Daniel Andrews: A legacy of leadership and mainstream media madness

The Andrews legacy survived, despite a rancid, once-sided and rabid mainstream media in Melbourne. And, just like all the other “Dan-haters”, they got it all wrong.

Daniel Andrews, the 48th Premier of Victoria, has stepped down after serving the state for an impressive nine years. In his resignation announcement, he reflected on his time in office, highlighting his dedication to doing “what’s right, not just what’s popular”. Andrews’ political journey was marked by significant electoral victories and a contentious relationship with both the mainstream media and his political detractors, notably populated by conspiracy theorists and extremists.

Andrews’ tenure as Premier was noteworthy for several reasons. He managed to secure three consecutive election victories in 2014, 2018, and 2022. The 2022 election, in particular, stands out as a significant achievement, given the perception that the entire media industry in Melbourne was against him. Despite the odds, he not only retained power in 2022 but increased his majority – 56 seats in a parliament of 88 – defying expectations, although the expectations of a dent in this majority – or even a defeat – were solely magnified by the media, without any evidence to support their claims that Andrews was facing a political demise.

Throughout his nine years in office, Andrews faced numerous political challenges and accumulated his fair share of detractors, as is to be expected for a political leader in office for such an extended period of time. However, his enduring popularity, with a consistent approval rating of over 60 per cent, in addition to a landslide victory in 2018 and a consolidating win in 2022, suggests that he was far from the divisive figure many in the media portrayed him to be.

The mainstream media tried to play a crucial role in shaping negative public perceptions of Daniel Andrews, as it does for any prominent political leader who is from the centre-left or non-conservative persuasion. The 2022 election campaign saw widespread and unfounded criticism of Andrews in many media outlets, including The Herald Sun, The Age, the ABC, and multiple television channels and raises important questions about the influence of media bias on electoral outcomes and the electorate’s ability to discern fact from opinion, although the electoral results suggest the negative and relentless media campaign against Andrews didn’t have an effect. If that’s the case, why does the media expend so much maniacal energy on a fruitless exercise, quite often humiliating themselves and the profession of journalism?

Critics often pointed to the state’s substantial debt during Andrews’ leadership, even though once all the key economic factors and indicators are assessed, it’s not too dissimilar to debt levels and management in other states and territories across Australia. Still, it’s essential to acknowledge that this debt was primarily allocated to fund much-needed infrastructure projects, leading to Melbourne’s transformation into a more liveable and prosperous city – according to the Economist Group, Melbourne was ranked either the most liveable, or second most liveable city in the world between 2014–23, and ranked third at the time of Andrews’ departure. While concerns about debt are valid, the purpose and results of the spending must also be considered.

One of the most significant challenges Andrews faced during his tenure was managing the COVID-19 pandemic. His efforts were not without their difficulties, including the early outbreak linked to the Ruby Princess cruise ship in 2020, an outbreak primarily caused by the NSW Government, and ongoing issues with the management of the pandemic and implementation of lockdowns. However, it is essential to contextualise his pandemic response in comparison to other states, particularly New South Wales. In hindsight, the inconsistent and poorly thought-through management in New South Wales, along with a perceived lack of competence from senior ministers, including NSW health minister Brad Hazzard, underscored the complexity of pandemic decision-making.

Despite the hurdles and controversies magnified by the mainstream media, Andrews’ leadership was characterised by his commitment to good policy over political expediency. He was unafraid to make unpopular decisions when he believed they were necessary for the greater good of the community. This approach resonated with the public, as evidenced by his consistent approval ratings and electoral victories.

Governance and policy initiatives

Andrews’ tenure as Premier was marked by a series of significant policy initiatives and social reforms. His leadership has seen the implementation of progressive programs, including public housing initiatives, voluntary euthanasia legislation, measures to combat domestic violence, universal childcare, and a comprehensive approach to negotiating a treaty with First Nations people. Additionally, Victoria consistently held some of the lowest unemployment rates in Australia, reflecting the government’s successful economic management.

One key area of contention surrounding Andrews’ leadership is the state’s level of public debt. Critics have often portrayed Victoria as economically mismanaged, citing high levels of debt as evidence. However, a closer examination of the numbers reveals a more nuanced picture. Victoria’s current public sector debt stands at $139 billion, while New South Wales, carries a debt of $135 billion. Of course, Victoria does have a smaller population – 6.6 million, compared to 8.1 million in New South Wales, so the per capita debt does show a significant difference, with Victoria’s per capita debt at $21,000 compared to $17,000 in New South Wales.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that Victoria provided substantial income support during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to its debt levels. This support was necessary due to delays in vaccine distribution and income support from the federal government, particularly during the critical early months of the pandemic, delays that were instigated by the Morrison government primarily to cause political damage to the Victoria government, and favour the Berejiklian government in New South Wales. Despite these challenges, Victoria remains in a favourable position to manage its debt in the long run.

Comparing Victoria’s economic situation to that of New South Wales reveals striking similarities in debt management into the future, yet the media often focuses more on Victoria’s financial challenges. This discrepancy in media coverage raises questions about the portrayal of Andrews’ government and how unfairly it was targeted by many sections of the media, most notably News Corporation and the ABC, a practice that continued up to the time that Andrews resigned, with most of the media reports glowingly and enthusiastically announcing his departure, as if he was a despised political leader in the mold of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu or Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.

If in the eyes of the mainstream media that Andrews was such a terrible and awful leader, why do so many people want to live in Victoria? Melbourne’s fast-growing population is a testament to the appeal of living in Victoria, as more people choose to move there than to any other Australian state. This population growth reflects the government’s effective governance and its ability to provide a high quality of life to its residents.

Despite these achievements, the mainstream media’s portrayal of Andrews and his government has often been highly critical. The media’s role in shaping public opinion is significant, and the negative narratives surrounding Andrews raise questions about the media’s objectivity and its responsibility to provide balanced reporting.

Andrews’ legacy as Premier of Victoria is characterised by effective governance and a commitment to progressive policies. However, his tenure has also been marked by relentless media scrutiny and negative portrayals. While opinions about his leadership may vary, it is clear that Victoria has thrived under his leadership, and the media’s influence on public perception warrants further examination.

Media influence, and the future

The media’s portrayal of Andrews and his government was often highly critical and unprofessional, with some outlets engaged in pure click-bait sensationalism and pro-conservative bias. His handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was a case in point, with daily press conferences becoming platforms for what often seemed like pointless or conspiratorial questions, especially from The Herald Sun, and then replicated by others in the media.

On the ABC’s Insiders program, the panellists – and the host – were in unison when it was suggested that Andrews avoided scrutiny, by bypassing the mainstream media and conversing with the electorate through social media – even though many journalists in the mainstream media diminish the role of social media and claim that it had a negligible effect of electoral outcomes, and falsely asserted that he was reluctant to appear in the media and, when he did, he rarely provided the answers they were looking for.

Again, this defies the evidence: just like every other political leader across Australia during the early parts of the COVID-19 pandemic, Andrews appeared in daily press conferences until every question was asked and answered – even the more ridiculous questions from News Corporation journalists – and his media conferences would typically run for up to 90 minutes. How can journalists assert that Andrews “avoided scrutiny”, when he offered as much time as possible to the media of all persuasions? And if they now deem that it wasn’t enough, how can Andrews be blamed for the time wasted by inane and insane ‘gotcha’ questions asked by News Corporation journalists, which essentially were a public nuisance and health hazard?

As hard as they tried, the mainstream media couldn’t land any political blows on Andrews or the Victoria Labor government and now that he has left at a time of his own choosing, they’re behaving like jilted lovers after a messy divorce, and having their juvenile tantrums over fractures and fissures that they primarily created. And just like the jilted lover, they’re telling everyone within earshot how bad he was and trying to get everyone to side with their side of the story. It really is embarrassing.

Now that Andrews has resigned from office, the future of Victoria is in the hands of Jacinta Allan, the new Premier, and she inherits a legacy of mostly positive results but also some challenges. While it’s unlikely that she will face the same level of visceral hate from the media, the bar has been set high, and she must contend with the weight of expectations.

Even still, while a Caucus meeting was going through the formalities of appointing Allan as the new leader, journalists from the ABC and News Corporation were claiming that there were now ructions within the Labor Party: a challenger to Allan had been found, Andrews had lost his temper and a ‘shouting match’ ensued, and asserted the transition to a new leader would be a long-drawn-out drama which would take months to resolve and cause major damage to the Labor government.

As it happened, the Caucus meeting was actually a tame and sedate affair; there was no shouting, Allan was appointed the new leader of the Victoria Labor Party and, therefore, the Premier of Victoria. The meeting was over within half an hour: so much for the “months” this would take to resolve and the major damage that was being agitated by key journalists from the ABC Melbourne, Richard Willingham and Bridget Rollason. They got it all wrong. But, as is the case for most journalists from the mainstream media, there are no consequences and certainly none of the scrutiny they were demanding of Daniel Andrews.

Looking ahead, the next Victorian election is not due until November 2026, providing Allan with time to solidify her position and implement her vision for the state. It is crucial for the media to approach her leadership with professionalism and objectivity, focusing on the policies and outcomes rather than sensationalism or personal bias.

Andrews’ legacy is one of effective governance, progressive policies, and resilience in the face of relentless media scrutiny. While opinions on his leadership may vary, his legacy as one of Victoria’s better premiers is undeniable. His ability to withstand the electoral challenges speaks to his political acumen and his commitment to good governance. As time passes, history may come to view him as one of the most effective premiers not only in Victoria but also in the broader context of Australian political history. And this is despite what the mainstream media wanted the electorate to believe. As usual, they got it all wrong.