Gladys Berejiklian might — like many of us along the way — have fallen for a dill, a big-talking smart-arse who stole her heart and then smashed it.
Or the former New South Wales premier might have engaged in the odd bit of pork-barrelling, giving millions of dollars to one electorate, held by her Liberal Party, over another.
Either way, the treatment being meted out to her daily by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looks unfair, targeted and even a touch sexist.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt, and consider that Berejiklian is guilty of falling for a crafty fool, and keeping it a secret. Isn’t it possible, then, that her main crime is bad judgment? Falling for the wrong bloke, and not telling her girlfriends who might have seen through him? Not listening intently when he started on with his big talk about this scheme and that scheme and how good he was? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, as she said yesterday?
Thinking of the best in people — particularly someone you love — is not a crime. Turning a deaf ear from time to time — even to a partner you love — is part-and-parcel of most relationships. And if this is Berejiklian’s big sin, the self-judgment she’s probably delivering each morning in front of the mirror will be more brutal than anything ICAC can hand down.
So let’s consider that her failings are less personal and more directed at helping deliver $35.5 million in projects to her former boyfriend’s electorate. Shock. Horror. Pork-barrelling? Who would have thought?
If she is guilty of that — directing money to an electorate that might help her secret boyfriend — she joins a long list of politicians from all parties in almost all countries who have favoured one electorate over another for 150 years. Indeed the use of the term “pork-barrelling” is said to date back as far as 1873.
But you don’t need to find a history book to see how common it is, particularly when there is an election in sight. Why would granting funds to a particular electorate in this case (irrespective of who held the seat or their relationship) be any different from the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into marginal electorates every federal election campaign? Why is it any different from the federal Coalition seats benefiting from $300 million in regional grants? In that case, Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie dismissed concerns simply by saying that “decisions have to be made and — that’s how it goes’’. Is it? Should someone tell ICAC that?
Or is what Berejiklian is being accused of any different, in real terms, from the federal Coalition’s promise, as the 2019 poll neared, to build new car parks across suburban train stations? Was that decision purely based on good policy? Or the lure of extra votes?
Labor’s not exempt either, and any analysis of electoral gifts — from air-conditioning in schools to new roads and sports centres — will show a bias towards seats held by the government of the day.
Is giving funds to your boyfriend’s electorate any worse than than giving it to an electorate so you stay in power? One post-2019 election analysis found that marginal seats received funding at a rate almost three-and-a-half times greater than safer seats. Wasn’t that to keep individuals from a particular party in power? What individuals? Who made those decisions? Did anyone benefit personally from them? Should they be put on a stand and grilled too?
When the sun sets on this latest inquiry, questions need to be asked about the performance of ICAC. It was set up in 1988 with three specific tasks: to protect the public interest, prevent breaches of public trust and guide the conduct of NSW public officials.
Across those three goals, its performance is patchy at best. And a waste of public money, at worst.
If ICAC has a smoking gun, it should fire it and Berejiklian should cop the full force of what it is able to recommend. But ridicule is not on the statute books as a punishment for either bad judgment or pork-barrelling, and so far it seems that’s the best ICAC has to offer.
Do you think the ICAC is a waste of taxpayers’ money? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I subscribe to Crikey as an alternative to the Murdoch media, so not sure why I am paying for Madonna King.
It is impossible to watch the NSW ICAC hearings and not pray for a Federal ICAC – it is urgently needed.
We knew three things about Berejiklian even before these hearings started: (1) she had a serious undeclared conflict of interest in her secret relationship; (2) as Premier, it should have been clear to her that one of her MPs was up to various dodgy side-deals, which she failed to do anything about; (3) she had publicly fessed up to industrial-strength pork-barrelling in her community grants programme, which directed $250 million to Coalition seats, and for which her office shredded the paperwork. Most of the media, especially Murdoch and Madonna King, have given her a free pass on that one. The only thing sexist here is the attempt to distract from complete dereliction of standards of public accountability by the construction of a “poor Gladys, unlucky in love” narrative. You wouldn’t try that on for a male politician.
And let’s not talk about the negligence and blundering that led to this year’s Gladys Wave of the coronavirus that has killed over 500 in NSW alone and spread to Victoria, ACT and NZ.
“Daryl made me do it.”
Andrew Bonnell’s comment above captures my thoughts exactly. Except for one thing the number of comments on this piece makes me think that Crikey figures: “If we’re paying Madonna King to write rubbish we might as well use it as click bait”.
Agreed.
Let’s also not forget that the BCA shill who’s taken her job was against any lockdown at all-at least initially-and leaked the fact to his mates at News Corp.
Lucky NSW.
Where’s Stephen Mayne when you need him?
Speaking of which (that last para, sorry) King wrote in condemnation of the Queensland Labor handling of Covid – was she even similarly scathing (let alone as proportionately scathing) of the Shredderjiklian NSW Limited News Party ‘Clayton’s economy first lock-downs’, that allowed it to bolt out that stable door to run as far as it did – that’s still being mucked out after?
I work in NSW for the government. Our code of conduct makes it very plain that if you have reason to suspect a dodgy deal is going on you must report it. I would be sacked if I behaved as she did, therefore I have no sympathy and the more so because she has gone on about how she loved him, was considering marriage and told a big sob story for the TV shows, but then pretends he was not close enough to declare the relationship. It can’t be both and conflict of interest is very clear even if she did little. I am sorry she has come down in this fashion, but enough is enough, she knew the rules.
Old One – I would suggest a little bit of sexism in the article. Would the article have been written in this manner if Gladys was a male? I doubt it. I sure your Code of Conduct would cover this issue.
MADONNA KING. As silly when you wrote for the CM. She’s the premier of the state not a giddy girl of 16. A police officer facing similar would be criminally charged. Weeks ago
Dear Crikey,
Your site appears to be redirecting me to the opinion page of the Daily Telegraph. Just letting you know.
Dear Madonna
I agree that Gladys’ poor judgment about Barnaby, and not listening to his carrying on, is understandable. It’s excruciating to hear her challenged about this. But she was treasurer then premier and has to be held to a higher standard, to always be aware of “how would this look”.
More importantly: pork barreling is not a natural part of democracy. It is misuse of public funds, and must be called out as such. This is essential to meet ICAC’s core purpose to protect the public interest.
Quoting Bridget McKenzie makes the point.
I suspect taxpayers have finally reached a tipping point re the biased and extensive pork barrelling.Gladys B just happens to be the politician under scrutiny at this critical moment. I found her attempts to paint the ‘other phone’ suggestion as only a ‘privacy matter’ to be a bit too cute.
Many apologies I meant Daryl not Barnaby! Mixing up the pork barrellers
Quite understandable error, any LNP fed or state member, all are wallowing in the trough!
The trough had been getting bigger and bigger lately.
Easy to do when faced with so many. : )
and the philanderers, sorry, Casanovas.