Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:13): My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It's been reported by journalist Peter van Onselen that last week the minister strongly argued against legislating a stronger anticorruption commission. Was the fact that the minister paid $30 million for a piece of land worth $3 million mentioned in the discussion, or did everyone in the room just join the dots? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Dutton: Mr Speaker, the first part of that question may be in order, because there was public speculation—again, rumour and gossip and bits and pieces that appeared in the media—and the opposition may base some question on that. The second part was a slur, and it was made to be ruled out of order. It was a political stunt, Mr Speaker, and it should be treated as such. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order? Mr Burke: Thanks, Mr Speaker. It's quite specific in Practice that ministers are meant to be across major issues within the media. This certainly qualifies as that. In terms of the issue of an anticorruption commission, the minister is representing the Attorney-General in this House and therefore he is the appropriate person to ask. The reference to the land purchase is something that has already been dealt with as an in-order question many times in this House. The SPEAKER: Not by me it hasn't. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The first part of the question is in order. The second part of the question, in my view, is contrary to standing order 90 in that it does, in my view, constitute an imputation of improper motive. I'm happy for the minister to deal with the first part of the question.