By Nathan Schmidt

Copyright news

James Cullen was summoned to appear before the Privileges Committee on Wednesday morning as part of its probe into whether parliamentary laws were breached through the leaking of a section of a then privileged report into the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse.

Instead, Mr Cullen filed a challenge to section 8 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act claiming that it “compromises the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court”.

Under the 120-year law, parliament can order a witness to attend hearings and inquiries and, if they refuse, seek to have a warrant issued for their arrest.

In a statement, Mr Cullen said the committee’s “proposed course of action raises complex questions of constitutional law, which I will be testing in the proceeding”.

“I will be arguing that the law enacted in 1901 is unconstitutional because it doesn’t take into account the independence of the judiciary.”

Acting Legislative Council president Rod Roberts confirmed that Mr Cullen had lodged a summons with the Court of Appeal.

“The matter broadly concerns the powers of the Legislative Council to compel the attendance of witnesses at committee hearings,” he said.

“On behalf of the Legislative Council, I have engaged the services of senior counsel to represent the Legislative Council.”

Mr Roberts said the upper house would “vigorously defend its position”.

“That being that the Legislative Council and its committees have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, not being members of either house of the parliament, to attend and give evidence, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Evidence Act.”

Mr Minns on Thursday said there was “a view that the Legislative Council is treating the Supreme Court almost like a rubber stamp”.

“I think that that’s a pretty brave thing for them to do,” he said.

“I also make the point that this is the fifth, or maybe the sixth, inquiry that he’s been pulled into, and other staff have been pulled into, junior staff, senior staff, all in an attempt to pursue some fishing expedition.

“I understand the temptation for politicians to do that and pursue that, but we also have to think about people that want to work in government or in politics to get hauled before an inquiry headed by, or with a member like, Mark Latham seems a bit ridiculous.”

The Supreme Court of NSW confirmed a matter involving Mr Cullen and Legislative Council president Ben Franklin.

The matter has since been closed though due to an incorrect listing.

Public Service Association of NSW (PSA) general secretary Stewart Little condemned threats to ministerial and public sector staff.

“The PSA is appalled that ministerial staff are being used as political footballs and threatened with arrest for simply doing their jobs,” Mr Little said.

“The power of arrest is one that the Constitution grants to the courts, not to parliament.

“It is unacceptable that workers are being met with such threats in the course of their employment.”

The PSA represents ministerial staff in NSW.

Mr Little said the association would continue to advocate for stronger safeguards to protect staff from “political interference”.

The court filing comes after five staffers, including Mr Cullen, from Mr Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley’s office risked arrest when they failed to front a separate inquiry into the Dural caravan hoax and subsequent anti-protest legislation.

The five staff members ultimately appeared after Mr Franklin confirmed on legal advice from high-profile barrister Bret Walker that he was empowered to seek their arrest.