Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the story 'Intel figures' Liu warning' on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph. Did the Prime Minister receive any advice about the current member for Chisholm from government agencies before or since the 18 May election? Mr Porter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with respect to standing orders 98 and 100 and page 555 of the Practice— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Spence won't interject. I'm just trying to listen to the point of order. The Leader of the House could just start again. Mr Porter: At page 555 of Practice, it notes, with respect to those standing orders, that 'the purpose of questions is to enable members to obtain factual information'. The shadow Attorney-General knows all too well—few would know better than the shadow Attorney-General—that asking any minister or the Prime Minister to confirm or deny or go into any detail whatsoever with respect to any briefing or operation of ASIO is simply something that cannot be done. I know that he knows this because in 2013, when he was Attorney-General and was asked to give an answer about ASIO, he said: I'm not going to comment on operational matters involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or any security matters. He also refused to confirm or deny a report, citing a longstanding government policy of declining to comment on security matters. Five times yesterday the shadow Attorney-General asked a question that was ruled out of order—in fact, I would argue, knowing that it would be ruled out of order. He's doing that again, because this is not a genuine question asking for factual information. He knows that no answer can be given to that. He is out of order. He is getting very close—I would put to you, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER: I'm just going to caution the Leader of the House. I will make the rulings on the questions. It might be better if you stopped there. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke: To the point of order, two things: first of all, while I obviously don't have the Hansard from 2013 in front of me, my understanding of what the Leader of the House just advised was that it was the way that the then Attorney-General responded to a question that was ruled in order. That was simply his response. The second thing is that this question refers simply to 'government agencies', of which there are many. The SPEAKER: Having listened to both of you, I'm going to make two points. Certainly the Leader of the House was correct that there were a number of questions ruled out of order yesterday. I don't mind making the point again—I think I made it not so subtly—that that was either a case of, I'll put it bluntly, consistent failure to understand the standing orders or the Practice or a deliberate act, and I felt it was the latter. I have listened to the Attorney-General. I understand the concern he has, but he won't find in Practice or the standing orders that difficult questions like this can't be asked. He quoted the page of Practice that talked about the purpose of question time is to receive factual information, and that question is in order. How it is answered, of course, is a matter for the Prime Minister. And I'm going to rule the question in order.