My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a statement of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, whose 50,000 members serve in 3,000 public schools around New South Wales. I quote the statement:

It appears … that management fees will account for up to a quarter of the state’s $3.4 billion BER funding.

It appears that problems of overpricing and excessive management fees are systematic rather than isolated.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his deputy that anyone criticising waste and mismanagement in this program is guilty of a thought crime? I further ask the Prime Minister: is he confident that this program is being run by a first-class minister doing a first-class job?

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last half of the question was out of order because it promoted argument.

Again I indicate to the House that, whilst in a black-letter law reading of the standing orders, there are elements of that question that would be outside of the standing orders, it has been the practice of the House to allow questions of this nature. I rule that the question is in order.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for that question. I suppose I begin by saying: what has happened to the great Liberal Party of Australia where it now invokes, as its total authority, either the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Australian Education Union or—as I think we had last week—Unions New South Wales? One by one, those opposite invoke unionists, who now they regard as their friends, when they spent their period in office trying to abolish the entire Australian trade union movement as a matter of law. But I thank Comrade Tony for his question, because it goes—

Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

to the New South Wales Teachers Federation and their credibility as a source of advice. I would note also that the New South Wales Teachers Federation, together with the Liberal Party of New South Wales, stand in the face of the reform of the Australian education system, with their total opposition to the publication of school based performance, through their actions in the New South Wales parliament.

Yet today what we have is the federal Liberal Party linking themselves with the Liberal Party in New South Wales, with the Greens, with the New South Wales Teachers Federation—and let’s never forget the Shooters Party—in order to stand in the way of fundamental reform to education in Australia. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has real evidence of fraud in the system, what he should do is refer—

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. There was nothing in the question about the schools program and the computer thing—it was all about the cost. Secondly—

The My School website if you want it correctly. Let me add to that—

Order! The House will come to order.

also referring to the standing orders on ‘Disorder’, we just had two answers from the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs heard in absolute silence. What does that tell you, Sir?

Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.

I think that what it tells the House is that the member for O’Connor is finally really losing it altogether.

Order! The Prime Minister! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister might withdraw.

Of course I withdraw, Mr Speaker. In response to the honourable member’s interjection about those computer—

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The withdrawal is an apology. I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

To underline the point, I thank you for the ruling pointing out that the Prime Minister apologised to the member for O’Connor.

It is not actually a ruling; it is simply the practice of the House. You can read the precedents set down in the Practice that it is taken that the withdrawal is an apology.

Further to the interjection by the member for O’Connor on those computer ‘thingies’, we are currently putting in about 220,000 of those computer thingies in schools. We are pretty proud of those computer thingies because we think those thingies will help the students of tomorrow. That might be regarded as a modernist remark, but I think the rest of the world would understand what we mean.

In response to the Leader of the Opposition and his question, should he have any further evidence of fraud in relation to any government program, his responsibility, like that of any other member of this place, is to provide that information either directly to the relevant police authority or, if he chooses not to, to the office of the relevant minister. I would suggest that he do so.