Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (14:34): I thank the shadow Attorney-General for his question. It is the case that an article in The Australian today reads: Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin wrote to the joint committee on intelligence and security to express concern about Labor's proposal to split the encryption bill. "The AFP is very concerned such a purpose-based approach would pose a variety of significant issues that would challenge the effectiveness of the regime and undermine the policy intent of the measures" … Whether that was a confidential communication or not, I simply cannot answer. The shadow Attorney-General's question said that it 'appears to be'. Forgive me if I will reserve my view as to whether or not it appears or doesn't appear to be until I've had the chance the speak with permission— Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons can leave under 94(a). The member for Lyons then left the chamber. Mr PORTER: The shadow Attorney-General says that appears to be some form of confidential communication. As I have noted, forgive me for wanting to speak with the commissioner first to the determine whether that was or was not some form of confidential communication and to discuss that matter with him. If he takes the view that some action should be taken I will listen to that view. But if only it were the case that the shadow Attorney-General was as concerned about the national security of Australians who face terrorist attacks as he is about smearing the Prime Minister or any member of this side of the House. This is the classic modus operandi of this member opposite. Whenever he runs into problems, because of his own failure to act in a reasonable way, he runs a smokescreen and runs a smear campaign. The difficulty that the shadow Attorney-General has is that no Australian could physically be as smart as he thinks he is.