My question is to the Prime Minister. Clause 2.20 of the Prime Minister's own Statement of ministerial standards puts a blanket ban on ministers providing assistance to companies in a 'personal capacity'. But the Minister for Human Services has himself confirmed to the House that he was acting in a personal capacity when he attended a signing ceremony sealing a mining deal between a Chinese state owned enterprise and a major Liberal donor. When the breach is this clear, why hasn't the Prime Minister sacked the Minister of Human Services? (Time expired)

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

The member for McEwen has already been warned. That is his final warning. Just before I call the Prime Minister, the member for Chifley in the previous answer interjected, incessantly, through it. He has also been warned, and he has been warned and asked to cease interjecting a number of times this week. That is his final warning as well.

The Leader of the Opposition's colleague the shadow attorney-general, the member for Isaacs, has just been asking questions about the inquiries that Dr Parkinson, the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is undertaking, which he is undertaking—as he knows full well—at my request. I made that request in accordance with procedures set down in the code of ministerial standards, where an issue of this kind is raised, and the correct procedure is for the Prime Minister to seek advice from his secretary, to ascertain the facts, and then bring the results of that inquiry back to me.

Dr Parkinson will complete is inquiry and, when he does, I will review it and, obviously, the House will be very well aware of the conclusions that I make.

What more do you need to know?

The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting.

You would think that what the opposition would do—as they pump themselves up with indignation about this—you would think what they would do is allow the due process to take place. Everything I have done, in response to this—prompt, punctiliously, in accordance with the code—I have done everything you would expect me to do in these circumstances—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

The member for Isaacs is warned.

sought the advice of the secretary. But that is not good enough! At the same time they are asking the minister whether he is cooperating with the secretary of PM&C—

You think you're so clever, don't you?

The member for McMahon.

they are demanding that I ignore the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet and dismiss him peremptorily! The confusion, the internal inconsistency, as all of these indignations and frustrations bubble up amongst them—

You're the Prime Minister!

The member for McMahon is warned.

We can understand their unhappiness, their frustration with their situation, but they should accept that the inquiry is being conducted by the secretary in accordance with the code. It will be completed and, when it is completed, then I will take the decision that only I can take, in respect of the minister's position. That should be allowed to proceed. It is in accordance with the code. It is due process. And they do themselves no service—and they do this House no service—by constantly trying to subvert what they know is the appropriate process for dealing with issues of this kind.