Telling lies in international dealings between governments is hardly the worst form of deceit. After all, it is over 400 years since Sir Henry Wotton, the respected English diplomat, famously defined an ambassador as "an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country". But the deliberate bluntness of Macron's remark, combined with his standing as a world leader, caught the attention of the Australian press gallery, which is always sensitive to overseas opinion. It quickly picked up the story, encouraging Morrison to respond with a new lie (that Macron had "sledged" Australia, when the president had explicitly exempted the Australian people from his criticism). Within days discussion had broadened into general questions about Morrison's credibility and trustworthiness, which keep persisting.

Is Morrison's propensity to utter falsehoods particularly egregious or is it typical of political leaders? Politicians have always had an uneasy relationship with the truth. The legitimate demands of political speech, such as garnering support and contesting opposing views, require the use of emotive language and the glossing over of awkward information.

But there is a difference between, on the one hand, deceitful fudge and misrepresentation, or spin, and, on the other hand, conscious assertion of a known falsehood, or lying. The distinction is clearly institutionalised in the conventions associated with misleading parliament, where any amount of obfuscation is tolerated, but outright falsehoods are considered grounds for ministerial resignation or, at the very least, instant correction. Indeed, one reason why ministers' answers to questions are so often evasive and contorted is they are avoiding saying anything that could be construed as a lie.

Of recent prime ministers, John Howard was the master of deceiving without lying. Though he gained a reputation for being tricky and dishonest, and though his legacy is still tainted by his role in the children overboard deception and Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, he was very careful to avoid an explicit lie. Misleading statements were always qualified and hedged about so as to escape refutation (broken promises, strictly speaking, do not count as lies).

Morrison does not show the same adroitness. Earlier this year, the online news site Crikey published a dossier of lies and falsehoods, compiled by journalist Bernard Keane and colleagues. It documents 36 Morrison statements since early 2020 that are demonstrably misstatements of fact. The list sensibly steers clear of the ambiguities often associated with misleading and thus avoids the tendency of critics to label any questionable or tendentious statement as a lie. Instead it concentrates on statements where contrary evidence can be quoted chapter and verse.

Most of the falsehoods are comments made in media conferences, on matters such as the speed of vaccination, greenhouse emissions, the actions of state and territory governments, Labor party policies, and electric cars. Significantly, the list includes five false statements given in response to questions in parliament. Two were slurs on former Labor prime ministers, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, which were immediately refuted and retracted. The other three, all of which have been allowed to stand, concerned the role of the prime minister's office in the sports grants and two inquiries by the secretary of the prime minister's department, into the sports grants process and into the allegations by Brittany Higgins. The cumulative effect of the list was to prove Morrison as a seasoned and unrepentant purveyor of untruths, particularly when confronted by awkward questions. He was also not above breaking longstanding conventions about misleading parliament.

Keane has recently republished the Crikey dossier, adding a lengthy prefatory essay, which thoughtfully analyses the political, philosophical and international background of Morrison's contempt for the truth (Lies and Falsehoods, Hardie Grant 2021). As Keane argues, Morrison's lying, when measured against that of previous Australian prime ministers, marks a new low in Australian political discourse. However, the international context has changed dramatically with the rise of first Donald Trump and then Boris Johnson, both classic "bullshitters" in the sense defined by the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt. "Bullshit" implies a reckless disregard for truth and falsehood typical of hustlers who will say anything that helps their sales pitch. It contrasts with lying, which implies a conscious decision to state an untruth. Trump and Johnson are unusual politicians in that they appear not to care whether what they say is true or false and their supporters do not care, either. Charges of lying, which might embarrass the normal political leader, are simply swept aside.

Morrison is not in their league. He lacks the celebrity status that allows Trump and Johnson to pose as outsiders to whom the normal rules do not apply. He remains the career politician and, as such, is vulnerable to charges of duplicity. Nonetheless, he and his government are part of the same worldwide trend of conservative politicians being increasingly willing to disrespect the conventions of constitutional government in order to satisfy their supporters and retain power.

If obvious falsehoods and other breaches of due process are condoned by sympathetic media and go unpunished at the polls, the occasional awkwardness in parliament may be worth the risk.