Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:05): I thank the member for Berowra for his question. We spent the immediate aftermath, as I have said, of the attack on 14 December making assessments based upon: how do we ensure that this isn't part of a cell, given ISIS's recognition that was identified very early on by these perpetrators? We wanted to make sure we put in place the measures that kept people safe. That was the first priority, as you would expect. We worked on the Sunday night. The national security committee met very early on the Monday morning. We met, as well, with New South Wales police in Sydney, and we continue to meet on a daily basis. We established that we needed to have the Richardson review, which would look into the operations of the AFP, ASIO and ASIS as security agencies but also the way that they interacted with state agencies. We chose Mr Richardson as he's probably Australia's pre-eminent expert on foreign, international, and defence and security issues. At the same time, we were convening a process, and we announced what the principles would be in the legislation that we would bring before this parliament that was— Mr Wallace interjecting— The SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, no-one else is interjecting like this. You're going to cease interjecting for the remainder of question time, or you won't be here. It's not appropriate. No-one else is behaving like this. I'm asking you to show restraint. The member for Berowra on a point of order. Mr Leeser: On relevance: my question was not about the other things the Prime Minister was doing but about why he argued against a royal commission. The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. You specifically mentioned the timeline, and you gave a number of days. From what I can hear, the Prime Minister is going through, day by day, the reasons you asked him about. I'll make sure he's being directly relevant, but he is answering the question and giving reasons and arguments. Mr ALBANESE: The member would also be aware that the New South Wales government announced that they would have a royal commission, and we responded at about the same time as we announced the Richardson review and said there would be full Commonwealth cooperation, including access to all personnel, all records and everything, which would have effectively made it a Commonwealth royal commission as well. We announced that and said that very publicly. We then, of course, worked with the community on what a royal commission might look like, because we wanted to make sure that we got it right. There are risks with a royal commission, given that a criminal case will be taking place at the same time, and we needed to make sure they were covered. We needed to make sure, as well, that we got the royal commissioner right, and, in choosing Virginia Bell, I believe we did get it right. We also needed to consult with the Jewish community. We sat down and went through it line by line, days before the royal commission was announced, to make sure that that occurred. The character assassination of Virginia Bell that took place in some sections of the media, and was briefed out by some people associated with that side of politics, shows the problem that would have occurred had we not announced not just a royal commission but who the commissioner was and what the terms of reference were and had the support of the community for those terms of reference. I thank ECAJ for making sure that that occurred. They engaged respectfully. There was one meeting that went for over four hours. Mr Tehan: Name names. The SPEAKER: Member for Wannon, I'm asking you to show similar restraint and to not interject for the remainder of question time. Mr ALBANESE: We engaged respectfully. The people who were critical of Virginia Bell did it publicly, and very openly, on social media. You know who they were.