Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Iranian national YVBM's visa was cancelled following domestic violence convictions, including for kicking his pregnant partner and threatening to 'hurt her so badly that she will not be able to walk again'. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and revoke direction 99? Dr Ryan: My point of order is rule No. 100(d)(i) which says, 'Questions must not contain statements of fact unless they are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible'. The opposition all week has provided us with unnecessary details of the country of origin and the alleged crimes of people. Opposition members interjecting— Dr Ryan: The parliament does not need to hear the details of the alleged or prosecuted crimes of these individuals in posing these questions. It's unparliamentary and it's dog whistling. Mr Burke: I just want to raise a further point of order, because it has to be raised immediately. Particularly when members of the crossbench raise points of order, there is a level of aggression and shouting led by the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke: It's quite different to what I just got then. The level of aggro that gets applied to members of the crossbench and the level of direct anger and aggression from the Leader of the Opposition are just out of control every time there's a point of order from the crossbench. They have a right to raise these points of order without that sort of aggression. The SPEAKER: I get the picture; resume your seat. I want to be very clear with everyone. When someone is entitled to a point of order—whether it be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the House—they're going to be heard in silence. It's not a commentary time, because that's the way question time and the standing order should operate. Moving forward, I've been pretty lenient in allowing points of order and enabling them to be heard, but if the interjections continue, people will not remain here for question time. The member has raised her point of order, and I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher: To the point of order, Mr Speaker: firstly, every one of these fact situations certainly can be authenticated, because they are taken from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Are they strictly necessary to make the question intelligible? Absolutely they are. In each case, we have seen appalling acts of violence, and this absolutely goes to the public policy question which needs to be determined here. The SPEAKER: I'll deal with the point of order that was raised by the honourable member for Kooyong with respect to standing order 100(d)(i). This question didn't name anyone. It had a reference in it. So it is different to the others. I appreciate the point that you're making about when names are issued, but there has been a long practice in the House, whether it be with owners of businesses, whether it be with community representatives—it's up to the member to make sure they are accurate and verified. So the question will stand. In this particular case, he didn't mention anyone's name. I'll just ask the minister to answer the question.