Read on Twitter
It's pretty unusual because NSW is the original police state, quite literally, and police continue to exert immense influence over governance in this state.
Best practice in public health is *not* to use the police, and Gladys has followed that advice. https://twitter.com/PRGuy17/status/1344440384781393921
Best practice in public health is *not* to use the police, and Gladys has followed that advice. https://twitter.com/PRGuy17/status/1344440384781393921
To give an example: it's clear to all that we'd do better treating illicit drugs using a treatment model. Recently there was a Cabinet leak suggesting the government was about to decriminalise possession of small amounts. My sense is the leak came from Police Min David Elliott.
The leak and the predictable News Corp vitriol that ensued all but tanked the proposal. And this is but one example of the police in effect competing with the democratically elected government of the day over who rules in the state.
So it's actually politically risky for Gladys to stick to the lower rungs of the enforcement pyramid – information, encouragement, support, rather than mandate, surveil and enforce. It goes pretty hard against the grain of NSW political culture. It's not just a lack of resolve.
You also have to remember that this is not our first rodeo. I understand that people in Vic were paying attention to the catastrophe unfolding in that state, but while it was, NSW was contact tracing the Crossroads cluster, which it brought fully under control without lockdowns.
The Crossroads outbreak eventually had three clusters and while this one has more cases overall, Crossroads was significantly more dispersed, which makes contact tracing more challenging. But we demonstrated that contact tracing works when you do it in time.
While that was happening, we were strongly encouraged to wear masks on public transport and in settings where it's not possible to social distance — and most people did. I'd estimate maybe 8.5 out of 10 on public transport. Of course that may just be my inner westie bubble.
To sum up: good governance is responsive. It invites cooperation. It uses the least restrictive measures first and escalates only as required to achieve the desired outcome. It's based on data, not people who grab airtime by making alarmist claims.
And since these issues have been made partisan, here's where I stand: I voted for Dan. I've worked for Vic Labor. I've also worked for DHHS funded agencies. I am not defending Gladys: I'm defending a progressive response based on expert advice, data, and community engagement.
