There are some striking similarities between the dilemmas which Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian find themselves in, although the circumstances are very different.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Morrison is embroiled in a dispute with French President Emmanuel Macron over Australia's cancellation of a French submarine contract to take up a joint UK-US offer. The dispute is not over Australia's sovereign right to cancel the contract, but over the way it was done. The French government accuses the Australian government of not being frank and open with them prior to the announcement. Macron has now accused Morrison, in the strongest and most direct terms, of lying to him.
Other governments have become involved. US President Joe Biden has effectively apologised to Macron for a lack of communication which, in his words, was clumsy and lacking in grace.
Berejiklian, on the other hand, is being interviewed before the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) in relation to the awarding of NSW government grants to recipients in the electorate of Wagga Wagga while she was in an intimate, undeclared relationship with the former local Liberal MP, Daryl Maguire.
The right of the NSW government to make such grants has not been disputed, though the manner in which they were made has demonstrated a failure to follow the advice of public service advisers and an apparent neglect of due process. These issues are comparable to those revealed in independent investigations of similar grant programs at the federal level. Such grants are commonly known as rorts or pork-barrelling.
The issue here, though, is the failure of Berejiklian, while she was in a position of authority as NSW Treasurer, to declare her relationship with Maguire to her fellow ministerial decision-makers. The allegation is conflict of interest, a conflict which may have been able to be managed in the usual way by standing aside from decisions, should the relationship have been declared. Several other witnesses, including former premier Mike Baird and former deputy premier John Barilaro, have concluded under questioning that Berejiklian was mistaken in not declaring her conflict of interest.
In both cases, conflicting interpretations of private conversations are at issue. In the case of Morrison and Macron, texts were leaked to support the Prime Minister's interpretation of what went down. In the case of Berejiklian and Maguire, damaging taped phone conversations were played before ICAC. Morrison has taken numerous questions from Australian journalists, but he has not been interrogated by counsel like Berejiklian was when she went before ICAC. He has been able to be dismissive and cavalier in a way not possible for her.
The most striking similarity between the two situations has been the defensive approach taken by the two Australian leaders. The approach has two parts. The first is to tough it out and never apologise; to never even be conciliatory. The second is to speak directly to the Australian people.
In both situations the temperature could have been lowered by a touch of humility. Morrison could quite easily have taken a leaf out of Biden's book by admitting some fault on his part. The French government may not have been satisfied, but at least an olive branch would have been offered. Morrison would have emerged as a bigger man if he had done so, but it is not his way.
Berejiklian, too, could have taken some heat out of the situation by admitting that, on reflection, she agreed with her colleagues that her relationship with Maguire should have been declared to those who needed to know. Instead, first with journalists and then with counsel assisting the commission, she has refused to give an inch. That may have worked with the media alone, where she had the upper hand, but it was never going to work with ICAC. She has looked stubborn and foolish in refusing to admit what is obvious to most observers.
READ MORE:
Both Morrison and Berejiklian have chosen to be defiant. This stance bears the hallmark of political advice, and of consideration of the alternative approaches with close advisers.
They have also chosen to appeal to the public over the head of their critics. This is a long-standing technique of Morrison's. He has used it before by attempting to reframe personal criticism of him as criticism of Australians in general. The "Australian way" of addressing climate change targets has become the Australian way of addressing criticisms of his personal style and behaviour. Australians, as citizens, are expected to be personally offended by any criticisms of their leader.
Berejiklian has been steadfast, speaking to the media immediately after her ICAC appearances, portraying herself as a person who always, without fail, has selflessly served her NSW community. She has portrayed herself as faultless as she speaks to her undoubted admirers in the wider community.
Will this approach work? In their own way, both Morrison and Berejiklian have staked all on their rejection of any fault. The difference between the two situations is that Morrison will be tried in the court of public opinion alone, while Berejiklian must also face the judgment of ICAC.
The first thing at stake is their personal integrity and reputation. This will be eventually factored into any assessment of their character during a long public life.
The more immediate and concrete impact may be on the next federal election, possibly in May 2022. If she is cleared of any wrongdoing, Berejiklian may even contest this election, possibly as the Liberal candidate for Warringah against the independent incumbent, Zali Steggall.
Morrison will have the future of his Coalition government at stake.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and a regular columnist.