My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds. Yesterday the minister stated that the grant to the National Retail Association was made 'in response to that terrible terrorist attack in Melbourne'. Does the minister stand by this statement?

Yes, I do, and I will reiterate the advice that I received yesterday. The National Retail Association, as I noted yesterday, does donate to both sides of politics, but I did also note that there was the Bourke Street terror attack on 9 November. On 9 November 2018 one male attacker, whose name I won't mention, set his car on fire, stabbed three people and attacked police in Melbourne. Of those three stabbing victims, as we all know, one was a much-beloved Melbourne identity Sisto Malaspina, a retailer of the type of which the National Retail Association provides advocacy for.

Later the same month on 20 November, three men inspired by the Islamic State terror group were arrested on suspicion of plotting a terror attack in Melbourne. They had tried to source a semiautomatic rifle to kill as many people as possible in a crowded space—police will allege. The National Retail Association applied for funding for a protecting crowded places project to assist retailers to deter, detect, delay and respond to a terrorist attack. Noting the significant events affecting the public and retailers over the month of November 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs' office asked the Department of Home Affairs to consider this proposal. He also asked the Department of Finance to cost it to ensure it was suitable and it was value for money. The proposal was subsequently assessed and recommended to be funded as it represented value for money and a proper use of Commonwealth resources, consistent with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for that answer. Documents released under freedom of information show that on 28 September 2018, almost two months before the Bourke Street attack, Minister Dutton directed his department to consider a proposal for a grant to the National Retail Association for protecting public spaces. How could the minister request his department to consider a grant in response to a terrorist attack that had not yet occurred?

Senator Keneally, I think you have completely misunderstood, so I'll go back over the answer I have just given.

Order! Order!

This is all about the politics of this issue, and this is really not a grant or a grant program to take that out. So, again, this grant was for the type of these activities. The National Retail Association, who represents businesses like those who were impacted by that terrible attack, were seeking crowded place protection. That is exactly at the heart of what this grant was all about.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Watt interjecting—

Senator Watt and Senator Keneally.

Senator O'Neill would have got that right!

Senator Scarr! Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?

Public documents reveal the minister received a direct political donation from the National Retail Association a week before he asked his department to fast track a nearly $1 million grant. The Bourke Street terrorist attack was a national tragedy. It saw one victim lose his life and two stabbing victims seriously injured. Is the minister really using this tragedy the cover up his conflict of interest?

There is only one side of politics in this chamber that is playing politics with this issue. It was very clear that this was funding for protecting crowded places, which is exactly what Senator Keneally said.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally.

It was vetted by Finance. It was vetted by Home Affairs. This was to protect retailers from terrorist attacks. It is that simple. There is only one side that is playing politics with that, and that is that side of the chamber.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Order!

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally, while I'm talking, please. I'm going to ask people to respect my request, when they are called by name, to at least count to 10 slowly before they start breaching standing orders again.