My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that we have already agreed in principle, and said so publicly, that dual citizens who fight against Australia with a terrorist group should be stripped of their right to be an Australian. So why is the Prime Minister persistently undermining constructive bipartisanship on national security?

We are dealing with serious issues and we will have silence so we can hear the answer.

If in fact today the Leader of the Opposition and other frontbenchers have said, after eight days of playing politics, that they are prepared to support the legislation that we will bring in in the next week or so, I ask simply: why did he called it dog whistling yesterday? Why did the Leader of the Opposition quite audibly, across the table, to me and to my frontbench colleagues, call this legislation dog whistling? I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition now appears to be prepared to support it but, if he is prepared to support it today, why did he call it dog whistling yesterday?

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is now referring to legislation that he claims does not exist.

There is no point of order, and the Manager of Opposition Business knows it.

I am pleased if the Leader of the Opposition has changed his position overnight. Yesterday it was dog whistling, now it seems it is legislation which is necessary in the national interest. It is important that, as far as is humanly possible, there can be a bipartisan approach to national security in this parliament. I am pleased that, substantially, there has been a bipartisan approach, so far, in the life of this parliament. As far as I am concerned, as far as the government is concerned, we will provide all appropriate briefings in a timely fashion to the opposition, to opposition frontbenchers, so that, as far as is reasonably possible, the bipartisanship on this important issue can be maintained.

Mr Marles interjecting —

The member for Corio is warned.