Some stories just keep on giving!

The ambush of Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the National Press Club on Monday 31 January by Peter van Onselen raises many questions.

The first point is that we have only van Onselen’s word that the message was sent by Gladys Berejiklian and that a Minister was the recipient and replied. Van Onselen does not say whether the Minister is a Federal Minister or a State Minister.

If Gladys Berejiklian sent the SMS, it is alleged that she wrote that Morrison was ‘ a horrible, horrible person ‘ who is ‘more concerned with politics than people’.

This phraseology does sound in character for Gladys. However, Gladys says “I have no recollection of such messages”. This is not a denial.

The reply to the ‘horrible, horrible person’ text is more interesting .

Whoever received and responded to this message replied ‘he (Morrison, so we are told by Peter van Onselen) was a fraud and a complete psycho’.

The first speculative question is to whom Ms Berejiklian would write in the Federal Cabinet. Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher are her ‘mates’, particularly Minister Payne as they go back decades as close friends. But the word ‘psycho is not one Payne or Fletcher would use as they are both respectful people.

In the NSW State Ministry Ms Berejiklian’s closest friend is Matt Kean. Before 31 January Kean had been working on a Covid business package worth $1B in which the Commonwealth would not participate. Kean went on national TV when announcing the package and strongly criticised the Commonwealth in the usual colourful (maybe excessive) manner that is now associated with Kean. The word ‘psycho’ is certainly colourful.

By the evening of 31 January, the finger was being pointed at Kean by media commentators.

The next morning Kean, in an interview on 2GB with Ben Fordham, hedged his answers when questioned as to whether he had leaked the text exchange. It was only when Ben Fordham pinned him down with ‘did you or did you not’ questions that Kean denied it was he himself. Throughout the interview Kean’s voice sounded flat, quite unlike his usual manner.

Later in the week Federal Minister Hawke came out and said it was not anyone in Canberra. NSW was the source.

Factionally, Hawke is not a moderate. Nor is Morrison. Ms Berejiklian, Ministers Payne, Fletcher and Kean certainly are. Certainly, Kean is a factional warrior and seeking parliamentary leadership.

The non-moderates both in Canberra and NSW are saying that this is a moderate issue. That it is payback to Morrison without specifying just what is being paid back. Certainly, it is an odd way of payback to sabotage a reset for a Federal Election of which the outcome will be close.

So let us step back and reflect and speculate. Two words in the commentary so far stand out ‘payback’ and ‘leaked’.

Peter van Onselen who wrote in The Australian this week about his ambush said, ‘it was a story’. Mr van Onselen wrote before the last Federal Election that Morrison was a loser and would not win. History has proved Mr van Onselen wrong. A journalist hides their sources. Mr van Onselen wrote in The Australian that he would never reveal a source. No one will ever know what was given to him, by whom and, more importantly, when. Is there payback here?

A former Prime Minister is another person who might be interested in payback on Morrison. But we are told by Mr van Onselen that the recipient of the text and the person who used the word ‘psycho’ was a Minister. The assumption is a current Minister, but this former Member of Federal Parliament was once a Minister along with being a Prime Minister.

The other interesting word is ‘leaked’. What if a mobile phone on which these messages sat was ‘hacked’. It might have been ‘hacked’ a while ago. Who has the sophistication to engage in such a hacking exercise? In most cases it is a foreign power which would have the necessary skills and equipment.

This is where the speculation starts reading like a good novel and it is simply joining dots. It is well known that the influencing of election outcomes is undertaken by several foreign governments to further their interests in assisting the rise of a government compliant to their own objectives. That means to influence results in the ballot box and through other means of soft persuasion. Of course, people deny this, which is their right. However, the hacking of a phone and the retrieval of a message and its subsequent use in a public forum is a soft form of manipulative persuasion with a degree of sophistication.

Will we ever be told if a Federal or State Minister’s telephone was hacked? More unlikely than likely. Will National security agencies tell us of such activity? Again the same answer.

Where are we left? The Prime Minister’s election agenda in tatters, for the moment, and a Government which appears to be ridden with disunity and finger pointing. We all know ‘disunity is death’ in politics. In short, this ambush was a king hit, whoever is responsible. The question to ask – who benefits?