How Good is Scott Morrison?

by Peter van Onselen, Wayne Errington

Without fear or favour, How Good is Scott Morrison? examines the trials and tribulations of our 30th prime minister. Investigating Morrison's unlikely rise to the liberal leadership and his miracle electoral win, van Onselen and Errington put his leadership under the spotlight.
Covering Morrison's disastrous management of the catastrophic bushfire season that was highlighted by the extraordinary statement, 'I don't hold the hose, mate, ' and the decision to holiday while the country burned, How Good is Scott Morrison? shows his resolve and the redemption the government's response to the pandemic brought him.
Right now, Scott Morrison seems unassailable and sure to win the next election, but what exactly is his vision for Australia? A pragmatist rather than an ideologue, he is a deeply Pentecostal religious man but he doesn't wear his faith as a badge of honour. So what does he really believe in?
When the history of this period is written, Morrison will certainly be seen as an election winner but will he be viewed as having had the courage and vision to change Australia for the better, or the worse?
'This book rips away the PR curtain to look at the real sins and virtues of our 30th prime minister.'
- LAURIE OAKES
'Scott Morrison is very good at doing not much and yet winning the politics. Errington and van Onselen have produced a forensic examination of a - so far - flawed leadership.'
- BARRIE CASSIDY

330 pages, Paperback

Published April 14, 2021

Reviews

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

These authors provide two answers. Up to the last two chapters Morrison is seen as no good at all; in the last two, Morrison is up with the best, “Barring an unforeseen crisis, Scott Morison will become Australia’s fourth longest serving prime minister … (and) has the opportunity to be a substantial PM.” The first chapters sum up his rather unsavoury background, achieving nothing substantial in marketing and having been sacked twice: “A man on the make” as Chapter 1 is appropriately entitled. They mention his fiddled preselection, having lost to Michael Towke horrendously – until Towke was found to have been naughty and uninstalled. But after investigation Towke was found not to have been naughty after all and was cleared. Too late, Morrison had already been installed as the candidate for Cook. Morrison surrounded himself with “the magnificent 7”, starting with his best friend and fellow Pentecostal the rather nasty and barely competent Stuart Robert, others being fellow parliamentarians and some not, forming an advisory group on whom Morrison leant. In the Coalition Morrison was feared and disliked, having rows with Frydenberg (a potential rival) and Dutton especially. His behaviour during the bushfires is accurately described but then he rehabilitated himself – after some delay – over COVID, but here it was the state premiers that took over and with whom Morrison was often in conflict. His decisions of the “national cabinet” were more about what the state premiers wanted. COVID however was his salvation; overriding sports rorts, ministerial misbehaviours, Ruby Princess, backflips on budget deficit, shutting down parliament (which receives particularly heavy criticism by the authors). Any sign of problems arising for Morison … too busy coping with the pandemic. Despite all that, the account of the 2019 election campaign – which was a gross distortion of an election campaign by focusing on Shorten’s unpopularity is highly praised. Correctly they point out that Coalition policy is ideologically free: “The Liberals only know mates and corporate cheques” Any section of the public seen as critical of the government go on the enemies list, along with university funding, academics and JobKeeper, artists, the young, the underprivileged. No ideology but opportunism: “No substance beneath the political marketing veneer.” And yet, they are confident Morrison can’t lose the next election and maybe the one after that. This is a bad slur on the electorate, for the picture that emerges from this book is of a bad tempered, aggressive, secretive, mendacious, egocentric man who dodges responsibility, blaming others for his mistakes, but taking credit when things go well. In defence of the authors’ conclusions that Morrison will win the next election and is a successful PM, they do not mention Brittany Higgins, Christian Porter’s meltdown, it was before the vaccine rollout tanked, the quarantine situation is rather glossed over, and before the $660 million carpark rorts came to light, beside which sport rorts was Sunday school. I am sure their conclusions would have been very different had they been able to wait until Morrison’s serious mistakes, due certainly to his own personality and inability to follow up rhetoric with action, will eventually bring about his downfall and we are beginning to see that starting to happen now. If only the authors had published later rather than when they did.

[June · Rating 3 out of 5]

I believe the authors published this book too early. They have written it as if the COVID-19 pandemic was coming to an end. Further, the historical rape allegation against Christian Porter isn't mentioned at all. There is only one paragraph of about 13 sentences on page 252 that mentions the Four Corners report "on alleged sexual harassment and past lewd conduct against ministers Alan Tudge and Chrstian Porter" and how Scott Morrison reacted to the report.
As Harold Wilson once said, "a week is a long time in politics" and unfortunately this book was out of date before it hit the shelves of libraries and book stores.

[Dylan Glatz · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm perplexed as to why How Good is Scott Morrison? required two authors. Perhaps so that this book might only further muddy the waters in which a very muddy Prime Minister dwelled? It's safe to say that I did not enjoy How Good is Scott Morrison?.

How Good is Scott Morrison? is hardly comprehensive, and is almost offensive in its abject refusal to critically engage with its evidence, opinions and quotations. Contentions are repeated, and someone else’s response might be noted, but van Onselen and Errington largely stay out of those weeds. This is a shame; surely journalists with such insight and access would have a fairly unique perspective into these matters. Imaginably, a book claiming to 'investigate' Morrison's rise to high office would endeavour to more closely scrutinise its findings; any research, interviews or experimenting that might have occurred go uncritically repeated. The same result can be produced by simply reading the cited sources, given Errington and van Onselen’s lack of meaningful critique or analysis.

At best, the prose of How Good is Scott Morrison? is fine. It is unremarkable, and is absent a unique or persuasive voice. Perhaps the authors' style is better-suited to short-form articles: Errington and van Onselen frequently work themselves into semantic circles, repeating various points throughout the same chapter in more or less the same way. When these points are as profoundly insightful as 'nobody could have predicted the global Covid-19 pandemic,' and other phrases to the same effect, readers might be forgiven for their waning patience.

Errington and van Onselen are also, in my view, unduly generous to Morrison, and do not afford him -or his government- the legitimate scrutiny they deserve. Sexual assault allegations, for example, against Christian Porter and Alan Tudge -incredibly important in forming context to the Morrison government’s mistreatment of Brittany Higgins, and the LNP’s problem sympathising and identifying with women- are barely a footnote. Across the entire book, details of both allegations appear just once; both allegations are conflated into one paragraph, finishing with “these allegations were not substantiated and the ministers have denied the charges.” Given van Onselen’s public support of Porter, this is as unsurprising as it is disappointing. The authors would be wise to provide a reference to their haberdasher, because the kid-gloves with which they handle matters as sensitive as these are about as soft as they come.

Notably, How Good is Scott Morrison? is shockingly premature. While books belonging to the popular-political-exposé genre begin to show wrinkles the day they hit shelves, to attempt to definitively (or, at least, meaningfully) chronicle a Prime Minister's time in office before they've left seems to jumping the gun a bit.

Indeed, How Good is Scott Morrison? shares a few qualities with the man it seeks to investigate. It is occasionally funny, but only for its cynicism. It is frequently repetitive, but imprecise. Similarly, much of it is unsubstantiated, and that which is ambiguous refuses accountability.

Midst a sea of similar books covering similar content written in a similar style, How Good is Scott Morrison? fails to distinguish itself for the right reasons. There are plenty of other (better) options out there for post-election-defeat Morrison evaluations. Unfortunately, this one does not forward a compelling argument as to why readers should pick thisone. How Good is Scott Morrison? fails to justify its own existence.

Although I'm sure it moved countless units off of the BIG W discount table, How Good is Scott Morrison? is forgettable, disposable and altogether superfluous. Sorry fellas.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent well-written book by a couple of well informed journalists. A pleasure to read. Very analytical and balanced. Lots of insights. Gives credit to Scott Morrison where credit is due and is very critical of his weaknesses.

[Ann Koenig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book to read as we head into an election. Published on 2021, a lot has happened since then