Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (15:07): This is an excellent supplementary question by the member for Blair, because this experience is being replicated in many other parts of industry. With the application of the carbon price and the disposition of carbon price revenue towards innovative techniques, the capturing of emissions, reductions of emissions intensity in manufacturing businesses, reductions in electricity consumption and improvements in productivity and competitiveness, we are starting to see a transformation in various industries in this country. It is precisely what is necessary to reduce the emissions intensity of our economy overall and to square up to our international responsibilities in tackling climate change. Who in their right mind and exercising any semblance of economic responsibility would imagine that our No. 1 trading partner—China, which is introducing a carbon price through an emission trading scheme arrangement and with whom they wish to link our emissions trading schemes—would imagine that Australia could simply sit around and do nothing, as advocated by the coalition? The proposition that the opposition leader has put forward to the community, that this is all the death and destruction of the Australian economy, is not only totally ridiculous and now proved demonstrably to be so, but also that it be repealed is equally absurd. Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders state that question time finishes at 10 past three. We have had this debate before on two occasions and on both occasions the Leader of the House has agreed with my contention that question time finishes at 10 past three. The call was due to the opposition. The member for Canning was on his feet and therefore the call should have been given to the member for Canning, not to the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Just before I call the Leader of the House, the member for Cowan indicated that he had a question to me. I will deal with it now. The member for Cowan has the call. I have dealt with the issue before. I will not engage in argument. The member for Cowan has the call. Opposition members interjecting—