Throwing their weight behind legalism at the expense of integrity
A strange thing is happening in the case of the Glady Berejiklian scandal: many prominent media figures are prepared to defend her and even claim she did nothing wrong. This is in spite of the clear evidence in her correspondence with Darryl Maguire that she almost certainly knew of his corrupt behaviour. She also failed to disclose being in a romantic relationship with him, while he used his access to her to create a financial benefit to himself.
For the uninitiated a brief summary of the Gladys Berejiklian Darryl Maguire scandal. Disgraced former MP Darryl Maguire has admitted to monetising his office as an MP through a cash for visas scheme and taking commissions to lobby on behalf of developers. An ICAC investigation revealed that Gladys Berejiklian was in a secret relationship with him throughout this time. In audio tapes Gladys Berejiklian is recorded saying “I don’t need to know about that” when Maguire discusses earning a large commission on a land deal. She also replied Woo hoo to a text of his divulging he had earned a commission on a land deal.
The most serious problems with Gladys conduct are not contingent on her being in a relationship at all. The problem is simply that she knew Darryl had an unacceptable conflict of interest and as premier she did nothing about it. However, by failing to disclose her relationship which was surely a significant personal relationship she also broke her own ministerial code of conduct. An unfortunate fact about ministerial codes in Australia — in practice the only person in a position to enforce them is the party leader. The relationship created a serious conflict of interest — as premier it was Gladys who had to decide how to respond to the unfolding Darryl Maguire scandal. Her claim that her professional and private lives were kept separate is quite the insult to voter’s intelligence.
Some may have been sucked in, but based on what we know it is incredibly implausible that Glady’s did not realise what ‘dodgy Darryl’ was up too. Apart from the tapes and texts Darryl facilitated meetings between here and developers on a number of occasions, also giving out her email so she could be lobbied directly. Rather than look at the full record media commentators have put themselves in all sorts of contortions claimed Glady’s is ‘naïve’ and ‘inexperienced in love’ due to coming from a conservative background. More serious analysts see the scandal as an open and shut case of corruption — the premier must resign.
Those defending the premier essentially take what I think of as ‘the legalist position’. They claim that since she did not break any laws, her actions are acceptable and she does not need to resign (necessarily). Partly this defence is enabled by the fact in New South Whales, outside of their official duties an MP is free to engage in pretty much whatever business activity they want so long as they disclose it on the official register (a requirement which itself is arguably not a hard and fast rule). Of course, this situation is in no way a recipe for disaster that contributes to the constant sleaze and corruption at the heart of NSW politics.
The absurdity of the legalist position is how it wilfully conflates two different things; the law and the reasonable expectations the public has that politicians not use the power of their office to benefit themselves. In colloquial terms we might say that the public expects politicians not to be corrupt. I use the term colloquial rather pedantically because, as is typical of the Kafkaesque charade that passes for public debate in this country, proponents of the legalist position have resorted to the word games of claiming Gladys Berejiklian has not been proven to have engaged in corruption. By which what they actually mean is that she has not been proven to have Broken any laws.
As they are wont to do, News Corp has put its finger down hard on the scales with a calculated campaign of public relations spin designed to prop up the premier. With the dial turned all the way up to megaphone the Telegraph has employed that most time worn of PR tactics: divert attention from the main issue by creating a compelling counternarrative, or better yet a whole serious of them. This gross act of cynicism by News hardly adds at all to their existing record.
And yes, some of the disagreement about this scandal can simply be put down to rank partisanship. The fiercest defenders of Gladys are members of the more progressive ‘wet’ faction of the liberal party. Her fiercest opponents are not only those on the left but also Conservatives. But partisanship even if it was an excuse still doesn’t fully explain the willingness of many to give Gladys a pass.
There’s a larger point to be made about the prominence of the legalist perspective. Many behaviours that are obviously corrosive examples of self-dealing are perfectly legal in Australia. Larry Anthony is simultaneously the director of a lobbying firm SAS group and the president of the Nationals’ party. Federal minister Malcom Roberts a close Morrison ally appointed his parents to the directorship of his own company without their knowledge (he is still on the front bench). Until recently the NSW liberal party was run by a powerful lobbyist with close financial ties to the insurance industry. These are all open secrets about how corrupt Australia is. Even Daryl Maguire who did everything he could to monetise his position as an MP may not have Broken the law according to recent reporting by the ABC (does this mean we should accept back his services as an MP, I think not).
Evidently journalists and politicians are comfortable with this situation, operating a parallel set of expectations to the general public. After all Australia’s ‘game of mates’ dominated government business nexus is the only world they know. Always an arch conservative force News helps to protect ‘the game of mates’ by focusing relentless attention on parliamentary expenses while the big fish swim on safely by. Fortunately (for some!) many ordinary people don’t realise how corrupt Australia is. Or that it doesn’t have to be this way, as there are many possible solutions. The problem is it will require politicians to vote away their own privileges to implement any of them!