Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:01): With respect to the question as to what would be the difference between a prosecution on the whim of a politician and a prosecution under, in this case, the Smethurst manner, section 79 of the Crimes Act actually embeds the requirement to come to the Attorney-General for consent. What might a prosecution at the whim of a politician look like? It might look like this; this might be the worst case scenario: an opposition leader who said yesterday that the government should shut down a prosecution, breaching the fundamental convention that you do not, as a government, tell the AFP to drop an investigation. If that is not remarkable enough, what is remarkable is who the politician who actually called for the investigation in the first place was. The shadow Attorney-General was the politician. A letter to the Prime Minister on 29 April 2019 said: 'I write with extreme concern. I am sure I do not need to emphasise with you the gravity of such a security breach. It is therefore— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned. Mr PORTER: incumbent on you to establish an investigation. I am deeply concerned that this national security leak is potentially the result of political tensions.' He sees a political advantage and so pressures the AFP to start an investigation. He sees a political advantage in having it shutdown. They called for the same investigation that they're asking to be shut down, in breach of the fundamental convention that the AFP remains independent. They want to know what a prosecution at the whim of a politician might look like; it'd look like what would happen if you ever got into government. The SPEAKER: I just remind the Attorney-General that he refer to members by their correct titles. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER: He's accusing me of all sorts of things—unintentionally, I'm sure!