Scott Morrison really doesn’t like questions about sports rorts. This is perfectly understandable. I wouldn’t enjoy them if I were him either.
But inconveniently for the prime minister, serious questions remain about this scandal. Four months have passed and there are still no clear answers, and Morrison is accountable. Being accountable is the price of entry for political leadership.
On Monday, in order to shut down a new sports grants question, the prime minister engaged in a spot of theatre criticism in his courtyard in parliament, noting the Canberra press gallery was “back to politics as usual with parliament coming back”.
Unfortunately, the only person up to politics as usual in that moment was Morrison, who was irritated by a question about whether he had misled the parliament.
“Did you mislead the House of Representatives when you said that no authorisation was provided by you? And why did your office do that if you had no role in authorising?” he was asked on Monday.
This was the obvious question to ask, given the Australian National Audit Office on Friday had supplied significant new information about the imbroglio.
Just before we get to the new information, some quick background in case you’ve forgotten. Morrison has consistently minimised his role and the role of his office in this affair. He’s consistently said the former sports minister Bridget McKenzie was the decision-maker for the grants, and his office just passed on feedback from MPs about meritorious projects.
With that backstory in your mind, let’s get to the new information. Last Friday, the ANAO told the Senate in answers to questions on notice that Morrison’s office asked McKenzie on 26 March to seek prime ministerial “authority” for intended recipients of $100m of sports grants, and to coordinate the announcement with Coalition campaign headquarters.
Assuming the ANAO is correct in this account, this suggests Morrison and his office were hands-on in the process, not spectators. Reminding the minister she needs authority to proceed is not being a glorified inbox forwarding service, it’s establishing a chain of command.
The ANAO’s tick tock is particularly problematic, because before the Covid-19 crisis consumed everything, on 27 February, Morrison was asked a series of questions in parliament about his role. Morrison’s answer to one of the questions in the House of Representatives was clear: “There was no authorisation provided by me as prime minister on the projects.”
No ifs, buts or maybes.
Given that answer, it seems strange, then, doesn’t it, that his office would advise McKenzie a fortnight before the decisions were made that it was expected that the minister would write to the prime minister seeking his authority on the approved projects, and advise of a rollout plan. Consistent with this expectation, McKenzie duly wrote to Morrison on 10 April. That letter and the grants were emailed to the prime minister’s office.
A bit later that day, according to the ANAO, the prime minister’s office wrote back to McKenzie requesting that a revised list be provided in response to the prime minister’s office asking that one grant project be removed from the sports minister’s list and another project be included in substitution. In that same correspondence, the prime minister’s office also requested that the rollout “gets co-ordinated in conjunction with CHQ [campaign headquarters]”.
These two accounts – Morrison’s to the parliament in late February and the ANAO’s to the Senate – obviously don’t align. So the question to ask was straightforward: did the prime minister mislead the House?
Morrison’s answer, after the theatre criticism was dispatched, was no.
How “no” was arrived at in this instance remained entirely unclear, given the prime minister provided no further explanation. Perhaps we’ll be enlightened through the week – because Morrison will doubtless be asked this question in the House. This is a question that requires an answer.
Another question requiring a straight answer: were these grants ever made with proper legal authority? Questions about this have been posed since the middle of January and, unbelievably, given the gravity of what might have occurred here, there are still no answers.
The legal questions are as follows. First problem, a bunch of serious legal academics believe the sports grants are unconstitutional. Second problem, it’s not clear whether McKenzie ever had the legal authority to be the decision-maker.
Third problem, McKenzie said two months ago she made no changes to the brief and attachments outlining successful projects funded under the sports grants scheme after 4 April 2019. Changes were made after 4 April, so who made them, and with what authority? Ministerial advisers are not ministers and cannot exercise the legal authority of ministers, even if they think they can, or should.
So let’s be clear: persisting, showing up and asking questions about all this is not politics as usual. It’s what everyone should be doing.
Failing to answer the questions, on the other hand? Well, that’s the textbook definition.
