Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the article by Mark Hawthorne in today's Age, which refers to Holden's internal reaction to government statements in question time on Tuesday: 'Are you seeing this question time attack on Holden? Taunting [Holden] to leave. It's extraordinary.' Prime Minister, isn't it the case that instead of developing a plan to keep Holden in Australia the government bullied, hectored and backgrounded Holden out of this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On two heads the question fails. Firstly, because, as you pointed out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition earlier this week, it is not enough to name an article in the newspaper and then simply read out a quote. Who made that quote that the Leader of the Opposition has simply read out? It is not an intelligible part of the question and therefore it cannot stand as a question. Secondly, the actual supposed question was a litany of arguments and epithets and does not stand as a question. When the opposition can get its questions within standing orders, we are more than happy to answer them. But that question does not fit within the standing orders.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, in terms of authentication: to provide the name of the article, to provide the author of it—to provide those specifics—certainly authenticates the exact quote that was used. If there is an issue with argument, notwithstanding they are words that are used regularly in this chamber, then that is an issue as to whether or not you may want it to be reworded.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to reword his question. If I can just add that the difference between the example we just had, of a letter which was authenticated, and a newspaper article, is quite distinctive. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to reword his question.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the newspaper article for the assistance of the House. I understand it was the Treasurer who was taunting Holden. I refer to the article by Mark Hawthorne from today's Agehere it is, for authentication purposes.

Government members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition has the call!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think we all understand what the article was saying, so the question is: Prime Minister, isn't it the case that, instead of developing a plan to keep Holden in Australia, the government gave Holden no choice but to leave?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of us in this House, on this side no less than on the other side, are devastated that Holden has gone. We are all united in our disappointment and anguish at the demise in 2017 of our oldest, and for much of its history our largest, motor manufacturer—we are all devastated. But if Holden was so easy to save—and I do not want to play politics here—why didn't members opposite save it? Let's face it: they had six years to do so. And they are asking us to do, in less than three months, what they were incapable of doing in six years.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Charlton is warned!

Ms Owens interjecting—

The member for Parramatta will remove herself under 94(a).

The member for Parramatta then left the chamber.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It should not be necessary for us to save Holden, because, according to members opposite, when they were in government, they had already saved it. And if the $275 million more that members opposite tipped in in March last year was not sufficient to save Holden, what on earth do members opposite expect us to have done? To have doubled the money? Seriously: what exactly do they expect us to have done? How much money does the Leader of the Opposition think taxpayers should have put in? For how long should taxpayers have put in that extra money?

We made it absolutely crystal clear that we were prepared to continue to offer Holden a generous level of support, and we deeply regret that that has not been enough. So, the challenge now is to take appropriate steps to build on our nation's enduring economic strengths to try to ensure that our economy is as flexible and as low-cost as possible. That is why we are cutting the carbon tax. That is why we are abolishing the mining tax. That is why we are cutting regulation. And we just wish members opposite would get out of our way and let these sensible measures go ahead.