Tag Archives: New South Wales

IBAC vs ICAC: what are these anti-corruption commissions and how do they compare?

Posted on by

James Ross/AAP

Yee-Fui Ng, Monash UniversityToday Victoria’s anti-corruption commission begins public hearings into allegations of branch stacking by Labor MPs and their staff.

This follows news Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is being questioned by the Victorian Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission (IBAC) over his dealings with the firefighters union (Andrews says he has behaved “appropriately”).

It also comes as New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian sensationally fell on her sword last month. She resigned after revelations the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was investigating whether there was a conflict between her public duties and private interests, which she denies.

This has all further heated up the debate about the proposed federal integrity commission. The Morrison government is expected to introduce legislation establishing the Commonwealth commission by the end of the year. But its proposed model has been criticised as being too weak.

So, what are these anti-corruption commissions? And what are differences between ICAC in NSW and IBAC in Victoria?

What are anti-corruption commissions?

Anti-corruption commissions investigate corruption in government. They can be given strong coercive powers to do so, including the power to compel documents and witnesses.

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian
Former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian quit her role last month, in the face of an ICAC investigation.
Bianca De Marchi/AAP

ICAC was established in NSW in 1988 by then premier Nick Greiner. A few years later, Greiner became the first premier to resign due to an ICAC investigation. Victoria’s IBAC was set up in 2012 following an election commitment by the Baillieu Coalition government (who made the pledge during opposition).

There are three main differences between IBAC and ICAC – jurisdiction, power and procedures.

IBAC vs ICAC

When IBAC was set up, it was criticised by prominent former judges at the Accountability Roundtable as a “toothless tiger,” given the high threshold of what it could investigate – it must be “serious corrupt conduct” before an investigation can start.

We should note here, the investigation threshold for the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is even higher, requiring a reasonable suspicion of corruption amounting to a criminal offence before an inquiry can even begin. This is a difficult hurdle to clear.



Read more:
A federal ICAC must end the confusion between integrity questions and corruption

The Andrews government increased the jurisdiction of IBAC in 2016, removing the requirement for corrupt conduct to be “serious”, and adding the ability to investigate misconduct in public office.

But IBAC’s jurisdiction remains more limited than ICAC’s, which has broad powers to investigate any allegation upon suspicion of corruption. This includes alleged substantial breaches of the ministerial and MP codes of conduct.

IBAC’s powers are also more limited than ICAC. It is unable to use coercive powers to conduct preliminary investigations to determine whether matters warrant full examination. By contrast, ICAC has the full use of coercive powers, including for preliminary investigations.



Read more:
As a NSW premier falls and SA guts its anti-corruption commission, what are the lessons for integrity bodies in Australia?

Finally, ICAC holds public hearings as a matter of course. But IBAC can only hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and when it is in the public interest to do so.

In short, ICAC is a more powerful commission than IBAC.

Who watches the watchdogs?

A big question is about how we ensure anti-corruption commissions do not overstep their bounds. Given their broad coercive powers, how do we hold them to account?

In Australia, anti-corruption commissions are subject to a strong system of accountability through parliaments and the courts.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews.
Daniel Andrews says he will not stand down over news IBAC is looking at his dealings with the firefighters union.
James Ross/AAP

IBAC and ICAC report to dedicated parliamentary committees who scrutinise their actions and decisions. Complaints against IBAC and ICAC can be made to a dedicated inspectorate – an independent statutory officer who oversees their actions.

Where the anti-corruption commissions go beyond the legal boundaries of their roles, the courts will police it. For example, in 2015, the High Court shut down an investigation against crown prosecutor, Margaret Cunneen. The court found ICAC had no power to investigate allegations Cunneen had advised her son’s girlfriend to fake chest pains to avoid a breath test after a car crash. This is because Cunneen’s actions occurred when acting as a private citizen (not as crown prosecutor) – and so did not fit the definition of “corrupt conduct” in the NSW legislation.

So the idea that anti-corruption commissions are not accountable is simply untrue.

Under attack

Anti-corruption commissions like IBAC and ICAC tend to be unpopular within governments because they scrutinise government action and may expose improper conduct or corruption within their ranks.

It is regrettably common for governments hostile to anti-corruption commissions to attack them, including by reducing their powers or funding.



Read more:
ICAC is not a curse, and probity in government matters. The Australian media would do well to remember that

In this vein, the latest barrage of criticisms by politicians of ICAC following Berejiklian’s resignation is rather predictable. It is part of a broader pattern of attacks on oversight bodies that police government action.

This is despite their integral role in our democracy. Alongside other oversight bodies such as the ombudsman and auditor-general, anti-corruption commissions form part of an intricate, interlocking integrity framework that monitors executive action.

In this light, the design of the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is fundamental. Australians deserve a robust system of accountability that will keep our politicians honest.The Conversation

Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

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

ICAC is not a curse, and probity in government matters. The Australian media would do well to remember that

Posted on by

AAP/Bianca de Marchi

Denis Muller, The University of MelbourneJournalists are adept at creating and reflecting public sentiment. It is a reciprocating process: journalistic portrayal creates the sentiment, then the sentiment feeds back into journalistic portrayal.

This phenomenon can be seen clearly in the way the resignation of New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian has been reported and commented on.

The problem is that public sentiment does not always remain tethered to the underlying facts, so journalism that continues to reflect that sentiment likewise tends to become unmoored.

The sentiment about Berejiklian is based on a narrative about a good woman and excellent state premier led astray by a rogue boyfriend who abused his relationship with her to advance his interests in ways that led to his being investigated for corruption. In the process, he dragged her down with him.

In essence, it is a tale we are familiar with, may even have experienced at close hand: a good person making decisions of the heart until confronted by an ugly reality. Beats there a heart so cold that cannot sympathise with this predicament?

Much of the coverage of Berejiklian’s resignation has drawn on and fed into this narrative.

It had worked for her previously when she first appeared before ICAC in October 2020, so she no doubt thought it would work again. To a large extent, she has been proved right.



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

In this telling, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption deliberately brought down this paragon at the height of her powers to the detriment of the public welfare, disrupting the government at a crucial moment in the pandemic.

In this telling, too, ICAC becomes the wrongdoer. Instead of stalling its investigation until heaven knows when – the pandemic is over, the federal election is done – it irresponsibly pushes on regardless.

The surprising thing is that this line of chat has been accepted uncritically by so many elements of the media.

Their understanding is not improved by coverage like this.

The facts are that ICAC is investigating the suspected corrupt allocation of about $35.5 million in taxpayers’ money: $30 million to the Riverina conservatorium of music at Wagga Wagga and $5.5 million to the local clay-shooting club.

ICAC is investigating whether Berejiklian, while NSW treasurer, allowed or encouraged corrupt conduct by her ex-boyfriend, the disgraced former Liberal MP for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire, in respect of those allocations.

ICAC says it is investigating whether, between 2012 and 2018, Berejiklian engaged in conduct that “constituted or involved a breach of public trust” by exercising public functions relating to her public role and her private personal relationship with Maguire.

It says it will begin a four-week inquiry into these questions on October 18.

It should not be presumed that ICAC will make adverse findings against Berejiklian. In similar circumstances in 1983, Neville Wran stood aside as premier during a royal commission into corruption in rugby league. He was exonerated and resumed office.

So a further fact in the present case is that Berejiklian chose to resign rather than stand aside.

It is a fair bet she was unnerved by the prospect of NSW being in the hands of her National Party deputy John Barilaro for any length of time. By her resigning, the state gets a new premier from within the Liberal Party. It was a calculated choice.

ICAC is not a curse. Anyone involved in public affairs in NSW before 1988 when ICAC was established – public officials, politicians, journalists – knew that certain parts of the state administration were riven with corruption. Police, planning, prisons, even the magistracy: repeated scandals engulfed them all.

ICAC has been and remains a remarkable force for good.

A sad irony was that Nick Greiner, the Liberal premier who had the courage to establish it, became one of its early victims. In 1992 ICAC found he had misused his position to secure an independent MP’s resignation for political advantage. Greiner fell on his sword.



Read more:
History repeats: how O’Farrell and Greiner fell foul of ICAC

It is instructive to consider how many of the Morrison cabinet would survive exposure to an ICAC investigation.

Berejiklian’s alleged conflict of interest is not a trivial matter. It involves substantial sums of public money in an exercise that she has previously dismissed as “pork-barrelling”.

This disarming term, rendered harmless by repetition, is actually about the improper distribution of public money. It is a form of vote-buying, as has been shown in the procession of rorts engaged in by the federal government over sports grants, community security grants and car parks.

ICAC exists to root out these and other ways by which the democratic process is corrupted.

It is undoubtedly a personal tragedy for Berejiklian that she has found it necessary to resign, and a misfortune for the state to lose a premier who was held in high public regard.

However, sentiment that draws a misty veil over underlying issues of probity in public life does not serve the public well.



Read more:
The ‘car park rorts’ story is scandalous. But it will keep happening unless we close grant loopholes


The Conversation

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

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

Relying only on vaccination in NSW from December 1 isn’t enough – here’s what we need for sustained freedom

Posted on by

Dan Himbrechts/AAP

C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW; Anne Kavanagh, The University of Melbourne; Eva Segelov, Monash University, and Lisa Jackson Pulver, University of SydneyThe latest New South Wales roadmap to recovery outlines a range of freedoms for fully vaccinated people in the state when 80% of those aged 16 and over are vaccinated.

Unvaccinated people will remain restricted, but will have the same freedoms by December 1, when 90% of adults are expected to be vaccinated.

The relaxing of restrictions will occur in three stages, at the 70%, 80% and 90% vaccination mark, with many restrictions dropped by December 1.

This includes relaxing the 4 square metre density rule to 2 square metres in most indoor venues; and no indoor mask mandates in most venues except public transport, airports and for front-of-house hospitality staff.

The problem is, other countries such as Israel already tried relying mostly on vaccines to relax restrictions – and failed, albeit at lower vaccination levels than NSW is aiming for.

Vaccines alone may not enough to protect against the highly contagious Delta variant.

So who is most vulnerable under the current plan, and how should the NSW reopening plan change to protect these groups and the wider population?



Read more:
NSW risks a second larger COVID peak by Christmas if it eases restrictions too quickly

Vulnerable group 1: children

About 20% of the population is under 16 years. The 80% adult target corresponds to less than 70% of the whole population, leaving plenty of room for Delta to spread.

One in three children aged 12 to 15 have had a single dose of vaccine, but it may be next year before this age group is fully vaccinated.

Another 1.2 million NSW children under 12 will remain unvaccinated. This is the largest unvaccinated group. With no requirements for unvaccinated primary school children to wear masks, and no plan to ventilate classrooms, outbreaks will almost certainly occur.

Children sit in a classroom, raising their hands.
Children generally get a mild infection from COVID but a small proportion need care in hospital.
Shutterstock

In the US, counties with school mask mandates had much lower rates of COVID in children than counties that did not mandate masks. One unvaccinated teacher who took off her mask to read to a primary school class resulted in 26 people becoming infected.

While children get mild infection compared to adults, around 2% of children who get Delta are hospitalised. Of these, some will require ICU care and a proportion will die. This becomes more apparent when there is high community transmission, and high case numbers in unvaccinated children.

The Doherty report estimates 276,000 Australian children will be infected in the first six months after reopening in the most likely scenario, with 2,400 hospitalisations, 206 ICU admissions and 57 child deaths in that time.

Vulnerable group 2: Aboriginal people

Aboriginal communities in NSW are especially vulnerable to epidemics, contracting COVID and getting severe disease.

There are relatively more children in the under 12 age category in Aboriginal communities, which leaves a much higher proportion of the community unvaccinated.

We saw in the Wilcannia outbreak that a high proportion of cases were in children.



Read more:
COVID in Wilcannia: a national disgrace we all saw coming

Despite this, vaccination rates for Aboriginal communities continue to lag about 20% behind the rest of NSW.

Allowing unrestrained travel into these communities before vaccination rates are high enough to afford protection may be disastrous.

Vulnerable group 3: regional NSW

Remote and regional communities are also vulnerable, because of fewer health services and difficulties with access to care.

An outbreak would disproportionately affect regional NSW.

Vulnerable group 4: people with disability

People with disability, many of whom have significant health conditions, are also at high risk.

Vaccination rates for NSW participants in Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme lag state rates by about 14% despite being prioritised in the national rollout.

In the UK, 58% of COVID deaths in the United Kingdom were among people who had a disability. People with intellectual disability were eight times more likely to die of COVID than the general population.

Vulnerable group 5: people with cancer and other conditions

Adults and children living with cancer and other conditions that suppress the immune system may have a poorer response to COVID vaccines, and may need a third dose.



Read more:
Why is a third COVID-19 vaccine dose important for people who are immunocompromised?

The need for third dose boosters in susceptible people is recognised and programs to deliver these are underway in many countries.

Some are vaccinating specific groups: the United States and United Kingdom are providing boosters to all people 65 and 50 years and over respectively.

Others, such as Israel and many European nations, are starting with older adults and immunosuppressed people, and later including the rest of the population.

Australia is yet to formulate such a plan.

Older person's arm with a bandaid after being vaccinated.
Some countries have already started giving boosters.
Shutterstock

Children under 12 years with cancer (not yet eligible for vaccination), also deserve to be protected, by vaccines and/or other measures to stop the spread of COVID in the community.

The consequences of overwhelmed health systems on timely diagnoses and treatment of cancer and other serious illness is already being seen in NSW.

A layered plan for a safer reopening

Currently available vaccines alone will not be enough to control Delta. We will need layered protection including safe indoor air, testing, tracing and masks to continue our lives freely when lockdowns lift.

Here’s what we propose:

1. Implement vaccine targets for at-risk groups

We need to make sure no disadvantaged group is left behind, and that vaccine targets are met for all these groups.

For Aboriginal people, we recommend 85-90% targets be met.

For other groups such as people with disability, particularly those living in congregate settings, higher vaccine targets should also be considered.



Read more:
Vaccinations need to reach 90% of First Nations adults and teens to protect vulnerable communities

2. Make indoor air safer

NSW needs a plan to address indoor ventilation, because the virus is airborne.

This has already occurred in Victorian schools, and should be an important part of lifting restrictions in NSW.



Read more:
From vaccination to ventilation: 5 ways to keep kids safe from COVID when schools reopen

The plan should ensure homes, businesses, schools and other public venues have safe indoor air, and that the community is as well informed on safe air as it is on handwashing, so that people are empowered to mitigate risk in their own homes.

3. Maintain high rates of testing and tracing

We must maintain high testing capacity, make rapid antigen testing widely available, and improve contact tracing capacity.

Suggestions of stopping QR code scanning and thereby reducing contact tracing capacity are misguided, and will result in a resurgence of infection.

We do contact tracing routinely for all serious infections such as TB, meningitis and measles, and need to continue this for COVID-19.

4. Plan for booster doses

We also need to address waning immunity from vaccines and be pro-active about booster doses, particularly for those with reduced immunity or who are immunocompromised, and for health care workers.

For the rest of the population, there is enough real-world evidence protection starts to wane as early as five to six months after vaccination.

It is urgent we address this for health workers and other priority groups such as aged care residents, who were mostly vaccinated six months ago or longer. This is not only for their own safety but to prevent health system collapse from under-staffing due to illness or burnout.

Let’s avoid future lockdowns

In the post-lock down world, NSW will likely face a Delta resurgence if multiple restrictions are simultaneously relaxed, as we have seen in countries overseas.

Dropping most restrictions is also likely to result in repeated stop-start lockdown cycles, prompted by health system strain when cases surge.

Only layered, combined protections will provide a chance of safer and sustainable re-opening until we await the promise of second generation vaccines, boosters and smarter vaccine strategies.The Conversation

C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW; Anne Kavanagh, Professor of Disability and Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne; Eva Segelov, Professor of Oncology, Monash University, and Lisa Jackson Pulver, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Sydney

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

Why Sydney’s COVID numbers didn’t get as bad as the modelling suggested

Posted on by

Jamie Triccas, University of Sydney and Megan Steain, University of SydneyLast Monday, Sydney emerged from a lockdown of more than 100 days after reaching the milestone of having 70% of the over-16 population fully vaccinated.

Modelling predicted New South Wales would “open up” with around 1,900 daily cases when this target was reached.

However, the state recorded just 496 new local cases on that day. And the current seven-day average for NSW is 488 cases, with numbers trending downwards.

What’s more, other modelling suggested COVID-19 hospitalisations would peak between 2,200 and 4,000 in greater Sydney in late September.

On September 21, peak COVID hospital occupancy for all of NSW was 1,268 patients. There are currently 711 COVID patients hospitalised in NSW, as of October 14.

We propose there are two main factors which might account for these discrepancies.

Vaccine effectiveness underestimated

Firstly, predictions of vaccine impact have typically used estimates of effectiveness against the Delta variant based on the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) roadmap, published in June. This suggested an effectiveness against hospitalisation of 87% for Pfizer and 86% for AstraZeneca.

However, more recent data across numerous countries has shown effectiveness against severe infection and hospitalisation is somewhat greater. A different UK study suggested 95% protection against hospitalisation for both Pfizer and AstraZeneca. And a study from the Netherlands found 96% and 94% protection against hospitalisation for Pfizer and AstraZeneca, respectively.

This difference may account for the disparity between the actual NSW hospitalisation numbers and those predicted based on the current vaccine rollout.

Real-time protection

The second reason for the current NSW situation could be a concept we’ve termed “protection in real-time”.

The rapid pace of vaccine uptake during NSW’s Delta wave ensured there was a large proportion of recent vaccines within the population.

This may offset the impact of waning vaccine immunity.

Optimal immunity after vaccination occurs at about two weeks after getting the second dose. But a partial protective effect of vaccination with Pfizer was apparent in clinical trials as early as 12 days after the first dose.

In addition, protection against severe infection may only require a lower level of immune response after vaccination.



Read more:
How long does immunity last after COVID vaccination? Do we need booster shots? 2 immunology experts explain

How has this played out overseas?

The protection in real-time concept can be used to explain the impact of vaccination in other countries, which may provide a “real world” perspective of the future of the pandemic in Australia.

Denmark reached 25% vaccination of the total population before the arrival of the Delta variant. During the Delta wave there were reduced hospitalisations and deaths compared to previous waves and a dissociation between case numbers and deaths.

You can see the black line (cases) starts to separate from the green line (hospitalisations) and the red line (deaths) as the vaccine rollout progresses.
Data from ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations and covidlive.com.au, Author provided

NSW’s achievement of reaching the 70% threshold last week actually equates to around 56% of the total population of NSW. At the peak of its Delta wave in July, Denmark reached 50% vaccination coverage of the entire population.

The restrictions in place at this time in Denmark were requiring proof of vaccination, past infection or a recent negative COVID test to enter certain indoor settings, such as restaurants and cinemas.

With a population size similar to greater Sydney, the coming months in Denmark may serve as an important comparison as to how the pandemic may unfold in Australia.

 

Similarly in Singapore, vaccination rates are high, at around 80% of the total population, and the pace of the vaccine rollout is very similar to Denmark.

Singapore has seen a recent spike in cases since the relaxation of restrictions, with case numbers at their highest. However, 98% of these cases are mild or asymptomatic. This suggests vaccines are having a major impact on lessening the severity of COVID, but a less pronounced ability to completely interrupt disease transmission.

 

Another example of the impact of real-time protection is the situation in Israel. Israel is often used as as the benchmark of vaccine effectiveness. Its vaccine program involved a rapid rollout of mRNA vaccines, predominately Pfizer’s. Initial studies in the country found the vaccine had high effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 and hospitalisation.

However, the arrival of Delta in Israel resulted in a large increase in COVID-19 cases with accompanying spikes in hospitalisations and deaths.

While this may provide some insight into the impact of Delta in Australia, there are key differences.

 
Israel experienced a large increase in COVID cases, hospitalisations and deaths after the arrival of the Delta variant.
Data from ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations and covidlive.com.au, Author provided

Why did hospitalisations rise in Israel? And what are the lessons for Australia?

Israel saw a large proportion of the eligible population vaccinated quickly. Around 50% of the total population was fully vaccinated by mid-March. But after this, there was a marked slow-down in uptake.

 
The NSW and Australian populations have been vaccinated much more recently than Israel’s.
Data from ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations and covidlive.com.au, Author provided

Thus, a combination of waning immunity and a large unvaccinated population may have exposed Israel to Delta.

While the Pfizer vaccine demonstrates excellent effectiveness against severe COVID-19, recent evidence from Israel suggests some waning of protection against severe disease over time, which prompted the introduction of the country’s booster program in July. A third dose was initially offered to over-60s, before being extended to everyone aged 12 and over.

In Australia, the widespread rollout of booster shots in the near future would be premature. The priority now is to get everyone eligible fully vaccinated, and consider boosters for targeted groups.

The federal government announced last week booster shots would be available to Australians who are “severely immunocompromised” from this week.

Governments should also consider a “mix and match” approach of booster shots. This strategy is being pursued in the UK, based on evidence that combining different vaccines may lead to stronger immunity.

 

The Conversation

Jamie Triccas, Professor of Medical Microbiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Megan Steain, Lecturer, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney

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

Coronavirus Update: Australia

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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


The Conversation

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.

Australia: Coronavirus Update

Posted on by

Coronavirus Update: Australia

Posted on by

COVID in Wilcannia: a national disgrace we all saw coming

Posted on by

The town of Wilcannia in the far outback of New South Wales on the banks of the Darling river.
shutterstock

Susan Green, Charles Sturt UniversityThe COVID-19 crisis in Wilcannia demonstrates how entrenched neglect, combined with a global pandemic, have created a perfect storm impacting the most marginalised people in society.

The treatment of the Barkindji people of Wilcannia is appalling by anyone’s standards and should be unacceptable to every Australian. The stories flooding out of Wilcannia of mistreatment of Aboriginal people should make every person stand up and demand immediate action.

The government needs to take immediate action to address the conditions in which the people in Wilcannia are forced to live, and by providing vaccinations immediately to all those who want to be vaccinated.



Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Pat Turner on COVID – and god botherers – stalking Indigenous communities

Not enough healthcare, too much police involvement

As part of my research, I spoke to community members over the phone to listen to their experiences of this breakout. Here are just a few stories told to me by the people of Wilcannia:

  • a young mother who was made to sit outside a hospital on a cold night, before being sent home due to under-resourcing
  • a woman who had police arrive on her doorstep to inform her she had tested positive to COVID-19, and they must take her to the isolation unit. There was no phone call from NSW Health, just police arriving to take her to isolation. Her elderly mother, who is on dialysis, was taken to another town
  • Aboriginal people with mental illness or disorders, who require regular treatment and medication, being picked up in police vans and taken to the hospital because they “may” have COVID-19. The people of Wilcannia told me they were told this is because police vans are “easier” to clean.

The police or the defence force themselves cannot be blamed. They are doing all they can to assist, much of which NSW Health should be resourced to do. Without the police and the defence force, Wilcannia would be in a much worse situation. However, we need a health and community response, not a law and order response.

Reports have surfaced Aboriginal people in Wilcannia are being fined up to $5,000 for leaving home to get food. Some of the people being fined are already living on meagre incomes and having to pay those fines will cause significant distress and further financial problems, further entrenching disadvantage.

Neglect of Aboriginal people has led us here

Overcrowded and poor-quality housing already results in poor health outcomes. The effects of overcrowded and poor quality housing during a viral pandemic cannot be overstated.

Aboriginal people have been isolating in tents during cold desert nights to try to protect their families. They do not choose to live in overcrowded and poor-quality housing; that is all that is available.

NSW Health have since supplied 30 motor homes for people diagnosed with COVID so they can isolate away from their families.



Read more:
The first Indigenous COVID death reminds us of the outsized risk NSW communities face

The situation in Wilcannia did not just happen overnight, nor was it unforeseen. The neglect of Aboriginal people by current and successive governments has led us to this point.

Furthermore, Aboriginal health services predicted last year that if COVID-19 entered Aboriginal communities, it would be disastrous. Instead of governments taking responsibility for their failures, some have blamed the people suffering the consequences of their failure.

For example, the government demonised the family and community who attended a funeral, making false statements and allegations, despite the funeral occurring before restrictions and lockdowns outside of the Greater Sydney Region. Those who made negative statements about the funeral attendance have expressed regret, but it’s too little too late.



Read more:
The COVID-19 crisis in western NSW Aboriginal communities is a nightmare realised

Aboriginal people were classified as 1B priority for the vaccines, but in many places, the vaccines were simply not available. This was either because services on the ground did not have the capacity to deliver or there just were not enough vaccines. Many Aboriginal people across the state of NSW have reported long waiting lists to get vaccinated.

It must also be noted that those Aboriginal people wary of vaccines have good reason, based in over 200 years of history, not to trust what the government says.

However, we do not need to go back that far to understand this crisis. We only need to look at the government’s failure to secure enough (timely) vaccines for these vulnerable communities.

What has to happen now?

The government firstly must address the immediate needs of the community, by ensuring adequate and appropriate housing for people to isolate in, tents and motor homes are not appropriate in this situation. Vaccinations must be urgently administered and everyone who wants to be vaccinated must be able to do so without a waiting list.

More doctors and nurses need to be sent to regional areas affected by the virus. Social workers must also be sent to ensure people have access to adequate and appropriate health care, food and accommodation as well as programs to allow people to deal with issues worsened by the pandemic and to maintain mental and cultural well-being during times of isolation and lock down.The Conversation

Susan Green, Professor in Indigenous Australian Studies and GCWLCH Co-ordinator, Charles Sturt University

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