Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It's been reported by journalist Peter van Onselen that last week the minister strongly argued against legislating a stronger anticorruption commission. Was the fact that the minister paid $30 million for a piece of land worth $3 million mentioned in the discussion, or did everyone in the room just join the dots?

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House on a point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the first part of that question may be in order, because there was public speculation—again, rumour and gossip and bits and pieces that appeared in the media—and the opposition may base some question on that. The second part was a slur, and it was made to be ruled out of order. It was a political stunt, Mr Speaker, and it should be treated as such.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Speaker. It's quite specific in Practice that ministers are meant to be across major issues within the media. This certainly qualifies as that. In terms of the issue of an anticorruption commission, the minister is representing the Attorney-General in this House and therefore he is the appropriate person to ask. The reference to the land purchase is something that has already been dealt with as an in-order question many times in this House.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not by me it hasn't. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The first part of the question is in order. The second part of the question, in my view, is contrary to standing order 90 in that it does, in my view, constitute an imputation of improper motive. I'm happy for the minister to deal with the first part of the question.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for her question. As she would well know, there is a well-established convention, for very good reasons of public policy, that cabinet ministers do not comment on or disclose what occurred in cabinet. I recognise it has been quite a long time, for very good reasons, since anybody on the other side of this House was in cabinet, because the Australian people have not seen fit to trust them with the heavy responsibility of government. It is quite curious to be on the receiving end of lectures about probity and public policy from the member for Ballarat, of whom it was said in ANAO report No. 9 of 2014-15, 'the recording of reasons for funding decisions did not adequately explain'—

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this is the sort of part that might be in order had there been—

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on direct relevance—had the question referred to any alternative policies. As it happens, opposition questions rarely involve that. But if alternative policies is what allows these sorts of comments, it is clearly beyond the question that was asked.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There was no reference in the question to alternative policies. The minister will turn to the question.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Mr Speaker, but there was a clear suggestion about probity. Let's be clear, the shadow minister's track record when she was a minister in relation to probity was quite properly called into question by the Auditor-General.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister completed his answer?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have.