Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question again is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. On 24 October the minister told the House:

The document was drawn directly from the City of Sydney's website. It was publicly available.

He repeated that claim in a written statement tabled in the parliament on Monday and stood by it in his previous answer today. Does the minister stand by his statement on 24 October?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left!

Opposition members interjecting—

I'll just tell members on my left that all they're doing is delaying proceedings. It's their question time. They've asked the question. Presumably they want me to rule on the impending point of order. The Leader of the House.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was, indeed, the shadow Attorney-General who requested that there be a police inquiry into this matter. That question goes directly and clearly to the matters that will be the subject of that inquiry. I seek your guidance as to whether or not that question is actually placing this House at real risk of prejudicing what it was that members opposite called for in the first place.

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

The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question goes directly to whether or not the minister has deliberately misled this House, not to the conduct of the strike force that's been launched into whether or not the minister also engaged in criminal conduct.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We tried, but you shut it down.

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

The Leader of the Opposition. Does the Leader of the House have an additional point?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. If the subject of the question was as the member just described, that would have to occur by way of a substantive motion.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which you'd then gag!

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

The member for McMahon might gag himself and do everyone a favour. If I heard the Leader of the House correctly, he was saying that, because the word 'mislead' has been used, it has to be by substantive motion. There's a long history on this which I won't detain the House with, but 'mislead' and 'deliberately mislead' are two completely different things. He didn't say 'deliberately mislead'—

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second time he did.

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

Not in the question. It certainly wasn't in the question.

Honourable members interjecting—

Members up the back, you're really not helping your own colleagues, let alone the chamber.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley, just end your conversation with yourself. The Leader of the House is essentially raising a legitimate concern about potential sub judice. Without pulling out the page of the Practice, I had cause very early on in my speakership to deal with this issue almost on a daily basis. Given where proceedings are at, if I can put it that way, I don't want to use too many words you'd find in the Practice that that question wouldn't offend that rule—simply asking a minister whether they stand by a statement they've made in the House. So I'll call the minister.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do stand by that statement, and I remind those opposite that I said in that statement:

I reject absolutely the suggestion that I or any members of my staff altered the documents in question.

But the Labor Party has, in typical fashion, dramatically overreached by claiming these documents were forged or altered. The Labor Party has a track record of using police referrals as a political tool. We know what this is about. It's about distracting us from getting on with the job, with three consecutive quarters of price reductions for the first time since records have existed.