Talk:Scott Morrison ministerial positions controversy

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Scott Morrison ministerial positions controversy is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Scott Morrison was copied or moved into Scott Morrison ministerial positions controversy with this edit on 16 August 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Morrison's defence

In his speech during the censure debate, Morrison said that he had given numerous press conferences during the time he had held his extra portfolios, and if any journalist had asked him about them he would have responded truthfully (or words to that effect). He omitted to say that such questions were impossible, since no journalists (other than the two who were writing the biography) had any idea that such appointments had taken place, a situation created by their non-publication, which was either a deliberate decision by Morrison or an administrative failure for which he would bear ultimate responsibility. He could not plausibly claim that he thought the world knew about his extra portfolios but chose to show no interest in them at the time; or if so, why the sudden interest only after he left office?

Is something about this amazing response article-worthy? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. What's the best source for what you have described above? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is his speech from Hansard. The relevant words were:

Had I been asked about these matters at the time at the numerous press conferences I held, I would've responded truthfully about the arrangements I had put in place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison never offered a defence that held water. Why would a Prime Minister have to have these additional portfolios and why would that have to be top secret? No journalist would ask about it because it did not enter anybody's head that anybody would do such a bizarre thing. I believe AUKUS might have had something to do with it. The Australian public was equally blindsided about AUKUS as it was about the multi-portfolio Minister. Maybe Morrison's signature under that contract may not have been valid if the Ministers for the portfolios affected had not signed? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:493B:1864:7A7B:2EAE (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on Morrison's actions are of no importance to Wikipedia. We need reliable sources to have said such things before we can add them to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]