We are managing the pandemic quite well, so stop the wild shrieking

For those agitated by the reign of Daniel Andrews, don’t blame the Victorian people. Instead, blame the Victorian Liberal party.

Victorian Liberal Party leader Michael O'Brien. Picture: AAP

We live in incredible times, but still, it has been extraordinarily disappointing to witness how political ideology has guided reactions to a health crisis. Hypocrisy is rife.

Take for instance, the federal coalition government, who closed the national borders, lambasting the Labor state governments (but not the Liberal ones) for closing theirs.

Consider too, the about face of those were most opposed to Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying laws, when introduced. Back then, every life was sacred, no matter how old or sick the person. This meant people facing an imminent and agonising death should not be allowed to bring it forward, and end their own lives, painlessly, at a time of their choosing.

Now, these same types demand various governments abandon restrictions and lockdowns because after all, only the old or the sick will die, and they were on their way out anyway. Suddenly, every life is not so sacred, after all.

For months now, there has been vociferous criticism of governments, in particular, of Victoria’s, but the data is in. Across the world, voters expect their leaders to keep them safe, specifically, to prioritise human life over a balance sheet. Perhaps this is because we have all seen economies recover, but none of us have seen a person raised from the dead.

The Pew Research Center recently asked citizens of various countries whether their country has done a good or bad job handling COVID-19. The countries that marked their governments with the highest “good” score were Denmark at 95 per cent, Australia at 94 per cent, Canada and Germany at 88 per cent, Netherlands at 87 per cent and South Korea at 86 per cent. The highest “bad” scores came from Britain, at 54 per cent and the US at 52 per cent.

Closer to home, the results of a Newspoll for The Australian showed that despite the terrible mistakes made with hotel quarantine, and the cruelty of lockdowns, 62 per cent of Victorian voters are satisfied with how their Premier is doing his job, and 61 per cent think the current lockdown restrictions are “about right”.

This data rises above the chorus of remarks by federal coalition politicians, and hyperbolic and often inaccurate criticism from the angry tub-thumpers on SAD (Sky after Dark). On SAD, our Premier is called “Chairman Dan” or “Dictator Dan” and Victoria is referred to as a “socialist republic” and a “failed state”. These insults demean every Victorian, regardless of how they vote.

For those agitated by the reign of Daniel Andrews, don’t blame the Victorian people. Instead, blame the Victorian Liberal party, and their federal counterparts, who cannot resist the temptation to try to help their dysfunctional state organisation, and so interfere, where they shouldn’t.

For instance, at the last state election, the Victorian Liberal Party decided to run their campaign on a “back in control” mantra. To support this message, Victoria was cast as a state out of control, and so the campaign was based on crime.

At the campaign launch in 2018, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy claimed there was a “law and order crisis”, and said that under Andrews, “Victoria has won the unenviable title as the state with the country’s highest rate of crime”.

Despite some well publicised and terrifying incidents, this claim came as a shock to Victorians. The state was being run well, and the economy was booming.

Plus, the Economist Intelligence Unit had just awarded Melbourne the title of the world’s most liveable city, for the seventh year in a row. Yet we were suddenly expected to believe our city was in chaos.

At the time, The Conversation Fact checker complied national crime statistics, the latest being for the year 2016-2017.

Whether it came to physical and sexual assault, robbery, break-ins, or malicious property crime, including motor vehicle theft, theft from a motor vehicle, or murder and homicide, Victoria did not once top any of the categories, and mostly remained in about the middle of all states.

Both our lived experience and the data proved Guy’s claim to be wildly inaccurate. Yet from this point on, Victorians were subject to ongoing national focus, where people who didn’t live here unfairly cast us as having a rampant crime problem and living in a state with a Mad Max style lawlessness.

The Liberal crime campaign shredded Victoria’s reputation. It was ridiculous and humiliating, and voters retaliated. The result was a landslide, a statewide swing of 6 per cent to Labor, and double digit swings to Labor in Melbourne’s Liberal voting leafy east. This represented an increase of eight seats for Labor, leading to a 10 seat majority.

Throughout this pandemic, the Victorian Liberals and their supporting cohort have been identified by their shrill tones and exaggerated claims. Once again, they paint Victoria as a terrible place, where people are held captive by a deranged power hungry despot.

Fundamental inaccuracies must not go unchallenged. For example, as ABC fact checking service points out, prior to the pandemic, Victoria was the only state where its citizens enjoyed protection from the power of government, specifically, we had a 12 month limit on the government’s power to manage a severe public health risk.

This meant the limit had to be extended in parliament, yet the furore that ensued overlooked basic legal facts. No other leader of any other government, either federal, state or territory, had to go to their parliament to extend their powers, because they already had them. NSW for example, is the only state where the Premier can activate their powers without even declaring a state of emergency.

It is regrettable that once again, Victorians find themselves subject to intense national examination, unrelenting and often inaccurate criticism and demeaning commentary. No one likes to be told by interstate commentators that they live in a shit hole, and people cannot be berated into voting a certain way — in fact, attempts can be counter-productive. Despite the scalding experience that proved this just two years ago, lessons have not been learnt. Consequently, at the next election, history might repeat.