My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his foreign minister's previous answer—that a role was raised with Professor Triggs that related to international affairs. Now that the government has finally admitted a specific role was discussed, why won't the government tell Australians what it was?

The minister will resume her seat. The proper form of the House for dealing with this matter is at the end of question time, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs may seek indulgence to show where she has been misrepresented.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is definitely true—that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party can seek other forms of redress in the House—but questions also must comply with standing order 100(d) and they should not contain inferences, imputations or hypothetical matter. I would have thought that, under any of those heads, making up a quote and pretending that the foreign minister said something that she did not say only moments ago would offend section 100(d) of the standing orders. A correct quote is an entirely different matter, but a made-up one would not therefore be in order and would rule the question out of order.

On that point of order: if it would help with authentication, I am happy, if the government is willing, to table a transcript of the remarks that were being referred to. I seek leave to table the document.

Honourable members interjecting—

There will be silence on my left and right. The problem with that is that tabling a document which is a published public document is not permitted under the standing orders.

It is not. It is an immediate transcript that has been typed up. I am seeking leave to table it.

Ah. Is leave granted to table?

Leave not granted.

I think it is fair to say that I thought you were tabling a Hansard, and it is somebody's typed-up—

Ms Claydon interjecting—

The member for Newcastle is not in her seat and may not speak.

If it helps, I am happy to rephrase.

I would be obliged if you would rephrase.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the foreign minister's previous answer in question time, where she said: 'There was no request for her to resign and no inducement offered. A role was raised that related to international affairs.' Now that the government has finally admitted a role was discussed, why won't the government tell Australians what it was?

The Leader of the Opposition should stop verballing the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

He should stop verballing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If he is going to quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he should quote her accurately and in full. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, critically—

Opposition members interjecting—

There will be silence on my left.

said it would depend on by whom it was raised. It is very telling that the Leader of the Opposition in his attempt to smear and character assassinate has omitted fully quoting and accurately quoting the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Ms Owens interjecting—

The member for Parramatta has already been warned.

While the Leader of the Opposition is engaged in character assassination and semiotic analysis of Senate estimates, this government is getting on with doing the right thing by the people of Australia. The right thing by the people of Australia was not to start the boats as Labor did but to stop the boats as this coalition did. The right thing by the people of Australia was not to put children into detention as Labor did but to release children from detention as this coalition did. This is a coalition which delivers good government—

Honourable members interjecting—

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have already said that those people who want an early mark can leave in a group. If there is an outbreak like that again then the group will leave. The Prime Minister has the call.

It is precisely because the President of the Human Rights Commission was incapable of appreciating

An opposition member interjecting—

You want to be the first of the group?

the difference between starting the boats and stopping the boats, the difference between putting people into detention and taking people out of detention—it is precisely because the President of the Human Rights Commission was incapable of understanding this distinction that this government has lost confidence in her.

It is, in the end, a question of judgement which, I am afraid to say, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission lamentably failed to demonstrate. But, oh no, members opposite are backing the lack of judgement shown on this very issue, because when it comes to putting children into detention and when it comes to putting people at risk of drowning at sea, that mob opposite are the guilty party! That is what they are—they are the guilty party.

I stand by the Attorney-General, I stand by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I absolutely stand by the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department.