Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:13): First, in relation to electricity prices, the government does stand by the modelling it has undertaken in relation to the increases across different sectors. That is why we have put forward, and this has been endorsed by this chamber, a very comprehensive set of assistance to Australian households that recognises the additional costs flowing from a carbon price. That assistance, as the senator knows, will be provided through increases to the pension, the disability support pension, family tax benefits and other payments including a tripling of the tax-free threshold—all of which are to be clawed back by those opposite. In relation to what would disadvantage the nation, I again go back to what I said yesterday. Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator WONG: What would disadvantage the nation is a policy which would more than double the amount that taxpayers would pay for every tonne of carbon, and that is the opposition's policy. Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator WONG: No amount of interrupting by the opposition and Senator Cormann will get them away from these facts— Senator Chris Evans: Mr President, I have a point of order. I ask you to draw Senator Cormann to order. Senator Abetz: Precious! Senator Chris Evans: I am not at all precious about interjections, particularly if they are witty. But the constant interjections by Senator Cormann who keeps it up throughout the answer, seeking to outshout Senator Wong giving her answer, is clearly disorderly and I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT: Order on both sides! Senators know that calling or shouting across the chamber or interjecting is disorderly. Both questioners and those who are responding to the question, in this case Minister Wong, are entitled to be heard in silence. Senator WONG: As I was saying: I was asked in the question what would disadvantage the nation. What would disadvantage the nation is a carbon price over double what the government is proposing, without assistance to Australian families, that will cost 1,300 per household per annum out to 2020, that will impose a greater cost on Australian business, that relies on bureaucracy to pick winners without any guarantee that emissions will actually fall. That is the coalition's proposition. It is a higher cost proposition not only for the economy, not only for Australian business, but also, and worst of all, it is a higher cost that would be levied on Australian households and families—the same people that you want to take benefits from. (Time expired)