My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Isn't it the case that, because of the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Maguire had at least $5,000 of taxpayers' money in his pocket when he gave the Deputy Prime Minister free accommodation?

The Deputy Prime Minister can address the question. I don't like the description that's in it because it implies that the recipient received money not in a business way, and we dealt with that before in other contexts. I really don't like that.

An honourable member: He could rephrase it.

In fact, that's right—I think it should be rephrased. Or I can rule it out of order. I call the member for Isaacs.

I'll ask the whole question again, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Isn't it the case that, because of the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Maguire had received at least $5,000 of taxpayers' money when he gave the Deputy Prime Minister free accommodation?

Before I call the Leader of the House, now that I've heard the question again, the bit that grated with me is not the major problem, which was why I did want to hear it again and pause. That is an imputation of an improper motive, and I think that's very clearly out of order under the standing orders.