I just didn’t understand the line of questioning with Waleed insisting the PM give an exact number on how many rapists and murderers were in offshore detention centres. I would expect any government to be properly vetting anyone who wants to seek asylum for the safety of everyone who currently calls Australia home and rejecting people, of whatever faith, with questionable character.
It seems to me Waleed was attempting to stir up divisions amongst Australians by pitting Muslims against the Prime Minister.
Over the course of the live interview, Mr Morrison talked over Aly, dodged questions numerous times and scoffed in the interviewer’s face.
He denied that his party had a poor track record with engaging Australian Muslims, rejected claims that he urged his party to capitalise on Islamophobia in 2011, and refused to rule out preferencing One Nation last at the federal election.
Many on social media did not take kindly to the Prime Minister’s conduct during the interview, saying he had an “aggressive” attitude and came off as a “bully” through his body language.
Aside from his body language, his refusal to commit to preferencing One Nation last that sparked a strong response on Twitter.
I think Waleed was trying to address the PM’s tone (or attitude) towards Muslims or Asylum Seekers (I don’t recall the specific context). There is a difference between saying that some of the 60 are rapist and murderers to just 2 of them are, and thus shouldn’t be allowed into the country. It is the notion that Morrison implies it is more of a threat than it really is.
I agree, though- it wasn’t the best interview. I think the set up was nice but I would have loved to see Lisa grill him (that’s just me).
The questions, structure and cadence of the inteview on Waleed’s part wasn’t great, but my god Morrison came off, in my perspective, really poorly. Very defensive and trying to cover tracks by dodging and weaving around questions.
Extremely poor performance by the PM. I’m questioning if he is even a good politician, let alone leader of the country. He took the wrong track on almost every issue, was combative, evasive and looked like he wanted to be somewhere else for the most part. And when it came to the issue of the discussions in shadow cabinet in 2010 he was forced to admit they occurred. His claim to his motive were completely unbelievable. Waleed was also combative in parts but you would expect nothing less from the interviewer; that’s their job. Otherwise he was calm, reasoned and had his facts prepared.
ScoMe (me me me) had the opportunity to be presidential and was given the opportunity by Waleed’s first question to “set the agenda”. He should have used that to make an opening statement to the Australian people that included denouncement of Islamophobia, condemnation of anyone in his party that perpetuates it going forward and a guarantee to do everything in his power to ensure Liberal candidates preference any party with those policies last. It seems clear from what he says in the interview that he couldn’t make such a statement.
So even if it is ‘just 2 of them’ they should all be let in? Even if the number is only 1, that fully justifies the extreme vetting that we have. We already have enough violence, therefore we need to be confident about who we are letting in. Not entirely sure why the number matters. What does matter is that at least 1 of them is a rapist and/or killer of which I don’t want living in our society. I’m happy for the process to take longer rather than just let them all in if it means we are weeding out the killers and rapists.
Completely. At every opportunity when a sticky question came, he went back to some bullshit anecdote over his experiences as if they somehow hold the same value as actions in the now and demonstrate that his ‘beliefs’ are adamantine, rather than actually responding to accusations of systemic issues within his party
I think voters respond better to rerouting tactics whereby the politician (particularly when they have little character like Morrison) instead dodges questions by referring to policy examples rather than these personal ‘character references’. It comes off as incredibly contrived and self-absorbed.
And as a result, I have a feeling that this will keep going on now. People will want to interview Andrew Robb and Julie Bishop and whoever else says that the PM said and did something different.
Not to answer the question of numbers was just another example of poor politics (or poor advice). Answer the question definitely or shut it down in a way that makes you look good; any good politician would have a range of answers that would have been more effective than what we heard tonight. Now it looks like there is evasion and deceit- why won’t he give a number; what is he hiding?
What we need now is someone with an axe to grind to come out with details of the 2010 shadow cabinet meeting that contradict what the PM said tonight; and you know that journalists will be following that.
We still don’t know who the unnamed source was for the articles in 2011.
This is from a New Corp article again:
The claim emerged in a Sydney Morning Herald report from 2011 quoting unnamed sources to the effect that Mr Morrison “urged the shadow cabinet to [capitalise on the electorate’s growing concerns about ‘Muslim immigration’".
The report said deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop and the former immigration minister Mr Ruddock strongly disagreed with the suggestion.
Two days later, another Herald journalist said in an article headlined “Ugly game of race baiting” that an unnamed Liberal shadow cabinet member had said: “We had all been asked to come up with potential issues we could run with. Scott said, ‘What are we going to do about multiculturalism? What are we going to do about concerns about the number of Muslims?’ He put it on the table like a dead cat.”
The unnamed source said Malcolm Turnbull, Mr Ruddock and others argued against any exploitation of the issues, and Ms Bishop wrapped the debate up by saying: “We have a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and let’s keep it that way.”
Liberal finance spokesman Andrew Robb told the Australian Financial Review at the time: “Scott did talk about the strong feelings in the general community about Muslim immigration, and he said that we as a party had to engage with that sentimen.
“But I’m sure he meant we should engage in a constructive way.”
Mr Morrison dismissed the reports as gossip at the time. “As all journalists know, I don’t comment on shadow cabinet here or anywhere else,” he said. “All I can say is the gossip reported today does not reflect my views.”
The one thing I do find painted quite well by The Project is the way the PM treated Waleed compared to the obvious way the NZ PM treated Waleed. A man slouched compared to a woman greeting Waleed with a hug.
Two completely different types of interviews, we all knew the PM interview would be a tense exchange. Waleed and the PM did shake hands at the end of the interview.
It’s just a matter of time.
