Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:20): I can confirm that the secretary of my department has said that the provision of the letter in question to the inquiry would have made no difference to its findings. Mr Dreyfus: That is not answering the question. The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will cease. Mr ABBOTT: I can also confirm that the Director-General of ASIO has said publicly that the letter in question was handled perfectly appropriately by the Attorney-General. I do suggest to members opposite that any proposition that they might be advancing implicitly, if not explicitly, that somehow more attention to this letter would have prevented the Martin Place atrocity is simply fanciful. Mr Burke: No, it is about misleading the parliament. The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will desist. Mr ABBOTT: Let me make it crystal clear— Mr Giles interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Scullin will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Scullin then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT: As far as I am concerned, our system bent over backwards for this individual far too often. At every step in the way this individual was given the benefit of the doubt, and he should not have been. At every step our system was too soft and this government is determined— Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not doubt at all the significance of what the Prime Minister is saying right now but the question goes to whether or not the parliament was misled. That is what was asked, not any other issue. The SPEAKER: The member is indulging in debate. The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT: At every step of the way, this disgraceful individual, this despicable individual, was given the benefit of the doubt. That is wrong. Our system needs to be toughened up and, as far as this government is concerned, toughened up it will be. We cannot continue to give those who will take advantage of us the benefit of the doubt—and we will not, as far as this government is concerned. The question is suggesting that there has been some inappropriate conduct by ministers; there is no evidence whatsoever for that. The review was ordered on the Monday, once it became apparent that misleading information may have been given to this parliament. The review reported on the Thursday, and as soon as that report was received it was acted upon. At the earliest possible opportunity, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing the Attorney-General, corrected the record in this parliament, as she should and as she has.