Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister and it's about his Statement of Ministerial Standards. Yesterday, despite reports that your ministers lobbied Home Affairs on behalf of Crown, you said there was nothing before you to warrant taking action. Today, you and Labor opposed a parliamentary inquiry into ministers and former ministers. The Attorney-General has referred some of the allegations to the law enforcement Integrity Commissioner, but this will not look into whether your ministers have acted improperly and breached ministerial standards. Given the stench from allegations regarding these matters, can you assure the House that you have fully investigated and that none of your ministers lobbied Home Affairs on behalf of Crown, or is it a case of don't ask, don't tell, with the government running a protection racket for ministers who have ties to Crown Casino? The SPEAKER: I'm just going to hear from— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my right, cease interjecting—the Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Porter: With respect to standing order 90 and reflections on members, that is a reflection on all ministers here, without identifying particularly which minister he is reflecting on. And indeed there were no allegations of the type that he's raised in the media specifically or otherwise. So I think this is clearly out of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: I'd just say to the Leader of the House: it's not up to me to judge what was in or not in the media. I only judge questions. I'm not going to bring a media summary in with me. With respect to his point of order: the Practice makes it very clear on reflections. They really generally have to be direct reflections on particular members of parliament, and I think you'd find precedent questions of this nature have been asked before. Obviously, it was a long question—the full 45 seconds worth. I'll allow the question. I'll just say to the member for Melbourne: given the amount of preamble commentary and the nature of the 45-second contribution that wasn't all a question, the Prime Minister has extreme latitude in how he wishes to answer it. I call the Attorney-General—and, as I said, Attorney, that same latitude applies.