Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister explain how the cost-benefit analysis of major projects like the NBN contributes to stronger public finances? Does the minister have any examples of support for the government's approach?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. As we learn every day through the budget debate, the funds available to governments from taxpayers are limited but the proposals for spending them are unlimited. It is the job of responsible governments such as ours to carefully weigh every item of expenditure and ensure that taxpayers are getting value. This is nowhere more important than in major infrastructure projects like the National Broadband Network.

It is remarkable that when Labor was elected in 2007 their policy was that every major infrastructure project would be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and then when it came to the NBN no such analysis was undertaken. Indeed, the former minister for communications, Senator Conroy, said at the time—rejecting the need for any such analysis, preferring the analysis of a beer coaster—'We don't need any more studies, any more cost-benefit analyses, to know that this is an infrastructure investment this country is crying out for.' Stephen Colbert would be proud of that. That is 'truthiness' if you have ever seen it. The then finance minister Tanner said, 'We just formed the view that this is the outcome we are going to achieve come hell or high water.'

We are used to the member for Fraser every now and then breaking out of the re-education camp and coming forth with some common sense. We know that he supports cost-benefit analyses, which, of course, is the government's commitment: every infrastructure project over $100 million will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. But who would have imagined that we would see shortly a conversion worthy of Paul on the road to Damascus, Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, Shorten at the Hong Ho Vietnamese restaurant? It is an extraordinary conversion; an amazing conversion. As I was getting to sleep reading the Senate Notice Paper the other night, I noticed amendments proposed by those opposite to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill—

Mr Husic interjecting—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

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

The members for Chifley and Grayndler will desist.

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

Astonishingly, the amendment requires Infrastructure Australia to undertake and publish a formal cost-benefit analysis. And who has this been moved by? Senator Conroy! Madam Speaker, has the logical acid from the member for Fraser—

Government members interjecting—

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

The minister will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, that of relevance. Does this mean that the minister is going to support these amendments? Are you going to vote for them?

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

Has the acid logic of the member for Fraser seeped through the Conrovian crust? Is it re-adjusting the synapses? Are we going to see a flash of light from the senator? (Time expired)

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

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.