The war of words that has erupted between Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and federal Defence Minister Linda Reynolds over Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel marks one of the biggest rifts to emerge between federal and state governments since the pandemic began.
It also reveals just how opaque government decision-making has become during the crisis.
Andrews told a parliamentary inquiry yesterday that it would be “fundamentally incorrect” to say that there were hundreds of ADF staff on offer to help with the hotel quarantine program, and that “somehow, somebody said no”.
Reynolds swiftly contradicted the claim, issuing a statement just hours later, saying ADF support had been offered to the Victorian government on multiple occasions early on in the crisis. “No request for quarantine support was subsequently received from Victoria at that time,” she said.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
She also pointed to a public statement by the prime minister in March that said ADF would be available to help state and territory governments undertake quarantine arrangements “where necessary”.
So how will we know what actually happened in the early days of the crisis, especially when so much of the decision-making happened behind closed doors?
Truth matters … or does it?
Monash University politics associate professor Paul Strangio said the answers may not be forthcoming, particularly at a time when the public is so unwilling to see its leaders scrutinised.
“There is a lot of goodwill towards the federal and state governments right now. The public is giving our political leaders considerable slack, suggesting they understand decisions are being made under enormous pressure and that mistakes are going to happen,” he told Crikey.
But there are, of course, a number of ways the truth could come out.
The Victorian inquiry into hotel quarantine, led by former judge Jennifer Coate, has made clear it is not beholden to the government, saying last week that Andrews and his ministers were “free to speak” about hotel quarantine after they repeatedly used the inquiry to avoid answering questions.
The Age claims Andrews is expected to argue that the ADF offers were made to agencies of the government, not at cabinet level.
But Strangio says this is also problematic: “It raises the question, who is accountable?
“Ministers should be responsible for their departments … But governments have become more complex, and we now have many precedents where mistakes have been made by ministers and they aren’t held accountable.”
The crisis is far from over and we are likely to see many more inquiries into areas like aged care where there will be disputes between federal and state authorities. But whether we get to the truth of a matter may well come down to what the public expects from its politicians.
“The idea we were going to have a harmonious state of politics throughout this period was always probably naive,” Strangio said.
Leave a comment
Are federal authorities/ABF members free to give evidence before the NSW Ruby Princess inquiry?
The PM said “NO”.
So who are we to believe?
How likely is it that Morrison / Dutton would stop their senior people giving evidence if they had anything to tell that would reflect well on the government?
Why is the Sydney Harbour Master not being called?
I don’t think it will be advantageous to the Federal Government to have a witness to the whole saga testify, but, the truth will out!
No one thinks that its OK for the Border Farce Officer to not have to explain her decision to grant the ship a clean bill of health, after evacuating two passengers to amublances in full PPE.
Only person able to make that decision.
I may be wrong, but the way I understand what happened was the government asked the contracted security firms to supply staff. They in turn went to Labour Hire firms who were charged with supplying appropriately trained staff. Instead they got the Three Stooges.
I may be wrong, but the way I understand what happened was the government asked the contracted security firms to supply staff. They in turn went to Labour Hire firms who were charged with supplying appropriately trained staff. Instead they got the Three Stooges.
Might even be four stooges. I think you’re right
“The public is giving our political leaders considerable slack, suggesting they understand decisions are being made under enormous pressure and that mistakes are going to happen,” Paul Stangio told Crikey.
Ok, I can believe that. What I do not accept for a second is it follows that the public wants the government(s) to operate in secret with no accountability. Quite the opposite – given the high probability of mistakes and likely grave consequences for the nation of those mistakes it is all the more important that everything’s in the open for scrutiny and challenge as it happens.
Absofunkinlutely
I don’t want ANY of our politicians distracted by ‘he said/she said’ arguments at this stage. Whatever their individual shortcomings may be and regardless of whether or not other individuals could serve us better in the job, at the moment the ones on the job today are the ones we have. I want them to be able to focus all of their attention on the main game, dealing with the virus and saving lives.
To that end, I wish the media (including Crikey) would just shut the eff up with regard to divisive, inflammatory journalism. We the public have made it as clear as possible that it’s not what we want or need right now.
With that in mind, what is the point of the above article? What does it achieve? How does it make the situation better?
I agree. In Victoria we are in Stage 4 lockdown. Been in some sort of lockdown for most of the year. What I want is the Premier to be able to get on with the job of getting us through it, without dead carcasses being picked over endlessly.
People are still going on ad nauseam about quarantine when we all know already Rhayader it was a stuff up and the government knows it was a stuff up.
Funny, no one is questioning why Parliament has been suspended in VIC for several months .. .
Perhaps people would be satisfied if we could bring putting people in the stocks, or public duckings.
Fair enough .. but we also want to know that decisions are made
1) with the best info/advice available
2) after consideration of alternatives from other countries
3) and comparison of outcomes
4) after due consideration re all long term outcomes..