“The government is still recovering from its surprise at being re-elected,” says Patrick Weller, professor emeritus in the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University. Weller says Morrison is showing signs of being a prime minister who is still finding his way in the job. Nowhere is this more evident than in Morrison’s handling of the Taylor fiasco – a more significant and more lasting challenge for the government than a vote on a workplace bill. The government has lost Senate votes in the past, but Morrison has not faced a scandal like this over a senior cabinet minister and his own judgment. How will he respond? Morrison could not hide his anger and frustration in Parliament this week, but he also dismissed any criticism of his own decisions. The case against Taylor began as a minor mystery about a minister who used a fake document to score political points against an opponent. Now it is about a minister’s refusal to explain his blunder and the obligation on a prime minister to explain his actions. Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video

Labor has successfully turned this into a test of criminal law, not mere clumsiness. The success is not in its political rhetoric but in the fact that the NSW Police this week announced Strike Force Garrad to investigate the affair. The central claim is that Taylor’s use of a forged document to attack City of Sydney mayor Clover Moore is a possible breach of the NSW Crimes Act, given Section 253 states it is an offence to make a false document with the intent to influence the exercise of a public duty. The offence is in making the document. Yet the creator of the document, an incorrect version of page 14 of the City of Sydney’s annual statutory report for the year to June 2018, remains unknown. The document showed the cost of interstate visits by councillors while representing the council was “$14.2” and the cost of overseas visits by councillors was “$1.7” but it did not say these were millions of dollars. Taylor merely assumed it. “Given your most recent annual report shows your council spent $1.7 million on international travel and $14.2 million on domestic travel, there is a real opportunity for your council to make a meaningful contribution to reducing Australia's emissions,” Taylor wrote to Moore on September 29.

Eager for fight, no matter how small, Taylor sent his letter to The Daily Telegraph to ensure a headline on September 30: “Clover’s climate conflict heats up”. But the actual financial report said the cost of interstate travel by councillors while representing the council was $4206.32 and the cost of international travel by councillors was $1727.77. (The total travel bill for all council employees was $260,000 in the year to June. Taylor’s assertion was not only wrong but outlandish.) Minister for Energy Angus Taylor during debate in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen This was all Taylor’s doing. The letter drafted by his department made no mention of the travel costs. The decision to add the false claim came later. Taylor has made several statements in Parliament that will define his fate. Could he assure Parliament that the forgery was not made by him or his office? “Yes,” he said on October 24. Where did he get it? “The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website,” he said. “It was publicly available.” Later, Taylor insisted his office had no part in the creation of the document. “I reject absolutely the suggestion that I or any members of my staff altered the documents in question,” he said. In a statement tabled in Parliament, he said his office “accessed a report” on the City of Sydney website on 9 September.

Everything turns on the computer records showing who accessed the document on that date. The City of Sydney has the records and its legal officers are speaking to the NSW Police. The council says the document with the accurate travel costs has remained unchanged since November 2018. If that is true, Taylor misled Parliament. If that is the case, he should go. While a bellicose letter to a lord mayor seems a small affair, those with years of research into ministerial accountability believe Taylor is making a mistake in keeping his position while the police investigate. “In my opinion he should step aside while the police investigation goes on,” says Keith Dowding, professor of political science and political philosophy at the Australian National University. “Indeed he should have resigned over the affair, or announced who was to blame – and that person should have left whatever role they held.” Says John Warhurst, emeritus professor of political science at the ANU: “I think the prudent thing and the appropriate thing would be for Taylor to stand down while the investigation proceeds.”

Loading Morrison chose to stand by Taylor rather than take the more cautious approach of staying above the dispute. The Prime Minister’s supporters say this has been good for the entire government because it proves the leader will defend his team even if this means paying a political price. They say it is good for loyalty. It is also dangerous. John Howard knew to keep his ministers on their toes. His approach shifted over more than a decade as prime minister, given he was quicker to remove ministers in his first term in power, but he was ruthless when required. What damaged Morrison was that he chose to stand by Taylor and then fumbled the defence. The questions about the minister’s mistakes turned into doubts over the Prime Minister’s judgment. Morrison’s decision to phone NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller about the investigation into Taylor was a serious mistake that now haunts his government.

Former head of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption David Ipp said it was an inappropriate call because it used the Prime Minister’s influence to gain information. The former counsel assisting the ICAC, Geoffrey Watson, likened it to seeking a favour. Morrison acts as if he is blind to these concerns. Sensitive to criticism, he argues that he told Parliament he would get in touch with the police and merely acted on this promise. Morrison stumbled three times over with this phone call. He broke the conventions of good government, because the wiser course of action was to ask the head of his department to verify the police statement about its investigation. He also advertised his poor judgment to his own side. The phone call made Morrison a bigger target, Labor exploited the opportunity and Morrison compounded the problem by telling Parliament of a comment he said was made by a police detective but was from radio host Ben Fordham. In defending Taylor against claims he misled Parliament, the Prime Minister misled Parliament himself. And he misread his contract with Australian voters. His election victory in May cemented his authority within his party room but did not free him from accountability. There is no evidence voters regard him as more honest or trustworthy than any other politician. Does he feel he is above the usual rules?

Loading Morrison has had bad weeks before. One year ago he stunned his own ministers and government officials by rethinking policy on Israel in the middle of the Wentworth byelection. He not only made a political mistake but created a foreign policy mess that lasted for months. Yet he recovered by the time the election neared. The optics of a Senate defeat, or even the drama over a minister in strife, may be secondary problems if Morrison does not recover from the poor judgment he showed this week. He heads into the last week of Parliament with critics on all sides. “Scott Morrison has been a marketing man, not a governor, and what we need is government in this country,” said One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts on Thursday, after the defeat of the workplace bill. Roberts faulted Morrison for being too weak on white-collar crime, such as the potential breaches at Westpac. He dismissed Morrison as being all talk, no action. The comment was self-interested politics, given One Nation will compete with the Coalition for conservative voters, but it should concern Morrison all the same. It was a cold assessment of his leadership and an assessment he cannot allow to stand.