Stadiums, bushfires and a pandemic: how will Gladys Berejiklian be remembered as premier?

David Clune, University of SydneyGladys Berejiklian will be remembered as premier of NSW for her resilience, level-headedness, crisis management skills, and administrative competence — and, of course, the ICAC investigation that toppled her.

Decent, determined and hard-working, she was unflappable in adversity.

Berejiklian leaves a legacy of economic achievement and major infrastructure creation. She achieved a major milestone both personally and for women by being the first female NSW premier to win a general election.

---

Read more:
Berejiklian’s downfall derailed a career built on accountability and control. Now, who will replace her?

---

Energetic, effective and politically astute

Of Armenian descent, Berejiklian began her career in politics working for former Liberal leader Peter Collins. She was prominent in the Liberal moderates faction and was president of the Young Liberals. After a sojourn in banking, she was elected MP for Collins’ former seat of Willoughby in 2003. She proved to be an energetic, effective shadow transport minister.

Berejiklian impressed Liberal leader Barry O’Farrell, who became something of a mentor. When O’Farrell became premier in 2011, Berejiklian served in the important transport portfolio.

She was tipped as a possible future premier because of her strong performance. However, when O’Farrell resigned after misleading an ICAC inquiry in April 2014, Mike Baird had the numbers in the party room. Berejiklian, who was personally close to Baird, withdrew from the contest and was elected deputy leader. She was treasurer and industrial relations minister in the Baird government.

Berejiklian’s time came when Baird resigned in January 2017 — she was elected Premier unopposed in late January 2017.

Berejiklian’s policy direction was similar to that of her predecessor, with a strong focus on economics, infrastructure and public sector reform.

Also like Baird, Berejiklian was a small “l” liberal on social reform. She had a less outgoing personal style than Baird but succeeded in convincing the voters she was trustworthy, capable and sensitive to their needs.

The premier stabilised the government and showed it still had purpose and dynamism. She showed her political astuteness by quickly dumping the unpopular local government reforms that had been a factor in Baird’s downfall.

The premier survived two rounds of threatening by-elections in April 2017, a sign the anti-government feeling that marked the end of Baird’s term had diminished.

The serpentine politics of Sydney

The serpentine politics of Sydney sport and stadiums left Berejiklian wrong-footed at the end of 2017. She announced that both Allianz and Homebush stadiums in Sydney would be simultaneously demolished and rebuilt at an estimated cost of A$2.5 billion.

It was a major miscalculation that would haunt Berejiklian. Public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, a common theme being that it was a gross misuse of public funds to rebuild two stadiums, one only 17-years-old, instead of financing vital community facilities. The premier backtracked on the demolition of Homebush but much public resentment remained about Allianz.

In her campaign for the March 2019 election, Berejiklian ran largely on the government’s record.

The economy was performing well compared to other states, the public finances were in the best condition they had been in for a long time, and the infrastructure budget for the next four years was close to $90 billion. Labor leader Michael Daley made opposition to the demolishing and rebuilding of Allianz Stadium the spearhead of his campaign.

While not a flashy or magnetic campaigner, Berejiklian stayed “on message” and came across as sincere and conscientious. The result was a triumphant victory for her. The government’s two-party preferred vote was 52% and its primary vote 42% — 9% higher than Labor’s.

The premier had persuaded enough voters that the government had significant achievements to its credit and was better equipped to deliver more in the future.

Through bushfires and COVID

The last years of Berejiklian’s term were marked by skilful handling of major crises. Like other parts of Australia, in January 2020, NSW was ravaged by a devastating bushfire season, in which 25 lives were lost.

Unlike Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Berejiklian emerged from the bushfire crisis with enhanced prestige.

As political commentator Niki Savva, writing in The Australian, put it:

When the fires hit NSW, she made a point of being there, every day, standing next to the fire chief, Shane Fitzsimmons, supporting him and allowing him to do his job. She visited affected communities. Her embraces were accepted. No one refused to shake her hand.

No sooner had the bushfires ceased than the state was plunged into another crisis with the outbreak of coronavirus. Berejiklian responded in much the same way, this time with Chief Medical Officer, Kerry Chant, by her side.

The second NSW COVID outbreak proved to be more difficult and unpredictable to manage but by the time of her resignation the situation was coming under control.

Although she had been criticised by some for her handling of the crisis, Berejiklian’s calm, competent, communicative approach would seem to have resonated in the electorate.

ICAC’s Operation Keppel

ICAC’s Operation Keppel was inquiring into whether former Liberal MP for Wagga Daryl Maguire engaged in conduct that involved a breach of public trust.

Public hearings began in September 2020 and Berejiklian appeared as a witness in October.

In a disclosure that generated a widespread tsunami of shock, it was revealed the premier had been in a “close personal relationship” with Maguire from 2015 which had only recently ended.

Previously, the public persona of Berejiklian, who had never married, was that of a rather prim career woman wedded to her job.

Berejiklian said that she had no intention of quitting as she had done nothing wrong and most voters seemed to be sympathetic.

The general attitude was that she had made a miscalculation in her personal life, a not uncommon phenomenon, and did not deserve to be punished by losing her job.

As reporter Deborah Snow put it, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald,

there was relief inside the government that the crisis was playing out as a titillating love gone wrong scandal rather than a probity scandal.

The announcement of an ICAC inquiry into whether the premier had engaged in conduct that involved a “breach of public trust” as a result of her relationship with Maguire has precipitated her resignation.

She could have stepped aside pending the result of the inquiry, but instead has chosen to take the same course as O’Farrell, who decided to do the honourable thing and walk.

---

Read more:
The long history of political corruption in NSW — and the downfall of MPs, ministers and premiers

---

David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gladys Berejiklian quits premiership amid ICAC inquiry into links with former MP

Michelle Grattan, University of CanberraGladys Berejiklian has resigned as NSW premier after the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) announced it is investigating whether she breached “public trust” arising from a potential conflict of interest involving her personal relationship with disgraced former state MP Daryl Maguire.

Berejiklian, premier since 2017, told a news conference: “Resigning at this time is against every instinct in my being and something which I do not want to do.

“I love my job, and serving the community, but I have been given no option following the statement issued [by ICAC].”

She said standing aside wasn’t an option for her because the NSW people “need certainty as to who their leader is during these challenging times of the pandemic”.

“To continue as premier would disrupt the state government during a time when our entire attention should be focused on the challenges confronting New South Wales. I do not want to be a distraction from what should be the focus of the state government during this pandemic, which is the wellbeing of our citizens.”

She will also resign from state parliament.

Her shock resignation comes at a critical point in the state’s COVID crisis as it prepares to come out of lockdown, which is set to trigger increased cases and hospitalisations.

Scott Morrison has regarded Berejiklian as his closest ally among the premiers, notably because she favoured where possible keeping things open.

Morrison told a news conference she was a “dear friend”. He had always found her “a person of the highest integrity”.

ICAC is investigating her conduct between 2012 and 2018. It is looking at funding given to the Australian Clay Target Association and funding promised or awarded to the Riverina Conservatorium of Music in Wagga Wagga.

It is also investigating whether her conduct “was liable to allow or encourage” corrupt conduct by Maguire, who held the seat of Wagga Wagga between 1999 and 2018.

Berejiklian declared her innocence. “I state categorically, I have always acted with the highest level of integrity. History will demonstrate that I have always executed my duties with the highest degree of integrity for the benefit of the people of NSW.”

Berejiklian’s future was put in question when last year she gave evidence to ICAC about her close personal relationship with Maguire. During the hearing, damaging phone taps of calls between her and Maguire were played.

State treasurer Dominic Perrottet is considered the front-runner to replace her.

Berejiklian is the third Liberal premier to be claimed by ICAC – the others were Nick Greiner and Barry O’Farrell.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Chinese reveal their journalists in Australia were questioned in foreign interference investigation

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Australian Federal Police and ASIO raided two Chinese journalists in June as part of an investigation into foreign interference in Australia.

The previously unpublicised action has come to light via Chinese media reports, in the same week that two Australian reporters fled China amid fears for their security and in a blaze of publicity.

The Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Chinese authorities, said ASIO had questioned the Chinese journalists, seized computers and smartphones, and asked them not to report the incident.

The raids, undertaken under a warrant, were connected to the investigation into allegations of attempted Chinese infiltration of the NSW parliament through the office of NSW Labor state MP Shaoquett Moselmane, and in particular his part-time staffer John Zhang. Both Moselmane and Zhang have denied any wrong doing.

Moselmane is on leave from the parliament and suspended from the ALP.

Part of the investigation was into a group Zhang had on WeChat, a Chinese social media platform, that included the journalists as well as Chinese scholars. The ABC reported on Wednesday that two Chinese scholars on the chat group subsequently had their Australian visas cancelled.

The timing of the raids on the journalists coincided with raids on Moselmane and Zhang.

Asked about the Global Times claim, the Chinese embassy in Canberra said in a statement: “We have provided consular support to Chinese journalists in Australia and made representations with relevant Australian authorities to safeguard legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens.”

Citing a “source” the Global Times said: “Australia flagrantly infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of journalists from Chinese media and institutions in Australia in the name of a possible violation of Australia’s anti-foreign interference law”.

The Chinese have sat on the information about their journalists for more than two months.

This week the ABC’s Bill Birtles and the Australian Financial Review’s Michael Smith were rushed out of China after Australian government concern for their security.

Last week multiple Chinese security officials arrived after midnight at the homes of Birtles and Smith, in Beijing and Shanghai respectively. They were told they couldn’t leave the country without answering questions.

The men had been making arrangements to depart, on advice from the Australian foreign affairs department, after Australian journalist Cheng Lei, who worked for China’s English-language state broadcaster CGTN, was recently taken into custody.

The Chinese government says Cheng is suspected of activities endangering China’s national security.

Birtles and Smith contacted Australian officials following the late night visits, and were placed under diplomatic protection, with negotiations undertaken to enable them to return to Australia.

The Chinese made the journalists’ exit conditional on their being interviewed. Smith said the interview included some questions about Cheng whom he had only met once, in passing.

In a full-on attack, the Global Times wrote: “Freedom of the press has become political correctness for Australian authorities. When they spread fake information, smear and attack other countries, they call it ‘freedom of the press’, but when they see information they don’t want to see, they choose to crack down for political purposes, experts said.

“Chinese journalists in Australia strictly comply with Australian laws and have good professional conduct.”

The article said that in the past 20 years, “Australia has passed more than 60 rules restricting ‘press freedom’.

“Australia’s major media outlets launched a joint campaign on October 21, 2019 to protest government restrictions on press freedom, by blacking out copy on front pages.

“Australian authorities have not been satisfied with only extending their black hands to domestic media, and have blatantly raided the residences of Chinese journalists in Australia, regardless of the basic norms of international relations and China-Australia relations, analysts said.

“Analysts said what Australia did was not just driven by Australia’s traditional ideological bias, but also showed that it’s a follower of ‘Uncle Sam’”, the Global Times said.

It also accused Australia of having “hyped” the Cheng case.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The WHO’s coronavirus inquiry will be more diplomatic than decisive. But Australia should step up in the meantime

US Mission Geneva/Flickr/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Anthony Zwi, UNSW

This week the World Health Assembly, the governing structure of the World Health Organization, endorsed a resolution that comprehensively addressed the global COVID-19 response.

Buried almost at the end, in the penultimate clause of the seven-page document, was the outcome several nations (including Australia) have been clamouring for – or a version of it, at least. The resolution calls for a global investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak, albeit not in the strongest of terms.

With noticeable caution, it calls on the WHO to:

…initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, and in consultation with Member States, a stepwise process of impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation, including using existing mechanisms, as appropriate, to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19.

---

Read more:
The World Health Organization must answer these hard questions in its coronavirus inquiry

---

Specifically, the inquiry will investigate:

1. the effectiveness of the mechanisms at WHO’s disposal to deal with pandemics

2. the functioning of the International Health Regulations – a globally agreed set of rules for controlling diseases across borders – and whether prior recommendations had been implemented

3. WHO’s contributions to the United Nations’ disease control efforts

4. the specific actions taken by WHO and the timeline of the pandemic response.

The inquiry will also seek recommendations to improve future pandemic preparedness and responses, including potentially strengthening WHO’s powers.

Vindication for Australia?

Some media and politicians hailed the resolution as a vindication of Australia’s call for a deep and searching independent investigation, with a particular spotlight on China’s role in containing the initial outbreak. But China has branded this claim “a joke”.

So what does the resolution actually add, and is it likely to deliver anything concrete?

It is a great example of well-constructed UN “bureaucratese”. It has something for everyone but demands little from anyone. But buried in the verbiage are some important considerations, which suggest how to forge the way ahead.

Australia can take comfort that there is to be an “impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation”. But it’s not exactly what Australia had in mind. It is left to the WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (himself a target of criticism by the United States), to initiate such an enquiry. The timing is vague, although a report on progress (which presumably could include delaying the inquiry altogether), is expected a year from now.

Many countries, including China and several European states, argue such an investigation is needed, but not now. They would like the pandemic to be under control first. But when might that be? It might yet intensify, and could grind on for years. Even if an effective vaccine is developed, getting it to the people of the world will take years, and until almost everyone is vaccinated, nobody will be entirely safe.

Previous efforts

The WHO has previously set up investigations into the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 and the 2015 Ebola outbreak. These were led by respected, independent, evidence-driven global health leaders. So we can be confident the WHO has access to people of the right calibre to mount a rigorous and critical inquiry.

Australia will presumably also be gratified by another clause of the resolution, which calls on the WHO, alongside the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to identify the animal source of the virus and its route of introduction to the human population. Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, has cited the risk of such “zoonotic diseases” as a major concern.

Sitting outside the broader evaluation of the WHO response to the pandemic, Australia should actively support an in-depth study of the interfaces between animal and human diseases. Facilitating and resourcing such an investigation in relation to COVID-19, leading to evidence-informed guidance, would be a solid global contribution.

Australia and others can also draw satisfaction from a clause in the resolution calling on all countries to provide the WHO with “timely, accurate and sufficiently detailed” information on the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving incentives to report early and promptly, such as the offer of financial support to offset any recommended travel or trade restrictions, would sharpen the International Health Regulations which frame such action.

Despite being the source of the pandemic, the resolution does not single out China (or indeed any country) for particular scrutiny or accountability. Several clauses refer instead to “national context”, a commonly used piece of diplomatic language that glosses over political contentions.

---

Read more:
Yes, we need a global coronavirus inquiry, but not for petty political point-scoring

---

With more than 5.1 million people infected and 332,000 deaths so far, the world needs cooperation, collaboration and coordination. The resolution offers important elements, and reinforces important values: balancing public health measures alongside human rights and economic concerns; transparency of information; solidarity with the people most affected; a focus on the most vulnerable; support to health workers; and global equity in access to testing, PPE and, ultimately, a vaccine.

All nations must play a part in the global push to curb COVID-19. The political blame games and the United States’ threat to cut funding to WHO are unhelpful.

The WHO should be supported and strengthened to puruse its vital work, and to overcome the weaknesses in current and previous epidemic responses. It needs to be better resourced, better structured and better respected to fulfil the roles we expect and demand of it.

Wealthy countries like Australia should do more to bolster multilateral institutions like the WHO as well as to support low and middle income country health systems. Since 2012 Australia’s official development assistance to health has fallen from almost A$1.8 billion in 2012 to A$1.1 billion in 2018. If Australia really wants its voice to be heard in a forum such as the World Health Assembly, it should step up and let others follow its example.

Anthony Zwi, Professor of Global Health and Development, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Iran – USA Crisis

What investigators should be looking for in the Iran plane crash: an expert explains

Geoffrey Dell, CQUniversity Australia

While there is much speculation about the cause of the Ukrainian airliner that crashed after take-off from Tehran’s airport this week, killing all 176 people on board, there is presently very little factual information to go on.

Western intelligence has indicated a surface-to-air missile likely hit the plane in what may have been an “unintentional” act – an assertion Iran quickly dismissed.

As with any other crash, the world aviation community needs to know what caused this one in the interest of ongoing flight safety.

Political tensions between Iran and the US may make the investigation more challenging, but they should not prevent a thorough systematic analysis from occurring and the cause of the crash to ultimately be established.

---

Read more:
Iran and US step back from all-out war, giving Trump a win (for now)

---

Who will have access to the black boxes?

The flight recorders hold the key to establishing what actually happened and why. And here’s where the political tensions are most problematic – Iran initially said it would not hand over the black boxes to the manufacturer of the aircraft, Boeing, or the US.

But new reports say Iran has now invited the US National Transportation Safety Board and Boeing to take part in the investigation.

Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex 13 convention, the US has the right to appoint an adviser to the investigation, as does the aircraft manufacturer. The convention presumes a level of cooperation between all parties involved in crash investigations, which could prove difficult in this case. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a proper investigation won’t or can’t be conducted.

Responsibility for the investigation sits with the Iranians, but under the UN Civil Aviation Conventions, they can request assistance from any other country, if they don’t have the capacity to conduct it themselves.

There are many other countries with the necessary expertise to assist, including recovering flight data from recorders with very significant damage. France, Canada, UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia could all help, for example.

Other countries can only step in, however, if invited by Iran or if Iran chooses not to conduct the investigation.

What’s most important is that whoever leads the investigation must have access to all the information – the wreckage itself, flight data, radar data, maintenance records, crew data, flight plans, load sheets, and passenger and cargo manifests. Otherwise, the wrong conclusions can be reached.

Why is a field investigation important?

There also needs to be a parallel field investigation analysing the wreckage.

First, investigators should be ensuring they have accounted for all the wreckage. If some parts separated from the aircraft in-flight, they may be found some distance from the main wreckage site and may hold key clues that could lead to a better understanding of the cause of the crash.

As such, the terrain under the flight path needs to be surveyed carefully to locate all items from the aircraft.

Clearly, it will also be important to examine the wreckage of the engines for any evidence of pre-crash damage.

---

Read more:
Here’s how airplane crash investigations work, according to an aviation safety expert

---

For example, if a fire had been burning inside the engine cowling, there may be evidence of scorching. Analysis of the internal engine components should also make clear whether the engines were still delivering power when the plane made impact with the ground or if there was a pre-crash structural or component failure.

Investigators should also look at the wing and fuselage surfaces next to the engines for any pre-impact damage. If an engine failure occurred, there may be evidence of impact damage from engine components after they burst out of the armoured casing.

This was the case with the fatal Air France Concorde crash in 2000, as well as the uncontained engine failure that nearly caused Qantas flight QF32 to crash en route from Singapore to Sydney in 2010.

Can evidence show if a missile hit the plane?

Analysing the aircraft engines, wing and fuselage surfaces may also provide evidence if the aircraft was struck by a missile.

This was the case with Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, killing all 298 people aboard. There was clear evidence of the aircraft structures being penetrated from outside the plane by high-speed particles.

Similar forensic analysis can be conducted on the remnants of the Boeing 737 in Iran, even if a high degree of fragmentation occurred in the crash. This should reveal the truth if a missile was responsible.

One of the engines of the crashed Boeing 737 in Iran.
ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH/EPA

Would Boeing’s exclusion hurt the investigation?

Of course, it would be usual for the aircraft manufacturer to be involved. After all, it knows more about the technologies involved in building and operating the aircraft than anyone else.

That said, there are many global agencies that also know a lot about the engineering and operation of the B737-800 plane, such as the airworthiness authorities in other countries, who could be called upon to participate.

No doubt, Ukraine will be heavily involved, as will Canada, due to the number of Canadians who lost their lives in the crash. So, if Boeing was excluded from the investigation, it might be a set-back, but not a show-stopper.

---

Read more:
MH17 charges: who the suspects are, what they’re charged with, and what happens next

---

Boeing is, however, responsible for assuring the ongoing safety standards for the global B737 fleet, so whether it is directly involved in the investigation or not, it is imperative the reasons for the crash are shared with global aviation agencies, the manufacturer and all other airlines.

It is worth reflecting in these sad occasions that the purpose of a crash investigation is to prevent future incidents. Unless the actual cause of this crash is understood, any possible problems in the global flight safety system may go unrectified, making the risk of future crashes higher than it otherwise would be.

The impact of the crash on the families of the victims is also immense and immeasurable. This is another reason why a proper, thorough and systematic investigation is so important. It ensures those who have tragically lost their lives, and their families and friends, will not have suffered in vain.

Geoffrey Dell, Associate Professor/Discipline Leader Accident Investigation and Forensics, CQUniversity Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Government tells police to lay off journalists in investigating leaks

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government has given a new direction to the Australian Federal Police to prevent repeats of the recent raids on the media when leaks are being investigated.

The number of investigations will also be cut back, because departments referring leaks of official material to the police will have to outline the harm the disclosure poses to national security.

The changes, announced by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton late on Friday, follow a backlash against the government after the Australian Federal Police raided News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC over separate leaks.

The direction applies to both current and prospective investigations, so would likely mean the police will drop off their pursuit of the media in these instances, although the ultimate decision rests with the AFP.

Smethurst’s story revealed confidential correspondence about a proposed change in the remit of the Australian Signals Directorate. The ABC reported confidential documents relating to the behaviour of Australian special forces in Afghanistan.

After the raids the AFP refused to rule out prosecuting the journalists. The media organisations launched court action challenging the validity and use of the search warrants.

Dutton said he had issued a “ministerial direction” to the AFP Commissioner.

This set out the government’s “expectations” for the police when a journalist or media organisation had a leak from a serving or former Commonwealth official.

Dutton said the directive did not constrain investigation by the AFP of an unauthorised disclosure. “A key function of the AFP is the enforcement of the criminal law, without exception,” he said.

But he said he expected the AFP “to take into account the importance of a free and open press in Australia’s democratic society and to consider broader public interest implications before undertaking investigative action involving a professional journalist or news media organisation” in relation to a leak.

“Where consistent with operational imperatives, I expect the AFP to exhaust alternative investigative actions prior to considering whether involving a professional journalist or news media organisation is necessary.”

Dutton said he expected the police to continue to seek voluntary assistance from the media.

He has also told the AFP “to strengthen its guidance and processes about the types and level of information required” from departments and agencies when referring leaks.

Departments “will need to provide a harm statement indicating the extent to which the disclosure is expected to significantly compromise Australia’s national security”.

The upshot is that rather than departments routinely referring leaks to the police, disclosures that do not carry national security implications will not be sent.

Sources pointed out this would not stop a department using its own internal processes to find out who had leaked and taking disciplinary action against them.

The opposition declared the changes just “window dressing”.

Shadow minister for Home Affairs Kristina Keneally said Dutton had announced what he “expects” of the police when the media and the public had demanded guarantees from the government.

She pointed out the announcement had come just days before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security held public hearings into press freedoms.

“This is a cowardly act,” Keneally said. “It’s taken Mr Dutton too long to speak out and there are still many unanswered questions”, she said.

“Can the Morrison government confirm they will not charge or prosecute any Australian journalist – such as those at the ABC – for doing their job and reporting in the public interest?”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Did Al Jazeera’s undercover investigation into One Nation overstep the mark?

Andrew Dodd, University of Melbourne

The sheer audacity of Al Jazeera’s three-year ruse is astounding.

The news company’s investigation unit has carried out a sting that has captured both the National Rifle Association of the United States and Australia’s One Nation Party in all sorts of compromising positions.

The series, “How to sell a massacre”, has exposed the NRA’s manipulative media practices and revealed One Nation’s desire to cosy up to the US gun lobby to find ways of funding its domestic campaign to overturn our gun laws.

The documentary has exposed the thinking of some of the party’s most senior figures about taking control of the parliament and their obsession with Muslim immigration.

How to Sell a Massacre P1 | Al Jazeera Investigations.

Al Jazeera senior producer Peter Charley did this by placing actor-turned journalist Rodger Muller in the field to impersonate the head of a fake pro-gun lobby group called Gun Rights Australia. The pair then pandered to One Nation’s desire for financial support and international endorsement and exploited US gun lobbyists’ fears about Australia’s strict gun laws.

They got away with this for three years, gaining unprecedented access to the halls of the NRA and to the minds of two One Nation officials, Queensland state leader Steve Dickson and the party’s controversial chief of staff, James Ashby.

---

Read more:
How Australia’s NRA-inspired gun lobby is trying to chip away at gun control laws, state by state

---

A matter of ethics

There are at least two ethical questions about this documentary.

The first is whether the producers have overstepped the mark by not only reporting what they saw but creating the scenario in which the events occurred.

The second concerns the program’s extensive use of hidden cameras.

On the first matter, the issue is whether the program created the meeting between One Nation and the NRA and therefore acted irresponsibly by entrapping the subjects of the film.

In his account of what happened, Rodger Muller put it this way:

Then Charley asked me to contact Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – a far-right pro-gun Australian political party. Charley wanted me to find out if any connections existed between One Nation and the US gun lobby. And so began another chapter in my life as an avid “gunner”.

When I approached One Nation Chief of Staff James Ashby and mentioned my NRA connections, he told me he wanted to visit the US to meet them. I set up meetings in Washington and soon Ashby and One Nation’s Steve Dickson were on a flight to the US.

I was there, ready to meet them. And our hidden cameras were all primed and ready to go.

This suggests that Muller and Al Jazeera were catalysts and enabled the connection between One Nation and the NRA. But it also demonstrates that there was a desire on the part of One Nation to meet the US gun lobby, and – as later becomes clear – the party was motivated to do so to raise funds and make political connections.

So is this responsible journalism?

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance code of ethics – the protocols by which thoughtful journalists operate in Australia – is largely silent on this issue.

It doesn’t say anything explicitly about creating the news by making connections between players to observe what happens next. But it does stress the need to “report and interpret honestly”.

It calls on reporters to use “fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material” and to “respect personal privacy”. But the code also acknowledges journalists both scrutinise and exercise power. The preamble makes the point that journalism animates democracy.

Most importantly, in its guiding cause, the code states:

ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context.

It allows for any of its other clauses to be overridden to achieve “substantial advancement of the public interest”.

So is it wrong to make and enable connections that might not otherwise happen in order to observe the outcomes? Is this fair and honest and responsible?

Like many things, the answer might be dependent on the motivation. From where I stand, it looks like Al Jazeera’s motivation was to get to the heart of something fundamentally important that would otherwise remain opaque.

Breaches of privacy and deceptive conduct

And while we’re pondering that one, there’s the perennial ethical question about hidden cameras.

This isn’t your garden variety case of a tabloid TV program exposing a dodgy car salesmen or a real estate scammer. In this film, the use of hidden cameras directly places several parts of the code of ethics against that all important public interest override.

The question is whether the public’s right to know is so important that it justifies the film’s deceptive conduct and breaches of privacy.

For me, the use of hidden cameras can clearly be defended when a publicly funded Australian political party, that knows what it’s doing is dodgy, is making connections to “change Australia” by gaining the balance of power in the parliament and “working hand in glove with the United States”.

It is highly likely the extent of One Nation’s behaviour could only be exposed through this sort of reportage. James Ashby is captured repeatedly reminding others they need to be secretive in their dealings with the NRA.

The public has a clear right to know what One Nation is up to. This is especially the case when part of its mission is to learn new techniques to manipulate the public debate to pursue an agenda of overturning the ban on guns following the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre.

The NRA are media experts

There’s something else about this program that justifies the use of hidden cameras. It exposes the utter cynicism of the media messaging and media training that underpins the NRA like nothing I have ever seen before.

---

Read more:
What the NRA can teach us about the art of public persuasion

---

In a closed meeting with NRA officials, One Nation is given a crash course on how to deal with bad press, particularly following mass shootings.

Lars Dalseide, an NRA media liaison officer, is captured saying pro-gun lobbyists should smear supporters of gun control by accusing them of exploiting the tragedy.

He even provides a useful retort to anyone who might suggest that gun ownership might be a factor in a mass shooting. He says:

How dare you stand on the graves of those children to put forth your political agenda.

“Just shame them to the whole idea,” he suggests, by arguing pro-gun campaigners should declare to opponents:

If your policy isn’t good enough to stand on its own, how dare you use their deaths to push that forward.

As he says this, Ashby is recorded replying: “That’s really good, very strong”.

Some of that phrasing seems familiar in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, suggesting parts of the NRA’s playbook have already made their way down under.

This documentary underscores two things.

The brutal tactics of the gun lobby and the operations of One Nation need exposing. Journalism sometimes has to take on the unsavoury job of extracting the truth from those who do not want to share it.

Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Donald Trump and the Mueller Investigation

The Catholic Church is investigating George Pell’s case. What does that mean?

Ian Waters, University of Divinity

Cardinal George Pell was this week sentenced by a Victorian court to six years’ jail for sexually abusing two choirboys, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.

Although Pell was found guilty of the charges against him in December, he has remained a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. The Church previously said it would await the outcome of an appeal before taking action, but it has since confirmed that an investigation of Pell’s case will be conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

An American former cardinal was recently expelled from the priesthood by the Church following a canonical trial into claims of child sexual abuse. Here’s what it could look like if Pell was subject to a similar process.

---

Read more:
After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform

---

Canonical trials are governed by the rules of the Church

Most cases concerning the wrongdoing of Catholics are tried in secular courts. The decisions and punishments handed down by the courts are normally accepted by the Church as sufficient.

But the Church will conduct its own examination of cases where the church’s canon law requires punishment outside the competence of the courts of the land. That includes the excommunication of a member of the church, or the dismissal of a priest or bishop from the clerical state – often referred to as defrocking.

Tribunals to adjudicate matters that concern the Church’s own internal governance are principally governed by the rules and regulations of the Church, which are known as canon law (from the Greek etymology κανών or kanon, meaning a “rule”). These regulations are set out in the Church’s Code of Canon Law, which came into effect in 1983.

Since such trials are conducted because of the requirements of canon law, they are known as “canonical trials”.

---

Read more:
How an appeal could uphold or overturn George Pell’s conviction

---

Sexual abuse cases are handled by the Holy See

Catholic Church tribunals are normally held in the diocese of the parties to the case. The bishop of the diocese can judge cases for his diocese. But since bishops often have little or no in-depth knowledge of canon law, most cases in Catholic Church tribunals are handled by judges (clerics or laypersons) appointed by the bishop. The presiding judge is a priest known as the judicial vicar.

Some matters cannot be introduced at a diocesan tribunal, but are reserved for the various tribunals at the Holy See. This includes cases involving dioceses and bishops, and certain serious matters regarded as crimes in the Catholic Church. Examples of this would be matters of sacrilege (offences against the sacraments), and sexual offences by a cleric against a minor under the age of 18.

A college of judges try difficult cases

Usually a single judge presides over contentious and penal cases. But a college of three or five judges will normally try more complicated or difficult cases – especially if the prescribed penalty is an excommunication from the Church, the dismissal of a cleric, or if the case concerns the annulment of a marriage or an ordination.

Other officers of the tribunal include the promoter of justice, who is the prosecutor in penal cases. The tribunal also has notaries who swear in witnesses, and commit their testimony to writing.

Like any legal system, parties in a case have the right to appoint an advocate who can argue for them at the tribunal. If a person cannot afford an advocate, the tribunal can assign one to them free of charge.

---

Read more:
Triggering past trauma: how to take care of yourself if you’re affected by the Pell news

---

Defendants are presumed innocent

Catholic Church tribunals do not use the adversarial system used by the courts of the common law tradition. Rather, Catholic Church tribunals use the inquisitorial system law found in most European legal systems. That means the judges lead the investigation.

The standard of proof used by the Catholic Church tribunals is “moral certainty”. Certainty results from examination in good conscience of the available evidence. This isn’t the same as “absolute certainty”, but it’s more than mere probability. It is normally stricter than guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is usually held to be the absence of doubt based on reason and common sense.

As a general rule, the defendant has the presumption of innocence, which means the defendant will win by default unless a majority of the judges is convinced with moral certainty of the petitioner’s case.

Ian Waters, Professor, Lecturer, Department of Moral Theology and Canon Law, University of Divinity

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.