Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister thinks that the cost-effectiveness of carbon prices, carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes is important enough to warrant proper investigation by the Productivity Commission, why is she refusing to allow the commission to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the $43 billion National Broadband Network?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much thank the member for Wentworth for this question. What we know about the member for Wentworth’s suggestion is that it is yet another delay from a political party that is now on its 20th version of a policy, each one as ineffective as the one before. The fact that this is all about delay is best indicated by the inability of the opposition to say that it would agree with broadband under any circumstances.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Wentworth asked a very straightforward question without any embroidery, and the Prime Minister is talking about the opposition side of the House. Will you bring her to order?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business has raised as a point of order direct relevance. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that this is all about delay—not about rigour, not about looking at things, not about study, not about analysis—has been admitted by the opposition. They have said—the Leader of the Opposition has been very clear—that, no matter what happens, their mission is another three-word slogan: demolish the NBN. That is what they stand for: demolish the NBN. The actual facts, the figures and the case for reform do not matter to them at all. They are not interested in that.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I have two options with the member for Sturt. I can name him—

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do it!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that was the member for Wakefield, he—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, it was the member for Bendigo. There are a few dobbers in the House. Regrettably now the member for Bendigo—it has been a big day for Bendigo today—is warned.

I suggest to the member for Sturt that if he stepped back and tried to disengage himself from his positions on some of these answers, he would understand that, in this case, it may not be the answer that his side of politics is seeking but it is an answer that could be considered directly relevant to the question. I am not in a position, as Speaker, to dictate how a minister or the Prime Minister answers the questions. I think that the member for Sturt should learn to sit there quietly. If he really wants to make changes that will get the result that he wants, he should engage with the Procedure Committee as they review the success or not of the newly implemented standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call. The Prime Minister knows that she must be directly relevant in responding to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asked about the opposition’s proposition that the NBN go to the Productivity Commission. I am answering that question, and I am answering that question on the basis that it is very clear from the opposition’s statements that it is not serious about absorbing any work that comes out of the Productivity Commission. I will use the member for Wentworth’s own words. On 24 September this year he was asked by a journalist: ‘If the cost-benefit analysis did come back with an unequivocal “Yes, go ahead and do it,” would the coalition at that point support it?’ Surely that was a question that begged yes as an answer but, no, the member for Wentworth said: ‘Well, that would depend. A good cost-benefit analysis will be very transparent, set out all its assumptions, will enable people to play with those assumptions, to change them. But no-one’s going to give it a tick in advance.’ So the opposition is not at all serious about this, not at all serious about the work coming from the Productivity Commission. The only reason it is advocating a Productivity Commission approach is as another delaying tactic, because the opposition’s actual strategy is the one set by the Leader of the Opposition, another three words: demolish the NBN.

I understand that, when it comes to the Productivity Commission, the member for Wentworth does sometimes value their opinion. He was asked on radio this morning about the Productivity Commission and carbon pricing, and he said:

… the Government believes that the Productivity Commission will say that a market-based approach to reducing emissions is the most cost effective …

Now there’ve been plenty of other studies that have come to that conclusion, they can be highly confident I would think of getting that outcome from the Productivity Commission.

If the member for Wentworth is that serious about carbon pricing, he had better have a chat to this bloke sitting in the chair.