Michael Sukkar continues to argue for a withdrawal of the comments ‘that the opposition has politicised anti-Semitism’.

Firstly, you’ve requested that the Attorney General withdraw, which I think is the right course of action. So the speaker has made that request. Secondly, the question was in relation to mandatory minimum sentencing. There was no invective in the question targeted the attorney general. We don’t and so, no, no, the Prime Minister somehow said that the Attorney General was goaded into his unparliamentary remarks. That’s not an excuse anybody, quite frankly, it’s clear cut here that there are, there are few more disgusting accusations that could be made in this house. You’ve requested that the Attorney General withdraw and he should.

He makes it clear that he wants the accusation the opposition has politicised anti-Semitism withdrawn.

Tony Burke says history aside, the opposition didn’t ask for it at the time and instead moved for Mark Dreyfus to not be heard.

Milton Dick wants everyone to move on and says Dreyfus needs to stay within the parliamentary rules, but Peter Dutton wants MORE – he wants the withdrawal.

Zali Steggall tries to bring some reason back to the house:

If that is considered unparliamentary or grounds for withdrawal or refusal, it would mean any area of policy where there is disagreement becomes something that is objectionable because it is essentially being politicised. And so I am concerned at the way in which this is positioned, because it’s the same as the nature of a policy being racist or anything like that. These are policy differences. That is the very nature of this place.

Sukkar tries one more time, but Dick says enough and goes back to his ruling that Dreyfus stick to the parliamentary rules and not be unparliamentary. He does not tell him to withdraw the comment the opposition was politicising anti-Semitism.