Trust is shot for cynical NSW Premier

People are disillusioned by allegations of corrupt behaviour in the right wing of NSW Labor. While not all such allegations result in criminal prosecutions, their frequency damages Labor's credibility as a party dedicated to public service. Widespread cynicism makes it difficult for the party leadership to sound sincere during election campaigns. It also undermines public confidence in the ideals of democratic government and social cohesion.

Political trust is fragile and can be destroyed in many ways. Plundering state finances for private gain is an obvious one, but general mendacity works just as well.

The O'Farrell Government is repeating the mistakes of its Coalition predecessor by demonstrating ideologically driven attitudes to public assets. Critics have pointed to its actions regarding the public service, education and coal seam gas mining. But one decision stands out as being arrogant and disrespectful of the community.

In its desperation to pass legislation in an entirely unrelated area, the Government courted the votes of Shooters and Fishers Party members of the upper house by promising to allow recreational shooting in National Parks.

Minority groups have every right to press governments for policy changes. Governments need to balance such pressures against countervailing demands by other groups, general community welfare and their own ethics. But even the most cynical observers must have been appalled by the paradoxical nature of this decision. The ideals implicit in reserving areas as national parks are incompatible with recreational shooting.

What is perhaps most appalling is not so much that a government might make such a blatantly political decision, but that its spokespersons attempt to justify in terms of feral pest control. It would have been far better had spokespersons advised the people of NSW to get over it, rather than thumbing their noses at valid concerns and legitimate criticisms by citing half-truths about research and dubious guarantees of supervision.

The Government supposedly had research to hand into feral animal populations. Its reluctance to release this research before taking its decision suggests either that there was no research that would bear scientific scrutiny; that the research did not suggest that 'recreational' shooting was the answer; or that the research did not support the Government's decision about where this action is most needed.

The Government has couched its assurances in passive voice. Shooters will be supervised by ... someone. Critics fear that the government has ceded its responsibility to shooters themselves. Chances are that killing of native fauna through misidentification will go unreported, and estimates of feral animals killed will be exaggerated.

In attacking their critics, representatives of shooters have made some very irresponsible statements. If anyone is killed, and this is not unlikely given the experience in other countries, then Premier O'Farrell's position will be untenable. As it is, the Government will have the blood of threatened species on its hands.

The shooters are supposed to respect limitations on their activities; to shoot only feral animals, within specified parks and at designated times. Given the record of shooters during open duck seasons, it seems unlikely that they will adhere to these rules. Shooting, to many who engage in it, is an expression of freedom. To operate within rules limits the excitement of the hunt.

Unfortunately, there is ample evidence from around the world that men with guns present a huge threat to security, wellbeing and justice. Indulging men with guns will diminish public safety.

In recent decades, Australians have begun to engage more sincerely with this unique continent. By learning how Indigenous peoples exercised custody of the land, we've learnt respect for other species and fragile ecosystems. To walk lightly on the earth is the most urgent ethical principle needed today. The O'Farrell Government's environmental credibility has been forever undermined by its decision to let hunters loose in national parks.

Furthermore, where shooters have been, animals will come to fear humans and avoid them. The opportunity for passive interaction with and observation of fauna will disappear.

Indeed, it might well be that this decision so deters public interest in parks that the Government will claim justification for cutting funding to parks and even declassifying some areas. Such an outcome would suit the rabid pro-development lobby which holds great power in Sydney. This politics of the self-fulfilling prophesy is yet another tried and tested tactic of the cynical.

While a government might claim that a crushing election win gives it a general mandate stretching into areas not specified during the campaign, a general mandate cannot justify extreme actions. Taking regrettable decisions based on rigid ideology is not recommended, and nor is trying to defend the indefensible.

Instead of persisting in propping up their lame arguments about national parks, the O'Farrell Government would cause less harm to public trust by breaking a cynical bargain made with a few shooters who lack both public support and public respect. 

Tony Smith holds a PhD in political science. He has taught at several universities including the University of Sydney.