‘Around the Christmas table’: The premier, his brother and the five-day prison policy backflip

In late September last year, Corrective Services NSW Commissioner Gary McCahon found himself at odds with the powerful Public Service Association, which represents the state’s prison guards.

Stewart Little, the union’s secretary, was pushing to lower the threshold of proof for inmate misconduct to the civil standard, which the NSW ombudsman had expressly recommended against, saying it would “adversely affect the rights of inmates overall”.

Little argued determining inmates’ guilt at the higher, criminal standard – beyond reasonable doubt – was unworkable and would result in serious offences being disregarded at parole hearings. McCahon was unmoved.

Corrective Services had assured Ombudsman Paul Miller in January 2025 that McCahon had the backing of Corrections Minister Anoulack Chanthivong to develop and implement reforms that “will deliver a more accountable and transparent corrections system”.

McCahon told Little he was confident the reforms wouldn’t undermine the security of prisons and the safety of guards. The September 29 correspondence had been approved by the minister’s office, according to emails obtained through a parliamentary call for papers.

Five days later the premier overruled the minister and two state agencies and gave the union exactly what it wanted. It was the second time Premier Chris Minns had ridden roughshod over Chanthivong to overhaul policy after twice overruling him during reform of the state’s rental laws.

The amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 jettisoned more than a year of work undertaken across the state’s prison system – and when the bill was announced on October 3, the changes hadn’t been considered by cabinet.

The ombudsman, stakeholders and departmental staffers were blindsided.

In March, the NSW ombudsman called on the government to reaffirm Corrective Services’ commitment to its August 2024 report, warning that applying the civil standard of proof to serious offences was “unreasonable and unjust”.

Chanthivong is required to respond within 12 sitting days.

The ombudsman’s report

A NSW ombudsman’s investigation into inmate discipline, released in August 2024, concluded there had been a “systemic failure” to follow legislation and relevant policies, “leading, in some cases, to unjust outcomes and potentially unlawful decisions”.

A “comprehensive review and reform of the inmate discipline framework” was included as part of 34 recommendations. The key problem, the ombudsman found, was the failure to apply the test of beyond reasonable doubt to inmate misconduct matters, as was required under legislation. The civil standard was being applied instead, Corrective Services later concluded.

The Ombudsman’s report found in “numerous cases” that the evidence presented could not “have sustained a rational finding on any legal standard”.

An overview of the 57,618 discipline charges made between 2018 and 2022 found 93 per cent resulted in a finding of guilt. In nearly a third of non-drug-related offences, inmates’ charges were incorrect for the conduct alleged, the ombudsman found.

In one case, three inmates were found guilty of intimidation after being accused of abusing a corrections officer. The trio disputed the evidence and, after inquiries from the ombudsman, the findings against all three were overturned and penalties revoked.

With Chanthivong’s approval, Corrective Services agreed to all the ombudsman’s recommendations two months later, including not “watering down the standards or rules themselves … such as by a general reduction in the standard of proof”.

The premier’s intervention

The PSA continued lobbying Chanthivong to codify the civil standard of proof as late as September 18, 2025, emails show.

“David Bartle [the PSA’s industrial manager] advised that he has been advocating to the minister to change this to balance of probabilities for the longer-term reform,” stated a departmental briefing.

Little directly lobbied the premier on September 24, urging reform to legislate the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. He warned the changes were desperately needed to ensure prison misconduct matters were properly recorded.

The same day, Chanthivong’s office requested departmental advice “to assist in discussions with the premier” about the PSA’s representations relating to the standard of proof.

“What amendments (if any) and assessments of amending standard to the balance of probabilities has been considered?” the first requested point asked.

Corrective Services NSW’s acting director responded that the requirement of the highest standard of proof provided the “most appropriate safeguard for fairness in the inmate discipline system” and aligned with the ombudsman’s recommendations.

Following threats of industrial action by the PSA, “the premier agreed to make urgent amendments”, a departmental briefing note stated on October 10. The legislation largely mirrored a draft bill the union had proposed.

The matter was approved by cabinet on October 13, 10 days after Chanthivong announced the amendments.

“Owing to the urgency with which the government moved the amendments, there was no consultation with stakeholders. The NSW ombudsman was informed about the amendments prior to the bill being introduced into parliament,” the briefing note stated.

“The ombudsman expressed disappointment with this decision.”

Jim Minns

The corrections portfolio is an area of interest for Minns. In late October he told 2GB he knew “this issue back to front”, attributing his knowledge on the matter to his younger brother Jim, a solicitor for the PSA who deals with corrective services matters.

“Well, my brother is the union’s lawyer, so I know this issue back to front. He works on it every single day. I know how difficult the job is. Two weeks ago, we backed their call to ensure that there wasn’t a beyond-reasonable-doubt test for internal prison justice,” he said.

Asked whether the reforms had been negotiated with Jim, Minns replied: “Not directly but around the Christmas table and around the family table he tells me … exactly what’s going on.”

Emails show Minns’ brother was in correspondence with Chanthivong’s office during consultation about the ombudsman’s proposed changes to inmate discipline and at least up to the legislation’s introduction to parliament.

Chanthivong’s chief of staff emailed Jim Minns and Bartle directly in October 2024, saying bills were being drafted to implement recommendations.

“However we would like to organise a session with relevant PSA reps to discuss all the proposed amendments and get your feedback to inform further development of bills,” she wrote.

A year later Minns’ brother emailed Chanthivong’s policy adviser on October 14, asking for a timeline on when the amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 would go to the house.

Minns’ intervention in formalising the balance of probabilities – a matter his brother was intimately involved in – raises questions about whether the premier should have declared a conflict of interest. The premier has previously declined to say whether he did so.

Jim Minns told the Herald he wasn’t really involved in inmate discipline matters. Anything he had done relating to the policy had been done at “the behest of Stewart (Little)”.

“I don’t know why he made those comments,” Jim Minns said of the premier’s interview on 2GB. “I never talk to him about my job and he never talks to me about his job.”

Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson said the documents revealed an “extraordinary policy backflip”.

“Law and policy that applies to a justice system in NSW is not the family business of the Minns; the ombudsman has made clear that our prison system is rife with injustice, and Corrective Services is routinely breaking the law,” she said.

“The premier and the minister need to clean up this mess, not make it worse.”

A spokesman for the premier said the legislation brought NSW in line with other jurisdictions.

“Following discussions with the union representing prison guards, the government accepted the need for reform but made a separate policy judgment about the best way to protect staff safety and prison security,” they said.

The fallout

The abrupt announcement of the legislation on October 3 stunned stakeholders.

In an unusual move after the legislation was introduced into parliament, Miller proactively released legal advice provided by outside senior counsel.

The advice recommended the state follow Queensland’s system, where “minor” offences committed by inmates were assessed by the civil standard, while maintaining the criminal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt for major offences.

Internal workplace messages from advisers in the cabinet office reveal concern about the ombudsman’s release.

“Wanting to be clear it cuts across everything he [the ombudsman] recommended! We opposed. Bit awks but PO seems not too worried at this stage,” the adviser wrote on October 15.

The state government did not blink. A month later the Standard of Proof Act became law.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.