Concerns have been raised that Premier Chris Minns may be seeking to limit scrutiny of his government’s recently introduced hate speech laws.
The inquiry is demanding answers about the relationship between hate speech legislation and the January caravan bomb hoax in Dural.
Some critics allege that the government acted on the Dural terrorism threat despite indications it may not have been credible, pushing hate speech laws under the banner of public safety.
NSW Labor did this without any real apparent regard for debate and the Democratic process.
There are concerns among inquiry members about the government’s resistance to full participation in the investigation into the hate speech laws.
Eight Legislative Council (LC) members of the Select Committee are reportedly frustrated by “some witnesses trying to avoid” testifying.
Rod Roberts (IND), who began the investigation, said members had “serious and grave concerns because witnesses were declining to attend, using spurious and tenuous arguments.”
The LC Select Committee consists of NSW Libertarian, John Ruddick, one Liberal, three Labor, one National, and one Greens member.
Roberts is the chair.
Their concerns are justifiable, wrote leftwing Sydney Criminal Lawyers journalist, Paul Gregoire.
Premier Minns’ interference began the moment he petitioned the Speaker to stop MPs from answering questions.
Minns muddied up the push for transparency, taking issue with the Select Committee’s terms of reference.
In true bureaucratic style, Minns wanted a second committee “to gauge whether the investigation can continue.”
This is because he regards the inquiry’s tone as threatening.
Terms of reference, Minns argued, could “threaten parliamentary privilege of the legislative assembly,” and disrupt the relationship between the Assembly and the Council.
According to Gregoire, the speaker gave Minns a pass.
Subsequently, key staff from the Attorney General, and police minister’s offices told the inquiry they were not available for questioning.
Staffers from the Premier’s office only showed up, Gregoire recalled, because Roberts talked tough and threatened to summon them to the hearing.
Like an upside-down episode of Hogan’s Heroes, the bureaucrats all said they knew nothing.
“Minns is now gearing up to have another committee attempt to end the inquiry,” Gregoire concluded.
An inquiry that is “currently scrutinising his dubious lawmaking actions, in passing a series of laws based on a manufactured antisemitic scare campaign.”
The Roberts inquiry into Minns’ hasty hate speech legislation has nine stated goals.
The primary pursuit, Roberts said in a press release on 4 April was “accountability and ensuring the integrity of our parliamentary processes.
“The public must have confidence that members of Parliament are informed of all available facts before passing legislation,” Roberts asserted.
“This inquiry will investigate whether the hate speech and protest laws were introduced and debated based on misleading or incomplete information.”
With this kind of spotlight, there’s ample reason for why Premier Chris Minns might want the inquiry quashed.
John Ruddick shared some of the second meeting on X, saying he “asked top bureaucrats whether the government rushed through its anti-free speech laws in response to what we now know was a ‘criminal con-job.’
“They obfuscated, and Labor members got cranky.”
Labor’s – Hamletian, doth protest too much – against Ruddick’s tone during this second sitting, suggests Gregoire’s observations are not all that far off the mark.
