I shudder hearing our Prime Minister, NSW Premier and Newcastle lord mayor rather meaninglessly exhorting that 'we must learn to live with COVID'. Of even greater repulsion is the Premier's and others' ideological refusal to reintroduce any sensible and modest successful public health intervention to dampening the looming Omicron catastrophe.
His government's solution is based on 'personal or individual responsibility' (PIR). Our local experience shows that PIR without evidenced based-rules is a deeply flawed excuse for irresponsible government.
The most concerning problem when political leaders rely upon the PIR of others to not govern, is that it undermines the whole purpose of government and the social contract. The 'contract' concept implies we all forgo a small amount of personal liberty, for the greater public interest or society's collective good, including for example, the prevention and minimisation of harms associated with pandemics and other natural disasters including bushfires.
No more fire bans this summer Mr Perrottet, pictured? Just leave fire management to people's consciences.
Many rules are in place to protect us and our families whilst driving and walking. Imagine the impact on road safety if all speeding, drink driving, mobile phone use, school speed zones and compulsory seat belt laws were abolished in favour of relying upon PIR. Think also of the impact on business and customers with no consumer protection laws and enforceable contracts.
Prior to Newcastle's package of last drinks licensing conditions in 2008, many Novocastrians may recall we had effective anarchy on our inner-city streets on weekend nights. We endured the highest rates of alcohol violence in NSW. The super excuse relied upon by our most violent premises (most still exist today), the AHA and their local political supporters, was the lack of PIR by thousands of their young patrons who could freely binge to 5am with no effective responsible service of alcohol.
PIR represents the worst form of blame shifting and victim bashing. The reality is that NSW's political response to COVID was marred by some confusion, ambiguity, dangerous procrastination and deadly delays - especially with the delta variant. From the very start, crowded pubs, clubs and other indoor locations involving patrons consuming social lubricants, became super-spreader locations.
I believe the NSW Premier's reliance upon PIR to date, has sidelined independent medical experts' advice regarding the reintroduction of mandatory face masks and other safeguards. Whenever PIR is relied upon by those in power, we should also ask whether there are any powerful vested interests who stand to benefit. In the above example, these interests stood to profit from maximising the volumes and strength of sales of alcohol.
For COVID, masks and other successful safeguards are regarded by some as minimising or eliminating sensible public health controls that may interfere with the new maxim of unadulterated 'fun'.
In December 2021, the police reportedly issued significant fines to the alleged spreaders of COVID omicron who breached their isolation requirements at Argyle House. Whilst such misbehaviour is reprehensible, and the unavoidable loss of jobs and income for many other businesses is terrible, in my opinion little media and political attention has focused on the levels of individual responsibility of the owners and controllers of those super spreader pubs/clubs in Newcastle and elsewhere.
In video footage I saw that allegedly coincided with one of the world's worst super spreader event, a line of alcohol shots featured prominently on the bar.
Shots were not permitted after 10pm under the Newcastle conditions given they are specifically designed to induce rapid intoxication, a critical ingredient of alcohol harms and now, I believe, the super spreading of COVID. I was originally reassured that the Newcastle pub owners had agreed to not reintroduce the sale of rapid intoxicating drinks after 10pm when a trial of weakened conditions was introduced.
The NSW Ministerial Code of Conduct obligates leaders to act in the public interest. John Mill (1860) developed principles of liberalism that 'each individual has the right to act as they want', but was importantly qualified by the prerequisite 'as long as these actions do not harm others'. That's why we have rules, Mr Perrottet. Whenever we hear someone with power peddling PIR as a substitute for responsible government, we must remember that PIR is a one-way street. It's an ideological and morally flawed tool or device that entrenches the most powerful and politically connected, whilst simultaneously widening the gap with the most vulnerable, disadvantaged members of our society.
