A Labor and Greens push to establish a commission of inquiry into the banking sector has fallen flat with the LNP backbencher George Christensen citing a technicality for his failure to cross the floor and vote for the measure he claims to support.

The Greens bill, backed by Labor and the crossbench, passed the Senate on the voices on Thursday but a lower-house motion to vote on it at a later date fell short by one vote, delaying the battle until next week.

Establishing a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the bank sector, which has similar powers to a royal commission, would be a major victory for Labor and the Greens given the Turnbull government’s resistance to the idea and the opposition’s parliamentary tactics to embarrass it for defending the banks.

On Thursday morning, Labor, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie and Derryn Hinch combined to put the bill to a vote. It passed the Senate on the voices, saving the need for Coalition senators who may have crossed the floor, including the Nationals senator John Williams, from making good on the threat.

When the bill went to the lower house in the afternoon, Labor proposed a motion to vote on it at a later date, 7 August, which is not a parliamentary sitting date, forcing the opposition to then suggest 14 August or 4 September.

But Christensen, who has said he will cross the floor to support a bank royal commission or commission of inquiry, voted with the government to prevent the bill coming to a vote at those later dates.



Labor and the Greens got support from the crossbench MPs Bob Katter, Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan and the NXT’s Rebekha Sharkie but the vote was tied 70-all. Speaker Tony Smith used his casting voting to continue the debate, in effect thwarting the opposition push for the bill to be voted on.

Greens bill to establish full inquiry into banks passed Senate. Vote was tied in House. George Christensen sunk it by failing to cross floor — Adam Bandt (@AdamBandt) June 15, 2017

In a statement after the vote, Christensen said that while he supports a commission of inquiry “the hopeless motion that the Labor party moved in the parliament today could not be supported”.

“You cannot debate a bill when the parliament isn’t sitting. So they stuffed it,” he said. “A further concern is that the motion to have the matter debated could be ruled out by the parliament selection committee anyway.”

Christensen said on Sky News that this meant the government-controlled committee could “ignore” parliament’s decision even if the motion had succeeded.

“They almost had my vote,” Christensen claimed, without explaining why he didn’t support the motion when Labor amended the date.

The issue will not go away, as Katter also has a bill to set up a commission of inquiry to be considered next week. Christensen said he supports that bill and it was “quite clear” he would vote to suspend standing orders to vote for it.

When the bill is next debated Labor and the Greens will require 76 votes to suspend standing orders, meaning that even with Christensen’s vote they will still need one more government MP to cross the floor to force it to a vote.

A commission of inquiry has the power to compel documents, testimony and court-ordered searches. Unlike a royal commission, which reports to the government under terms of reference it sets, a commission of inquiry reports to the parliament.

The Liberal MP Warren Entsch, another Coalition critic of the banks, told Guardian Australia on Thursday that he did not support a commission of inquiry and motions to create one were “a bit of showmanship and chest-beating”.

“We don’t need another inquiry, we need to get cases [of bank wrongdoing] dealt with, to get an entity for [victims] to be heard and get enforceable determinations,” he said. “An inquiry would be more of the same and it actually suits banks who will be able to delay and delay.”

Entsch said he wanted to deal with historical cases of bank wrongdoing and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority announced in the May budget “went part of the way” by resolving individual consumer and investor disputes, and small business disputes of value below $5m.