Why were Scott Morrison’s multiple ministries kept secret from most of the ministers involved, from the Parliament and from Australians? On that subject, the greatest liar ever to hold prime ministerial office in Australia seems determined to go out with one final whopper.
According to the report by former High Court judge Virginia Bell AC, “responsibility for the failure to notify the public and the Parliament of the making of these appointments rests with Mr Morrison and not the governor-general or the office of the official secretary to the governor-general”.
Nor did it rest with Prime Minister and Cabinet: “PM&C has never arranged for the publication in the Gazette of ministerial appointments. PM&C views it as within the prerogative of the prime minister to announce the composition of, or changes to, the ministry.”
What does Morrison say? Well, not much, because his involvement with the inquiry consisted of writing letters to Bell, through his lawyer Clutz partner Ashley Tsacalos, (one of which lectured her that she should not “draw conclusions based on incomplete information available … in relation to issues of national security and national interest generally”.)
Morrison, through his lawyer, told Bell his public statements and Facebook posts were answers to her questions. In those statements, Morrison said he didn’t want ministers second-guessing themselves so he kept Mathias Cormann, Josh Frydenberg and Karen Andrews in the dark, and he didn’t want the public to know because it would be “misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst”.
Morrison should have left it there. But consistent with his long history of lying even when he doesn’t have to, he then went further. On November 4, Tsacalos wrote to Bell to tell her Morrison’s memory has been jogged.
We can confirm that neither Mr Morrison nor his office instructed PM&C not to gazette the appointments, nor was he or his office consulted on whether the appointments should be published in the Gazette. These decisions, like all such matters, were left to PM&C to determine in accordance with what they considered to be the usual practice. Mr Morrison also assumed the usual practice would apply following the relevant ministerial appointments.
But what did Morrison think was the “usual practice”? Bell asked Tsacalos, and Tsacalos wrote back: “At the time of the appointments, the subject of the inquiry, Mr Morrison, had no reason to understand otherwise than that PM&C’s usual practice was to arrange publication in the Gazette of the names of the ministers and the offices they held — irrespective of whether a minister was sworn in at Government House or not. Naturally, he expected that this usual practice would be followed.”
That was a clear sign that Morrison was lying. And just to make it clearer, the lawyer added:
The public statements by Mr Morrison were directed to the fact that he did not inform all relevant ministers or members of the public of the ministerial appointments by way of media release or public statement. However, this in no way suggests that he did not expect that the usual practice would apply and that PM&C would publish the appointments in the Gazette.
This statement makes zero sense. If Morrison didn’t want ministers to know he’d been sworn into their portfolios, as he said, that’s utterly inconsistent with his professed belief that in fact the appointments would be gazetted by PM&C as “the usual practice”.
As Bell notes: “Mr Morrison’s assumption that all the appointments were notified to the public in the Gazette is not easy to reconcile with his conduct at the time or with his public statements when the appointments came to light.”
In fact, it’s utterly implausible that Morrison both thought the appointments would be gazetted and that the relevant ministers would remain unaware.
Ditto the public. Morrison said he didn’t want to make the appointments public because it would alarm the public and would be “misinterpreted”, but also that he expected the appointments to be made public via the Gazette.
In Bell’s words: “While few members of the public may read the Gazette, any idea that the gazettal of the prime minister’s appointment to administer the treasury (or any of the other appointments) would not be picked up and quickly circulated within the public service and the Parliament strikes me as improbable in the extreme. Finally, Mr Morrison was repeatedly pressed at his press conference on 17 August 2022 about his failure not only to inform his ministers but also to inform the public of the appointments. The omission on that occasion to state that he had acted at all times on the assumption that each appointment had been notified to the public in the Gazette is striking.”
Striking is one word. Blatant falsehood is another.
Morrison as prime minister never knew when to stop lying. It seems he still doesn’t.
Should Scott Morrison be forced to resign? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Comments were made that Morrison’s next role will be with his church. That would be the ideal place for him. His lies and falsehoods would be accepted by the believers of a longstanding lie and falsehood. He would be at home.
It’s a tailor-made environment for Morrison because it’s impossible to fact check & is reliant on the gullible.
Yeah, christians are used to getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Also called brainwashing…
Happy Clappys have their prosperity gospel which is the opposite of the Christian Gospels.
That’s because in spite of their public pretences they are far from being Christian – not in their beliefs nor in their attitudes. And the prosperity of their gospel only reaches the pockets of religious promoters and managers.
Not so much religion, more so mafia-like racket.
See my contribution concerning the tradition of the Early Christian Church wherein those Fathers of the Church, Eusebius, Clement , Jerome, John Chrysostom, had no compunction concerning lies and were all adept at justifying deceit/lies for the good of the poor sinner.
Morrison got away with the 1ies on so many occasions over the years that he could be forgiven for assuming that the jig would never be up.
If there are no consequences for him in light of this report then he has emerged unscathed yet again. Albeit covered in snake oil.
Morrison has been a liar since a teenager. Look at what he done to Michael Towke & the terrible lies he told there. That saga should have stopped him there & then. But what has the Liberals done. They have enabled Morrison to destroy lives, corruption on a grand scale, & the list keeps getting bigger. Liberals headquarters must answer alot of questions
& take blame also. As do past & present Liberal & National members. Even Fran Bailey should take some blame. There was the sacking from Tourism Australia & Tourism New Zealand, how does anyone become PM of all people, knowing Morrison was a corrupt liar back then, yet again the Liberal party covered up big time for him. What $$ dollars did they receive in return for covering up for Morrison. They haven’t done it for nothing. There are a lot of questions to be asked & they must be asked. The whole LNP must be de registered . They all are as bad as Morrison.
Point of order, Madam Chair, but I think you have left out two words, ‘congenital’ and ‘filthy’.Not only that but he gave God a bad name.
Unsurprisingly, the chief enabler of Morrison’s rise through the ranks is none other than John Winston Howard.
aka The Lying Rodent© Senator George Brandis.
Smirko played the part of The Artful Dodger in a highschool production of Oliver!
So was obviously typecast from an early age!
As demonstrated by his performance as PM, when it came to lying Morrison was on a par with every other part of his skills set. Incompetent.
Silly question. This is about things he did as PM. He is no longer PM so he cannot resign from that position. Being “forced” to resign is not resigning, it is being sacked or dismissed. What position is he supposed to be sacked from? Sacking an MP is a terrible idea in principle. An MP is selected by the voters in the relevant constituency and it is only those voters who should decide who represents them, not anybody else. A mechanism for voters to recall their MP might be reasonable, but that’s the limit. If the question is suggesting he should be chucked out of the Liberal Party, then fair enough, but that is a matter solely for the Liberal Party.
Perhaps all the benefits he receives as an ex-PM could be removed. That would be fitting and just. But it would probably involve retrospective legislation, and again that is a dubious way to proceed.
Agreed in full, share all of your concerns here. Though I would be very dubious of a recall mechanism looking at how that goes elsewhere, especially since we don’t elect public officials outside of parliament here.
At least one other MP has been “forced” to transfer to the cross bench, and lost his seat in the following election. Might be the best way to get rid of Scomo, – though it would take too long..
Yes, recall might be the only way. These are people who believe that if they did something wrong but then win the next election, the public has already had their say on the wrong-doing, even if it didn’t come to light before the election.
A recall process/ by-election would address the problem of a person’s crimes coming to light, but then they hang on for 3 years until the next election when all sorts of considerations come into play re voting intention. A by-election would just be a referendum on that person and their actions.
I’m not so sure retrospectivity would be dubious in this case. I’d love to see what law makers could come me up with.
He should stay on in Parliament as a constant reminder to the members of the Liberal party just what gooses they are for electing him as leader.
Agree but to be effective would require them to have some self awareness, if not respect, intelligence and decency.
That this is lacking is shown by having tolerated him from the get-go.
Q.E.D.
I do agree that he should be “chucked out of the Liberal Party”, but that will never happen because he differs so little from the rest of the parliamentary membership – especially those from the religious extreme right. The right of voters to recall their MP is sadly lacking from our constitution.
John “Non-core-lying-rodent-promises” Howard should be proud of him…..
…. Would Schemo have handled “Children Overboard” any differently?
“On-water matters”