Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Mr Morrison has described the New South Wales Police Commissioner as one of his 'best friends' and confirmed that, as long-time neighbours, they used to take out their bins for each other. Does the Prime Minister accept that by calling his 'best friend' to ask whether one of his cabinet ministers was in trouble the Prime Minister has fallen well short of the high standards expected under his own ministerial standards?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I do not accept that—I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has made all of the comments that Senator Wong has attributed to him. But let me assist the Senate by referring to a statement that the Prime Minister is making to the House of Representatives, if I may.

Yesterday the Prime Minister informed the House on four separate occasions that he would be contacting and speaking with the New South Wales Police Force regarding the matters raised for the first time in question time by the Leader of the Opposition. The purpose of his call was to fulfil his undertaking to the House and to discharge his responsibility under the Statement of Ministerial Standards to inform himself of the nature, substance and instigation of the investigation underway. He does not intend to, and neither should the Prime Minister, base serious assessments of his duties under the Statement of Ministerial Standards on media reports or comments made by the Labor Party. The commissioner considered it appropriate to inform him on the nature, substance and instigation of the investigation and was also advised of his subsequent statement to the House, and the Prime Minister of course advised the House that this was his intention in order to satisfy responsibilities, and he subsequently informed the House.

But let's be very clear: the implication of what the Labor Party is suggesting is that, based on a politically motivated letter from a political opponent to the police, somehow the Prime Minister should immediately terminate—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left. I'm having trouble hearing the minister.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that the Prime Minister should somehow dismiss one of his ministers on the basis of a partisan, politically motivated piece of correspondence by a political opponent to police, and that then, somehow, the Prime Minister shouldn't be able to satisfy himself of what actually is happening rather than to just take his lead from the Labor Party and The Guardian.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did the Prime Minister or his office contact the office of the New South Wales minister for police and, if so, when was contact made and what was the purpose of the contact?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not aware. I will take that question on notice.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in relation to Prime Minister Morrison's phone call with New South Wales Police Commissioner Fuller:

… 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 … is seen to be conducted entirely free of political influence.

Is Mr Turnbull correct? (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer Senator Wong to my primary answer. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the House of Representatives, and he fulfilled that commitment. Let me also again say—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong is suggesting that there shouldn't be any political interference. Hang on! There was a politically motivated letter from a political opponent to the—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Government senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on direct relevance. The assertion of political interference is Mr Turnbull's. That was the question.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjections are always disorderly. There were many, and the minister, I think, if he was straying, was responding to interjections. I urge that interjections not be made nor taken and responded to.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the House of Representatives. Yesterday, he fulfilled that commitment. That was entirely appropriate. But, of course, this is an issue that first arose during question time yesterday. The Prime Minister answered questions on the basis of his state of knowledge at the time, and he undertook to seek further information. You know what? It turns out that the initiation of this assessment by the New South Wales police was due to a partisan, politically motivated letter by a political opponent. This is all about the politics of smear from the Labor Party.