Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. When was the Prime Minister first informed of the planned mass casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. I refer to my previous answer. I note the characterisation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I'm happy to provide a brief, through the security agencies, if requested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't got one, but we're happy to provide that, and then the shadow minister might be better informed.

The priority here is not the playing of political games. The priority—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister is studiously avoiding answering the question. If he doesn't want to be relevant to the question, he can sit down.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're going to deal with this issue of relevance very quickly. Prime Minister, I think anyone who was listening and I know that the deputy would like a date and a time. I just want to bring her to the Practice page 567 about the interpretation of 'relevance', which has been, by all speakers, very wide. This was a short question. It was a specific question. But the standing orders provide for the Prime Minister to speak on the policy topic. If he were to start talking about, for example, climate change or another topic, I would bring him back to order. But when he is giving specific information and advice—and I know it's not the answer you want—I do not have the powers under the standing orders to direct the Prime Minister to give you the answer you wish for. A point of order, the Leader of the Opposition?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, thank you for your advice to the chamber. I think it's an important point you make—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the ruling. Show some respect.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General is warned.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, if your interpretation of the standing orders, as you say, is to be applied—and I respect the judgment that you've given to the chamber—and if the Prime Minister cannot be directed to provide the date, which is what we're seeking in relation to this matter, is it in order for the Prime Minister then to stray into other areas, even in relation to the same issue? When he goes beyond giving the date, which is what we've asked—you say that can't be done, and we take your advice in relation to that—how is it possible for him then to be broad ranging even on this topic without you bringing him into line?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is correct; the Prime Minister can't stray into other topic areas. But, as the Prime Minister was speaking when the manager took the point of order, he was talking about security agencies, a briefing and involvement around the issue. That, under the standing orders, makes his answer directly relevant. As I said before you interrupted me, if there were another topic that he was to enter into—cost of living, for example—you could get my assurance that I would make sure the Prime Minister was being directly relevant. But, on any objective ruling also made for any previous speaker, he's talking about the topic. Under the standing orders, as long as he is remaining directly relevant to the topic, he's in order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Opposition members interjecting—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could he be honest?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition was treated with respect when I dealt with his question. I'm asking him to show the same respect to everyone else in the chamber. The Prime Minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's only happy when he's angry.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will return to the question.

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is warned.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The response that brought an objection from the Manager of Opposition business was to offer a briefing. I wouldn't have thought that that was provocative. I would have thought that, on this issue, it's pretty handy to find out the facts. It's pretty handy to get a response, because this is the issue here—you know what the Australian people want to know? They want to know who's behind this. They want to know who is engaged in antisemitic attacks. They want to know if people have been paid. They want to know where that trail leads. And they want intelligence agencies to be able to do that work without political interference and without political gains. That is what they want here. But the priority of those opposite is to play political games. I met with—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my left!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I engage regularly with leaders in the Jewish community, and what they are interested in is keeping their community safe. You know what? That's what my priority is, too. The way you keep them safe is by having confidence in our national security agencies and making sure that they can engage in the sort of intelligence where, if you look at the people who have been in custody, you then look for what is behind that. And surely the idea that that's where it stops is quite frankly not the case, and the police have continued to be responsible for what is made public. I will leave them to do their job—and you know what? I will back them doing it, unlike those opposite, who just want to play politics.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fadden has interjected eight times in two questions. He will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Fadden then left the chamber.