Latest news with #governmentAccountability
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
NSW political staffers could be arrested after failing to appear at Dural caravan inquiry
A parliamentary committee is seeking warrants for the arrest of five New South Wales government staffers who failed to appear and give evidence to an inquiry examining the Sydney caravan 'fake terrorism plot'. The staffers – three from the office of the premier, Chris Minns, and two who work for the police minister, Yasmin Catley – were summoned to appear before the inquiry on Friday. But they did not show up. The staffers claimed – in a letter to the upper house committee chair, independent MP Rod Roberts – that they had the 'reasonable excuse or just cause' required by law to not appear. The staff members argued they were 'proxies' because Minns and Catley could not, as members of the lower house, be compelled to appear as witnesses. 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 about 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. Minns has said he was briefed early on that the caravan plot 'could be something other than terrorism as it's classically defined and that no line of inquiry was being ruled out by NSW police'. The premier and the police minister refused to appear at the inquiry before the committee sought the appearance of their staffers. Friday's extraordinary decision to seek the arrest warrants could lead to the staffers being apprehended and brought before the committee to give evidence. But several steps have to be completed first. Roberts, the chair, will meet with the president of the Legislative Council, Nationals MP Ben Franklin, on Friday afternoon to submit the committee's case. 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 would be referred to a judge of the supreme court. If the judge agrees, then warrants would be issued and the staffers arrested and brought before the committee to give evidence. 'This decision follows numerous attempts by the committee over several weeks to secure the attendance of these staff by invitation and ultimately by summons,' Roberts said in a statement. The staffers summoned to appear included Minns' chief of staff, James Cullen, and two of his deputy chiefs of staff, Edward Ovadia and Sarah Michael. The police minister's chief of staff, Ross Neilson, was also summoned, along with Catley's deputy chief of staff, Tilly South. The staffers' letter to Roberts, released by the committee, stated: 'Our attendance before the select committee to give evidence would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability and comity between the houses of parliament.' Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion They pointed to an outstanding inquiry on parliamentary privilege and ethics, stating they suspected in light 'of recent events' it would consider whether compelling ministerial staff to give evidence infringed parliamentary privilege or 'offends principles' of Australia's Westminster system of government. 'In these circumstances, and particularly while the standing committee's inquiries are ongoing, we consider that there is a reasonable excuse or just cause for us to not attend the hearing, and we propose not to do so,' they wrote on Thursday. 'Given your [Roberts'] comments on breakfast radio yesterday as to the motivation for issuing the summonses, which make it clear we are 'proxies' because our respective ministers cannot be compelled as witnesses to the select committee, we also consider that they have not been properly issued.' The letter noted Ovadia had informed the committee he was on leave during the relevant period. Minns told reporters on Thursday that his staff would not appear. On Friday morning, Roberts conducted a roll call twice to empty chairs set out for the staffers before closing the hearing. Earlier in the week, the premier told 2GB radio he believed the inquiry was based on a 'giant conspiracy' led by his political opponents. Minns said summoning staffers to appear was a 'bid for some kind of relevance' by opponents. Asked if his staffers were prepared to be arrested, Minns said: 'Well, I hope it doesn't get to that. I mean, I think that would be a giant overreach. It's never happened before.' The NSW Liberal leader, Mark Speakman, was asked by reporters on Friday if the move was drastic. 'It is drastic and it's easily avoidable if they do the right thing, obey the law and appear,' he said. Minns and Catley were contacted for comment.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The questions this grooming gangs inquiry must finally answer
The Casey report into the rape gangs yet again proves what we already knew: that the systematic and racially and religiously aggravated rape of thousands of vulnerable white girls is the worst scandal of our lifetimes. The response by the Government, however, leaves many important questions unanswered. Labour says it's launching a national inquiry, yet its official document says it will only 'coordinate a series of targeted local investigations', with the Home Secretary yet to confirm whether it will cover every affected town and city. And we do not yet know how independent the inquiry chair will be. Yvette Cooper once again refused to instruct the National Crime Agency to investigate police officers, social workers and councillors who were complicit in these appalling crimes. The long refusal to accept a national inquiry – and the furious response of some Labour MPs towards scrutiny of the role of their councils in this scandal – is part of a wider showdown between those who govern and the governed. Because liberal authoritarianism remains a huge problem in our politics. Opinions and motives disliked by the Government are increasingly dismissed – and delegitimised – as 'far Right'. The Prevent programme, established to counter the radicalisation of those who might be drawn to terrorism, says concern about mass immigration is a 'terrorist ideology'. The riots that followed the Southport murders – later said to have been caused partly by the lack of Government transparency – were dismissed by the Prime Minister as 'far-Right thuggery'. But the idea that the riots were in any way planned or coordinated by far-Right agitators – and not a spontaneous reaction of fury – has been discredited by the police inspectorate, which suggested most offenders were local, often young, and had no connections to extremists. But the most notorious example of the far right smear has been the Government's dismissal of concerns about the rape gangs of mainly Pakistani, Muslim men who systematically abused vulnerable, white working class girls. When the Conservatives pressed for a national inquiry earlier this year, Starmer accused the Party of 'spreading lies and misinformation' and 'amplifying what the far-Right is saying.' In an attempt to avoid an inquiry, Starmer commissioned Louise Casey to conduct an 'audit' of the crimes and their investigation. But Casey concluded an inquiry was necessary and Starmer has folded. This demonstrates the limits of the campaign to delegitimise public opinion. For not even a Prime Minister can withstand sustained public pressure of the kind we have seen over the last six months, and Labour MPs were likely to be asked to vote on the need for an inquiry when the Commons considers the Crime and Policing Bill this week. But does this mean we are finally going to get to the truth of the rape gangs? Given the deliberate refusal of large parts of the state over so many years to prevent the abuse and prosecute the observers, the refusal by some Labour ministers to even acknowledge that these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated, and the alleged complicity of some Labour councillors in these horrific crimes, we should be wary. So we will need clear answers to important questions about the inquiry. Following the death of Dr David Kelly, one of Tony Blair's senior advisers reassured colleagues about the subsequent inquiry, saying, 'don't worry, we appointed the right judge'. The identity of the person who chairs this inquiry will be vital, and it may need to be a judge from another Commonwealth jurisdiction, to avoid conflicts of interest or social or political beliefs that prejudice the work. The inquiry will need to be unsparing about the most sensitive subjects: about ethnicity, religious identity, family structures and social attitudes among members of the Muslim population in Britain. What role did clan identities play? Why did social workers make choices that made them complicit in abuse, instead of confronting it? How many police officers were corrupt or complicit? What role did local councillors play in keeping the scandals a secret? What about other public services, like schools, GP surgeries and hospitals? One of the reasons our politics is so crisis-ridden is the gulf in values and expectations between the governed and the government. The campaign to delegitimise public opinion – about the rape gangs and many other things – shows just how authoritarian our liberal leaders are. The reason they are afraid of the public is that they know they will, soon, be smashed. But it is time now for the truth, and time, too, for justice.
Malay Mail
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity. It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit. A defendant is the party sued. It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added) When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added) Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added) Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia? That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court. Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'. But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
CTV News
10-05-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Privacy commission finds Alberta government failed to follow freedom of information laws
Alberta's privacy commissioner says the UCP has been breaking the rules around freedom of information requests. Alberta's privacy commissioner says the UCP has been breaking the rules around freedom of information requests. Alberta's privacy commissioner said the Government of Alberta has failed in multiple ways to uphold freedom of information policies. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) was passed in 1995 and requires all public bodies, including government bodies, to make eligible information available to the public. 'Access to information rights are the foundation of an individual's ability to exercise their democratic rights by facilitating access to government information,' said Diane McLeod, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, in a report on her findings. 'Accountability is the cornerstone of the exercise of good governance,' she continued. 'Acting accountably within the context of the FOIP Act requires that government administer its responsibilities under the FOIP Act in a manner that not only respects these rights but also adheres to the spirit and intent of the Act.' The report details an investigation launched in regards to 34 requests for review filed over alleged refusals to process access requests by Alberta government public bodies. It found 27 Government of Alberta public bodies failed to uphold FOIP principals, with violations including: Refusing access requests on the basis applicants didn't provide enough information; Requiring applicants to limit the number of topics in a request to one; Limiting the time frame on the search for records; and Requiring applications to split requests containing multiple topics into multiple requests. McLeod also found the Government of Alberta had issued directives and policies that allowed staff to refuse access requests in a way not permitted under the FOIP act. The privacy commissioner made several recommendations to resolve the issues she found and said she expects them to be followed, despite provincial plans to repeal the FOIP act and replace it with the Access to Information Act. 'My findings and recommendations in this report are in large part still valid under the new legislation. This is because the relevant provisions of the new Act are the same or substantially similar to the provisions of the FOIP Act,' McLeod said. 'For that reason, I expect government public bodies to apply my findings and recommendations to their practices under both the existing and the new legislation.' In an email to The Canadian Press, a spokesperson for Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally said the ministry is considering the privacy commissioner's findings and plans to work with McLeod to address concerns. The full report can be accessed here.
CBC
09-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Investigation finds Alberta government broke its own freedom of information rules
Alberta's access to information watchdog has found the provincial government to be non-compliant with its own freedom of information rules. A new report from information and privacy commissioner Diane McLeod says Alberta's government has implemented internal procedures and policy that allow government employees to wrongfully deny freedom of information requests. It says the government has put unnecessary restrictions and limitations on requests in an attempt to make fulfilling them easier. But McLeod says the restrictions make the process unfair for those seeking information and violate the rules set out in legislation. McLeod's report follows a two-year investigation and says all 27 government departments were found to be at fault. The report recommends the government make a number of changes to its internal policies to stop refusing requests unnecessarily.
