiting lists, the government had disposed of livable homes to the private sector. For example, three terrace houses in Rozelle, which were acquired during by Roads and Maritime during the building of WestConnex, were sold off to the private market in April. They sold for between $1.6m and $2.33m. A review of government sales by the Guardian found that most of the vacant land being sold by the Minns government is going to private sector developers, with no firm requirements for social or affordable housing as part of the terms of sale. The sites included: The dive site for WestConnex at Camperdown will not have any social or affordable housing, although the project will earmark 230 units for essential worker homes out of a likely 600 units, because of its proximity to the Royal Prince Alfred hospital. A site at 164 Talavera Road, Marsfield, also owned by Roads and Maritime, was sold for $4.4m to a developer for high-density development. The agent on the sale, Ray White's Peter Vines, said there was no requirement for social or affordable housing. The buyer intends to build student accommodation, he said. A major site at 870 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill, not far from the new metro station, is at the tender stage. The CBRE agent Ben Wicks said there were no firm requirements from the government about levels of social and affordable housing. Bidders had been invited to put in multiple proposals that included social and affordable housing as well as build-to-rent projects, he said. A spokesperson for the minister for lands and property, Steve Kamper, said: 'The land audit has so far identified surplus government sites capable of delivering more than 9,000 homes. 'Any proceeds from surplus government sites developed into housing by the private sector will be directed back into the construction of new public housing.' But this is not as it seems. Leong insisted that she has been told that a Treasury policy requires land sale proceeds to be returned to the department that owned the land – often the roads, education or health departments. NSW Homes clarified that 'the sale of any private housing on these sites will be used to build public housing'. At this stage the amount of money it has received is 'nil'. At the 2022 NSW Labor policy conference, 800 delegates unanimously endorsed an ambitious public housing program. It committed the state Labor party to introducing laws banning 'the sale, leasing, or outsourcing of any public housing assets or services'. The resolution also required Labor to increase the number of public dwellings 'at a rate exceeding private developments'. In the lead-up to the March state election, Labor promised residents of Sydney's Redfern and Waterloo public housing estates that a Minns government would tear up the Coalition government's plans to redevelop these estates. After taking the reins, however, the premier, Chris Minns, sought to redefine his election commitments. As he explained, his promise to 'freeze the sale of all public and social housing' didn't mean freezing existing plans to demolish an entire estate at Waterloo and rebuild it with the private sector. Instead he would improve it by ensuring that 30% of units remained social housing. Announcing the policy of selling off surplus land for housing in May 2023, Minns said his objective was to ensure each new block would include 30% social, affordable or inclusive housing. 'It's not privatisation even by the loosest definition of it,' he said. 'We were very consistent and clear about our plans in relation to government land prior to the last election,' he said. Homes NSW has acquired some sites and there will be some new public housing built. The historic Clothing Store at Eveleigh, near Redfern, will be developed by Homes NSW into 500 units with 50% public housing. Two sites at Box Hill and Riverstone will be transferred to Homes NSW for potential development of almost 50 social and affordable homes and more than 35 market homes. The government said a further nine sites across Sydney and three sites in regional NSW have been identified for future housing development by either Landcom or in partnership with the private sector, to allow the estimated delivery of more than 1300 market and affordable homes. But Landcom developments do not necessarily deliver affordable housing options, with its brief being to act as a publicly owned commercial developer. 'If the NSW Labor government won't even build public housing on public land that they already own, where will they build it?' Leong said. 'Instead of identifying publicly owned land on which to deliver homes, NSW Labor has simply identified more things they want to flog off – this isn't an 'audit' so much as a stocktake sale.'
