Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. If the government's Malaysia people swap is going to stop the boats, as the Prime Minister claims, then why is she building a 1,500-bed detention centre in Darwin? Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on standing order 64. Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on the point of order taken by the Leader of the House, standing order 64(a) is supposed to deal with issues where people are being called by their first name or their last name or names altogether different to their electorate. It does not deal with the issues of 'he' or 'she'. That point of order was taken yesterday. It was trivial and silly then and it is trivial and silly now, and I would ask you not to uphold it. The SPEAKER: This is something that I hear often, though not until now by way of point of order: a concern of this or similar ilk. I would simply invite members to look at questions in the past where—and this will get me into trouble over my English expression—the personal pronoun is used. Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— The SPEAKER: I will be corrected, whatever. The question was directed to the Prime Minister. In the context of the reference to the Prime Minister, every time the Prime Minister is mentioned in the question I am not expecting her to be referred to by the expression of her parliamentary title. I understand people's concerns in other contexts, but in the framing of this question I could not rule it out of order on that basis. Mr Albanese: I certainly respect your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I would not have expected it to be ruled out of order. I was simply making the point about respect for the office of Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! All I say is that points have been made; reluctantly, I allow those points by allowing points of order. I hope that that is recognised in its totality when people rise for other points of order. The question has been asked. The Prime Minister has the call.