Mr CONROY (Shortland) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the sports minister told Senate estimates that he met with two staff from the Prime Minister's office at 6 pm last night to discuss how to handle questions about sports rorts. Did the Prime Minister know before or after that meeting that the parliament had been misled about the sports rorts list sent to Sport Australia on the day the election was called? Can the Prime Minister confirm that his office is coordinating the cover-up? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Porter: Mr Speaker, the last part of the question is clearly something that would have to be moved by substantive motion, because it is a direct accusation of wrongdoing. Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, to the point of order: I'm not aware of any precedent which would prevent us asking about the office of the Prime Minister trying to cover something up. This exact issue about false information having been provided to the Senate has been the subject of discussions in a committee in the other place, and to follow up the direct role of the Prime Minister's staff in it—it would be a very new precedent, I suspect, if this were not in order. The SPEAKER: I'm just going to say to both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business that, whilst the language in the last part of the question is not desirable, I think there are many precedents for it. The reason I was considering it was whether it was really going to an allegation of criminality or anything which would have to be moved by substantive motion. I've got a long memory and I'm almost certain—I'm happy to check—that this term has been used a number of times over a number of issues, including back to 1993 and 1994. That's my recollection. I think the Hansard would reflect that. So, the question is in order. The Prime Minister has the call, but I point out there are a number of questions there, not just the last bit I focused on.