Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) 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 his question. As I said before, it sounded pretty similar to previous questions. As I've said, you can be for the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and our security and intelligence agencies keeping people safe, or you can be for playing politics.

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

Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? I'll take the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Order! The Leader of the Opposition is on his feet. He will be heard in silence. He's entitled to raise a point of order.

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

This was the tightest of questions, and I seek your ruling as to whether or not the Prime Minister is being relevant to the question asked.

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

The clock has indicated that the Prime Minister has been speaking for about 17 seconds. I heard—because there was quite a lot of interjection—about the AFP and ASD. They were the only key takeaways I heard so far. I would have to say he is being directly relevant, because I don't know if he's going to release the date that you wish him to. One point of order has been taken within 17 seconds of this question. It would be very hard for someone to get up and say, 'Is the Prime Minister being relevant,' because we've executed that. I'm just going to assist the House and ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant for the remainder of his two minutes and 42 seconds.

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

Mr Speaker, I was asked a question about the police and agencies, and I was speaking about the police and agencies. I'm for them, and we on this side are for them. It's as simple as that. We have confidence in them to do their work, and we will back them in doing their job. That is what we will do—continue to engage information that is made public that they make decisions about. For example, on the day of the Maroubra child care incident, the AFP made it clear that it was their view that people were being paid to engage in some of these antisemitic actions. If people who are criminals are being paid, maybe it's a good idea to use intelligence to find out who's paying them. Maybe that's the priority—not this political game-playing. But those opposite, on a day in which we've announced $1.7 billion of additional health funding, of course can't ask any questions about health. They can't ask any questions about education or TAFE on a day on which the parliament has passed free TAFE. They can't ask any questions about the cost of living, even though they say that's the No. 1 priority, because the only policy they have is free lunches. That's why they're reduced to criticising and undermining the work of our police and our security agencies. (Time expired)