Imagine if Scott Morrison had been genuine in declaring he needed to change.
Imagine if he had used his ABC TV appearance on 7.30 last night to show what he meant when he told the nation that his leadership, modelled on a bulldozer, was dead.
Imagine if he had opened the interview by apologising for escaping the country, as bushfires ruined lives and livelihoods, more than two years ago.
Yes, that’s a long time ago now, but that still rattles voters when the issue of empathy is raised. Does he have the capacity to show empathy and to understand the lives of those he leads? Based on last night’s performance, it’s difficult to see the evidence.
But wasn’t Morrison Mark II supposed to be more aware?
Morrison could have been honest enough, too, in selling this week’s superannuation plan to admit that housing access had fallen backwards over the past decade; that his superannuation move was motivated by the fact that a young person, after a decade of Coalition rule, doesn’t stand a hope in hell of saving for a housing deposit.
Or he could have admitted that the influx of teal independents and other moderate candidates was in response to the frustration of voters at some of his government’s decisions.
He could have used last night’s interview to apologise, or to promise to do better, or to be more inclusive in leading the nation. Didn’t he promise that would be part of his make-up, in Morrison Mark II?
He could have shown that he understands the lives of those he serves. Parents filling the petrol tank on the way home from work. Teenagers whose mental health will be a lengthy reminder of a pandemic that has stolen so much from them. Those living in their aged care rooms with the freedoms of the past not obvious in their futures.
Instead, Morrison took credit for Australia’s pandemic response. And perhaps some of that is even justified, but wouldn’t a softer, more inclusive and introspective Morrison Mark II consider what might have been done differently? Or how we could assist those who continue to struggle in the pandemic’s aftermath?
So many missed opportunities to show off the new-beaut Morrison Mark II.
He stuck by his line that he was aware of the China-Solomon Islands deal, but wouldn’t it have been refreshing for him to admit what a genuine regional setback it now presents? Or that the tax system is unwieldy, not fit for purpose and in need of reform, but that he couldn’t promise to fix that in the next three years?
It appears Morrison Mark II, like his predecessor, will not cop criticism. Or admit fault. Or even hint at a vulnerability. Morrison Mark I was tough and brash and rammed through, because that’s what the nation needed.
So what does it need now? What could Morrison Mark II have promised that would have hinted that this new desire to change was as much his own as the wish of focus groups, polls and voters?
Morrison Mark II could have said his government got it wrong with the Murugappan family, and that they’d be returned to Biloela this week, before we went to the polls. That way we’d know he was true to his word.
He could have apologised to the young women of Australia, and told us what he learnt from Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins and Chanel Contos. Did he learn anything? Is it something he talked to his own daughters about? Does he admire their grit and persistence?
Who knows? Because Morrison Mark II was quiet on that front. He was quiet too on the integrity scandals that have enveloped his government, on its inactivity over climate change, and how he will be a better and more inclusive leader.
He was loud and shouty and dismissive and blind to any fault he might have. He deflected and dismissed questions and didn’t blink at his own suggestion that his will, determination and strength are what the nation needs.
Voters will decide that in just a handful of days. But last night showed that Morrison Mark II is dead; he didn’t even make it to the ballot paper.
