Veteran takes last shot to overturn war crime findings
One of Australia's most decorated soldiers has seized a final chance to clear his name of war crime allegations by taking the fight to the nation's highest court.
Ben Roberts-Smith sued Nine newspapers for defamation over reports in 2018 that claimed he was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Justice Anthony Besanko in 2023 found the claims were substantially true and his findings were upheld by the Federal Court in May after the soldier launched an unsuccessful appeal.
But Roberts-Smith, who maintains his innocence, lodged an application on Monday for special leave to appeal both decisions.
The former soldier maintains the war crimes claims did not meet the exceptional degree of cogency required for such serious allegations.
"The findings brand the applicant a serial war criminal, a criminal condemnation of the most ruinous kind, yet they were reached in civil proceedings absent the criminal trial safeguards," his lawyers wrote in the application.
The findings rest on "inconsistent and memory-impaired recollections" adduced more than a decade after the event that were erroneously preferred over "exculpatory" operational records, they argued.
While acknowledging the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard, Roberts-Smith's lawyers say the gravity of the offences required an equivalent standard of proof.
"Allegations of war crimes cannot be upheld in civil proceedings unless proved to the exacting degree of cogency that (the Evidence Act) unequivocally demands," they said.
The Victoria Cross recipient has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing.
Roberts-Smith claims the Federal Court also made an error in assuming he had accepted some allegations which were not re-contested during the appeal.
That acceptance was used to bolster the conclusions he was responsible for the murder of four civilians, his lawyers contend.
The former SAS corporal is asking for the Federal Court's decision to be overturned and Nine to be ordered to pay his costs for the trial, appeal and High Court contest.
The costs of the 110-day trial and the 10-day appeal are estimated to exceed $30 million.
The High Court will consider the special leave application and might not announce a decision for weeks.
Roberts-Smith was in 2011 awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.
Later named Australian Father of the Year, his reputation was tarnished by Nine's explosive reports in 2018 alleging he was complicit in war crimes.
One of the allegations taken to be proven on the balance of probabilities was that Roberts-Smith ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to "blood the rookie" during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
"The problem for (Roberts-Smith) is that, unlike most homicides, there were three eyewitnesses to this murder," the Federal Court judges said in their appeal decision.
"When all is said and done, it is a rare murder that is witnessed by three independent witnesses."
Lifeline 13 11 14
Open Arms 1800 011 046
One of Australia's most decorated soldiers has seized a final chance to clear his name of war crime allegations by taking the fight to the nation's highest court.
Ben Roberts-Smith sued Nine newspapers for defamation over reports in 2018 that claimed he was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Justice Anthony Besanko in 2023 found the claims were substantially true and his findings were upheld by the Federal Court in May after the soldier launched an unsuccessful appeal.
But Roberts-Smith, who maintains his innocence, lodged an application on Monday for special leave to appeal both decisions.
The former soldier maintains the war crimes claims did not meet the exceptional degree of cogency required for such serious allegations.
"The findings brand the applicant a serial war criminal, a criminal condemnation of the most ruinous kind, yet they were reached in civil proceedings absent the criminal trial safeguards," his lawyers wrote in the application.
The findings rest on "inconsistent and memory-impaired recollections" adduced more than a decade after the event that were erroneously preferred over "exculpatory" operational records, they argued.
While acknowledging the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard, Roberts-Smith's lawyers say the gravity of the offences required an equivalent standard of proof.
"Allegations of war crimes cannot be upheld in civil proceedings unless proved to the exacting degree of cogency that (the Evidence Act) unequivocally demands," they said.
The Victoria Cross recipient has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing.
Roberts-Smith claims the Federal Court also made an error in assuming he had accepted some allegations which were not re-contested during the appeal.
That acceptance was used to bolster the conclusions he was responsible for the murder of four civilians, his lawyers contend.
The former SAS corporal is asking for the Federal Court's decision to be overturned and Nine to be ordered to pay his costs for the trial, appeal and High Court contest.
The costs of the 110-day trial and the 10-day appeal are estimated to exceed $30 million.
The High Court will consider the special leave application and might not announce a decision for weeks.
Roberts-Smith was in 2011 awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.
Later named Australian Father of the Year, his reputation was tarnished by Nine's explosive reports in 2018 alleging he was complicit in war crimes.
One of the allegations taken to be proven on the balance of probabilities was that Roberts-Smith ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to "blood the rookie" during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
"The problem for (Roberts-Smith) is that, unlike most homicides, there were three eyewitnesses to this murder," the Federal Court judges said in their appeal decision.
"When all is said and done, it is a rare murder that is witnessed by three independent witnesses."
Lifeline 13 11 14
Open Arms 1800 011 046
One of Australia's most decorated soldiers has seized a final chance to clear his name of war crime allegations by taking the fight to the nation's highest court.
Ben Roberts-Smith sued Nine newspapers for defamation over reports in 2018 that claimed he was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Justice Anthony Besanko in 2023 found the claims were substantially true and his findings were upheld by the Federal Court in May after the soldier launched an unsuccessful appeal.
But Roberts-Smith, who maintains his innocence, lodged an application on Monday for special leave to appeal both decisions.
The former soldier maintains the war crimes claims did not meet the exceptional degree of cogency required for such serious allegations.
"The findings brand the applicant a serial war criminal, a criminal condemnation of the most ruinous kind, yet they were reached in civil proceedings absent the criminal trial safeguards," his lawyers wrote in the application.
The findings rest on "inconsistent and memory-impaired recollections" adduced more than a decade after the event that were erroneously preferred over "exculpatory" operational records, they argued.
While acknowledging the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard, Roberts-Smith's lawyers say the gravity of the offences required an equivalent standard of proof.
"Allegations of war crimes cannot be upheld in civil proceedings unless proved to the exacting degree of cogency that (the Evidence Act) unequivocally demands," they said.
The Victoria Cross recipient has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing.
Roberts-Smith claims the Federal Court also made an error in assuming he had accepted some allegations which were not re-contested during the appeal.
That acceptance was used to bolster the conclusions he was responsible for the murder of four civilians, his lawyers contend.
The former SAS corporal is asking for the Federal Court's decision to be overturned and Nine to be ordered to pay his costs for the trial, appeal and High Court contest.
The costs of the 110-day trial and the 10-day appeal are estimated to exceed $30 million.
The High Court will consider the special leave application and might not announce a decision for weeks.
Roberts-Smith was in 2011 awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.
Later named Australian Father of the Year, his reputation was tarnished by Nine's explosive reports in 2018 alleging he was complicit in war crimes.
One of the allegations taken to be proven on the balance of probabilities was that Roberts-Smith ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to "blood the rookie" during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
"The problem for (Roberts-Smith) is that, unlike most homicides, there were three eyewitnesses to this murder," the Federal Court judges said in their appeal decision.
"When all is said and done, it is a rare murder that is witnessed by three independent witnesses."
Lifeline 13 11 14
Open Arms 1800 011 046
One of Australia's most decorated soldiers has seized a final chance to clear his name of war crime allegations by taking the fight to the nation's highest court.
Ben Roberts-Smith sued Nine newspapers for defamation over reports in 2018 that claimed he was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Justice Anthony Besanko in 2023 found the claims were substantially true and his findings were upheld by the Federal Court in May after the soldier launched an unsuccessful appeal.
But Roberts-Smith, who maintains his innocence, lodged an application on Monday for special leave to appeal both decisions.
The former soldier maintains the war crimes claims did not meet the exceptional degree of cogency required for such serious allegations.
"The findings brand the applicant a serial war criminal, a criminal condemnation of the most ruinous kind, yet they were reached in civil proceedings absent the criminal trial safeguards," his lawyers wrote in the application.
The findings rest on "inconsistent and memory-impaired recollections" adduced more than a decade after the event that were erroneously preferred over "exculpatory" operational records, they argued.
While acknowledging the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities rather than the higher criminal standard, Roberts-Smith's lawyers say the gravity of the offences required an equivalent standard of proof.
"Allegations of war crimes cannot be upheld in civil proceedings unless proved to the exacting degree of cogency that (the Evidence Act) unequivocally demands," they said.
The Victoria Cross recipient has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing.
Roberts-Smith claims the Federal Court also made an error in assuming he had accepted some allegations which were not re-contested during the appeal.
That acceptance was used to bolster the conclusions he was responsible for the murder of four civilians, his lawyers contend.
The former SAS corporal is asking for the Federal Court's decision to be overturned and Nine to be ordered to pay his costs for the trial, appeal and High Court contest.
The costs of the 110-day trial and the 10-day appeal are estimated to exceed $30 million.
The High Court will consider the special leave application and might not announce a decision for weeks.
Roberts-Smith was in 2011 awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.
Later named Australian Father of the Year, his reputation was tarnished by Nine's explosive reports in 2018 alleging he was complicit in war crimes.
One of the allegations taken to be proven on the balance of probabilities was that Roberts-Smith ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to "blood the rookie" during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
"The problem for (Roberts-Smith) is that, unlike most homicides, there were three eyewitnesses to this murder," the Federal Court judges said in their appeal decision.
"When all is said and done, it is a rare murder that is witnessed by three independent witnesses."
Lifeline 13 11 14
Open Arms 1800 011 046
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
Footscray man dies after alleged assault by released immigration detainee
A 62-year-old man has died in hospital from injuries he sustained after an alleged serious assault in Melbourne's inner west last weekend. The man was taken to hospital and placed on life support after he was allegedly assaulted at the intersection of Nicholson and Paisley streets in Footscray on Sunday morning. Police arrested Friday Yokoju after the assault, charging him with intentionally causing serious injury. A Victoria Police spokesperson said investigators would now consider alternate charges following the man's death. The ABC understands the 43-year-old was released from immigration detention after a 2023 High Court ruling sometimes referred to as NZYQ. The court set aside an earlier judgement that ruled indefinite immigration was lawful, which triggered the release of about 140 detainees, including Mr Yokoju. Mr Yokoju had been remanded in custody after an initial court hearing on Monday over the assault, where his lawyer requested an urgent psychiatric assessment. He had previously remained in the community on a bridging visa while the Department of Home Affairs worked on his deportation. He is next expected to face the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in October.
The Advertiser
a day ago
- The Advertiser
Empty chairs spark bid to arrest premier's senior staff
Five senior government staffers could face arrest after failing to appear at an inquiry into an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. In a dramatic escalation of an otherwise routine inquiry, the process to arrest the high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley was set in motion on Friday after the quintet declined to appear. Committee chair and independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers before approaching upper house president Ben Franklin to seek arrest warrants. Mr Roberts said the president was non-committal when asked to go to the Supreme Court for the warrants, but Mr Franklin had a "very important and very crucial decision". "All along, Labor has tried to stonewall, delay and ridicule this important inquiry," fellow committee member John Ruddick said on social media. Agreeing to pursue the warrants could come with a personal awkwardness for Mr Franklin, given he is the godfather of the premier's second child. Arrest warrants can be issued to force a witness to attend an inquiry while witnesses who refuse to answer questions can face jail time. NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said the failure of Mr Minns' staff to appear at the probe into controversial protest and hate speech legislation indicated the premier might have breached corruption rules. "If the premier has given a direction to staff to disobey a lawful requirement to appear, that would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code," he said. The protest and speech laws were 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 it was a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to attend, 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. Mr Minns attacked the upper house on Thursday for trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "on a routine basis" - "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. But staffers can be forced to appear. 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 because he was on leave at the time and did not attend meetings. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including at parliamentary hearings and press conferences and during question time. Five senior government staffers could face arrest after failing to appear at an inquiry into an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. In a dramatic escalation of an otherwise routine inquiry, the process to arrest the high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley was set in motion on Friday after the quintet declined to appear. Committee chair and independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers before approaching upper house president Ben Franklin to seek arrest warrants. Mr Roberts said the president was non-committal when asked to go to the Supreme Court for the warrants, but Mr Franklin had a "very important and very crucial decision". "All along, Labor has tried to stonewall, delay and ridicule this important inquiry," fellow committee member John Ruddick said on social media. Agreeing to pursue the warrants could come with a personal awkwardness for Mr Franklin, given he is the godfather of the premier's second child. Arrest warrants can be issued to force a witness to attend an inquiry while witnesses who refuse to answer questions can face jail time. NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said the failure of Mr Minns' staff to appear at the probe into controversial protest and hate speech legislation indicated the premier might have breached corruption rules. "If the premier has given a direction to staff to disobey a lawful requirement to appear, that would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code," he said. The protest and speech laws were 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 it was a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to attend, 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. Mr Minns attacked the upper house on Thursday for trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "on a routine basis" - "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. But staffers can be forced to appear. 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 because he was on leave at the time and did not attend meetings. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including at parliamentary hearings and press conferences and during question time. Five senior government staffers could face arrest after failing to appear at an inquiry into an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. In a dramatic escalation of an otherwise routine inquiry, the process to arrest the high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley was set in motion on Friday after the quintet declined to appear. Committee chair and independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers before approaching upper house president Ben Franklin to seek arrest warrants. Mr Roberts said the president was non-committal when asked to go to the Supreme Court for the warrants, but Mr Franklin had a "very important and very crucial decision". "All along, Labor has tried to stonewall, delay and ridicule this important inquiry," fellow committee member John Ruddick said on social media. Agreeing to pursue the warrants could come with a personal awkwardness for Mr Franklin, given he is the godfather of the premier's second child. Arrest warrants can be issued to force a witness to attend an inquiry while witnesses who refuse to answer questions can face jail time. NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said the failure of Mr Minns' staff to appear at the probe into controversial protest and hate speech legislation indicated the premier might have breached corruption rules. "If the premier has given a direction to staff to disobey a lawful requirement to appear, that would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code," he said. The protest and speech laws were 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 it was a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to attend, 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. Mr Minns attacked the upper house on Thursday for trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "on a routine basis" - "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. But staffers can be forced to appear. 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 because he was on leave at the time and did not attend meetings. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including at parliamentary hearings and press conferences and during question time. Five senior government staffers could face arrest after failing to appear at an inquiry into an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts. In a dramatic escalation of an otherwise routine inquiry, the process to arrest the high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley was set in motion on Friday after the quintet declined to appear. Committee chair and independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers before approaching upper house president Ben Franklin to seek arrest warrants. Mr Roberts said the president was non-committal when asked to go to the Supreme Court for the warrants, but Mr Franklin had a "very important and very crucial decision". "All along, Labor has tried to stonewall, delay and ridicule this important inquiry," fellow committee member John Ruddick said on social media. Agreeing to pursue the warrants could come with a personal awkwardness for Mr Franklin, given he is the godfather of the premier's second child. Arrest warrants can be issued to force a witness to attend an inquiry while witnesses who refuse to answer questions can face jail time. NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said the failure of Mr Minns' staff to appear at the probe into controversial protest and hate speech legislation indicated the premier might have breached corruption rules. "If the premier has given a direction to staff to disobey a lawful requirement to appear, that would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code," he said. The protest and speech laws were 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 it was a hoax, with senior NSW police telling Mr Roberts' inquiry they believed virtually from the outset it was a ruse. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to attend, 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. Mr Minns attacked the upper house on Thursday for trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "on a routine basis" - "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. But staffers can be forced to appear. 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 because he was on leave at the time and did not attend meetings. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including at parliamentary hearings and press conferences and during question time.
Sky News AU
a day ago
- Sky News AU
NSW Premier Chris Minns staffers facing potential arrests after skipping major inquiry into Dural explosives
Three of New South Wales Premier Chris Minns staffers could potentially be arrested after they failed to show up to a major inquiry into a 'fabricated terrorist plot' on the outskirts of Sydney. On Friday, five NSW government staffers, including three senior staff members of the Premier, snubbed a hearing of an inquiry looking into an incident in January when explosives were found in a caravan in Dural. Chair of the inquiry Rod Roberts expressed disappointment when the five staffers, who had been summoned to attend, failed to appear. 'The committee will now consider further action in relation to these witnesses,' Mr Roberts said on Friday, according to The Daily Telegraph. 'The committee seeks to question ministerial staff about who was present at the briefings held by the NSW Police, what was discussed and what records were kept', Mr Roberts said regarding the Dural caravan incident, the masthead reported. According to the NSW Parliamentary Evidence Act, any person who is not a member of the Legislative Council or Assembly can be summoned to attend and provide evidence at parliamentary hearings. Failure to attend without reasonable excuse can result in a certificate being sent to a judge of the Supreme Court, who has the power to then issue a warrant for the person's arrest. Mr Minns previously confirmed he is refusing to appear at the Dural caravan inquiry himself, citing time constraints and his lack of availability to attend such hearings. The Premier claimed the inquiry is a 'giant conspiracy' when he spoke to 2GB Sydney radio host Ben Fordham on Tuesday morning. 'It rests on the premise that the Dural caravan case was not a threat to the community... that we knew about the circumstances relating to the case from the very beginning, which is not true,' Mr Minns told the radio host. 'And lastly, that we used that circumstance to push through vilification laws to prevent antisemitism or try and confront antisemitism in the community. It's a giant conspiracy.' The inquiry comes months after a caravan with explosives, which was initially feared to trigger a mass casualty event, was discovered in Sydney's northwest on January 19. Australian Federal Deputy Commissioner Krissy Barrett told media in January that investigators 'almost immediately' realised the explosives were part of a 'fabricated terrorist plot'. 'I can reveal the caravan was never going to cause a mass casualty event but instead was concocted by criminals who wanted to cause fear for personal benefit,' the Deputy Commissioner said. Public Service Association (PSA) general secretary Stewart Little has chimed in on the hearing snub controversy, blasting the NSW upper house over the investigation. "Our members shouldn't be pawns in parliamentary parlour games with upper house MPs posturing to get media coverage," Mr Little said in a statement on Thursday. "If upper house MPs want to know the facts they need to concentrate on getting the Premier to appear before them, or the relevant Ministers.' Mr Little criticised the move to summon the staffers to the inquiry, calling it 'the pits'. '... Drag in ministers or the senior departmental heads by all means, but junior public servants and parliamentary staffers have no bearing or consequence or meaning on the political process,' the general secretary said.
