Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:55): The convention with respect to ministers being asked— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Would the Leader of the House just pause for a second. If you're both talking, I can't hear the Leader of the House. Mr PORTER: The Prime Minister, obviously, is able to be asked a broad range of questions with respect to a range of portfolios—indeed, all portfolios. There's also the convention that ministers need to be asked questions on their own portfolios. Now, if representations were made previously in time to a department and a minister in charge of that department, I think in the first instance that question would need to be directed to the minister in charge of that department. Mr Burke: Speaker— The SPEAKER: No, I'm interested in hearing the point of order. I can see the Prime Minister saying he's happy to answer. Whilst he is, I still need to rule on whether the question is in order or not. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke: Speaker, the question doesn't specify any portfolio. It simply asks whether representations were made to the government by disgraced New South Wales Liberal MP Daryl Maguire. The SPEAKER: And? There was more. Mr Burke: The Leader of the House has presumed that the question refers to a specific point in time— The SPEAKER: No, I want you to just remind the House at least, so they know—as I'm ruling—that there was an additional part of the question. Mr Burke: It was including whether he personally had. The SPEAKER: That's right. So, on that, I do want to rule. There are two things about the question. The bit about representations to the government generally—that can be asked. Whether that knowledge is reasonable to expect is another thing, to be frank—whether it's reasonable to know every aspect of every part of the government. What I was conscious of—and this is why I was listening to the Leader of the House so intently, because I'd formed a view and was listening closely—was that, if the question was going to the Prime Minister's previous portfolio responsibilities, that would be out of order. So what I'll say to the Prime Minister is that that is a very strong convention, and he was the minister for immigration several years ago. The only bit that is in order is the bit to him as Prime Minister, and the first part about other parts of the government—but I point out that it's not up to me whether it's reasonable or not to expect him to be able to answer that, but that's also why we have questions on notice. I'll call the Prime Minister.