Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:38): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She, like this side of the House, takes national security issues very seriously. A government member interjecting— Mr PYNE: As one of my colleagues called out: it's a good question. It is a good question, because it's very important to be consistent in your approach to national security issues. On this side of the House we've always sought to do so. On many occasions the Labor Party has sought to mirror that consistent approach. So it surprised many across the political landscape when the Leader of the Opposition rehabilitated Senator Dastyari so quickly after he resigned for the first time over the issues to do with national security. I call him Senator Dastyari; some have been rude enough to call him 'Szechuan Sam', which I think is very wrong. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will withdraw. Mr PYNE: I do withdraw. I was simply pointing out how rude it is for people to attach these epithets to Senator Dastyari. The SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the House, if he points it out again, whether he's pointing at— Mr PYNE: I promise I won't point it out again. The SPEAKER: That's very good, because we won't be hearing from you anymore for the rest of the answer. Mr PYNE: Senator Dastyari not only contradicted government policy and Labor Party policy at that time; he also, incredibly, asked the Chinese donor who is at the centre of current controversies to pay for his personal debts. This seems to have been lost on many in the Labor Party. There is a difference between political donations and the payment of personal debts. A government member: It's like the difference between sweet and sour. Mr PYNE: It is the difference between sweet and sour. It's a very significant difference. And then more recently, of course, we found out that Senator Dastyari—oh, they're bringing out the big guns again! The SPEAKER: The member for Corio on a point of order. He will state the point of order. Mr Marles: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. On a point of order, the question— The SPEAKER: No, the member for Corio needs to state the point of order. Mr Marles: The point of order is relevance, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The member for Corio will resume his seat. Mr PYNE: He's much better on Pyne & Marles than he is in the House; I can tell you that. The point about the lapses of Senator Dastyari's approach to these matters and the most recent revelations concerning his discussions with Mr Huang about his communications is that the jury is well and truly in on Senator Dastyari. What we now need to go to is the Leader of the Opposition's judgement. This goes to the Leader of the Opposition's judgement. Not only did he rehabilitate him; he's now been required to sack him again. Many people have asked why. Why would the Leader of the Opposition be so connected to Senator Dastyari? I think the answer is much more obvious than we know. In The Sydney Morning Herald, Sean Nicholls wrote on 10 April 2015: NSW Labor assistant secretary John Graham … wants more details about the involvement of Labor Senator Sam Dastyari's office in changing the mailing addresses of scores of leadership ballots— in the 2013 ballot that saw the Leader of the Opposition defeat the member for Grayndler. There was an investigation called for into the role of Senator Dastyari in rigging that leadership ballot. The question the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer is: what are the outcomes of that investigation? How did he satisfy himself that his ballot was legitimate? (Time expired)