My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to the minister for immigration's previous answer, where he said that he had briefed the productivity committee of the cabinet many times about the Roy Hill enterprise migration agreement. Given that the Prime Minister is herself a member of this committee, how does she reconcile her answer—that is, she only found out about this agreement in the middle of last week—with the answer given by the minister for immigration? Caught out, Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has the call, but the last part of the Leader of the Opposition's question was out of order.

Whether or not the opposition leader likes it, the facts of this matter are the facts. As I have said on a number of occasions to this parliament, I was fully briefed about this matter on my return from Chicago as the minister for immigration has said now on more than one occasion. That briefing was provided to my office early in the week starting 21 May. I know it may shock the Leader of the Opposition, but some of us like to work off the facts and some of us like to get the full information. I know these concepts are not going to compute for the Leader of the Opposition. Why would anyone care about facts? The Leader of the Opposition never has. Why would anyone want to think something through? The Leader of the Opposition never has. You do not need to think things through when the first thing you are going to say is 'no'. It does not require any thought. As for me, I think facts are valuable; I think that thinking is worthwhile.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister's bluster does not answer the question about how she reconciles—

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

As I was concluding: as for me, I think facts mean something. As for me, I think thinking is worthwhile. I received a brief on this matter from my office on my return from Chicago.

Mr Abbott interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition is warned!