Simmering tensions within New South Wales Labor over the premier’s handling of last weekend’s protest against the killing in Gaza have erupted into the public domain, with a member of the left faction delivering a fiery speech in parliament, accusing his own party of trying to shut down debate on the Middle East.
Anthony D’Adam, a former trade unionist, convener of Labor Friends of Palestine and a member of the upper house, used an adjournment debate on Thursday night to accuse Chris Minns and the caucus of “stultifying the internal culture of the party”.
D’Adam said MPs’ fear of losing their seats was behind a “risk-averse culture” in NSW Labor.
Earlier this week, a number of backbenchers tried to raise their concerns in caucus about Minns’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and his decision to oppose the weekend protest across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which was attended by up to 300,000 people in pouring rain.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
D’Adam said in his speech on Thursday that he was gagged and then bullied by caucus members. He now faces potential disciplinary action or possibly even expulsion from the Labor party for publicly airing matters discussed in caucus.
In May last year, Minns sacked D’Adam from his role as parliamentary secretary for youth justice, after he criticised the actions of state police officers towards pro-Palestinian protesters. At the time, Minns called D’Adam’s comments “absolutely reprehensible”.
Speaking out publicly about caucus meetings and criticising the leader is extremely rare in Labor.
“Earlier this week in the Labor caucus, I sought to make pointed criticisms of the premier in respect to the issues of Palestine and protest,” D’Adam told parliament.
“In the meeting, I was howled down, abused [and] told I should resign from the Labor party. A motion was moved to gag me from speaking. In my entire time in the parliament, I have never witnessed such an event.
“No apology has been received for the bullying behaviour I was forced to endure. It is deeply disturbing that the caucus appears incapable of entertaining dissenting views and took the step that it did.”
D’Adam said the response “can only confirm in the minds of caucus members that it is best to keep quiet”. He denied making a personal attack on Minns.
“My critique of the premier was a political critique,” he said. “It was a critique of the government. It was not a personal attack on the premier as an individual but a criticism of his handling of a number of matters relating to the issues of the day.”
D’Adam said that during the caucus debate, which Guardian Australia reported on Monday, he could “see the fear in the faces and hear it in the voices of my colleagues”.
“They were concerned that this type of conflict could cost them their seats or their ministries,” he said.
“It is this fear that is driving a risk-averse culture in our party. But the challenges that we face as a society require bold government.
“The solutions we require are full of political risk, the problems like war, climate catastrophe, dislocating technological change and the growing gulf of inequality are not going to be solved by whispered conversations in quiet corners of government. We have to be able to debate our differences.”
The premier said on Friday that Tuesday’s caucus discussion was wrapped up because question time was about to start. He said he wouldn’t have characterised the treatment of D’Adam as bullying but said there had been “robust debate”.
“It was a long debate. Generally, the history of the Labor party shows we are better for it,” Minns said.
In his first two years as leader, Minns has run a tight ship with few internal problems within the party.
But the conflict in Gaza and Minns’s move to pass laws curtailing protests have brought criticism from human rights groups and within his own party.
D’Adam told parliament that internal debate within Labor was crucial to “recognise mistakes when they are made and provide a pathway for renewal and new directions”.
“But my experience has been that the party is increasingly centralised and authoritarian in its disposition.”
