Prime Minister Scott Morrison has responded to claims Gladys Berejiklian called him a “horrible, horrible person” in leaked texts and said they’re actually mates. Likely story!
On Wednesday morning Morrison dismissed the texts that surfaced on Tuesday as an “anonymous sledging” and insisted the two had always maintained a “positive” relationship.
“In our own dealings with each other it’s always been very positive, and I think we’ve worked very well together as Premier and Prime Minister to do very great things for NSW,” he said on Sunrise.
Morrison said he “hasn’t had the opportunity” to speak to Berejiklian since the texts were made public by old mate Peter Van Onselen yesterday, but he “appreciates” the statement she released on the matter.
Berejiklian responded to the allegations in a statement and said she had “no recollection” of the exchange, but didn’t outright deny sending the messages.
“Let me reiterate my very strong support for Prime Minister Morrison and all he is doing for our nation during these very challenging times,” she said.
“As Gladys has said, she doesn’t recollect it,” Morrison said on Sunrise.
NSW Treasurer Matt Kean — a friend of Berejiklian — was also asked on 2GB if he was the source of the leaked texts and replied: “I don’t believe so”.
“I played no part in the ambush on the Prime Minister. It was not me.”
Van Onselen questioned the PM about the leaked texts after Morrison’s keynote speech to the National Press Club on Tuesday afternoon, which left him looking pretty dumbfounded.
Van Onselen alleged the leaked texts were between Berejiklian and another unnamed Liberal MP from two years ago during the Black Summer bushfires.
They branded Morrison “a horrible, horrible person”, “more concerned with politics than people” a fraud and “a complete psycho”.
After Morrison’s jaunt to Hawaii during the bushfire crisis, Berejiklian allegedly said in a text she was “so disappointed and gutted”.
On Sunrise he made a dig at Van Onselen and said he was facing his own questions.
“There were no details or context behind [Van Onselen’s question] and it was done for sensationalist purposes.”