NSW upper house president seeks advice from Bret Walker over possible political staffer arrests
Ben Franklin is expected to reveal on Tuesday whether he intends to seek arrest warrants from the NSW supreme court for five staffers who were summoned to appear before the inquiry on Friday, but did not attend. Three are from the office of the premier, Chris Minns, and two work for the police minister, Yasmin Catley.
According to sources with knowledge of the situation, Franklin has sought advice from leading senior counsel Walker, who represented George Pell in his appeal to the high court and former attorney general Christian Porter in his defamation case against the ABC.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Under the Parliamentary Evidence Act, if the president is satisfied that the five staffers failed to appear without just cause or reasonable excuse, the matter will be referred to a judge of the supreme court.
If the judge agrees, then warrants would be issued, the staffers arrested and brought before the committee to give evidence.
The standoff between the premier's office and an upper house inquiry into Minns' handling of the Dural caravan incident has inflamed simmering tensions between the premier and the upper house.
There is a long-standing precedent that members of the legislative assembly cannot be compelled to appear before the upper house and vice versa, but the question of whether staff from a minister's office can be compelled is heavily contested.
'They are staff employed by the executive. If the legislative council can't scrutinise employees of executive government, of a minister's office, we might as well go to the beach,' independent upper house MP, Mark Latham, said.
Constitutional law expert Prof Anne Twomey, from Sydney University, suggested that the right to refuse to appear may also extend to ministerial staff.
Twomey pointed to the principle that members can't be compelled by the other house and the well-established principle of ministerial responsibility, with questions in parliament providing an avenue for other MPs to seek information of ministers.
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 whether parliament was 'misled' before controversial laws aimed at curbing antisemitism were rushed through parliament.
In January, after it was announced that the caravan had been found in Dural laden with explosives, Minns said it had the potential to be a 'mass casualty event'. 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.
The inquiry was told that the briefings on the matter were 'pens down' meetings and no notes were taken. They have since sought to summons staff to determine who knew what and when.
More staff from the NSW premier's office are facing summonses and the threat of arrest if they do not agree to appear at a second upper house inquiry, intensifying the standoff between the NSW upper house and the Minns government.
A second committee is currently considering responses to requests that premier's staff appear to answer questions about the $37.6m Local Small Community Allocations program.
Minns' chief of staff, James Cullen, has agreed to appear, but others more intimately involved with the grants program are believed to have raised concerns about appearing.
The little-known grants program has come under scrutiny. Although it gave equal allocations of $400,000 to each of the 93 NSW electorates, its detractors allege Labor candidates were asked to nominate how it would be spent, effectively turning it into a pork barrelling exercise to benefit Labor.
The upper house has already expressed its anger about the slow pace of the government in producing documents about this program to the upper house.
It took the rare step in late May of censuring the leader of the government in the upper house, Penny Sharpe, over the tardy production of documents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why are some Australian farmers losing faith in peak agricultural bodies to represent their interests?
Last September, a leaked email revealed the National Farmers' Federation had directed members to stay silent about the putative health risks from paraquat, a widely used herbicide. Some farmers rebelled. Among them was Mirboo North grower and grazier Emma Germano, who was then the president of the Victorian Farmers Federation. Germano broke ranks with the NFF to support the farmers who'd been vilified for speaking out about clusters of Parkinson's disease, which they believed to be linked to paraquat use on farms. (Manufacturer Syngenta, which has partnerships with NFF, denies any link.) 'These people are suffering,' Germano told the ABC's AM program. 'They're asking a question. For that to be shut down, when these are people who have been diligently part of our industry, salt-of-the-earth farmers – that, to me, is inexcusable.' Germano's stance revealed a growing discontent with peak bodies in Australia's fragmented agriculture sector. Some farmers believe peak bodies advocate for agribusiness interests over those of grassroots farmers. In niche and nascent sectors especially, farmers say they don't feel represented by Australia's 50 farming organisations, which range from regulators and statutory bodies to commodity groups, industry associations and farmers federations. The latter have faced declining memberships for decades. Andrew Meseha, whose companies grow hemp in Deniliquin, Shepparton and South Gippsland, says farm bodies cannot advocate for farmers while sponsored by corporations and aligned with specific political parties. 'The chemical companies are in every pocket,' he says. Meseha believes consequent farmer discontent accounts for the rising influence of independent rural MPs and the advent of non-partisan, issue-based collectives such as Lock the Gate and Farmers for Climate Action (FCA). Sign up to receive Guardian Australia's fortnightly Rural Network email newsletter Founded in 2010, Lock the Gate says it has 120,000 supporters, and decade-old FCA claims it has 45,000 supporters and more than 8,400 members. By comparison, state federations and associations – some more than a century old with huge legacy capital – report membership bases from about 3,500 in Western Australia and about 19,000 in New South Wales. The NFF accepts only organisational members – a structure Germano says privileges 'special interests, factions and commodity groups', and generates 'a huge amount of overlap' with state federations. 'It's a pyramid scheme without the Tupperware,' she says. The NFF president, David Jochinke, who was previously the president of the VFF, says the structure of agricultural organisations has been 'a topic of discussion for decades' and should continue to be so 'to make sure we have the best system to ensure agriculture and farmers are heard'. 'We recognise that the agricultural landscape is changing, and with it the expectations of how peak bodies engage, advocate and represent grassroots voices,' he says. This week, the NFF chief executive, Troy Williams, resigned after three months in the job, citing 'personal reasons'. Consumed with infighting, the VFF lost about 400 members in the year before the paraquat showdown – partly attributable to corporatisation and mergers of farms. Farm sizes have swelled, meaning fewer individual farmers to represent, with the number of Australian broadacre and dairy farms declining by a third in the last 25 years. Increasing automation has also reduced the sector's workforce – a dragnet of occupations that includes pickers and processors, as well as fishing and forestry labourers – to only 2.1% of Australia's working population, represented largely by unions, not peak farm bodies. Farmers – a famously individualistic sector – don't tend to collectively organise in union style. But first-generation farmers are increasingly looking to 'collective action solutions that peak bodies could embrace', says horticulturist and 'agvocate' Lisa Brassington. These bodies could 'depoliticise the messages and reach out to the commons', she says. Politicking by farm bodies can stoke populist myths about urban-rural divides, with the 'latte line' and 'quinoa belt' rhetoric sometimes deployed, but Brassington says fire and flood relief donors are largely 'from urban and township postcodes', showing broad solidarity and goodwill. 'Natural and financial crises create a loss of autonomy' for farmers and peak bodies 'have a time-sensitive role' to support 'collective interests', she says. Claiming to amplify the voices of farmers, aspiring social media influencers such as FOALS (Future of Agricultural Leadership) are emerging. Agricultural influencers are also a growth industry. But many influencers reiterate divisive messaging and can't effectively advocate because they don't have the established bodies' governance structures and transparency obligations, says Brassington. Furthermore, issues for farmers remain mostly 'similar to previous generations – drought, flood, roads, labour, supply chains, and profit margins', alongside 'succession planning, affording technology and water rights' and mental health. Much advocacy for the latter is carried by charities such as Farm Angels and Rural Doctors Foundation, and university research outfits such as AgHealth. Sign up to The Rural Network Subscribe to Calla Wahlquist's fortnightly update on Australian rural and regional affairs after newsletter promotion Germano believes farm bodies need to modernise and reform their profligate cultures if they want to retain grassroots members. 'Peak state organisations mirror National party branches from long ago, when they served men from the landed gentry,' she says. A third of Australia's farmers are now women, yet women 'can't step outside the status quo' inside federations, she says. 'They're still old boys' clubs.' Jochinke says the NFF's national advocacy model is 'proudly member-driven and we are actively working with our member organisations to shape a modernised, effective approach'. Germano led the VFF's split from the NFF in September, after the NFF didn't consult with Victorian sheep farmers before staging a Coalition-partnered Canberra rally against the phase-out of live exports. She believes such tactics are undemocratic and outdated – promoting myths that farmers are indifferent to animal welfare and 'that the big war is against animal activists'. 'The live sheep ban was advocated most strongly by meatworkers unions who wanted meat locally processed,' she says. Negotiating with diverse interest groups achieves better policy outcomes for farmers and the broader community. To advocate effectively, farm bodies need 'better governance, independence and listening – discipline, culture, restructure', says Germano. 'They need to ask: do we stand for farmers or do we stand for agribusiness? These are different things and are often at cross purposes.' Jochinke says the NFF 'reject the notion that peak bodies prioritise agribusiness over grassroots concerns'. 'Our recent work, such as opposing the biosecurity levy, securing bipartisan support for a national food security plan, and advocating for fair environmental and tax policies, demonstrates our commitment to representing the interests of everyday farmers.' Katherine Wilson is a writer and freelance journalist from the Yarra Ranges in Victoria Sign up for the Rural Network email newsletter
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
NSW supreme court rules in favour of pro-Palestine march across Sydney Harbour Bridge
Pro-Palestinian protesters will be legally protected while marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday after a New South Wales supreme court decision. The Palestine Action Group has claimed as many as 50,000 people will take part in the march across the iconic bridge, protesting against Israel's conduct in Gaza and the starvation of children. Earlier this week, police rejected an application from organisers for it to facilitate the march. Police argued there was not enough time to prepare a traffic management plan and warned of a potential crowd crush and huge disruptions. Once the application, known as 'a form 1' was rejected by police, the supreme court was required to decide whether the protest should be considered as 'authorised', which provides some legal protections to demonstrators. The court ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the summary offences act. This includes protection from offences like 'obstructing' traffic – crucial in this particular protest. However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem so-called 'anti-social behaviour' or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols. David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation 'doesn't give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism'. 'It's really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.' There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication. The Palestinian Action Group's lawyer, Felicity Graham, told the court on Friday that organisers would proceed with the demonstration regardless of the decision. 'I have the firmest of instructions that Palestine Action Group are proceeding with this protest … it cannot be stopped,' Graham said. Graham said her argument was not to threaten the court, but to point out 'the police have no choice' and there was no evidence prohibiting the protest would increase public safety. 'The intention to march, irrespective of an immunity, is grounded in a belief that the situation is one of profound moral urgency and that the time is now,' she said. A spokesperson for the group, Josh Lees, said they were willing to delay protest by up to three weeks if the police were willing to work with them. The police's barrister Lachlan Gyles argued that what was being asked was 'unprecedented' in terms of the 'risk, the lack of time to prepare, and, of course, the location, which is one of the main arteries in one of the largest cities in the world'. 'There's been no liaison whatsoever with any of the agencies and government authorities who would be involved, most particularly Transport for New South Wales,' he said. The decision came after several NSW Labor MPs defied their premier, Chris Minns, by vowing to attend the march. Labor's Stephen Lawrence, Anthony D'Adam, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy and Sarah Kaine were among 15 NSW politicians who signed an open letter on Thursday evening calling on the government to facilitate 'a safe and orderly event' on Sunday
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Family of boy sexually groomed by Sydney Swans Junior Academy Coach to sue the AFL club in multimillion-dollar legal battle
The Sydney Swans are facing a multimillion‑dollar legal claim over the sexual grooming of a junior player by a former development coach. The boy's father lodged proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court last month, alleging the club failed to protect his son from convicted offender Mark Heaney. The claim follows a separate lawsuit filed by the son in December. According to a Supreme Court writ, Heaney was accused of 'pressing his penis against the boy when teaching him how to hold a football, stripping naked in front of him, watching him while he was showering, sending explicit photos and instigating sexualised conversations'. Heaney coached at the Swans' Junior Academy between 2011 and 2013. In 2014, he was jailed for 12 months after pleading guilty to grooming a child using a carriage service. Police arrested him during a sting operation posing as a child online. The father says he has lived with ongoing trauma since learning of the grooming. He claims the incident has deeply affected his mental health and relationship with his son. 'It has been a hard road for me and my son since the [grooming],' he told News Corp. 'I'm angry nobody from the Swans or the AFL ever had the decency to contact us and apologise or take responsibility or offer counselling.' The son says the grooming ended his dream of playing AFL. 'I was just a kid chasing a dream, and that dream was shattered,' he said. 'This case is about accountability … and making sure no other child carries this kind of silence.' Their lawyer, Cameron Doig from Arnold Thomas & Becker, said the father is seeking damages for 'nervous shock' - trauma caused by discovering his son's grooming. Mr Doig said his clients have struggled with anxiety, sleeplessness and fractured family bonds. Both father and son's lawsuits allege the Swans failed to provide a safe environment for young players. The Swans confirmed Heaney was employed casually from 2011 to 2013 but declined further comment while the matter is before the court.
