ICACs and inquiries and governments (or rather, persons in government) being loath to have proper inquiries... that's a doubly topical question at the moment, at the very least.
In respect of Gladys Berejiklian fronting the corruption inquiry into Daryl Maguire, it's tricky. Obviously the fact that she chose a man of no integrity for a close personal relationship is part of her personal life; I agree with that. I cannot help wondering what drew her to him, but that is, again, her business.
It's bizarre (in my opinion) that Ms Berejiklian maintained that relationship even after the initial scandal and his being asked to resign from parliament. If she felt worried about him personally, and therefore maintained some sort of friendship out of concern for his being in a "dark place" (clinical depression?), that would be understandable, but if the close personal relationship had elements of sexual intimacy or emotional commitment after that time, that would seem to show poor judgement beyond her personal life. After all, in 2018 Maguire was exposed as being involved in trying to get money for brokering a land deal with a Chinese developer, and incriminating phone taps had been played in the ICAC inquiry at that time. Wouldn't Ms Berejiklian have considered it possible that there were some other phone taps that might be embarrassing?
As to whether that's a solid reason for wanting to unseat her, I don't necessarily think so. (However, I can't blame Labor for latching onto this; it's probably an irresistible opportunity to get in some blows.)
If there was a concern that Ms Berejiklian may have suspected that Maguire was not disclosing what he should have disclosed, in terms of commissions, payments, interest in properties and so on, that would appear to me to be a matter that should have been dealt with at the 2018 ICAC inquiry.
I don't think that the transcripts establish that this was the case (i.e., that she had any suspicion that Daryl Maguire was not disclosing his payments).
The very fact that commissions of this sort were permitted as long as they were disclosed is surprising (to me, at least!) and has a rather dubious aroma to it. I think I'm correct in saying that an amendment has just been made to the Statute Law Bill 2020 which will henceforth make it no longer permissible for MPs to be paid commissions by property developers. If so, it seems a good outcome - but it wouldn't be proper to apply the requirements of that amendment retrospectively.
I won't comment on the Ruby Princess issue, other than to say it's disgraceful.
My gut sense is that Ms Berejiklian will survive politically.
Re Dan Andrews... I thought he - in common with all of the Australian premiers and the PM - was doing a sterling job at the outset of this pandemic. Like many others, I'm fed up with political infighting and I was happy to see some national co-operation, some working together, and some terrific teamwork.
We were doing so well as a nation! Our COVID-19 response was enviable - but I bear in mind that we hadn't been tested at that time beyond a few cases well within the contact tracers' abilities.
Where it started to fall apart in Victoria was - in my opinion - when the Victorian government rejected federal offers of assistance. There was an aroma of "We can handle this on our own", and I didn't feel that it was an appropriate attitude when we were faced with what we already knew was going to get a lot worse before it got better - a frightening pandemic where the virus was wildly contagious. Contact tracing in Victoria (once cases began to run upwards) was utterly woeful, and the under-use of appropriate PPE was appalling and led directly to mass infection of so many in the medical field that the dire straits of sufficient nursing staff and so on became an all-too-predictable sinkhole. I am not the only person who knew (or strongly suspected) that human-to-human transmission was happening on a high scale of contagion, while the WHO was saying no, no, it's fine. By the time that we in Australia were putting in place quarantine programs for those returning from overseas, of COURSE we knew there was person-to-person transmission, beyond question; it was also highly possible that aerosol transmission was occurring. P2 masks and the most stringent use of all appropriate PPE in those contagious at-risk settings with confirmed cases should have been used as standard - but that's another tale for another soapbox.
Without question (in my opinion), Daniel Andrews has been lying in his replies to journalists during the daily press conferences. (I've noted the sort of wording that he uses when he's trying to not-quite-lie.) He's got a strong support base, of course, and I believe that most (not all) of the restrictions that he imposed post-hotel-quarantine-debacle were necessary... The restrictions made the worst day of my life even more difficult to bear, but I acknowledge that the particular restrictions affecting that event were probably unavoidable ones.
Andrews has, however, been commendably clear in communicating the Stay Home advice to Victorians. Most of the time, the instructions have been unambiguous.
I really don't like the fact that Jenny Mikakos was clearly selected as a scapegoat for the hotel quarantine disaster. She bore some responsibility, but not to the exclusion of quite a few others including Premier Andrews himself. As further details were unrolled about who knew what and who decided this or that or the other, Chris Eccles' head rolled... and I wonder whether it will be the last such. I am of the view that there is a culture of cover-ups and buck-passing in the state government; I don't think that's unique to the current government or our state, of course. I'm concerned that even otherwise responsible and valuable people in positions of authority and leadership in Victoria have become infected with this contagious practical and ethical attitude.
The COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry has, in my opinion, been lied to, with questions being evaded, culpability being covered up, and no one standing up to take responsibility.
There's no question that businesses in Victoria are suffering terribly, and that the cost - in terms of deaths and personal tragedies and the awful sense of being forced by the knowledge of our own danger to abide by some very harsh restrictions - is almost unbearable. I don't think that any Melbournian is going to forget these times, and it's hard to imagine that Daniel Andrews will be forgiven for his part in the unleashing of this second wave. Some will no doubt point to his leadership through the second wave as being in his favour; some will say that the roadmap out is too restrictive; some will say that he caused the mess in the first place. It's a wild mixture, and I'm not sure what the end result will be. But... my gut sense is that, once again, Daniel Andrews will survive politically.
This post is far too long, but it's taking my mind off the pain caused by compressed nerves, and thus I say "Pooh pooh to you" to anyone who wants to complain about its length.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
