Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s unequivocal support for Gladys Berejiklian is as arrogant as it is risky. And I say that believing that the treatment meted out to the former New South Wales premier has been sloppy and unfair, with an unwelcome sexist undertone.
But Berejiklian made the decision to step down. That’s history. And she is now sitting on the sidelines waiting for the Independent Commission Against Corruption to hand down its verdict over whether she breached public trust or failed to report “a reasonable suspicion of corruption” by her secret boyfriend, former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire.
The verdict, rightly or wrongly, will dictate Berejiklian’s political redemption. Cleared, she will be hailed a martyr wrongly shamed by an independent commission that warrants a roots-and-all overhaul — or abolition. And she’ll be able to do what she damn well pleases.
But if ICAC finds significant wrongdoing, it will be very hard for her to keep the strong voter support she enjoys. She will be tarred with the ICAC brush, which has already spectacularly stopped the political climb of others. Barry O’Farrell, for example, lost his job over nothing more than a forgotten bottle of wine.
It’s arguable that Berejiklian’s radar didn’t pick up any suspicion of corrupt conduct. That’s her line, and it is perfectly feasible. I can see that. You don’t suspect your partner of wrongdoing. You don’t wake up each morning looking for signs of guilt. And that would make her shortcomings a product of naivety, nothing more.
But if ICAC disagrees with her evidence, and labels her behaviour anything more than that, it’s a dangerous, dangerous move for the Liberal Party to embrace her so wholeheartedly.
Morrison did more than embrace her yesterday. He painted her as a saint, and left no doubt that he sits with the swag of Liberals who want Berejiklian to knock independent Zali Steggall off her perch in the NSW seat of Warringah, held by Tony Abbott until 2019.
Put this into context. Morrison’s support comes before ICAC — a publicly funded body that looks into misbehaviour by politicians and others — hands down its decision. And before Morrison fulfils the promise he made at the last election to have a corruption body federally.
That’s arrogant. And it shows with enormous clarity that he doesn’t support an independent body looking into decisions made in Canberra. That probably should come as no surprise because if you can’t deliver a promise in three years, you can’t deliver it — and should be judged accordingly.
But Morrison’s support yesterday is also risky, because ICAC’s findings, and the evidence used to support them, will colour the view of voters. The benefit of the doubt will disappear. And Morrison doesn’t seem to care.
His NSW Liberal colleague was treated shamefully, he said, and: “I have no doubt that whatever Gladys sets her mind to, she will be a great success.”
No suggestion of criminal conduct — “none whatsoever’’ — was directed at Berejiklian, during an investigation set on shaming her, he said.
Strong words. And risky too, if they don’t align with ICAC’s findings and how voters see that.
Politics might be a high-stakes game, but Morrison looks like he has no intention of playing it safe until election day next year. To be honest, he probably can’t afford to play it any other way.
The only factor going in his favour is Anthony Albanese. He might have started announcing policies this week, but only seems to know how to play it safe.
And sometimes standing for nothing is as bad as standing for the wrong thing.
Are you kidding Madonna King? Have you listened to any of the telephone intercepts played at the ICAC hearings? Particularly the ones where she promises to throw lots of taxpayer funds at Maguire’s projects? Or where she references him ensuring none of it reflects on her?
The evidence presented thus far at ICAC is pretty damning and yet you write this simpering article that implies you’d love to be even more critical of ICAC.
It’s also fairly pertinent, but not referenced in your article, that by stepping down rather than being forced out, she has guaranteed the very lucrative pension that she would have lost had she stayed and been found in breach of her own code.
This article disgusts me in the way it acts as apologist for a highly paid public person who has misused taxpayer funds. I’m sick to death of politicians getting away with it and I’m truly surprised at Crikey for publishing this trite crap.
I agree with all you write except, alas, the last ten words.
I’m disappointed, disgusted, appalled and saddened but not in the least surprised.
Stirrer.
Crikey is famous for telling it like it is. I too agree with all the above comments except Phrynes last words. It’s not typical of Crikey to make the type of excuses for Gladys’s appauling behaviour. Crikey! WTF were they thinking.
It was a Madonna King article – no thought required.
It is not the first time that Crikey has published this line by Madonna King. The last time her “argument” was dismantled a few days later by Michael Bradley. But, no, it is not a surprise that Crikey has published it.
Reading this article I was beginning to wonder whether I merely dreamt hearing those cringeworthy telephone conversations between Berejiklian/Maguire played at the hearing. Thank goodness somebody else remembers.
Perhaps Madonna King would prefer evidence not to be admissible at ICAC (“kangaroo court”) hearings – after all, it has the potential to reveal the guilty.
Absolutely. And if Madonna really believes the treatment meted out to Gladys was unfair and sexist, I have a lovely bridge she might be interested in purchasing.
Thanks Simon, you summed up many readers feelings very well. Simpering indeed, made me sick just reading this BS!
Strange article. “the treatment meted out to the former New South Wales premier has been sloppy and unfair, with an unwelcome sexist undertone.” is a weird comment, and I don’t believe it is factual at all.
One thing that’s even more common in politics than egregious and obvious sexism, is guys who are hellbent on pretending it weren’t so. And it’s shameful.
But here? I don’t see it either.
I agree. The article also states “Barry O’Farrell, for example, lost his job over nothing more than a forgotten bottle of wine”. This is a trivialization of what really happened. . It was a 1959 Grange worth over $3,000, given to O’Farrell by Australian Water Holdings (AWH) executive Nick Di Girolamo (who’s links with the Government were being investigated by ICAC at the time). During testimony and under oath, O’Farrell denied receiving it. When a thank you note handwritten by O’Farrell appeared he resigned due to a “massive memory fail”. If he had owned up at the right time, he’d still be Premier and Berejiklian would have been free to run in Warringah without a cloud hanging over her head.
Hear hear
Barry got out because it was getting too hot. Surely his memory wasn’t that bad.
He also resigned because he knew that, if ICAC had pursued the Grange Bottle to its logical conclusion, they’d have revealed a deep hole of blatant corruption & malfeasance.
And as for the sexist undertone, am I now so old as to be the only one to readily remember that ICAC’s first scalp was a middle-aged white male, and NSW Premier! Nick Greiner, the man who set it up, hoist on his own petard.
No.
I rejoiced that, after years of being Chief Allegator of calumnies against Nifty, he quickly became Kermit but without backbone or support, just a piece of soiled cloth.
Yes, hopeless article. A shocker. If you are going to claim that Berejiklian was treated in a sloppy manner, you have say why. Otherwise do not say it. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence, fact and conclusion. It is called journalism. You are not just at a bar on a Friday night mouthing off. Sorry to be harsh but these matters are rather too important to be off-handed about.
This is the worst load of crap I have ever read in Crikey. Her guilt was obvious to anyone who listened to the phone calls, just one stsnds out ” I don’t need to know that” without looking back to her rorts that she then declated ” Everyone does it” as though that makes it guilt free. She’s a Liberal, just because 99% of them lie does not make their corruption less corrupt.
Perhaps it’s another of the humour pieces that Crikey sometimes publishes? “That’s her line, and it is perfectly feasible. I can see that,” made me laugh. King might be planning a series of these pieces, such as: How I Can Believe Morrison is Decent and Truthful, or maybe Donald Trump is Really Sincere and Means Well When I Think About It
Love it!
Or: if gladys is good then so is her partner.
The article right notes Berejeklian chose to resign and was not forced out by ICAC: “But Berejiklian made the decision to step down.” But then the article says: “Barry O’Farrell, for example, lost his job over nothing more than a forgotten bottle of wine.”
O’Farrell, exactly like Berejeklian, made the decision to step down. He was not forced out. Why is the article inconsistent?
This, as others have said, is a strange take on Gladys Berejiklan, if not on Morrison, who has been breathtakingly arrogant as PM, engaging in arrogant lies, knowing that his colleagues would have to back him, and in rorting beyond and above what any of his predecessors have got away with.
There is clear evidence of her having acted to allocate public funds with an undeclared conflict of interest, with her only defence being that her relationship with Daryl was too insignificant to be declared. That defence is unlikely to stand up, as some former Premiers have made it clear that it was a conflict of interest that they felt they would have declared as a matter of course. This is not a criminal offender but it is dishonest conduct.
There is some evidence that she turned a blind eye to Maguire’s corruption but Morrison’s advisors are no doubt right to tell him that it is unlikely to warrant prosecution. Morrison, of course, is lying as he usually does when he claims that no criminal matter was pursued by NSW ICAC.
Of course, Morrison’s arrogance is not just a character flaw. As Trump recognises too, absolute presumption that you are right has a pull on people who like to follow. The charm of it all is that that they will follow such excessively and baselessly self-confident people on projects that defeat their own good, not despite their loyalty, but because of it.
Experts rush to tell us that the ALP will find it hard to win but Australia needs the end of Morrison just as the Us needed the end of Trump.