Mr Speaker, I would like to say that, while I recognise your past decision that we do not revisit the relevance of proceedings during question time, I wish to raise for your consideration your future rulings on the relevance factor of standing order 104 as it applies outside this chamber to the Australian people. I use as an example the question today from the member for Farrer regarding the people who, for whatever fault or reason, are in queues awaiting access to public housing and, no doubt in light of a recent government agreement with certain parties, are anxious for information regarding any delays to their access to this housing that might result from that agreement. While I acknowledge the restraint upon yourself under standing order 104, I ask: would you, in such areas of direct public interest, consider applying your undoubted powers of fair play and persuasion to require ministers to provide an answer to those Australian people involved?

The member paraphrased that it is not my intention to revisit. Once again, my response is that if he is making a point, he has made the point. But I would just illustrate that if you look at practice, whether members like it or not, an occupant of the chair cannot dictate the way in which the question is answered.

You’ve been pretty persuasive to me a couple of times, Mr Speaker!

I will allow that to go.