Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:06): I thank the member for his question. We have said in response, as the Prime Minister confirmed in answer to the first question, that, for the first time, we have seen something written down that seeks to explain, in some way— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned! Mr ROBB: the agitation, the abuse, the accusations and the sound bites that have been characteristic of the debate on the other side of the parliament. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith has been warned! Mr ROBB: I do note—and the member who asked this question should have known this—that his own party has accepted that nothing in the agreement, nothing in the MOU and nothing in the side letters will change, and we thank you for that. When you get on top of these issues you will do a better job of framing some of the questions that are put to this House. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Perth. Mr ROBB: The principal criteria by which we will judge the measures that are being put forward are, firstly, that we will not entertain anything that discriminates against the Chinese. This is a non-discriminatory migration policy we run, yet the— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon. Mr ROBB: campaign run by the CFMEU— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs. Mr ROBB: runs counter to our policy in this regard. Mr Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is delaying proceedings. Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, a point of order on direct relevance: the question was not about their foreign investment changes. The SPEAKER: The minister is in order. The minister has the call. The minister is on the same policy topic. Mr ROBB: Another confused comment from the other side of the parliament! The second principle we will apply in assessing the material that is being put forward today is that we will reject it if it contravenes the firm commitments we have made in this free trade agreement. That is the answer to your question. What we are seeing from those opposite, which we are happy to entertain and to look at, is the question of whether we can provide any more clarity or any more comfort around an agreement that is rolled gold and rock solid.