Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness) (14:36): I will just say to the member opposite that I am not sure what point he is trying to make here. If he believes that the CFMEU are driving up residential construction costs— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The member was heard in silence, and the minister's going to be given the same courtesy. Ms O'NEIL: If the member opposite believes that the CFMEU is driving up residential construction prices then why are the Liberals not helping us clean up this union in the Senate? Whatever your view about this, the policy fix is the same. We have a union that's a problem and our government is taking steps to fix it, and the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing it. Mr Sukkar: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This was, under your instructions, a very tight question. There was nothing expansive about the question. It referred to the minister's statement and asked her to name those experts. If the minister cannot name those experts because she made that up— The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. The member for Deakin is entitled to take a point of order. He is not entitled to then add extra commentary to the point of order. That is an abuse of the standing orders. He was on a warning. He will now leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER: Has the minister concluded her answer? No? The minister is in continuation, then. Ms O'NEIL: Isn't the air just feeling a little bit fresher in here now without the member for Deakin in the chamber? Not for the first time the member for Deakin is making absolutely no sense. If he is concerned about the impact this union is having on residential construction prices then he can go into his caucus room and talk to his senator colleagues about helping our government clean up this union. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! Ms O'NEIL: What's up with these guys today, Speaker? The SPEAKER: The minister will cease her remarks. The Leader of the Opposition is on his feet. The Leader of the Opposition has the call on a point of order. Mr Dutton: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's obviously a serious topic. I ask whether your ruling is that this minister is in order. The SPEAKER: We've been going down this path for a while. If I make a ruling at the time, as I did, there's no opportunity to come back and ask for a second chance on what the ruling was. No other Leader of the Opposition has done that before. We have moved on. I'm just going to ask the minister to conclude her answer. Mr Dutton: I'm asking for your ruling, Mr Speaker, if it wasn't clear before. I thought it was. To make it clear for the House, is it your ruling that the minister is relevant to the question that was asked of her? Mr Burke: That's a second point of order on relevance, which is clearly outside of standing orders. The SPEAKER: Yes. Just so I'm clear to the Leader of the Opposition: you don't have standing to raise another point of order on clarification of a ruling. It's never happened before in practice. I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to get me to go back in time to say what my ruling was and clarify it. Mr Dutton: I can ask you to make a ruling, Mr Speaker, under standing orders. The SPEAKER: Sure, but we'd already made it. When I dealt with the member for Deakin, if you were not happy with the way I handled that and you wanted to move something on that, you could have done that. It doesn't enable you to do that in the future. We've done this a couple of times. Just for the clarity of the House, when a ruling is made, that is the time to take action. You're not to then wait a couple of minutes or 30 seconds to go: 'I seek your ruling. What was your ruling?' Okay? The minister will conclude her answer. Ms O'NEIL: Thank you, Speaker. I regard these continuous points of order as a real mark of success and a great compliment from those opposite. Thank you so much, fellas! The SPEAKER: The minister is going to conclude her answer without commentary. Ms O'NEIL: In concluding, I would say that it's very clear what's going on here. The coalition are in the parliament again, and they are playing politics within an inch of its life. If they cared about costs in residential construction, as they claim to do, they should tell their Senate colleagues to go into the Senate and help our government clean up this sector.