Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answers and to the statement from his spokesperson yesterday, 'Neither the minister nor anyone in his office informed media outlets prior to the execution of search warrants.' What steps did the minister take to substantiate the claim made in that statement that no-one in his office informed the media before the execution of search warrants?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call. Just before I call him, for those querying in a disorderly way through interjections about how it's relevant, after the minister answered that first question, it opens up further questioning on his previous answer. We've had a history of many examples of that. That's why I'm ruling the question in order.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to be cross-examined by Rumpole of the Bailey here, who is running a protection racket for a corrupt union movement that remains in control of this Labor Party. I have no intention of doing that. The issue here is one of the national interest. There is a much broader issue than the sort of nonsense, smear and innuendo that this man specialises in dragging into the parliament. The issue is the Australian Labor Party, financed by, run by, candidates preselected by the Australian union movement, the head of which says they don't need to submit to the Australian law. We believe in the rule of the law. We respect the rule of law. I don't break the law. My office doesn't break the law. Unfortunately, you can't say that for the people who run the Labor Party.