Mr HOCKEY (3:38 PM) —I have a further question to you, Mr Speaker. Is it your intention to consistently follow your decision that you referred to a little bit earlier in relation to the second question by the member for Curtin relating to section 101(c) that does not allow the member to change the question should it be ruled out of order?

The SPEAKER —That has been at the discretion of occupants of the chair and I think that there has been consistency in the inconsistency in the way in which that is applied. I think that it really depends on the way in which the events of the day are panning out. On this occasion, I believed that, in giving an indication before the questions as to the way in which I was approaching questions of the ilk, that was sufficient. You will remember that, earlier in this session, I gave opportunities to at least two members on my left to revise the wording of their question. One led to it being again ruled out of order—which, might I say, was not a great confidence builder for me being able to use my discretion to have questions reworded—and another quite cleverly got a different question up.