Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:15): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. I understand that in communities around the country there is of course concern and anxiety as our nation faces this big reform. That is to be expected. There has been concern and anxiety before major reforms in the past in this nation—for example, floating the dollar, reducing tariffs. These big reforms do cause anxiety but they are also the author of today's prosperity. The member who asked me the question represents in this parliament a tremendously vibrant place on the nation's map with the benefits of the resources boom showing in the communities that he represents, and those waves of contemporary prosperity have been built on the basis of reforms past. The best thing that the member for Dawson can do, and the best thing that this national parliament can do, for the people that he represents is to seize and address the challenges of the future, like climate change. The most efficient way of tackling climate change is to price carbon. To reject that is to reject the economic advice from all over this nation and around the world. The best way is to get big polluters to pay so that they reduce the amount of carbon pollution they produce and we then use that revenue to assist families in Dawson, to protect jobs and to tackle climate change. Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked whether she would give the people a vote on a carbon tax. She is doing everything other than answer the question. I would ask you to bring her back to direct relevance. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD: I say to the member for Dawson, who asked the question: the best way of cutting carbon pollution is to price carbon. The member for Dawson may want to talk to his constituents about whether they would prefer a scheme where they, the families of Dawson, pay and the money is used to give to big polluters. Before the member for Dawson too forcefully endorses the stunt of the Leader of the Opposition, he may want to go and speak to families in his electorate as to whether they think $80 million would be best spent on a political stunt or $80 million would be best spent on schools and hospitals and assistance for older Australians. I am sure the member for Dawson will be interested to have those conversations in his community. I doubt he will get too many people who say to him, 'I am very happy to see $80 million wasted on a political stunt,' which the Leader of the Opposition himself has said he would pay no regard to in any event. This is a political stunt, pure and simple, and shrill catcalling in favour of it does not change the character of it. It is a shrill political stunt—nothing more, nothing less.