Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (14:55): I thank the member for Swan for that question. I was very pleased to join him recently in his electorate to announce that we would be spending $100,000 in conjunction with the City of Belmont to provide CCTV for the Belmont town centre. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is warned! Mr KEENAN: The member for Swan and I met with a local cafe owner in his electorate who had been repeatedly broken into. The CCTV we are installing will cover the area where his business operates and will act as a deterrent for his business being broken into in this way. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will desist! Mr KEENAN: As the House would be aware, the money we are using for the Safer Streets Program—where the $100,000 for the City of Belmont comes from—is from the confiscated assets account. We are spending it on crime fighting initiatives all around the country. Labor were using it to prop up their dodgy budget. The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter on a point of order, and it is not an invitation to just repeat the question. Mr Fitzgibbon: He is taking the funding away for CCTV cameras in Maitland, in my electorate. The SPEAKER: That is a further abuse of the standing orders. The next person who abuses the standing orders will leave immediately under standing order 94(a). Mr KEENAN: The reality is we are spending proceeds of crime money on crime-fighting initiatives all over Australia— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER: I have warned the member for McMahon. He will leave under standing order 94(a) as well. The member for McMahon then left the chamber. Mr KEENAN: as opposed to what the Labor Party did when they were in office, which was to use this money to prop up their dodgy budget. If we had not made this decision, there would have been $112 million in that account by the financial year 2017-18, money that we are now using to help law enforcement agencies all around Australia do their job. The good thing about CCTV is that when it captures footage of people doing the wrong thing it is very hard for them to deny it. The camera never lies. That is why I was a bit surprised after the member for Grayndler said on Tuesday in the House that the Labor Party does not associate with criminals that I came across this photograph of the member for Grayndler associating with notorious criminal Craig Thomson, a man who has been convicted of 65 charges of dishonesty. Sadly, he is not the only one. We have the member for Watson, who likes to holiday in Eddie Obeid's alpine lodge. His defence is that he did not have skiing relations with that man. We have the member for Wills, who was actually a referee for Tony Mokbel. I have plenty of other examples— Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER: I will hear the member for Grayndler, but I remind him that an abuse of the standing orders will see him leaving. Mr Albanese: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. You know full well that a serious standing order is reflection on members. The SPEAKER: Well— Mr Albanese: Reflection on members. If we want to have a free-for-all, we are up for it. We are up for it, but we will have it. The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, and the minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler will withdraw those remarks as being a reflection on the chair. Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER: Withdraw your remarks. Mr Albanese: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER: Good. Mr Albanese: I did not— The SPEAKER: And you will resume your seat. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: There will be silence. Should there be a statement that implies that the member is by his actions himself committing some act which is illegal, then that is a reflection on the member. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will also resume his seat. I am in the middle of saying something. As you know, an imputation against a member is contrary to the standing orders. So, if the minister is imputing to the member who is in a photograph that he is somehow committing an illegal act, that is imputing and reflecting upon the member and is not in accordance with the standing orders. If a minister merely says a photograph exists which has certain people in it, that is not a reflection. So I would ask the minister— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: Resume your seat! I would ask the minister, when he returns to the dispatch box to continue his answer, to bear that in mind and to not reflect on members. And, if there has been a reflection, he might assist the House by withdrawing any reflection. But, in accordance with my ruling, he may cite that people were in photographs together. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: Resume your seat! The minister has the call. Mr KEENAN: Thank you for the call, Madam Speaker. We are talking about someone who for three years propped up the former Labor government. The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. I will hear from the member for Isaacs. Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, standing order 90 has two parts. You have referred only to half of standing order 90. The other part is: 'all personal reflections on other members shall be considered highly disorderly'. It is not a matter of— The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member shall resume his seat. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! In my answer, if you had been listening, you would have heard that I also referred to reflections. Now, in accordance with that ruling, I would ask the minister to continue his answer. Mr KEENAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw, in the interests of the House. But I have other examples. There is a former president of the Labor Party, Michael Williamson. He is in jail for 7½ years for fraud. I will let the evidence speak for itself.