Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (14:22): I thank the member for Wannon for his question. I have, over the last week, cancelled 35 visas and there are more under review. I am aware of the case that the shadow minister refers to, which was decided by the AAT yesterday. It is under consideration in accordance with the national interest. I note again, though, that these are cases where my department had maintained the cancellation of the visa under the ministerial direction, unlike under the Leader of the Opposition, where there were 1,298. One of them the Prime Minister went to yesterday on an individual with convictions for a sexual based offence in relation to a girl under 14 and for repeatedly breaching bail conditions. The opposition leader failed— Opposition members interjecting— Mr GILES: They don't want to hear about this. I wonder why not! The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon on a point of order? Mr Tehan: Mr Speaker, it goes to relevance. The question was very specific as to whether the minister has cancelled the visa of this associate of Tony Mokbel. Mr Burke: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, what the minister is doing is a direct compare and contrast between whether people under the ministerial direction were having their visa cancelled or whether under ministerial direction people were being released. That's the difference. When it's a direct compare and contrast, that has always been within direct relevance. The SPEAKER: I'm just going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher: Just on the response that the Leader of the House has given: he has effectively just admitted that the minister was breaching standing orders. It was a very clear, direct question, and the minister needs to deal with the direct question he was asked. The SPEAKER: Whilst the Leader of the House is correct about some compare and contrast, the minister will need to make sure his answer is relevant to the direction—whether it be direction 90 or as a result of direction 90, which was before direction 99, involving the decisions involved—not simply talk about the past. He will need to make sure his answer is directly relevant with the decisions that he has made, in particular, with this case. Mr Tehan: Just on the point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: I was pretty clear on what the minister should be doing. I'll listen carefully. Out of respect for the member for Wannon and his seniority, I will grant him the call. Mr Tehan: Ministerial direction 99 was what it specifically related to. The SPEAKER: I'm aware of that, but before 99 there was direction 90. I understand the issue. Thank you for your assistance, Member for Wannon. The minister has the call. Mr GILES: Thank you for your assistance, Speaker. I say again: I'm aware of the case that the shadow minister referred to. It was a decision handed down by the AAT yesterday. It is under consideration in accordance with the national interest, as is the case. I also say that there are other cases which have been overturned by the AAT—in particular, the one the Prime Minister referred to in question time yesterday. This is the case where the now opposition leader failed to do anything after the AAT overturned a decision, and it's now alleged the individual in question went on to reoffend very, very seriously. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER: No, I'm not taking a point of order. Mr GILES: On Saturday I did what the now opposition leader should have done and cancelled this individual's visa.