Further to my thoughts on the Michaelia Cash affair, I noticed Brad Norington using a curious turn of phrase in his article on this topic in the Weekend Australian.
“The advisor, Dave de Garis, immediately took a political bullet for his minister by resigning.”
The whole tenor of this sentence seems to suggest that Norington believes that Cash knew of the leak, perhaps even authorized it.
The first odd note that caught my attention was the word ‘immediately’. ‘Immediately’ upon what? Immediately upon the first accusation being made that Cash’s office had instigated the leak? Well no, it was immediately upon de Garis finally outing himself as the leaker.
He took a bullet for his minister. Really? Well that might be true, but only if he had been instructed by Cash to leak the information.
If events transpired as Cash claimed then de Garis, on his own initiative, leaked the information then lied to his Minister allowing her dig herself further and further into the mire before finally confessing. If that is true why was he accorded the luxury of resigning? He should have been sacked and Cash should have made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was sacked with all that entails.
Her failure to do so suggests that de Garis did indeed take a bullet for her but that sacking would be a bridge too far.