Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (17:56): As the Manager of Opposition Business has so eloquently put it, it is very clear that this motion that is before us today is nothing more than window-dressing; it is nothing more than a stunt because we know that the fact is this: this government has in practice gagged the debate. It has gagged the consideration that we can provide for the carbon tax bills and there are many bills—19 of them. Proper consideration would mean that every member of this House had an opportunity to fully explore those bills not only in the speeches that they present to the House, which should be more than one minute per bill, but also in the consideration in detail. As the Manager of Opposition Business has said, this debate will finish on 11 October. Despite the motion that has been brought forward, there is going to be a gag on when these bills can be considered and 11 October is that drop-dead date. Only three hours have been set aside for consideration in detail. I was reflecting on the fact that there are many people in this place who should want to contribute to this debate. Certainly everyone on this side is very keen to contribute to this debate because they understand how important it is. The Treasurer has said that this is one of the greatest economic reforms and that it will be absolutely transforming for our economy. We certainly agree with the latter part: it will be transforming for our economy. It will be so transforming that it will send our jobs offshore and it will harm our economy irretrievably. But there are other members on the opposite side who should be interested in representing their communities, in standing up for the people that they claim to represent and in presenting speeches to this place as to why it is that they have joined the Prime Minister in breaking their election commitment not to bring in a carbon tax in this term of government. The fact that they have not taken these carbon tax bills to an election is a disgrace. I want to get on the record the members in Victoria who have not put their names down to speak on this motion. There are 12 of them I am sad to say. There is Michael Danby—who was in the chamber just before—the member for Melbourne Ports; Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman; Richard Marles, the member for Corio; Nicola Roxon, the member for Gellibrand— Dr Emerson: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a perfectly predictable point of order I ask that the member refer to members by their seats rather than by their names. It is just a normal courtesy. If she is not prepared to do that then she should sit down. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins should also be referring to the motion before the chair and, as we have had discussions about people's names being on or off lists, she should be perhaps a bit careful about whom she will identify. Ms O'DWYER: I certainly would not wish to embarrass you, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins, I was giving her a pretty wide berth, but you were not listening to what I said about lists and how they do and do not appear. You might not want to completely embarrass yourself. Ms O'DWYER: I will refer only, then, to one notable name that is missing from the list. It is pretty understandable why, for instance, the member for Maribyrnong may not wish to speak on this bill. Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, is someone who has leadership aspirations. Dr EMERSON: Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Higgins has completely ignored your advice—that is, she is still referring to the names of members of parliament, not referring to them by their seats— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Higgins did refer to the member's title as well. I understand the minister's point. The member for Higgins will refer to the motion before the chair. Ms O'DWYER: We know the assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong, has leadership aspirations. We know that he covets the top job in this place. As the Prime Minister said in her speech when she tabled the carbon tax bills, 'We will be judged by history; we will be judged by what we say on this bill.' Of course, the member for Maribyrnong will also be judged. I think he is taking a long view of history; he is quite conscious of the fact that when he potentially decides to challenge the Prime Minister for her job— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins needs to be relevant. I have given her a great deal of latitude, but this is beyond the pale. The member for Higgins has the call, and it would be terrific if we could wrap up a debate that we are all agreeing to. Ms O'DWYER: I simply wanted to make the point that there are some in this place who are not keen to make their contribution known or to put their contribution on the record because they are concerned about being judged by history. We know that the motion before us is, as I have said before, a sleight of hand. It is window-dressing for the fact that this place is not being given due consideration of these bills before us. If we were able to properly consider these bills, we would in fact have a time that was not limited by gag, as it currently is. We know that the government is not very keen to have scrutiny of these bills. In fact, it has only just released economic modelling today, economic modelling that had to correct the previous figures: $20 a tonne was the initial modelling when it should have been $23 a tonne. We understand that the government needed to correct its own figures with the modelling, but the problem here is that there are a number of other elements that we are very concerned about on our side. There has not been a proper opportunity to ask the government questions. That opportunity would come about through consideration in detail, and to limit consideration in detail to three hours is not acceptable. As the Leader of the House quite rightly said, this is a debate we should not be having, because the Prime Minister made a promise before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. She has broken that promise. So the government does not want the scrutiny in this place; it wants to be able to ram through this legislation, faults and all, and the impact will be on the businesses and the people of Australia, who have had absolutely no say. We here on this side of the House think that is a disgrace, and that is why we believe there should be a greater opportunity for debate. We believe this should have been taken to an election; it should still be taken to an election. I notice the member for New England has left the chamber—if there was true integrity about this debate then he too would support our calls for an election so the Australian people can decide.