Corruption? It depends on your perspective
As the hagiographies and messages of support rolled in from the elite and influential, flowing through the editorials, columns and social media platforms, something significant was on display.
Back in 2014, Barry O’Farrell resigned as NSW Premier for taking a $3000 dollar bottle of wine, somewhere before Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the coalition, in the year before Trump became president in 2016. Scott Morrison was sworn in as PM in 2018, a few months after Steve Smith got done for ball tampering.
We felt betrayed when Smith brought our cricketing legacy into disrepute when he oversaw a ball tampering scandal in front of us all, live on television. After the scandal, we all saw him cry at the press conference. He was our greatest modern cricketer, but he was no captain, and many of us thought he was crying for himself that day. No one spoke out against the lengthy bans, initially many felt that he should never return. That’s the way it was in Australia. We tolerate a lot of horrible things, but not corruption.
In September 2020, the NSW Premier broke off a five-year secret relationship with fellow MP Daryl Maguire when it was revealed he was under investigation. Last week, ICAC revealed a further investigation into the relationship, the information Berejiklian received from ICAC and the entirety of what she considered, which informed her choice to resign as NSW Premier.
At best Berejiklian is stepping down, acknowledging the gravity in the errors of her judgment. At worst, she is a corrupt politician. In both scenarios she is unfit for office. Traditionally, in Australia, when someone steps down from a public position under a cloud of doubt, like Steve Smith, they leave in a storm of controversy and disgrace - a tradition not respected in the neo-values of the anti-corruption-adverse in Canberra.
These neo-values may have informed the outpourings of grief and sorrow from the press, political circles and the influential, from Malcolm Turnbull and the satraps of the Sydney elite, to the young Murdoch changelings who look for positive role models on their political spectrum.
Gladys represented something that is valuable to sections of Australian society, rare in the gender quota-challenged Liberal and National parties: she stood for something bigger in a larger ideological struggle within the conservative right in Australia. For faceless power-brokers, old money elites, young moderate conservatives and blue ribbon climate supporting Liberals, Berejiklian embodied the values and the qualities of the entrenched system - a moderate female Liberal in a political landscape lurching to the right.
Berejiklian represented the values of the people who live contained on one side of an socio-economic demarcation, against the grain of greater Sydney and the rest of the country. She represented a broader fight for the soul of conservative values in Australia.
Things seem different from town to town, around the coves and boroughs, in and around the administrative engines of the nation. Although there was a genuine sense of loss at the resignation of Gladys Berejiklian in the coastal enclaves, across the Red Rooster line and around the country the tale has been different. The frustrations felt in this pandemic from Western Sydney to Broken Hill do not reflect the experiences of Berejiklian’s people in Northern Sydney, nor do they represent vast swathes of people in the country. Her departure was not discussed with the same fondness from those who suffered a poorly managed health crisis, compounded by disproportionate enforcement and careless optics.
For blue ribbon Liberals in Sydney, with their backs to the sea, Berejiklian’s departure may be a warning sign. For them, it may herald the glaring ideological shift that is augmenting the walls of the broad church - this is challenging the baseline of conservative thought in Australia. An American style lurch to the right has been championed by large portions of American owned corporate press, breathing new life into the Liberal and National parties, whilst legitimising and amplifying the voices of people on the fringes. Loyal conservatives may mourn the loss of moderates in the political landscape and speak of the unwanted and untimely interference of ICAC, but that doesn't mean Australians should have to entertain their hypotheticals about what is and isn't corruption.
Rosalind Dixon, Professor at Law at UNSW, refracts the light one way by stating, “Strong democracies require the existence of strong and independent integrity bodies”, yet she brings the supposition into immediate doubt: “Decent leaders with peripheral involvement in corruption, or low-level misconduct, may be replaced by far worse political leaders in ways that damage democracy and our confidence in it”, using examples in Brazil as a worthy comparison.
The reality that the political right in this country have few “decent leaders” and that their replacements are increasingly ideologically ambitious should not lead Dixon to entertain a Rousseff/Bolsonaro comparison. Unlike Brazil’s 33 year old pockmarked democracy, Australia’s has a robust democratic history, one that is currently trying to make sense of an unfamiliar brand of right wing politics, with many, including moderate pro-climate Liberals, left feeling uneasy in the unfamiliarity.
In the wake of ICAC developments and the revelations that left Berejiklian no option but to step down, the Prime Minister went on Sunrise with Kochie -- the bloke who helped him solve the perplexing issue of women -- to explain the noble concept of anti-anti-corruption to the nation. How can the federal government feel that a case for pro-corruption before an election is what Australians need? Is there a malevolent force allowing this LNP government to entertain these unrealistic assumptions?
If things feel strange to you, watching the angles and suppositions trying to validate corruption, you are not the only one. Although we have all tried to follow the rules in a lockdown, our leaders have looked to alter what is acceptable, enabling people who don’t follow the rules. While we Australians have had a long history of political misdeeds, we have been able to forge forward knowing that there was a baseline integrity built into our jurisprudence and political system. One thing has not changed - we still don’t like cheats.
Scott Morrison can talk against the ICAC all he wants, Porter can blind trust, Mackenzie can sportsrort, but Australians cannot accept corruption in any form or entertain any elected official who does. We should condemn the influential and those in the press who seek to normalise criminal activity by trusted officials. Australians must act to bring about a federal ICAC, to preserve the integrity in our power structures rather than slide down the slippery slope of endemic corruption suffered by many governments in the world today. By insisting on a federal ICAC, Australians have the opportunity to protect and enhance our democracy against the degradation and decay of corruption. Any elected leader who opposes this takes the wrong side of history.
I do not concede it was either a "poorly managed health crisis" (find a better one), or that there has been a "lurch to the right" - in fact the far right has been generally demonised and will take a long time to recover. Obviously we need a Federal ICAC - but whether it should only investigate actual crimes, or turning a blind eye as well, is an interesting dichotomy.