The John Barilaro scandal is no longer just a foul stench hanging over the NSW government. It’s a cloud of mustard gas dealing death in its wake.
Yesterday’s evidence from Jenny West, the successful candidate for the New York trade commission post who was flicked because the job was to be, in the words of her tormentor Amy Brown, “a present for someone”, has ratcheted the scandal to a new level.
The treatment of West — told the bad news by Brown during an absurd “walking meeting” on Balmoral Beach — is remarkable for its brutality: not merely did she have the job offer — complete with signed brief by then premier Gladys Berejiklian — revoked, she then learnt her actual position had been terminated as well.
Proceedings have now reached the ugly “what did the premier know and when did he know it” stage.
Perrottet has claimed to NSW Parliament that there were no suitable candidates for the job, a statement he now says was based on apparently faulty advice. But his predecessor was personally aware of the appointment of West. Where did the idea of a lack of suitable candidates come from? Some panicked staffer in Perrottet’s office who failed to check the records?
At the very least, Perrottet was allowed to walk into Parliament and, it seems, mislead it on a very straightforward fact. But what was the origin of the deception if it was a mistake?
There’s also the matter of the leak to The Australian from the Legislative Council committee of in-camera evidence from Brown about her belated — and very convenient — discovery of alleged issues with West. Yesterday one of the Nationals MPs on the committee, Wes Fang, tried to use proceedings to put pressure on West over whether she would seek compensation for her treatment.
Is there a deliberate government plan to try to discredit West, knowing the evidence she would give? Or just some rogue MLCs trying to derail a profoundly damaging inquiry?
Next time a witness gives in-camera evidence to an upper house inquiry in NSW, can they be sure it won’t be leaked for partisan purposes? A very dangerous precedent has been set.
Perrottet is strangely passive in the face of all this. True, he has had yet another flood crisis to deal with. But he has allowed his government to be hostage to the drip-drip-drip of revelations from an inquiry controlled by his political opponents. And having been — apparently — badly misled by his staff and department, you would expect any decent premier to go on the warpath and demand answers, even if only to ensure he was not made a goose of and mislead Parliament again.
If Perrottet is the cleanskin he wants us to believe — the one who defended ICAC from Scott Morrison and who committed to end pork-barrelling — he should be far more front-footed in dealing with the stench left over from a darker and more corrupt time in NSW politics, one when allocating taxpayer money for political purposes and jobs for the boys were standard Macquarie St practices.
An ICAC investigation would be welcome. It has far more evidence-gathering powers than a Legislative Council inquiry. And it would address a crucial point: just because something isn’t a criminal offence doesn’t mean it isn’t corruption and abuse of public office.
If the New York gig was a “present”, then that’s a perfect case of corruption that doesn’t break the law. As Michael Yabsley wrote a fortnight ago, it’s important that we expand our understanding of corruption to encompass the misuse and abuse of power whether it’s criminal or not.
Meanwhile, Perrottet presides with peculiar passivity over a growing crisis not of his making but surely needing his leadership.
Was Perrottet mislead about no suitable candidates? It was clearly true there were none after anybody suitable was carefully crossed off the list; with their reputation smeared just to make sure. But what sort of idiocy is it that says when there are no suitable candidates the job can go to somebody very unsuitable indeed just because of his greed and political connections? Would it not make more sense to ask whether any appointment should be made when there is nobody available who is up to it? Of course, that would require those in charge to take seriously their responsibilities to the public good and integrity, so fat chance.
One obvious conclusion from all this is that these trade commissioner posts were never a serious proposition to begin with. They are all sinecures, yet another way of sharing the loot that ministers and their mates enjoy as they pillage the nation.
Top comment, Rat.
Well said fellow swimmer.
I think that island over there is called ICAC.
The circumstances of “Call me Porky Barilaro” being handed a job to keep “Arthur” company safely out of the country and out of politics, looks and smells bad, very bad.
Was Perrottet so damned and naive about no suitable candidates?
Perottet appears a dead set cert to be the next NSW Premier chewed up and spat out by ICAC. Given Barrilaro quit at the same time as Berijiklian, Perrotet must have been the one at the helm when this shabby, sordid deal was done. Matt Kean must have a smile a mile wide right now.
Dead parrot Perrottet.
Just resting
schlepping
I agree that Perrottet needs to step up here. But the aspects of this scandal that astonish me are: How dumb is Baralaro to think he was going to get away with this? And what a piece of work is Amy Brown. The naked corruption and administrative ineptitude are epic.
Did she really make the comment that God led her to her current job? It rather sound more like the work of the Deceiver!
She was appointed by the Dom premier.
“Poor, dumb, easily-led Dominic”? …. So whose fault was the preceding icare debacle?
The icare scandal was just under two years ago. Has Bernard forgotten Crikey’s own reporting of it?
The NSW government’s icare scandal isn’t going away anytime soon (crikey.com.au)
Not sure anyone associated with icare can be called a “cleanskin”.
iCare was just a measly $4 Billion cockup……………..
…………Perrotet was also the architect of the (ten times larger) TAHE debacle.
He has personally overseen the torching of around $50 Billion in NSW assets.
“Better Business Managers”
What really gets me about this is that no-one seemed to care about this cosy appointment until it failed the pub test. It says to me that this sort of appointment is the kind of thing politicians expect, and that’s the biggest problem.
Rules should be in place to prevent this sort of appointment happening. Politicians evidently can’t be trusted to do anything other than use taxpayer funds to look after their own.
Which major political party would enact laws to prevent these sorts of appointments? Could be quite unpopular with their brothers and sisters, methinks. This sort of law would need to be the result of a citizen led referendum (no such thing in Oz), a constitutional convention OR (more likely in our context) a condition of support from the crossbench in a hung parliament.