Australia politics live: Dutton says Labor minister was ‘missing in action’ amid Optus breach; final budget outcome released

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Dutton expects consultation with the Coalition on the Nacc commissioner

Q: Does Dutton believe that the opposition should be consulted over the choice of commissioner?

Peter Dutton:

It’s a courtesy that should be extended, but that’s a question for the prime minister. I haven’t had a discussion with him.

It is an important question because … I don’t want the commissioner to be a branch office of Slater and Gordon. I don’t want it be filled with lawyers who come out of the Fair Work Commission because they see a more interesting area of practice.

… It is an institution that is important. [The] rule of law applies equally to everybody and it’s something we live and die by. I don’t want to set [it up to be] subverted for political purposes.

It would be effectively, in my judgement, an act of corruption if this body was used inappropriately to try and pursue something [political].

That’s why the appointment of the commissioner is incredibly important and I would expect there to be consultation, I expect that person to be a person of considerable standing, and I’m sure the prime minister has that in mind.

Updated at 21.29 EDT

Dutton: ‘I’ve got a good relationship with the prime minister on a number of issues’

Q: On Four Corners you said the the government had conceded your point about show trials and you are confident that you could support their bill. Is that evidence that a deal has already been done, and did you lobby for the exceptional circumstances thresholds for public hearings?

Peter Dutton:

As I said, we have had discussions with the government …in good faith. I’m not going into the detail of what the government said was their position, or what they argued back and forth. We had a sensible discussion with the government and I’ve got a good relationship with the prime minister on a number of issues … and I’m not going into the detail of those discussions.

Updated at 21.26 EDT

Dutton: ‘If people have done something wrong they should be held to account’

Q: So [Dutton] will have no issue if the first people in front of the Nacc are people from his former government?

Peter Dutton:

I’m not concerned. If people have done something wrong, they should be held to account, I don’t care whether they are Liberal, Labor, teal or Green, if they’ve been involved in corrupt conduct, they are rightly captured.

If it’s a show trial and witch hunt, [if] the process is being abused and there are vexatious complaints, I have a problem with that. We have shown in a number of circumstances, in relation to the survey, will have a mature response and a response from the Coalition that is considered and that we have done in relation to this matter.

Updated at 21.25 EDT

Dutton: ‘We need to be realistic about what level of corruption you think there is’

Q: What about the talk of the Coalition’s pork barrelling and the grants programs the auditor general criticised? Is Peter Dutton worried about them?

Dutton defends the programs, talking about election promises and constituents who had issues with cars being parked across driveways and kids on bikes and then says:

Again, there is level of common sense: the modern reality as well is: at a federal level there are no property-developer interactions, if you like, which is the root of the problem, if I might say, generally speaking, at a local government and state government level.

… the decisions around contracting and all of that procurement rests with the department. In most circumstances. We need to be realistic about what level of corruption you think there is, and I know there is a lot of hype from some of the independents etc, but I think just a calm, measured approach to what is a very serious issue is what is required.

Updated at 21.24 EDT

Peter Dutton has minor concerns on retrospective nature of the Nacc

Is Peter Dutton concerned by the retrospective nature of the commission?

That’s the nature of it. The only concern I would have is a general principle … for example: a Hawke government minister made a decision in relation to a particular matter based on the facts and the law of that era or that day that that is judged by different criteria today, so there is a retrospectivity which is in effect based on a different standard, if you like … if a Gillard minister, a Gillard government minister, made a decision in relation to an acquisition, for example, and it was completely lawful at that time, and the commission is now saying that by the 2022 standard or definition it is not lawful, then something needs to be discussed which no doubt can be dealt with during the inquiry.

He doesn’t say “Morrison government”, but it is what he is dancing around.

Updated at 21.23 EDT

Dutton: ‘I support the government in the model they put forward’

Q: So make or break?

Peter Dutton:

I support the government in the model they put forward. As I said, it was one of the first statements I made was, … I am in favour, instinctively, of an integrity commission that … I want to have that balance and I don’t want to become an endless witch-hunt …

It’s salacious on occasion for the media, but families are destroyed out of this and the families are the ones who I think we should hear from [in] any inquiry. We have supported a sensible discussion so far, we will continue that, we will hear all the evidence that comes before the committee and if people have got compelling cases to make one way or the other, we will consider all of that at the appropriate time.

But from our perspective we support the Icac, we want the processes put in place, so there can be a process of integrity.

Updated at 21.31 EDT

Dutton on public hearings before the anti-corruption comission: ‘I don’t want a show trial’

Q: Are the public hearings being held in “exceptional circumstances” a make or break matter for the Coalition’s support?

Peter Dutton:

[If] the balance is there, there is the ability for public hearing is to take place where it is appropriate to do so. There is the ability for private hearing to take place where there is the ability to do so.

If you look at the comments that have been made by a number of independents and others over a period of time, that’s what they’ve argued for. It is the commissioner who has all of the details of a particular allegation or investigation before him or her, and that person has the ability to decide whether it would be in the best interest for a public hearing or private hearing to be heard.

There will be criteria around otherwise and I believe that that is getting a balance right. I don’t want a show trial. I want people who have committed a crime to go to jail. That’s what I want.

I don’t want a situation where somebody has their reputation trashed, and after a couple of years, [you] don’t even know whether or not the investigation is [still] standing, and we have seen circumstances [where] investigations have come to a conclusion and the person under investigation hasn’t even been advised that they’ve been cleared.

We want some process … natural justice and rules of evidence and other elements that are important, but in relation to the hearings, I think the government has got that right and unless you [have] got another agenda, you have to draw the same conclusion.

Updated at 21.16 EDT

Liberal party room has not yet decided on a position on anti-corruption bill

It didn’t really get a chance to for the climate legislation; that was a captain’s pick. But this time, it seems like Peter Dutton wants to take it through the “normal processes”.

But he is open to it (the bill, that is).

Dutton:

The important thing about the Senate inquiry or the select inquiry is, it’s going to allow people to give evidence about their experience and we want a situation where people who have committed a criminal act are held to account.

I don’t want innocent people being trashed, and I don’t want reputations being trashed, and I don’t want people committing suicide as we have seen in South Australia and elsewhere as a result of false allegations having been levelled against them. So … [we] need to get the balance right here, it’s why the fanatics within the Greens need to be treated with great caution, in relation to this issue and most issues I might say, but that’s the approach we have taken.

It a responsible approach by the Coalition and we’ll get … to work with the government in a constructive way.

Updated at 21.14 EDT

Dutton gives Coalition response to Labor’s anti-corruption legislation

Peter Dutton is giving the Coalition’s response to the national anti-corruption commission legislation being tabled:

There is no place for corrupt behaviour in public life or anywhere around the country.

I made that clear to our party room and we want to make sure that we can support a process that the government puts in place which is sensible at the same time, so the people who have been engaging in corrupt behaviour, if that’s the case, or prospectively will, should know that the Coalition supports a very strong model that will lead them out and will put them before an integrity commission and potentially before the courts and to be convicted by the courts, so if that evidence is provided.

This is a very serious issue.

Updated at 21.12 EDT

Daniel Andrews says state government will pay for driver’s licences changes if Optus doesn’t

The Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, says Victorians whose personal details were stolen in the Optus hack will be able to replace their driver’s licence online:

The Department of Transport have made it clear that we will issue licenses to anybody who’s been affected by the Optus hack. We’re also going to seek some compensation from Optus because this is on them.

If Optus don’t cough up, Andrews says the government will foot the bill:

I daresay that they will be unlikely to provide us with the funding to clean up their mess. That’s usually the way private companies operate.

Updated at 21.08 EDT