Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Greens political party is a racist, antisemitic party. Will the Prime Minister join with the Leader of the Opposition in committing to putting the Greens last at the coming election? The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister I will hear from the Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order. Mr Bandt: The statements in the question are a clear reflection on members and are disorderly, and I ask that those statements be withdrawn. The SPEAKER: The manager on a point of order? Mr Sukkar: In response to the point of order—and I suspect that you will share this view, Mr Speaker—it was not a reflection on any individual member; it was on the Greens political party. And the Prime Minister seems willing to answer the question. The SPEAKER: There are a few problems with this question. In terms of the Prime Minister's direct responsibilities, he can't be asked about party affairs, which is a longstanding part of Practice. But he's indicated that he's willing to take the question. I'd just ask the member for Berowra to make sure his language is in line with standing orders. This is a very sensitive and hot topic; I understand that. But inflammatory language doesn't assist the chamber. I'm not going to ask him to withdraw. I just remind all members—it wasn't directed to an individual, but if it was, as has happened before, I would ask the member to withdraw. I'd just ask, moving forward, that we do use language that everyone can live with. The member for Warringah on a further point of order? Ms Steggall: Yes, for clarification and consistency. My understanding, from the standing orders, as to reflection is that the question included a reference to a party—completely separate to me—but that is a reflection on its members. The question is that I was required to withdraw when it was a reflection on policy. Yet here it is a reflection on a party, which is the members of a party, and that is not considered to be contrary to the standing orders. So, for consistency—which I'm sure everybody in this place would appreciate—I would submit, respectfully, that there is a discrepancy there. The SPEAKER: The manager on a further point of order? Mr Sukkar: I think there are lots of examples in Practice that support your way forward, Mr Speaker, so I would submit that that point of order is not relevant. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House? Mr Burke: Sorry for the delay. I was trying to find the reference. It's on page 517 of Practice. I think the Clerk is referring to the same section, which explains the situations where something that is otherwise generally said may still be required to be withdrawn. The SPEAKER: Yes. Speaker Snedden, back in time, followed a practice where a collective group of people were described in a certain way. I won't read it to the chamber. In the member's case, that was a slightly different variation, where it was directed towards an individual. I'm not going to litigate previous decisions. I just want to remind all members that language is important in this place and to ask members, moving forward, that you just reflect on that to make sure everyone is comfortable. Now, I need to move forward, but that being said, I'm asking, to assist the House with future questions, that they comply with the standing orders and that everyone is shown respect. The Prime Minister has the call.