Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:18): Thanks very much for the question. I believe that if someone commits assault they should be charged with assault and dealt with. That's what I believe. I'm surprised that you don't. This seems to be a controversial issue. But I make this point. The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Fletcher interjecting— The SPEAKER: I haven't given you the call. Are you making a point of order? Mr Fletcher interjecting— The SPEAKER: Wait. Just wait. I call the Manager of Opposition Business. What is the point of order? Mr Fletcher: That is an imputation against every member on this side. The Prime Minister just said 'if you don't believe assault is a serious matter'. Of course we believe assault is a serious matter. He should withdraw that. The SPEAKER: No, resume your seat. Manager, that is not a point of order. Mr ALBANESE: The irony! The question suggested that. That was the point. The point of the question was that I wouldn't so regard that behaviour. That is precisely what I was asked, and my answer was: where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with the crime of assault if they commit assault. That's what my view was. But I'll tell you what the ABCC have spent their money on: $500,000 of taxpayers' money on an unsuccessful case brought against a union who requested that a women's toilet be available on a worksite. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition. Is it a point of order? If so, what is the point of order? Mr Dutton: It is a point of order. It's on relevance, and it goes to the serious nature of the question that was put to the Prime Minister. He's not answering that, and he's choosing to belittle the question that was put. Instead of playing games and getting frustrated, he should answer the question about the harassment— The SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The point of order is not relevant. The Prime Minister is answering the question and has answered the question. I ask him to continue. Mr ALBANESE: The ABCC also spent over $500,000 of taxpayers' money to enforce a blanket ban on putting up stickers and posters with union logos on worksites. A whole lot of people die on worksites in the construction sector. There is massive— Mr Dutton: What about Gerald McCrudden? Why not answer that question? The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will continue and will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE: I've made it very clear that, where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with it. I've never heard of this bloke. I've got no connection with him. The idea, somehow, that we're going to come in here—it says a lot about why they're sitting opposite. They could have come in here today and asked questions about inflation, the cost of living, the health pandemic or foot-and-mouth disease. They could have asked questions about a whole range of issues. And what do we get? It's back to the same old bucket that saw them have a royal commission into trade unions—into, at the time, current and former Labor leaders, effectively—and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on what was a political pursuit. The Federal Court said this about the ABCC for its prosecutions: it labelled them 'unnecessarily inflammatory and conducted as a blood sport'. Politics should be better than that, but I'm not surprised that the opposition isn't.