Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:51): Firstly, I am being asked to indicate specific firms which may or may not be eligible under a program which has a particular set of criteria around access, which is in part emissions thresholds. I think the senator actually asked me this in the committee stage of the legislation which, of course, as I keep reminding the opposition, has actually passed the parliament and is the law of the land—something they obviously have not got over, given their focus on it today. Even if I had at my fingertips all of the emissions data for every firm in Australia, which I do not, I do not think it would be appropriate for a minister to be suggesting that a particular firm would or would not be entitled to assistance. If we could extrapolate this to any other program it would be very unusual for a senator to ask a minister to confirm whether a particular company or business— Senator Brandis: Mr President, I have a point of order. The answer is not directly or indeed at all relevant to the question. The minister was asked 'how many' companies, not 'which' companies. She is approaching the answer on the basis that she was asked to name companies and is declining to do so. She was not asked to name any companies. She was asked for the government's estimate of the number and only the number of companies affected. Senator Ludwig: On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Brandis in taking the point of order has simply picked out a part of the question and then tried to reemphasise it. It is inappropriate for Senator Brandis to do that and to paraphrase the question as well. The minister has been answering the question. The minister continues to be directly relevant to the question and the way the minister is responding is dealing with the substance of the question. What the opposition are now asking for is an answer to a specific question which they have formulated because they want a particular answer. It is inappropriate to argue for that. The minister remains directly relevant. Senator Abetz: On the point of order, Mr President: the minister was clearly answering by saying it was inappropriate to give the name of specific companies. The question was very clear. It said: can the minister outline the number of meat processing companies? How many of these would qualify? At no stage did the questioner seek the name. The minister is hiding behind the false assertion that a name was being sought in the question. Given the very specific question that was asked, I would invite you to invoke sessional orders. The PRESIDENT: The minister is reminded of the question and has 32 seconds remaining. I draw the minister's attention to the question. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr President. I am advised that most meat processing facilities are likely to fall below the coverage thresholds of the scheme and hence would not be directly liable. All meat processors, like other industries, will obviously pay some indirect cost increase for electricity use and gas consumption. I remind the senator of the dedicated support of some $150 million for the food and beverage processing industry which is available under the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program. Meat processors that may have a direct carbon cost— (Time expired)