Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, if your Religious Discrimination Bill is passed, even with your amendments, a school can sack an unmarried teacher because she's pregnant, if it's against the school's beliefs; a doctor can tell their patient that their sickness is a punishment from God because they're gay; and a student can be expelled because they're transgender? We all support protecting religious groups from victimisation. But why are you using the dying days of this parliament to push through a Trojan Horse for hate that will mean more discrimination, not less? The SPEAKER: Just before the Prime Minister rises, I'm concerned—and I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House—that the question involves legal opinion. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Bandt interjecting— The SPEAKER: Does the member for Melbourne wish to rephrase the question? Mr BANDT: I wish to address your point of order. The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has the call. Mr BANDT: Mr Speaker, that goes to questions about things that the Prime Minister has said previously about what is in this bill and what is not in this bill and the effect of this bill. So it is asking about things that the Prime Minister has already said. It is about what the effect of legislation will be—not about giving legal advice about an existing situation but, 'What will be the case if the legislation is passed?' If you can't ask government ministers, 'What will be the effect of your laws if they're passed?' because it amounts to legal advice, then none of us can ask anything about any government legislation in this parliament. The SPEAKER: I accept the explanation of the member for Melbourne. The Prime Minister has the call.