Jacqui Lambie says she'll repeal medevac bill if her one demand is met – as it happened

With the moderators closing up the comments, I am going to close up the blog for the night – but we will be back bright and early tomorrow morning for the last sitting day of the week.

In the Senate, Hollie Hughes is still getting upset about robodebt being referred to as robodebt. Because yes, that is absolutely the issue here. What the program is referred to as. So yup – have made the right decision to close up the blog for the night.

Don’t expect medevac to come up between now and close of parliamentary business tomorrow. Jacqui Lambie’s statement is pointing to a lot more negotiations – which means we will most likely not see it again until next week.

But we will keep you up to date with that, and whatever else happens.

As will Mike Bowers, Sarah Martin, Katharine Murphy and Paul Karp, along with all the other people who keep the blog running – including the moderators who work their arses off making sure we can all keep the conversation going without ending up in court.

A big thank you to all of them, and of course to all of you. We will be back tomorrow morning. And please – take care of you

The Senate will return to the ensuring integrity bill in a bit – and then by the time you wake up, the second reading debate will be done.

The government has the numbers.

The Australian has reported that the comments Scott Morrison attributed to Victorian police detective Ross Mitchell about Julia Gillard being under investigation in 2013 in question time, were actually said by Sydney radio host Ben Fordham on 2GB:

From the 2013 story (the quotes Morrison attributed to Mitchell are in bold):

One answer the prime minister gave during a dogged tussle in her interview with Ben Fordham stood out. Mitchell knew it when he heard it. The other detectives knew it too.

Although seemingly innocuous to those not involved in the probe, Gillard’s answer was new and pivotal. It meant police in Melbourne would need a sworn statement from Fordham in Sydney, even though as a journalist he would be expected to subsequently disclose some key facts.

The actions that Mitchell and other police took in seeking further information from Fordham led to him stating in unequivocal terms on his radio show this week something that had been previously cryptically and very carefully inferred – the prime minister is under formal Victoria police investigation as a result of the 18-year-old Australian Workers’ Union fraud. Fordham has kept a pledge to police to not publicly reveal more than this.

He told his audience: “So, let me make this perfectly clear. The prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, is under investigation by police. This is fact. I hadn’t planned to add to what I said yesterday out of respect for the detectives on the case. But if the prime minister’s office wants to deny she’s being investigated, as has been reported last night and today, then I will once again correct that record. Now it needs to be pointed out that the prime minister and her office mightn’t know she’s being investigated. But I know it. And others do too. The detectives are investigating three individuals and one of them is Julia Gillard. Prime minister, you may not know this, but you are currently being investigated by the fraud and extortion squad of the Victoria police force.”

In question time, Morrison said:

I refer to March 2013, Ross Mitchell, a detective in Victoria’s police fraud squad, stated the prime minister Julia Gillard was under investigation over her role in the creation of an AWU slush fund – “Let me make it perfectly clear,” he said, “the prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard is under investigation by police. This is fact.”

“I hadn’t planned to add to what I yesterday said out of respect for detectives of the case, that if the prime minister’s office wants to deny she’s been investigated as has been reported last night, then today I will once again correct that record.”

Morrison went on to say Gillard didn’t step aside, and he remembered the press conference. But just not who said what.

Ahhhh ... this is why Bob Katter had a baby in parliament today:

Australian babies being born over the next 12 months could be the last generation who will drink Australian milk should the federal LNP government fail to support a minimum price scheme for dairy farmers.

Speaking to the press gallery today, KAP federal member for Kennedy Bob Katter warned that his pursuit of a minimum price for milk would not go away, and that he will fight tooth and nail to save one of the nation’s four great agricultural industries.

“There have been nearly 20 years of cruelty which has wiped out the income and livelihoods of 30,000 Australian families and everyone concentrates on the farmers and they forget about the contractors and the employees. Their lives have been blasted.

“Within three years of deregulation (in 2000) we had the highest suicide rates in Australia at the time. The cruelty of what was done here with their eyes open.

“There are only two buyers of food sold in this country, Coles and Woolworths, and there is no way to avoid them. They have a fiduciary duty to maximise profits for their shareholders and to ask them to look after the dairy industry is ridiculous and it is not going to happen.”

As expected, Labor lost the motion in the House (numbers don’t lie).

Over in the Senate:

The Senate has today passed a Greens motion for an order for the production of documents that the government provide the legal advice relating to the decision to stop relying on income averaging under the income compliance program.

“Legal professional privilege is not a recognised ground for refusing to provide information to the Senate,” said Australian Greens spokesperson on family and community services, senator Rachel Siewert.

“The federal court finding today shows just why this information needs to be made available. The parliament and the community need to know what is the legal status of this program. Many of us suspect there is no basis for the government to issue these debt notices.

“The government need to front up and take responsibility for what they have done.”

In the House of Representatives Anthony Albanese is attempting to move a motion for the production of documents (this was the division Ken Wyatt had to run from his interview for).

The motion:

I seek leave to move the following motion –

That the House:

1. notes that:

1. today in question time the prime minister refused to answer questions about his telephone call with the NSW police commissioner in which he discussed the instigation, nature and substance of the criminal investigation concerning the minister for energy and emissions reduction;

1. the prime minister’s account of the conversation is at odds with the account of the NSW police commissioner; and

1. therefore, the House calls on the government to table the following documents before rise tonight:

1. the transcript of the telephone call between the prime minister and the NSW police commissioner on Tuesday, 26 November 2019;

1. any briefing provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the call; and

1. any notes taken by the prime minister, his staff or departmental officials during the call.

Chris Kenny included this in his column on Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu earlier this week:

There is also the issue of Pascoe’s claimed Aboriginal heritage, not evident in detailed studies of his genealogy and not explained by him; even though he has received prizes and positions as an Indigenous Australian. Andrew Bolt has been interrogating these issues – brave work given the way section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was used against him in the past.

Yet Indigenous Australians minister Ken Wyatt told me on Sky News: “If Bruce tells me he’s Indigenous then I know that he’s Indigenous.” Privately, other Indigenous activists are exercised about Pascoe’s claims. It all comes back to the truth. Uncomfortable as it may be for many, Pascoe’s heritage and, more important, the veracity of his historic claims are crucially important.

This is of course, while Kenny is on the advisory committee reporting back to Ken Wyatt on the best way to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament – now being called the voice to government, because the government has ruled out enshrining it in the constitution.

This was quite the exchange between Patricia Karvelas and Ken Wyatt on Afternoon Briefing just then:

PK: One of the members of the senior advisory group [on the voice to parliament] has questioned whether historian and writer Bruce Pascoe is Aboriginal. What do you make of her questioning of his Indigenous heritage?

KW: Patricia, just on Bruce or any person for that matter, if they identify with a particular ethnicity, then I accept them on face value.

Now, the debate around Bruce – and my comments on Chris Kenny’s show – have certainly been misconstrued.

What disappoints me is this is escalating to vitriol of a nature that I just find unacceptable.

Even in my own office, my staff are receiving calls in which they are called Cs and other names. In fact, I have had one of my staff resign because she can’t cope with being abused because of the issue of Bruce.

But people remain anonymous when they do it, and online – let’s take some time, reflect, allow people to respond.

But do it in a courteous way, because vitriol doesn’t achieve an outcome that may question the integrity.

Any author who writes a book leaves themselves open for discussion with other people. If you have issues, then you should take directly to the author.

PK: OK. Tell me about what’s going on? I mean, what you have described sounds awful. You’re telling me you have actually lost a member of staff because of harassment exactly. What are the kind of complaints people are making to your office in relation to Bruce Pascoe and his Aboriginality?

KW: His identity, and I doubt any of them would have talked to Bruce. Certainly elements of his book...

PK: These are people who are taking issue with Bruce Pascoe claiming he’s Aboriginal?

KW: That’s part of it. That’s a division, sorry.

Patricia Karvelas: Just on this Angus Taylor matter, which has been unfolding in question time over the last day, Labor is now demanding a transcript of that conversation with the New South Wales police commissioner and the prime minister, all of its details in a transcript. Why should we see a transcript?

Mark Dreyfus: Because this is a call which should never have been made. It’s reflective of appalling judgment on the part of this prime minister, who seems to have forgotten that he’s not some Liberal head-kicker, trying to protect one of his cabinet mates, he’s the prime minister of this country.

It’s completely wrong for him to have called directly, on his mobile – we learned from the police commissioner in the press conference this morning – called him three times, and because the police commissioner didn’t have the number in his phone, he didn’t pick up.

But apparently he finally got through. It’s a call which should never have been made. It is wrong at every level. It’s compromised the police commissioner, it’s compromised the investigation, and one can only imagine the pressure that’s now been put on the actual police officers who are conducting this investigation, the police officers who make up the strike force that the NSW police have established.

PK: Are you suggesting that Scott Morrison’s call to commissioner Mick Fuller was an attempt to influence the investigation into Angus Taylor? Or just that it’s a bad look?

MD: We don’t know what the prime minister said to the police commissioner. We don’t know what the police commissioner said in return. We do know from question time today that there’s a complete inconsistency between the way in which the prime minister tried yesterday to describe his phone call to the police commissioner.

The police commissioner has said this morning that it was a very short call. The police commissioner has said that he said no more than what had already been stated in the media on behalf of the NSW police.

The prime minister told the parliament yesterday that it had gone to the substance of the charges. Now, they both can’t be right. That’s why we need to see a transcript.

The prime minister stonewalled, in effect, throughout question time today, because he ought to be embarrassed.

He ought to be embarrassed by his own performance. He ought to be embarrassed by the contempt that he has shown for the integrity of our system of government, and he ought to be embarrassed that he hasn’t applied the standards of John Howard, the standards of Malcolm Turnbull, which would require him to immediately stand down this cabinet minister, who has used a forged document while a cabinet minister to attack a political opponent. It’s just extraordinary, Patricia, that this prime minister’s standards seem to be in the gutter, and he needs to actually pay attention to past practice here, not of Labor governments, I’m pointing to – although in Labor governments

There’s plenty of ministers that were stood down over the past 30 or 40 years – this is Liberal governments ...

Mark Dreyfus on Jacqui Lambie’s statement:

Well, let’s wait and see. Jacqui Lambie’s established a reputation for weighing up the evidence.

On weighing up the evidence, Jacqui said she doesn’t believe the medevac law has interfered with the protection of our borders. She’s prepared to change her position in respect of the bill that’s before the Senate on this one condition.

Let’s wait and see what that condition is. But I – I think everyone who has seen her statement and has listened to her can see just how thorough her assessment has been.

The federal government has settled a landmark challenge against its robodebt program – conceding a $2,500 debt raised against Deanna Amato was not lawful because it relied on income averaging.

In orders made by consent on Wednesday, the federal court declared the debt was “not validly made”, an order to garnishee Amato’s tax return was also invalid and there was no basis to add a penalty to the debt.

Rowan McRae, the executive director of civil justice access at Victorian Legal Aid, said the case has “helped to clarify the unlawfulness of the robodebt system for hundreds of thousands of Australians in the same situation, who received or paid off a robodebt based only on averaging”.

Last week the federal government abandoned sole reliance on income averaging to calculate debts, dismantling a central plank of the robodebt program’s automation, which has seen tens of thousands of welfare recipients overcharged for alleged debts.

In a statement explaining the consent orders, the court noted the initial debt of $2,900 was calculated based on Australian Taxation Office income data averaged across fortnightly periods as if this were Amato’s actual income in each period.

The court said the conclusion Amato had received social security benefits she was not entitled to was “not open on the material before the decision-maker” because there “no probative material” that the average reflected Amato’s actual income.

“In the circumstances, there was no material before the decision-maker capable of supporting the conclusion that a debt had arisen … The conclusion that a debt had arisen was therefore irrational, in the requisite legal sense.”

The court ordered the commonwealth to pay Amato’s costs and $92 of interest.

Victorian Legal Aid has won its challenge against robo-debt, with the federal court ruling it unlawful.

That is pretty huge news.

Mark Dreyfus spoke to Patricia Karvelas about it:

This judgement simply confirms that we have got a Commonwealth government that has been extorting money from Australian citizens with no basis for doing so. It’s an extraordinary scandal, robo-debt.

What we have is a government that’s been prepared to send out claims to hundreds of thousands of Australians, knowing that on the government’s own reckoning, more than a fifth - more than a fifth - are wrong.

And this is one of them. I just think that the Prime Minister owes the Australian people an apology for this extraordinary program that - I will say it again - it is extorting money, making false demands of Australian citizens.

How Mike Bowers saw question time:

It looks like Connie Fierravanti-Wells wanted to speak on something to do with modernisation of the rules of Senate committees – but for some reason, the government did not want that to happen.

A little bit of unusualness – even for the Senate – just occurred.

Connie Fierravanti-Wells was just denied leave by her own side of the chamber to speak on her motion.

Also:

The Australian government will return three culturally significant artefacts during the prime minister’s visit to India in January 2020.

The artefacts, which were held by the National Gallery of Australia (Gallery), were purchased in good faith, but extensive research undertaken by the gallery has led to its decision to voluntarily return these artefacts to India.

The artefacts being returned are:

· Pair of door guardians (dvarapala) 15^th Century, Tamil Nadu, India - (two works); and

· The serpent king (Nagaraja) 6^th to 8^th Century, Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh, India.

“Like India, we understand the value of our ancient cultures and artefacts,” the prime minister said.

“The return of these artefacts is the right thing to do. This is another demonstration of deep relationship between Australia and India.”

Both India and Australia are party to the UNESCO 1970 convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transport of ownership of cultural property.

Tony Smith brings up the closure motions which Labor moved in the federation chamber – there were 80 overnight and this morning – which shut down constituency matters.

Smith says he will, following practices, will not be allowing divisions to return to the chamber to be voted on – so that the debates there can continue (on those issues)

Which is a Speaker’s way of saying “stop messing around”.

Question time ends.

Scott Morrison’s folders are stacked, but we have to have the Greg Hunt dixer, because there is no such thing as too much punishment.

Tony Pasin once again heads straight to the front bench in the division side swap.

Honestly, if the benches allowed him to swing his legs, he would.

FOI it like the rest of us.

Ed Husic tells the government to look up Garrad on urban dictionary.

If you want to get the joke, look up Garrad on urban dictionary.

“No standards, no integrity, just a bunch of dumb ... ” Richard Marles says, deliberately letting the sentence hang.

We go to another division.

“They’ve finally drawn attention away from this minister by focusing on the prime minister,” Mark Butler gets out before the motion is once again shut down.

There is a lot of beige in the chamber today – and I don’t just mean the deputy prime minister.

Seems it is the colour du jour.

Tim Watts yells out: “When are you going to appoint a horse to the Senate?”

History buffs would appreciate the Caligula reference.

Some would say it’s been done.

Leave is denied.

And we enter the 10th circle of hell.

The motion:

I seek leave to move the following motion – that the House:

1) notes that:

a) shortly before question time yesterday, the NSW police issued a statement
confirming that detectives had launched Strike Force Garrad to investigate a
fraudulent document used by the minister for emissions reduction;

b) the statement by the NSW police said “as investigations are ongoing, no further
information is available”;

c) despite that statement and only hours later, the prime minister called the NSW police
commissioner and sought further information, later telling the parliament they had
spoken “about the instigation, the nature and the substance of their inquiries”;

d) today, Malcolm Turnbull said it would have been much better had the prime
minister’s phone call to the NSW police commissioner not been made because it was
important the inquiry “is seen to be conducted entirely free of political influence”; and

e) when members of his government were the subject of a police investigation, John
Howard said: “I told my colleagues that the Federal police should be allowed to carry
out this investigation without let or hindrance from me or anybody in the federal
government”; and

2) therefore, the House resolves the prime minister acted inappropriately by:
a) calling the NSW police commissioner when all he had in mind was his own political
interest and not the national interest; and
b) thinking none of the usual rules of integrity and accountability apply to him.

For the second day in a row Labor’s Tony Sheldon has asked about potential changes to the unfair dismissal rules and the Better Off Overall Test for enterprise agreements.
Marise Payne, representing the IR minister, notes that the small business commissioner has suggested the small business unfair dismissal code was “not achieving its original intent”.

She notes consultation through a discussion paper to discover “how it might be amended to be clearer” in relation to fairness of decisions to dismiss employees. She confirms a separate paper will examine enterprise bargaining.

When Sheldon asks why the Coalition didn’t seek a mandate for Work Choices mark 2, Payne rejects the premise of the question and claims the Coalition is “very clear in relation to our policies”.

Murray Watt heckles to “show me the press conference where this was announced”. It’s true – none of this was announced before the election. But then, it wasn’t ruled out either.

Labor is now moving to suspend standing orders.

This will fail.

Because they all fail

Melissa Price has been allowed to take a dixer.

This is where we are at.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

My question is again addressed to the prime minister. Isn’t it the case when the prime minister called the New South Wales police commissioner, all he had in mind was his own political interest and not the national interest? Why does this prime Mminister think none of the usual rules of integrity and accountability apply to him and his government?

Morrison:

Mr Speaker, that was more of a smear than a question. That reflects, I think, poorly on the leader of the opposition in these matters. Especially given this: yesterday the leader of the opposition made reference to this matter and asked me the very specific question: what action will the prime minister take?

Then, Mr Speaker, subsequently, he then referred to clause 7.1 of the ministerial standards and asked me again: “Prime minister, what are you going to do to implement it?” So my actions, I said, in response to his question, to ensure that I could equip my responsibilities under the ministerial standards, was to inform myself of the matter which he raised in this House. Mr Speaker, he asked me to actually go through this process...

... Mr Speaker, my answer to his question is that I sought to speak and did speak to the commissioner of the New South Wales police force, to specifically undertake my responsibilities, both to this House and under the ministerial standards.

Now, I don’t know who he thought I should have spoken to. I was very clear that I was going to talk to the New South Wales police force, Mr Speaker, and I said I would speak to them. In that was in my answers to the questions yesterday. No objection was raised by the leader of the opposition then. Who did he think I’d speak to? The ambulance service? The fire brigade, Mr Speaker? I had to inform myself of the matter which he raised. So, my answer to him is that you asked me to exercise these responsibilities. I exercised them, and I have provided my answers clearly to this House.

... It was completely telegraphed and the leader of the opposition either wasn’t listening, didn’t care or it didn’t suit him.

I m p a c t f u l

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

My question is, again, to the prime minister. I refer to his call to the New South Wales police commissioner. Did the prime minister get any advice from the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to making that call? Were any note-takers present? If so, will the prime minister release those notes to clarify the difference between his and the police commissioner’s account of their conversation?

Morrison:

I obviously don’t accept the assertion that the leader of the opposition just made about the nature of that call. Secondly, the normal arrangements applied for those calls, and the normal processes apply for accessing that information in relation to those matters.

In other words, FOI it.

Analysts at investment bank UBS, led by one of the biggest critics of Australian banks, Jonathan Mott, have upgraded their rating of Westpac after its cleaned out its executive suite following its money laundering and child exploitation crisis.

In a note to clients, Mott’s team said they expected Westpac to pay regulator Austrac at least $1bn to settle the case, but warned the final figure “could be significantly higher, or lower”.

“We believe it is now clear the Australian banks have been global laggards in addressing AML [anti-money laundering] and compliance issues since the financial crisis,” they said.

They upgraded their rating of Westpac stock from sell to neutral, not out of any confidence in the bank’s future performance but because its share price has fallen so far over the past three months that it is now close to their target price of $24.50.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

My question is addressed to the prime minister: when members of his government were the subject of a police investigation, John Howard said the following: “I told my colleagues that the Federal police should be allowed to carry out this investigation without let or hindrance from me or anybody in the Federal government.”

Given John Howard’s example, why did the prime Minister call the New South Wales Police Commissioner and according to him, discuss the substance of the criminal investigation?

Morrison:

I’ve already answered this matter. As the purpose of my making the call to the New South Wales police commissioner, that was to inform myself of the investigation that had been reported to me in this place, that had been [launched].

Now, Mr Speaker, I informed myself of those matters. I had that conversation with the police commissioner and I note, as the commissioner had said today, and I quote him again: “The prime minister didn’t ask me any questions that were inappropriate. He didn’t ask for anything that was inappropriate and I’m comfortable with the discussion that we had over a few minutes.”

Mr Speaker, it’s important under the statement of ministerial standards because as prime minister I have to make assessments about how they apply in these circumstances, when investigations of this matter arise. So I informed myself of those matters, as I told this House I would, as I then went and did, and then reported back to this House as I should have.

Angus Taylor has been the focus in Senate question time.

Mathias Cormann, representing the prime minister, has dismissed Labor’s suggestion that a “political” referral to the police should be the basis for Taylor to be dismissed as a “crazy proposition”. He dodged a separate question asking if the government will release the transcript of Scott Morrison’s call with the NSW police commissioner, Mick Fuller.

Labor also asked Simon Birmingham, representing Taylor, where the travel figures came from. Birmingham replied it was “the advice of the minister” that it came from the City of Sydney website.

Murray Watt and others had fun with this answer, suggesting in interjections that Birmingham had thrown Taylor under a bus by not stating – as a matter of fact – that is where the figures came from.

Alan Tudge is taking a dixer, which suddenly makes the Senate super interesting.

Let’s check in with Paul Karp.

Anthony Albanese, and his hair, to Scott Morrison:

I refer to his previous answers. When did the prime minister tell this House during question time yesterday that he intended to call the police commissioner and ask him about the substance of the criminal investigation after the police had said in a written statement no further information was available.

Morrison:

At 2:14 – ‘this is a recent matter and I’ll be happy to take advice from the New South Wales police in relation to any matters they’re pursuing’. I said in answer to the same response, I’ll be taking advice from the New South Wales police on any matter that they currently are looking at and I will form a view based on taking that advice in considering these issues.

At 14:23, Mr Speaker, ‘What I’ll do is what I said in response to the last question – I’ll speak directly to the New South Wales police force and understand the nature of what these reports are and then I will make the necessary assessments of that case at that time’.

And at 14:28 I said, ‘I’m going to leave the matters of pursuing these issues to the New South Wales police [and] speak directly to the New South Wales police – directly – and I will consider the information they provide me about this matter and I will exercise my responsibilities under the standards once I have ...

I made it very clear I was speaking to the police about these matters. I said I would. No objection was made by those opposite. On the next day, they have sought to trump up something else, Mr Speaker.

What we have done is acted as we said we would here in this House, as prime minister. I undertook that call. I come back into the House. I reported that to the House, Mr Speaker.

And then we get this:

We know, Mr Speaker, some of those tablets were destined for schoolies on the Gold Coast and in other destinations around the country and because of this disruption, the drugs were taken from our streets.

I can tell you as a parent of a teenager who just came back from schoolies, I had some hair before schoolies started – no hair by the end of it – but she got back safely. I’m misleading the House a little bit there. Sorry. Nonetheless, a lot of stress for parents.

That comb-over works for you, Albo, that’s what I will say. The comb-over works for you.

Albanese: I HAVE HAIR.

There is laughter – but it is shortlived, because drugs brings us to wasting police resources, which brings us to Labor.

Dutton:

I can say that we are working closely with our law enforcement agencies. We want to fund them properly because we want to be working on jobs that will keep Australians safe.

We want to make sure that the investment into our law enforcement agencies allows the police to disrupt these criminal networks, so that these drugs don’t go into the hands of young Australians to destroy those lives.

What we’ve seen in the last 24 hours or so, from those opposite, is the complete con to that position of the government, Mr Speaker.

The shadow attorney general has now referred on nine occasions people to the police – you know what his score is? 0 from 9.

He’s a serial offender, Mr Speaker. He’s there in his pompous way looking across as he does now, believing somehow he has a superior view, to try to, as is character of people in this place.

He fails dismally. He should stop tying up police resources and makes sure he gets...

Dutton runs out of time.

It is time for JUST HOW SAFE ARE YOU, with Peter Dutton.

You know how this goes. Today it’s about drugs (regarding the MDMA drug bust Australia helped interrupt last week): WE ARE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.

Another dixer and we are back to the phone call

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

My question is addressed to the prime minister and I refer to his previous answer. The prime minister in dismissing Malcolm Turnbull’s comments this morning just said that only those with all the facts can make judgements about this matter. Does the prime minister have any information about this matter which is not in the public domain?

Morrison:

I refer to my further statements. I made it pretty clear about this assessment I have made and the conversation I have had with the police commissioner on this matter, reported to this House and what I have said here today.

What I find interesting about the leader of the opposition’s line of inquiry, because he has made reference to my earlier statements and that, of course, brings in the matter of the earlier questions, that the leader of the opposition has raised on these matters.

The leader of the opposition is seeking to prosecute a case here that says that if media have reported that a matter is under investigation by a law enforcement body, then the ministerial standards, or the standard even, the standard, should be that that person should stand aside.

That’s what the leader of the opposition is prosecuting in this case. If that’s the case, why is it, Mr Speaker, why is it, Mr Speaker, that the former prime minister Julia Gillard, and I refer to March 2013, Ross Mitchell, a detective in Victoria’s police fraud squad, stated the prime minister, Julia Gillard, was under investigation over her role in the creation of an AW slush fund.

Let me make it perfectly clear, he said: “The prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, is under investigation by police. This is fact,” he said. “I add to what I yesterday said out of respect for detectives: often the case, that if the prime minister’s office wants to deny she’s been investigated, as reported last night, then today I will once again correct that record.”

The prime minister obviously didn’t stand aside in relation to those matters. I remember the press conference, Mr Speaker.

Albanese asks about relevance - Tony Smith says Morrison is allowed to compare and contrast.

Morrison:

Well is the case of the former prime minister Julia Gillard, but there is a member of the leader of the opposition’s frontbench today who was formerly the leader of the opposition – according to the Herald Sun, while Labor leader, the member for Maribyrnong, was the subject of a nine-month police investigation which continued in 2014.

He continued to serve over that entire period. I don’t remember the Labor party suggesting that the fact he was under police investigation at the time was a matter that should cause him to stand aside.

I know the leader of the opposition was desperately trying at that time to get him to stand aside, but only for his political purposes, but if the proposition which is being put forward by the leader of the opposition is the press report, Mr Speaker, of someone in the investigation is caused to stand aside, well those on that side don’t measure up, Mr Speaker.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

This morning on Sky News, Malcolm Turnbull said about the Prime Minister’s phone call to the New South Wales Police Commissioner and I quote, “It would have been much better had it not been made because it is important the inquiry, quote, “is seen to be conducted entirely free of political influence”. With the benefit of hindsight, does the Prime Minister agree with Malcolm Turnbull?

(There is loud laughter and gaffaws from the government benches at the mention of Turnbull’s name.)

Morrison:

Only those in possession of all of the facts in relation to this matter can make any real judgement about the call I made.

As I said yesterday, I advised the House I would make the contact.

No objection was raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I note, Mr Speaker, on four separate occasions - I advised this House that I would be contacting the New South Wales Police Force.

As I said, I don’t know who they expected I would have otherwise called, Mr Speaker and not on one occasion, including the Leader of the Opposition’s breathless motion that he sought to bring into this House, did he make any complaint, Mr Speaker, about the matter in which...

(Albanese interrupts to say he never actually got a chance to say anything yesterday, because the debate was gagged. Tony Smith says he is not getting into a tit-for-tat)

Morrison:

I take the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made. He could have asked me any question in relation to the four times...that I raised this issue in the House - not once.

When he came to to this dispatch box and he moved a motion about the conduct in this matter, not did any part of that motion, did it refer...

...So frankly, it’s a bit rich today that the Leader of the Opposition this morning couldn’t remember four occasions - four occasions - and he wants people to believe that he did not hear one of those references to the New South Wales Police in this morning - apparently I was speaking another language, Mr Speaker, or I was, maybe it was because of the din of the chamber and all interest sort of breathless shouting from those on the other side that he failed to hear, Mr Speaker.

What’s very clear is the Leader of the Opposition is just not being fair dinkum about this, Mr Speaker. He is desperate, desperate in his attempts here, because he knows that he’s the one under pressure.

He knows he’s the one who comes into this place with trumped up claims because at the end of the day, he’s got nothing.

Zali Steggall has the independent question today:

Thank you, to the Prime Minister - trust in politicians is at an all-time low and it is dipping day by day. In is our responsibility to fix. Parliament is paralysed by these allegations that need to be investigated by an independent body. Could you inform the House when the government’s bill on a national integrity commission be introduced and it will include powers to investigate parliamentarians and their staff?

“Oh come on,” comes from the government benches.

Morrison:

In relation to the first matter, and I understand she was referring to matters raised in this House yesterday regarding the issue the Leader of the Opposition has raised, that matter is being dealt with by the New South Wales Police Force.

I for one, I have total confidence in the New South Wales Police Force and as the son of a retired member of the New South Wales Police Force, Mr Speaker, I’m not going to cop any assertions made by the Labor Party about the integrity of the office of the New South Wales Police Force, Mr Speaker.

(as the daughter of a retired police officer, I know that being related to a police officer actually means diddly squat)

Christian Porter takes the second part of the question:

Member, with respect to the second part of your question, as to whether or not the body would have investigative powers over parliamentarians as part of its jurisdiction, the answer is yes.

On the first part with respect to timing, these are matters I raised at the National Press Club in a long speech last week.

It’s my intention to have a draft out for public consultation, either next year or later this year. That draft at the moment is in excess of 300 pages.

It is a complicated matter, not the least of which reason is to ensure that this body fits in to the myriad of existing bodies that already do a range of investigative and oversight responsibilities for a range of different agencies and departments in the public sector. I’m very happy if you wish to seek a briefing on the progress of that, to give it to you personally, or with other members of the crossbench.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

Today Commissioner Fuller said, his conversation with the Prime Minister was, I quote, “An extremely short conversation and he just wanted confirmation we’re were conducting an investigation”.

The Prime Minister told the house they spoke about the [referral], its nature and the substance of their inquiries. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his account the parliament with Commissioner Fuller’s public statement about the nature of their conversation?

Morrison:

I stand by all the statements I made on this matter. I note in the same press conference that a journalist asked the Police Commissioner - “Did the Prime Minister ask to be kept updated by you?” He said, “Not at all, I gave him assurance we would move the matter as quickly as possible and I didn’t say that because of any particular person”.

This is what he went on to say, “He said, to be honest with you, these types of investigations can consume an enormous amount of resources from New South Wales Police and they are a great diverter of my time”.

Tony Smith is having a lot of trouble controlling the House today. But, he persists.

Morrison:

As I told the House four times yesterday I would talk to the New South Wales Police, I don’t know who they thought I was going to call, Mr Speaker.

Did they think I was going to call the Parking Infringements Officer at the Southern Police Station?

Or maybe I would call the Water Police or the Dog Squad, or perhaps the Commander of the Police Band.

I spoke to the Police Commissioner because I needed to know, to exercise my responsibilities, both to this House, and under the Ministerial Standards to exercise the assessment required of me on those matters.

That’s what I said I would do, that’s what I did, I’ve reported it back to this House. I think that sets out the matter clearly.

I suddenly can’t stop thinking of soggy weet-bix.

Also, Michael McCormack is taking a dixer

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

[Why did he talk] about the substance of an investigation on the very day it was launched?

Morrison:

I will refresh the Leader of the Opposition’s memory, it seems to be lacking this morning. Yesterday, I said this clearly - this is a very recent matter and I will be happy to take advice from the New South Wales police in relation to any matters they’re pursuing. I said this, I will take advice from the New South Wales police on any matter...

I will take advice from the New South Wales Police on any matter they’re currently looking at and form a view based on taking the advice in considering these issues.

Third time, what I will do is what I said in response to the last question - I will speak directly to the New South Wales Police Force and understand the nature of what these reports are, and then I will make the necessary assessments of that case at that time. That’s the third time.

The 4th time, as I said, Mr Speaker, I will leave the matters pursuing these issues to the New South Wales Police.

...

Then I said I am going to leave the matters of pursuing these issues to the New South Wales Police, I’ll speak directly to the New South Wales Police. I will consider the information they provide me about this matter and exercise my responsibilities under the standards once I have had the opportunity to have those discussions.

I said this on four occasions in the House yesterday in response to questions, Mr Speaker.

Now, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to ask questions, he should listen to the answers and not Mr Speaker, as the Labor Party have been in a constant for the last six months, Mr Speaker [and not just sit in here and sulk]

What I did yesterday, Mr Speakers what I told the House I would do, and then I went and did it, Mr Speaker and out of absolute courtesy, as I should to this House, I came back into this House and fully put forward those issues and the assessment I have taken. I refer, I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the comments by the commissioner today.

Mick Fuller said today in a doorstep interview, “The Prime Minister didn’t ask me any questions that were inappropriate. He didn’t ask for anything that was inappropriate and I’m comfortable with the discussion that we had over a few minutes.”

Chris Bowen is booted for interjections.

We are heading into the chamber for question time.

Gee, I wonder what it could be about?

On his Facebook page Barnaby Joyce has made an impassioned plea for people to join the Nationals - warning it will lose its registration this week if it doesn’t boost its numbers:

I am passionate about standing up for regional communities and regional people.

I need your help!

The National Party in South Australia will lose its registration at the end of this week if its membership base does not grow.

If the Party loses registration it will mean less representation for the bush.

It will mean that people who live outside of Adelaide simply won’t have their voices heard.

That’s less opportunity to stand up against the injustices of Vegan activists, fewer people to fight for live exports, reduced focus on drought, and a reduction in common-sense policy for our regions.

You can help by joining the South Australia Party as a supporter member?

If you’re on the South Australian Electoral role and you believe in a fair go for our regions, then we need you.

And the back end:

What about the task force?

Fuller: It is a very small strike force because we are looking at the technical aspects of the allegation. From my perspective the scrutiny on us means that I want the matter finished as quickly as possible but we need to do a professional job but obviously when there’s and I normal use amount of public interest I feel as though in the fairness of everyone we need to wrap this matter up as quickly as possible.

Q: You are on the record as previously saying that Scott Morrison used to bring your bins in on rubbish night. What would you say to the suggestion that, in fact, your relationship is closer than you are suggesting that you are actually mates?

Fuller: It was a joke that I had with Ben Fordham on the radio and Ben took that and probably used that. From my perspective that was just a joke.

Of course he has never brought my bins in. I never had his number in my phone so from my perspective it is right for people to judge that but I didn’t have his contact and I think that speaks volumes. I have never been to his house. I have never been to The Lodge I have never had a personal invitation from him to join his family or friends. Our relationship is a professional one.

Q: Did the Prime Minister ask to be kept updated by you?

Fuller: Not at all. I just gave him an assurance that we would move the matter as quickly as possible and I didn’t say that was because of any particular person.

To be honest with you, these types of investigations can consume an enormous amount of resources from New South Wales police and they area great diverter of my time. There is a whole range of reasons why I want the matter finished quickly but professionally and many of those are selfish.

Back to the Mick Fuller press conference:

Q: Are the police investigating the minister Angus Taylor for anything which might potentially... ?

Fuller: At this stage the allegation itself is around a complex piece of criminal law. We are unsure at this stage, even if we have reached a benchmark of it being a criminal matter, now that needs to be the first port of call, is this a criminal matter or is it not but again, I feel as though it was in the public’s interest that I acted on what was a well-constructed letter from the Shadow Attorney-General and from New South Wales police perspective I need to make sure we act openly and ethically with all members of our community.

Q: Do you think having a personal relationship with the Prime Minister played a role in him calling you directly?

Fuller:

I tell you this, I received three missed calls from a phone number I don’t have in my phone. I don’t have the prime minister’s number.

He is my local member and I have met him a few times - I have never had dinner at the Lodge with him or been to his premises. Am I proud that our local member is the Prime Minister, yes, I am, but I certainly don’t have a personal relationship with the Prime Minister.

Q: Have any other Prime Ministers talked to you directly while you are in the job?

Fuller: I have spoken to previous Prime Ministers in relation to matters of public safety and other matters of interest. From time to time the Premier calls me and from time to time Opposition Leaders and cabinet members and journalists call me as well.

Obviously, the bins are not the most important aspect of this, but I cannot stop laughing that we are having a conversation involving the highest levels of executive and police powers involving taking wheelie bins in.

Mick Fuller says he was joking when he told Ben Fordham late last year that Scott Morrison used to take his bins in.

Q: You are on the record as previously saying that Scott Morrison used to bring your bins in on rubbish night. What would you say to the suggestion that, in fact, your relationship is closer than you are suggesting, that you are actually mates?

Fuller: It was a joke that I had with Ben Fordham on the radio and Ben took that and probably used that. From my perspective that was just a joke. Of course he has never brought my bins in. I never had his number in my phone so from my perspective it is right for people to judge that but I didn’t have his contact and I think that speaks volumes. I have never been to his house. I have never been to the Lodge, I have never had a personal invitation from him to join his family or friends. Our relationship is a professional one.

BUT Ben Fordham spoke to Scott Morrison in December last year, a few days after his interview with Fuller, and Morrison confirmed he used to take the bins in.

From the PMO transcript:

FORDHAM: She’s fantastic. You have just been raised in a conversation with Mick Fuller, the NSW police commissioner.

PRIME MINISTER: Yeah, good bloke.

FORDHAM: Because, once upon a time when you were neighbours, according to the commissioner, and I think this has been confirmed, you used to bring his bin in. When he’d leave the bin outside, the wheelie bin outside, and he was too lazy himself to bring it in, you would collect his bin and wheel it in for him. True or false?

[Laughter]

PRIME MINISTER: That’s what good neighbours do. That’s what they do. Mick is a great bloke and that’s the Shire way.

FORDHAM: How come you don’t do it any more?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I don’t take the bins out any more.

For the sake of accuracy and fairness, I am compelled to tell you that Josh Frydenberg’s announcement about coming to terms on the business growth investment fund was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today, and is being run on radio bulletins.

So some people care.

Scott Morrison in 2019 (when talking about people not dressing appropriately for Australia Day citizenship ceremonies):

You know, I’m a prime pinister who is for standards and I’m putting standards on councils, if they want to run citizenship ceremonies. The national government, the Australian government, is responsible for citizenship ceremonies. These are the rules, if you want to abide them by them, fine, we’d love to have you involved. If you don’t want to, we’ll get someone else to do it, not a problem.

He was asked about that statement a few days later during an ABC interview and said:

Well, we should be should be setting standards, we are leaders in the community and people have high expectations of us. They’re things we always have to aspire to. I have never shirked away from that. Where those standards are not met, then Australians are disappointed.

After the change of business motion which went through yesterday, the Senate will sit until midnight tonight, or until the second reading debate is done, whichever is sooner.

And Christian Porter gets to tick something off his list. He might even reward himself with a carb. He’s earned it.

Penny Wong finished her speech with this:

I want to end this contribution with the same contribution I made 14 years ago as we went to the vote on Work Choices in 2005:

… it is quite likely … that we will lose this vote. But we will not be beaten. We are not beaten…

What this government have never understood as they abuse and revile trade union officials and those in the labour movement is what created the labour movement, what binds the labour movement and what has guaranteed such widespread support in the campaign against this bill by unionists and non-unionists alike. What binds us is a belief in our self-worth and also the worth of the person next to us. We have always understood that not only do we fight for our worth and our dignity, we also fight for the worth and the dignity of the person working alongside us. We fight for the principle of a fair go for all. We fight for a fair wage for a day’s work. We have always done this as a labour movement, and we will continue to do this as a labour movement.

This fight is not over. We will fight this until the next election and beyond. This fight will continue, because we are here for the long haul. We have always been here for the long haul and, fundamentally, we fight for a fairer Australia.

Which sounds like Labor would repeal this bill, if it won the next election.

It is fair to say, that Penny Wong, speaking on the ensuring integrity bill that is almost certain to pass the Senate later today, is pissed:

Yesterday, it was revealed that the crime command financial crime squad of the New South Wales police has established a special Strikeforce Garrad, to investigate whether Mr Taylor, the minister for energy and emissions reduction, committed a crime by providing a fraudulent document to the media to attack a political opponent. We have a minister of the crown being investigated by the police, by a special strikeforce, for a criminal offence. You’d think that the principles of our democracy and our Westminster system would mean that this minister would stand aside. But he didn’t. Instead, if the Prime Minister had some integrity, he would ensure that Minister Taylor stood aside. But he didn’t stand him down. In fact, he didn’t show integrity. He just showed nothing but a contempt for parliament and the principles of ministerial integrity and accountability.

I’d say this: Mr Morrison even threw his own integrity into question by a personal call to the New South Wales police commissioner to discuss details of the investigation. No wonder this is a man who continues to drag his feet on a national integrity commission. I guess it makes their party room nervous.

The facts are these. This is a government that could not care less about integrity. If this government cared about integrity, it would stop hiding information from the public. It would stop threatening journalists, it would stop being loose with the truth and it would stand down the minister for energy and emissions reduction. It would comply with the Freedom of information act. It would implement the recommendations of the banking royal commission. It would take action against lawlessness in the corporate sector. It would ensure its ministers adhered to ministerial standards, and it would introduce a national integrity commission.

But this bill has nothing to do with integrity. It has everything to do with ideology. It has everything to do with the government’s relentless ideological attack on Australian unions and the workers they seek to represent and protect. It’s an attack on working people and on freedom of association. It will undermine our democracy. This government has no plan, no principles, no integrity—all it has is a tired and dangerous ideological agenda. But I would say this to those opposite: Australians haven’t forgotten Work Choices, and they won’t forget this bill.

This is incredible

I don’t know why this happened, but I am glad it did

Literally - wait, sorry, figuratively - no one has cared about Josh Frydenberg’s big announcement today about coming to terms with the business growth investment fund - you even had to make it to page 8 or so to find it in the Fin - but Jim Chalmers cares, so there’s that. (I mean, there is a bit going on.)

Labor has previously offered in-principle support for this program.

We will examine the detail of the proposal and take it through our usual processes to determine our final position in the parliament.

If the Government was serious about getting this right they would have allowed more than four days of consultation on the draft legislation.

The Treasurer’s engagement with relevant stakeholders and businesses so far has been totally inadequate.

The Liberals have taken small business for granted while so many of them are doing it tough in an economy which has weakened on the Morrison Government’s watch.

It’s hard being the most popular person in parliament, but someone has to do it.

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts is up in the debate on the ensuring integrity bill. His speech is heavy on concerns with the unamended bill but it sounds like One Nation is prepared to pass the amended bill.

The earlier version “raised concerns for many Australians”, including about procedural fairness, court discretion and the presumption of innocence, he said.

“One Nation won’t stand for union-bashing – we could not support a bill for deregistration for misdemeanour offences like failing to submit paperwork on time.”

But Roberts noted that when One Nation proposed “positive improvements”, they were accepted.

Roberts then went on a long tear about the CFMMEU having an alleged financial conflict for having an interest in an insurer that rejected workers’ comp claims, and the conditions of casual coal miners. He also hates enterprise agreements that trade off penalty rates and accused (unnamed) unions of colluding with employers and big business.

What any of this has to do with a bill relating to disqualification and deregistration of officials is not clear to me.

“The outcome of this bill - if it is to pass - it must hold rogue employer and employee organisations to account,” he said. Australians want honest unions to be “free to thrive”.

Roberts invoked Bob Hawke’s comments about the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1980s.

Roberts said One Nation would continue to stand up for workers and for “integrity”. So - big hints that PHON is on board, but the senator sits down after 20 minutes without saying how they’re voting.

Matt Canavan says Angus Taylor is doing “a fantastic job”.

Well, case closed.

Malcolm Roberts is talking a lot about workplace exploitation of employees, but not a lot about the ensuring integrity bill.

It’s so far about casual workers being hired at mines. Or something.

We’re just waiting for his confirmation that One Nation will be voting for the bill, meaning that this will all be done and dusted.

Just as a reminder, this is what Scott Morrison said the phone call was about:

In question time today I undertook to make contact with the New South Wales police to inform myself on matters that were the subject of questions raised by the leader of the opposition regarding the statement of ministerial standards, specifically clauses 7.1 and 7.2. I take matters of ministerial standards very seriously.

I have since spoken with the NSW police commissioner, Mick Fuller, about the instigation, the nature and the substance of their inquiries, which he advised me were based only on the allegations referred by the shadow attorney general.

Based on the information provided to me by the commissioner, I consider there is no action required by me under clauses 7.1 and 7.2. The NSW police should now be left to complete their inquiries, which will be considered upon their completion.

From the Australian report of the Mick Fuller conversation:

“In terms of the investigation, I can’t comment any further,” Fuller said. “However, I can say that NSW police received the [opposition] complaint and I have acted appropriately and transparently.

“You can’t have a police commissioner making decisions to [conduct] an open and transparent investigation then suggest there’s something inappropriate in relation to receiving a phone call. It’s hypocrisy to say that.

“It was an extremely short conversation in that he just wanted confirmation we were conducting an investigation.”

He does not say in there what Scott Morrison said to him.

And I guess anyone from the public can ring up the police commissioner and get a personal response, given Fuller’s attitude that it is hypocritical to suggest there is something inappropriate about him taking a phone call.

Cool beans.

Just a quick note: I have had a look through the comments and see there is a bit of frustration about comments being deleted.

Just as a refresher, you might want to have a quick read of this.

You know we love a lively conversation. But we also love having roofs over our head.

You may have seen some of the recent rulings about comments yourselves. Keep it smart, keep it on topic, and keep it out of the courts. Our moderators work bloody hard and they don’t deserve scorn for doing their jobs, which protects both us and you.

The Australian has just spoken to Mick Fuller about the phone call he received from Scott Morrison:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a question time preview

There were more than 6,500 same-sex marriages in 2018 – 5.5% of all marriages, according to the latest ABS.

Welcome back to the blogging world, ABC – even if it is just temporary.

Meanwhile at the ABC, a power outage at Ultimo headquarters has not only crashed the news homepage, but sent readers into a timewarp.

Due to some technical shenanigans, readers this morning were greeted with a front page full of stories from 2011. Julia Gillard was PM, the mining and carbon taxes were the big-ticket issues, and the Aussie dollar was near parity with the US.

As of 11am the glitches are still continuing.

The ABC news homepage has now been turned into ... one giant liveblog – providing stiff competition for our own.

It’s certainly a novel way for Aunty to get the stories out, but technical issues mean that they can’t seem to use hyperlinks. So you have to scroll manually to find the story you want.

It’s unclear how long the outage will last, but we think our crown is safe for now.

Labor’s Andrew Leigh has taken exception to suggestions by Liberal Tim Wilson that calling Westpac back to face the house economics committee could prejudice legal action against it by Austrac over the bank’s money-laundering and child exploitation scandal.

Wilson is chair of the committee and Leigh is deputy.

“The lame excuse that an economics committee hearing would interfere with legal proceedings is simply false,” Leigh told the Guardian.

“Westpac faces a judge-only trial in the federal court, and it is entirely appropriate that the economics committee also inquiring into the surrounding institutional issues.

“Under this spurious argument, Australian couldn’t have held a royal commission into the banking sector until every court case against a bank was concluded.”

Given Westpac’s stated intent that it wants to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and former chief executive Brian Hartzer’s statements that the bank accepts almost all of Austrac’s allegations, it is highly unlikely the case will ever go to trial anyway.

The Parliamentary Budget Office has released its national fiscal outlook, which examines the national position by combining budget figures from commonwealth, state and territory governments.

It finds that the nation’s budgets are in surplus by $20bn for 2018-19, and will rise to $45.2bn or 2% of GDP by the end of 2019-20.

The PBO said:

National net infrastructure investment is projected to peak at $37.9bn in 2019–20. This largely reflects a substantial investment in public transport, roads, and health and education infrastructure by New South Wales and Victoria. As a share of GDP, national net infrastructure investment is projected to peak just below that recorded during the GFC stimulus period.

While commonwealth debt is projected to decline as the budget returns to surplus, state and territory net debt will increase to its highest level for two decades. National net debt will change composition from being 10% state-held in 2018-19 to 30% in 2022-23.

The PBO warns that “risk remains”:

While the projected surpluses are larger than anticipated in the previous outlook, there are risks to both the revenue and expenditure projections that underpin those surpluses. Factors such as weaker-than-projected economic conditions or wage growth would deteriorate budget positions. The reverse is also true. For example, a strengthening in the housing market or ongoing strength in commodity prices would be expected to improve budget outcomes.

The difference between Labor’s call for Angus Taylor to stand aside while the police investigation was carried out, and the red shirts police investigation which involved 21 Victorian Labor MPs, including six ministers (none of which stood aside) is all about the allegation of misleading parliament, Anthony Albanese told Sky News this morning:

Which ones of those misled parliament? Which ones of those misled parliament? Which ones of those deliberately misled parliament? ...We are talking about the deliberate misleading of parliament by a cabinet minister, we are talking about documents being produced that weren’t true. We are talking about a minister who has failed to provide any answers to that.

We are talking now about a prime minister’s judgement in ringing a police commissioner, not about the national interest, but about something that is about his own personal interest, in defending this scandal prone minister.

These are extraordinary circumstances.

The National Fiscal Outlook statement has been issued by the PBO.

You’ll find that here

Over in the federation chamber, LNP MP Keith Pitt was talking about a palliative care facility for Hervey Bay, when Labor moved a gag motion.

Labor is attempting to prove a point, after the government shut down debate on Angus Taylor yesterday.

It is why they have repeatedly called for quorums this morning.

But they might want to pick their moments a bit better. A lot of community grassroots issues are discussed in the federation chamber. Hervey Bay desperately needs some new health facilities, including for palliative care, given the age of its population.

Shutting down a MP speaking about that need, to make a political point, seems a bit counterproductive.

Greens senator Nick McKim is on Sky News and says Scott Morrison’s phone call to Mick Fuller was “inappropriate”.

“As it stands, there is a whiff about this, and it should be cleaned up,” McKim says.

He wants Morrison to release a transcript of the call.

Actually, no scratch that about bringing Westpac back: Ben Butler has just spoken to Tim Wilson, the committee chair:

The chair of the house economics committee, Liberal Tim Wilson, has rejected calls from Labor’s finance spokesman, Andrew Leigh, to bring Westpac executives back to parliament early for another grilling over the bank’s money-laundering and child exploitation scandal.

Westpac’s then-boss Brian Hartzer faced the committee three weeks ago, before the scandal broke and he was forced to resign as part of a boardroom clearout demanded by angry investors.

This morning, Leigh, who is deputy chair of the committee, said Westpac “should come before the house economics committee at the earliest opportunity” so that MPs could get to the bottom of the scandal.

However, Wilson told the Guardian the committee was already working on recalling the banks on its usual six-monthly cycle.

“Frankly, the issues at hand are so serious they should be dealt with by the regulators and not undermined by Andrew Leigh’s attempt at a show trial which could prejudice possible legal action,” Wilson said.

He said the six-monthly recall was agreed to by Leigh as deputy chair.

Labor keeps calling government MPs back to the chamber, to keep the debate alive, under quorum rules.

On Tuesday an hour’s motion went through allowing debate til 9pm yesterday and midnight tonight to get through second reading speeches on the ensuring ontegrity bill for a final vote on Thursday.

This was widely interpreted as a sign the bill was squared away with the crossbench – after the government agreed to joint amendments with Centre Alliance and a separate set from One Nation.

Despite Pauline Hanson appearing on Sky News on Monday and Tuesday urging more scrutiny of amendments and warning One Nation’s two Senate votes could not be taken for granted, Guardian Australia now understands the minor party’s position is settled, and it has largely stopped engaging with unions on the issue.

Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil disputes this, telling Guardian Australia “we have had and are still having constructive discussions with One Nation”.

Of course it’s not over til the opera-shaped lady sings but – from One Nation perspective, privately, if not publicly – they’re now going through the motions.

The bells have been going off this morning because the House of Reps chamber hasn’t had enough members sitting in it.

Just another totally normal day in this place

Jim Chalmers had a chat about bringing Westpac execs back to front the parliament committee:

It’s absolutely crucial that Westpac front up to the parliamentary committee. Andrew Leigh has made the right call here in demanding that the Liberals support his push for Westpac to front up and to give answers to the Australian people via their representatives. We should be using every available avenue to get to the bottom of what’s gone on here and to make sure that adequate steps are being taken to fix what has been an appalling failure at Westpac. If the Liberals don’t want to run another protection racket for the banks as they have done over recent years then they need to support Andrew Leigh’s call.

Josh Frydenberg says he sees no problem with it, which is code for: this will most likely happen.

Stopped in the hallway after his ABC interview this morning, Anthony Albanese was again asked about the police commissioner phone call and whether it was inappropriate:

Well, I’ll tell you what Australians will be thinking today, as they read their papers, or they look online, or listen to radio, or watching TV. They will think to themselves, ‘If one of my mates was under investigation, can I pick up the phone to the head of the police and ask for the details of that investigation on the day that it’s launched?’ I think not.

The fact that the prime minister, when he made the statement to parliament, suggested that there was nothing to see here, that it was just about Labor allegations, and that he had a discussion about the details of the investigation.

The prime minister needs to actually answer today in a way that is actually straightforward; exactly what took place in that phone conversation. He needs to answer whether there were no takers there, which would have been appropriate, I would have thought, from the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or Attorney General, or other law enforcement agencies, exactly what the circumstances of this discussion were.

This goes to the prime minister’s judgment, not just the flawed judgment of this failed minister, Angus Taylor.

Going through the Hansard, it seems there was a little sensitivity over this part of Joanne Ryan’s speech on the cashless welfare card expansion bill last night.

Ryan:

Taking all of this into consideration – the stories we have heard and submissions we have read; the many loopholes to access the goods that the government want to make inaccessible – we can see there is a common theme when it comes to this government, the programs they administer and the policies they implement: they are unable to empathise with those people that their policies will affect the most.

It’s no wonder this prime minister needs an empathy consultant. This legislation speaks volumes about the empathy-free zone opposite.

Ryan continues to speak for a minute or two longer and then Luke Howarth seems to pop into the chamber:

Howarth:

On a point of order: the member reflected on the prime minister before, and I’d ask her to withdraw that reflection.

Ryan:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggested it’s not a surprise that the prime minister needed to hire an empathy consultant, which I believe is information that is in the public arena.

Howarth:

You said he did need one. Your time’s up!

And then the speech time expired.

Meanwhile, when the Senate sits in a few minutes, it will be straight back into the ensuring integrity bill debate.

Siri, show me h e l p f u l.

Malcolm Turnbull’s whole answer on whether Scott Morrison should have called the NSW police commissioner, Mick Fuller:

It is always critically important that in any police inquiry, particularly something that involves a politician, that the police are and are seen to be acting entirely free of any political influence.

Now, I am sure the call that the prime minister made to the NSW police commissioner was innocuous, but it would have been much better if it had not been made, because it is really, it is vitally important that that inquiry that is being conducted by the NSW police – like every inquiry they undertake – is seen to be conducted entirely free of political influence.

And so, it is a call– being blunt about it – it is a call I would not have made.

Malcolm Turnbull is on Sky News – he’s talking about China and the “pushback” you get from time to time from other countries when you assert your own nation’s sovereignty.

On his own leadership on China, Turnbull says Kevin Rudd’s characterisation of it was “factually wrong”.

Josh Frydenberg was asked about the call to bring Westpac back in front of the economics committee in parliament:

We support that committee and the work it’s doing. And the issue is to who they call is a matter for them. As for having banking executives and regulators and others come before a parliamentary committee, we see no problem with that.

Sydney really is a small world, isn’t it. From Sydney radio 2GB in 2018.

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller joins Ben Fordham to look back on the state’s major cases and discuss his special connection to the Prime Minister.

The Commissioner explains Scott Morrison used to collect his bins, back when the two were neighbours.

“He was the Treasurer at the time,” he tells Ben.

“He did tell me recently that he’s the Prime Minister now, and that should be Josh Frydenberg’s job, but he won’t take my calls!”

The police commissioner sits above politics – the role does not answer to the premier, or the prime minister. Because that is how the separation of powers works, and that’s a good thing.

But it is not a good look for the prime minister to ring the head of police and about an investigation into one of his ministers. It’s just not.

Josh Taylor also has a story on the advice that led to Australian Border Force removing a Tamil family from the home they had established in the Queensland town of Biloela:

There is no written record of the advice provided by the Australian Border Force commissioner that led to a family of Tamil asylum seekers from Biloela being kept in detention on Christmas Island for months while awaiting their day in court.

Priya, her husband, Nadesalingam, and their Australian-born children, Kopika, four, and Tharunicaa, two, have been held on Christmas Island on their own since the end of August after a court ordered an injunction against the government removing them from Australia back to Sri Lanka.

The court will decide if the government has properly considered whether the youngest child, Tharunicaa, is owed protection. The rest of the family have had their claims rejected.

Andrew Wilkie says Scott Morrison has more leverage than he is using in the Assange matter:

It’s a political matter. So that does, in fact, give Scott Morrison the opportunity to weight in, to in fact pick up the phone to Boris Johnson or pick up the phone to Donald Trump. I mean, the Australian prime minister is proud of the fact that he’s established a personal relationship with the US president. What’s the use of that relationship unless he uses it?

You know, this is a political matter. It can be solved politically. And Scott Morrison has a role to play there.

Andrew Wilkie spoke to ABC radio this morning about the letter Scott Morrison sent Pamela Anderson refusing to intervene in Julian Assange’s extradition case. He said he found the response “very disappointing”.

He’s leaning on an explanation of well, ‘Justice has got to run its course and you’re enjoying this and you’re getting, you know, your day in court.’

The reality, of course, is that this has nothing to do nothing to do at all with the application of justice.

This is all about the United States getting even.

It’s all about the UK prime minister Boris Johnson, even Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, you know, not wanting to offend Donald Trump.

So, let’s be clear here. This isn’t about the application of justice.

Katharine Murphy also went along to the Australian Republican Movement dinner last night to see what the plan moving forward was:

Malcolm Turnbull says the only chance Australia has of evolving into a republic is if a future government holds a plebiscite where voters first thrash out whether the proposed change is to a direct election or to a parliamentary appointment model.

The former prime minister, who served as the chairman of the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000, told a dinner in Canberra on Tuesday night that the searing experience of being on the losing side of the 1999 referendum had taught him that a campaign to change Australia’s head of state could not be won if supporters of a republic were fighting on two fronts.

Sarah Martin has an interesting story on the cashless welfare card – it looks as though the government may struggle to get what it wants there:

A government push to expand the cashless welfare card faces a Senate roadblock, with key crossbenchers saying they will not consider supporting the legislation until they have completed a “fact-finding mission” over summer.

The legislation, which is expected to pass the House of Representatives this week, expands the card to Cape York and the Northern Territory and extends existing sites in Ceduna in South Australia, the East Kimberley and Goldfields in Western Australia, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland.

Labor has said it will oppose the card without amendments to make the scheme voluntary, meaning the government will be forced to rely on crossbench support for the expansion to come into effect.

Josh Frydenberg will give a speech tonight, announcing the government has come to an agreement on its Australian Business Growth Fund. Basically, the big four banks and HSBC will pay $100m into a fund, which the government will match – hey presto, business can grow.

From Frydenberg:

Last week the Reserve Bank released its November Board minutes as is its usual practice every month. It referred to the economy reaching a “gentle turning point” after its soft patch in the second half of last year.

The RBA sees economic growth picking up as a combination of factors take hold. Increased infrastructure spending, tax and interest rate cuts, a rise in housing prices and more investment in the resources sector are all contributing to an improvement in the economic outlook.

But there are definite challenges in the domestic and global economies.

With nine out of every ten jobs being in the private sector, it is critical that Government and business work effectively together.

An area of key focus for the Government is backing small and medium-sized businesses who together employ more than 7 million Australians.

These businesses are central to every sector of the economy, from retail to real estate, hospitality to health, transport to technology and manufacturing to mining.

Small and medium-sized businesses are responsible for more than three-quarters of the output in agriculture and more than half the output in construction.

While there are many important issues affecting small business, including regulation, tax, skills and infrastructure, one that is also front of mind is access to the necessary capital to enable the business to innovate and grow.

It is a point acknowledged by the Reserve Bank who has said of small business “it’s not the absence of entrepreneurial spirit, it’s the absence of entrepreneurial finance that’s been the main factor holding that part of the economy back”.

This is echoed by SMEs themselves, with 35 per cent of respondents in November’s Sensis Survey saying it is relatively difficult to access finance.

Andrew Leigh stopped by doors this morning to talk about bringing Westpac in front of the parliamentary economics committee:

We can’t wait for the next hearings next year when Westpac is scheduled to come before us. Westpac should come before the House economics committee at the earliest opportunity. This scandal has already seen Westpac’s CEO and chair step down but it’s important that we look at this from an institutional standpoint. It’s important we get to the bottom of what Westpac did wrong, how the child exploitation financing occurred, how the money moved, and how this was allowed to recur 23m times – almost one breach for every Australian.

The House of Representatives economics committee heard from Westpac just a fortnight ago but that was before this scandal broke and it was before we had an opportunity to go directly to these issues. These issues matter for Westpac. They matter too for Australia’s big banks, and for the integrity of our financial sector.

If the Liberals are serious about proper scrutiny of the big banks they’ll agree to Labor’s request to bring Westpac back before the House economics committee. But I wouldn’t be holding my breath. This is, after all, the Liberal party that voted 26 times against the banking royal commission, the Liberal party that delayed a banking royal commission by 18 months, causing untold additional scandals as a result of those delays. So I’m hoping the Liberals to do the right thing today but, frankly, I won’t be surprised if they don’t.

The government is still hoping to repeal medevac. Jacqui Lambie has still not said which way she will vote – but the lobbying is only intensifying.

The debate is listed for today but that doesn’t mean anything. It could be shifted. It could be called on with the government knowing it is going to lose to get it off the agenda. At the end of the day, the government won’t necessarily see losing its repeal bid as a loss – you would have seen a lot of stories about Labor and the Greens alliance on this, Labor wanting to change border policies yadda, yadda, yadda – which, for the government, is a win in itself.

Mark Butler on why Labor doesn’t believe Angus Taylor’s explanation passes muster:

The very serious statement he made to parliament was that he directly downloaded that document from the City of Sydney council website.

Now the metadata released by the council shows that the report was downloaded onto the website in November 2018 and has not been altered since.

So the correct version of the travel figures has been up on their website since November 2018, according to council metadata, the public internet archives, Wayback and also the Trove database maintained by the National Library also confirm, that right through the course of 2019 to only the correct version of the travel figures, were on the website.

So Angus Taylor’s suggestion that he directly downloaded the false figures from the city council website is actually inconsistent with all of the evidence on the public record.

Question: Are you saying he has misled parliament?

Butler:

I am very much saying he misled the parliament and he repeated that mislead this week.

Now, the question of where he got the documents is unclear ... The only thing we do, we can be absolutely sure of, is he did not get those figures from the City of Sydney council website. He did not get them from there.

That’s what he has maintained time and time again in the parliament, which is the mislead.

Mark Butler told ABC radio this morning that Labor would continue its pursuit of Angus Taylor in parliament today after the prime minister refused to stand him down, despite NSW police announcing a police investigation into the “doctored documents” saga.

The minister is now subject to our New South Wales police strike force involving three potential criminal offences carrying very substantial jail terms.

Now in the past, as recently as Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership, Mal Brough stood aside when a police investigation was under way involving him. Arthur Sinodinos, Malcolm Turnbull’s closest colleague in the cabinet stood aside after Icac initiated an investigation involving him, Sussan Ley stood aside over a departmental investigation into travel expenses.

The idea that Angus Taylor can continue in office while a strike force has been launched into the possible commission of three very serious criminal offences makes an utter mockery of ministerial standards and ministerial accountability under this prime minister.