The real difference between Gladys Berejiklian and Dan Andrews
Victorian Premier Dan Andrews has explicitly said he would not hold himself to the standards set by Gladys Berejiklian. James Morrow explains the real difference between the two leaders.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The difference between Gladys Berejiklian and Dan Andrews is not female versus male, a preference for opening up rather than shutting down, or even Liberal versus Labor.
No, the real difference between the two leaders is the difference between honour and dishonour.
Which is why it would be a bad move to bet against Dan Andrews, despite all his flaws, going anywhere soon.
Look, we know Dan Andrews’ government could be in some sort of trouble.
Check out how the ABC covered for him this week.
On Wednesday morning, the Victorian premier stood up to give one of his regular press conferences, when all of a sudden he was asked about his name coming up in a corruption inquiry.
The ABC presenters cut in, said the event was “going around in circles”, and cut to another discussion.
Can’t have anyone hearing a bad word about the Chairman, apparently – not even if it looks like his government could be caught up in a probe about its dealings with the United Firefighters Union.
But trouble isn’t necessarily terminal.
The fact is, the ABC and all the so-called “Dan Stans” out there probably don’t need to worry too much.
Andrews has said explicitly that he would not hold himself or his ministers to the standards set by Gladys Berejiklian. An investigation, he said, would not by necessity lead to a departure.
Honour, dishonour. It can’t be any clearer than that.
This despite leading the most disastrous, deadly, and economically and psychologically devastating Covid response of any state or territory government.
Because Dan Andrews’ greatest sin doesn’t involve any of the questions that are being asked around his dealings with the firefighters union, answers to which remain to be heard.
Nor is it the hundreds of aged-care residents who died, thanks to a bungled hotel quarantine program that also led to a mass outbreak of the “I can’t recalls” among his officials.
Not even the way he has so casually abused the people of Victoria with his morale-sapping, unscientific curfews and playground closures.
No, what Andrews is most guilty of – and should stand condemned for – is hubris.
We saw it when Andrews and his stay-at-home Twitter minions (an unknown but probably significant number of whom draw a Victorian public service payroll) held Victoria up as a gold standard.
Lock down fast, hard, and early was the rule – and Berejiklian was taunted for leading a “mockdown”.
Well, here we are – with Victoria more locked down than ever, with record high cases announced this week, and with the Andrews government clearly figuring out a way to push a reopening off into the never-never.
Victorians’ rating of their government’s response have started to slip, suggesting the local variant of Stockholm syndrome might be starting to wane.
Even the normally friendly local press gallery is starting to ask uncomfortable questions of the what did you know and when did you know it.
But Dan Andrews has made it clear – he’s locking down in his office as hard as he’s locking down Victorians.
More Coverage
Join the conversation
Blair: Hamas and their mates are sooking for themselves
There would have been no deaths in Gaza for protesters to protest were it not for the declaration of war that was Hamas’s October 7 blood and rape orgy, writes Tim Blair.
Read more
War and price: oil’s impact on your bank balance
An expanding war in the Middle East has already pushed crude oil prices higher, so what does that mean for your hip pocket?
Read more