Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:11): Mr Speaker, I add my deep and personal congratulations; you deserve this honour. The member for Swan comes to this place as a tradie with real-world experience. In fact, he was an electrician, so he understands the value of electricity and its impact on individual lives when electricity costs skyrocket. Against that background, I thank him for this question, because he represents both a concern for the cost of living and a concern for the environment, and that is what we bring in the policy which we have framed today. We have announced an emissions target for Australia of minus 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 to 2030. That puts us ahead of Japan, at minus 25 per cent; ahead of Korea, at minus four per cent; ahead of China, at plus 150 per cent; and comparable with the United States, at minus 26 to 28 per cent, and New Zealand and Canada. But how are we getting there? We have an Emissions Reduction Fund which produced four times the reductions—and I want those opposite to understand this—in just the first auction, at a fraction of the cost (approximately one per cent of the cost per tonne of abatement), than Labor produced during the entire carbon tax experiment. So we have a system which will allow us to achieve our goal, which will do the right thing by the world, but which will not drive up electricity prices. I am asked whether there are any alternative proposals, and there are. The Labor Party, in the last few weeks, has told us about an alternative proposal— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in making the earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, you took the point that was made by the Leader of the House, where the Leader of the House said it might not actually be Labor policies that they are asking about. Page 555 of Practicesays quite specifically: The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as 'are there any threats to …', that could be viewed as intended to allow Ministers to canvass opposition plans or policies … That is exactly what has happened and it is happening in the House right now, and I ask you to restore this House to the rulings that are in Practice. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: If members could cease interjecting. I am aware of some of the history of the practice. Certainly Speaker Jenkins, I think back in the early months of 2008, indicated that he had a strong view on the very point that the Manager of Opposition Business is making. Many members have been in this House a long time and you can read the Practice but, either way, for long periods of time these questions were allowed and I believe— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: I have just said to the members opposite that it was Speaker Jenkins back in 2008 and there have been rulings either way. I would like to have free-flowing debate and I think that goes for questions as well. I am going to call the Minister for the Environment and I am going to listen to what he says. Mr HUNT: Let me say, there have been alternative proposals established in recent weeks. We know at the ALP conference that they laid down a carbon tax but they would not call it a tax, but the member for Hunter, to his credit, said, 'You can call it a tax if you like'—not just once, not just twice but three times before the cock crowed did Joel call them out and call it a tax. He told us it was a tax. What does it mean? Only yesterday we saw the true costs of their own modelling of their own policy. Their own tax showed a $209 price, a $600 billion cost and a $5,000 per family hit—their modelling and their tax showed a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. We will make real reductions but we will do it without an electricity tax. They have failed to make real reductions and they will impose a crushing electricity tax. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: I call the minister for Port Adelaide. The member for Port Adelaide, not the minister—I elevated you unintentionally.