Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:43): Thank you very much. To the member for Hinkler I say that this is a bit like the discussion we had about the Belair Hotel and the claims that were made in this parliament yesterday. The fact, of course, is that that hotel has experienced an increase in its power price of less than 10 per cent, and that is what we predicted as the price impact on power for Australian households. We made predictions through the modelling and those predictions have come true. To the member for Hinkler: I say to him—once again looking at the power price impacts—that we know what the power price impacts are. They are the same as what we said they would be when we announced carbon pricing. And, because of those impacts, we have put more money in people's pockets, including the people who go to the club that he refers to. There is more money through tax cuts. A million Australians are not paying tax any longer, or keeping $18,200 before they pay a cent of tax— Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked whether she would apologise for her broken promise to the members of the Western Suburbs Leagues Club. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Ms GILLARD: And members of that leagues club would be benefiting from those tax cuts. Members of that leagues club would be benefiting from the family payment increases. Members of that leagues club would be benefiting from the arrangements that we have made for pensioners. We have deliberately calculated the amount of assistance because we wanted to see pensioners come out in front, and so they were given 20 per cent more than the average impact of carbon pricing upon them as it flows through. So, to the member who has raised the question with me, I would say the following. He would acknowledge, I believe, that the government's modelling has accurately predicted the effects we have seen in the community. They are nowhere near the same as the scare campaign that has been run predicted. People in his electorate would have those tax cuts, family payment and pension increases. The member who asked the question, as a member of long standing in this House, would recall that he stood in the 2007 election campaign promising to put a price on carbon, exactly as the Leader of the Opposition did—promising to put a price on carbon. And the Leader of the Opposition, should he ever be Prime Minister, will keep that price on carbon. Mr Neville: In light of the Prime Minister's comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table an analysis for July from AGL electricity of the club's charges that shows, in addition to that— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I understand he is seeking to table the document. The Leader of the House, is leave granted? Mr Albanese: Deputy Speaker, yesterday the member for Boothby suggested it— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House— Mr Albanese: and did not table the document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, is leave granted? Mr Albanese: So if he sends it around we'll have a look at it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. Mr Neville: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler will resume his seat. I, like previous Speakers, will not engage in debates about this. If you want to raise it with me after question time you can. Mr Neville: The point of order is not on this matter. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler has the call. Mr Neville: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on process. Is it not the form of the House that something is either accepted for tabling or not, and is it— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has not given approval to table the document. The member for Reid has the call. Mr Neville interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hinkler, I will not enter into this debate. The member for Hinkler will resume his seat. I have not made a ruling. I have indicated previous speakers have sought to resolve these issues after question time. You can raise it then. We now have a very limited time for question time, and I think it is highly inappropriate to keep eating into it.