ANALYSIS
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The prime minister might not realise how precisely he captured the essence of his own leadership flaw last week when he was asked about the use of Defence material in bushfire advertising.
The problem that could prove highly problematic to his reputation is his reflexive tendency to bluff. Asked a question, Scott Morrison's instinct appears to be spin an answer or talk his way through not giving an answer at all, where so often the simple truth would suffice. In his wake, he leaves train wrecks of distrust and cynicism.
To the defence question in a moment, but first the Brian Houston affair. Houston is the Hillsong pastor that Morrison as a newly badged Prime Minister, wanted to bless with an invitation to the centre of world power and political pomp. He asked the White House to invite his churchy friend. The White House declined.
When the Wall Street Journal broke the story in September, Morrison refused to confirm that he had put Houston forward for an invitation, dismissing it as "gossip", and attempting to discredit the Wall Street Journal for using unnamed sources. His dishonest denials sparked a flurry of freedom of information requests, questions in media interviews and questions in parliament and at parliamentary hearings, all of which were batted back by a prime minister who saw no need to give a straight answer and, worryingly, by a public service which joined in the obfuscation, taking questions on the never-never and refusing freedom of information requests on the ludicrous premise that to give an answer would risk damaging Australia's international relations.
Last week, Morrison came clean in a Sydney radio interview, telling Coalition favourite Ben Fordham that yes, he had put Houston's name forward. It shouldn't need a fancy specialist in political messaging and a session on lessons learned for the Prime Minister to realise that he would have saved the pain and time of all that obfuscation, the embarrassment and reputational damage of the eventual reveal, by simply answering the question (a lesson he might also have learned when he inexplicably refused to admit he was off to Hawaii). Not, notably, that Morrison was entirely candid on the Houston issue, even last week.
Asked by Fordham whether he knew Houston was under police investigation at the time of the White House dinner (questions were raised in the child abuse Royal Commission about his failure to report his father's abuse of children), Morrison reverted to from: "These are not things I follow closely," he answered obtusely.
And so to the sports grants affair, which is tapping at the prime ministerial window. What was his involvement in allocating grants? Morrison has been asked this question repeatedly in recent weeks and has given a variation of the same thin answer.
"All we did was provide information based on the representations made to us," he has said over and again, even when the Audit Office revealed the existence just over a week ago of 136 emails between Morrison's office and the office of Bridget McKenzie as projects were switched in and out of the list to win funding.
It's a statement that implies Morrison did nothing more than pass on other people's advocacy for projects, but when you have a Prime Minister who doesn't speak straight, the listener must parse a statement carefully and note the wiggle room.
READ MORE:
Last week, we discovered that the prime minister's office was still communicating with McKenzie's office about the grants as the election was called. On April 10, the day before parliament was dissolved, McKenzie's office sent him a list of projects she intended to fund (having already signed a decision brief with a different list of projects dated six days earlier).
"There were responses [from Mr Morrison's office] both that day and into the following day as well in sorting out what the final list of approved projects would look like," The Audit Office told Senate estimates hearings this week.
The next day, 15 minutes after the caretaker period began, McKenzie's office sent Sport Australia a list (not the same as the decision brief a week earlier), but changes continued in consultation with the prime minister's office that morning, until at lunchtime a final list went again to Sport Australia.
We know this because the Audit Office has gone through the email traffic. It clearly suggests active involvement from the prime minister's office, more than his "all we did was provide information based on the representations made to us". Sooner or later, that email traffic will be made public and the prime minister is likely to look slippery again. In parliament this week, he stuck to the line, "we provided information based on the representations made to us". But he added this: "We passed on information about other funding options or programs relevant to project proposals", and you can see in the language - "other funding options or programs" - that he is opening a little more wiggle room for when the reveal finally comes.
And so to the defence issue last week, where Morrison was asked at 2.46pm in Question Time on Wednesday whether Defence Force head Angus Campbell had raised his concern about the use of Defence imagery in an advertisement his office released in January touting his action on bushfires. Instead of answering, Morrison bluffed: "The Liberal Party did not post an advertisement at all," he said.
Labor persisted, and this time Morrison answered, "I talk to the Chief of the Defence Force very regularly. When I have private discussions with the Chief of the Defence Force I respect those private discussions. When he raises these issues or any other issues, I always respect and thank him very much for the advice that he provides me."
At the very time Morrison was not answering in the House, Defence chiefs were being grilled by Labor in Senate estimates on the same question. Defence secretary Greg Moriarty said that approval hadn't been sought or given (at which Defence Minister Linda Reynolds jumped in to say approval wasn't required, to which Moriarty made a just-heard aside, "well that's the government's view"). He had been "discomforted" by the use of the imagery and had spoken to Morrison, Campbell told estimates.
And so on Thursday in parliament, Labor returned to the topic: "General Campbell could give a straight answer to that simple question. Why can't the Prime Minister?" Richard Marles asked. "Did General Campbell speak to the Prime Minister to object to the Liberal Party bushfire advertisement?"
To which Morrison responded, "Those opposite may not have been paying attention," he said, not even managing a blush. "I confirmed yesterday that the CDF [chief of the defence force] and I had discussed this matter."
Of course, he had confirmed nothing of the sort. The truth according to Scott Morrison has become a mix of bluff, distraction and answers designed to mislead - and this is in danger of becoming a defining characteristic.