For Scott Morrison, sorry seems to be the hardest word

So much for Scott Morrison’s commitment to accountability.

Cartoon: Tom Jellett

The first parliamentary week of the year confirmed one thing: the Coalition won’t be admitting mistakes when it comes to the sports rorts saga. Scott Morrison certainly won’t be taking a leaf out of the book of former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, who turned apologising for errors into an art form. Each time Beattie did so, his opponents looked more churlish for not accepting the apology and moving on to the next issue.

Instead, the Prime Minister conforms to the never-back-down, never-concede school of thought. Those who know him well say it fits with his personality. But does it align to the personality voters thought he had when they elected him in May last year? Perhaps not. And if not, there are political risks attached to Morrison’s stubbornness on an issue that touches local communities so closely.

Nobody likes to find out they fought for government financial assistance for a local community organisation under a process they believed was fair and merit-based when it wasn’t, only to discover that the minister had the power to overrule the guidelines those applying for assistance assumed were in place to be adhered to.

But the government and the Prime Minister are unrepentant.

Even though Bridget McKenzie — the sports minister who presided over the partisan allocation of funding grants — resigned, albeit on a technicality. Notwithstanding an Auditor-General’s report confirming pork-barrelling took place. Not to mention evidence that the sports rorts decision-making seeped all the way to the Prime Minister’s office.

Despite all of this, McKenzie was praised loudly this week by her Nationals leader, Michael McCormack, for the wonderful job she did. In a television interview with the ABC, McCormack explicitly congratulated her on how she handled the sports rorts funding carve-up. It was brazen stuff.

Then, as quickly as she was ­removed from the ministry, McKenzie was back as Nationals Senate leader — proving that comebacks don’t need to take time to eventuate.

On Thursday, Josh Frydenberg refused to answer whether he was “ethically comfortable” as Treasurer with taxpayer dollars being used as part of the sports rorts scandal. Instead he fell back on that intellectually bereft line, included in the government’s officially distributed talking points, that all grant recipients were “eligible” to receive funding.

Reminder: that’s actually not true because some successful applicants applied after the closing date. But even if Frydenberg’s defence were true, eligibility isn’t the point. The scheme was supposed to be merit-based, yet grants reviewed with a rating of 98 out of 100 by Sport Australia were overlooked for grants given just a 50-point rating.

It is a disgrace.

When quizzed in question time whether the projects that received funding had the most merit, the Prime Minister responded by saying: “I believe funding community sports infrastructure always has merit.” But if Morrison really believes that, how does he justify shafting meritorious projects in favour of those judged to be inferior but gave him a partisan advantage ahead of the election?

It is an impossible circle to square.

And it emerged during the week that one of Morrison’s own staff members urged members of a sporting club in the Prime Minister’s electorate to vote Liberal when handing over a taxpayer grant. The election campaign also included Liberal candidates handing over cheques to organisations rather than local Labor MPs. If these examples don’t highlight the partisan purpose of the grants I don’t know what does.

Yet the government is standing firm, admitting no wrongdoing. How it even hopes to take aim at corrupt unions without facing the charge of hypocrisy is beyond me.

The likes of Morrison and Frydenberg were two of the loudest voices condemning the banks in the wake of the royal commission, or Westpac specifically when the Austrac scandal came to light. The sports rorts scandal has exposed conduct that is no better. Yet the Coalition hopes the issue will just go away, without a mea culpa.

A Senate inquiry into the whole shameful saga was formally put in train this week, which means witnesses will be called and evidence will be pored over. But not everything will be available for scrutiny. For example, the review Morrison ordered by the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Phil Gaetjens, has been marked cabinet in confidence. So it will never see the light of day, at least not until decades from now.

Morrison relied on that review — conducted by a man who used to be his political chief of staff — to rebut the findings of the independent Auditor-General. If that weren’t laughable enough, not releasing the Gaetjens report means we cannot know if he is cherry-picking from its findings or accurately reflecting what is in it.

Given Morrison’s track record for openness, I’m not filled with confidence. Nor is former NSW auditor-general Tony Harris, with whom I spoke during the week. And guess what Team Morrison’s argument for not releasing the Gaetjens review was? They don’t want to set a precedent of doing so because that will mean the next time such a review is conducted journalists and the public will also expect it to be released.

How frightening; people expecting transparency. It was Morrison last Sunday, when announcing McKenzie would be stepping down, who spruiked the importance of accountability and transparency — before batting away questions about why he wouldn’t release the report he selectively quotes from.

Meanwhile, keep an eye out for the government’s proposed religious discrimination act. The issue risks dividing the Liberal Party more even than climate change has. The Attorney-General has been asked to find a pathway through the middle, but the government’s right and left flanks aren’t happy with how the legislation has been crafted. To say MPs and senators are prepared to cross the floor is an understatement.

Morrison is passionate about the need to firm up religious protections for organisations in the wake of same-sex marriage laws being enacted, and following the dispute between Rugby Australia and Israel Folau. But true liberals within Liberal ranks (yes, they do still exist) are equally passionate about avoiding a scenario whereby individuals can be discrimin­ated against by religiously affiliated organisations. Especially organisations receiving taxpayer assistance. Legislation that guarantees that right, even expanding on it, leaves many within the government feeling deeply uncomfortable. Watch this space.

Peter van Onselen is political editor for the Ten Network and professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.