Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:18): In relation to the carbon price liability, I can confirm that aluminium would be included amongst the most emissions-intensive trade exposed industries and therefore would receive the maximum amount of free permit assistance under the scheme. The advice I have is that aluminium smelters would only face an average carbon price of $1.30 per tonne of emissions for their core smelting activity. That assistance has been provided to that sector, recognising the trade exposed nature of the industry and the fact that it is emissions intensive. In relation to the review, obviously I would suggest the senator look to the statements from the company which have made clear that the high Australian dollar and the low world price of aluminium are the reasons for the review of Point Henry's operations. What is disappointing from the opposition, who wanted to link the Fairfax job losses to the carbon price, is that every time there is some concern about any firm in terms of its viability, given the international trading conditions it experiences, you see the opposition jumping on board not to protect jobs, not to support jobs, but to try and make a political point. They try and make a political point with the jobs of Australians. Unlike those on that side, we on this side are serious about jobs. Senator Ronaldson: A point of order on relevance, Mr President: I asked the minister quite clearly whether the carbon tax bill for Alcoa was going to be $40 million. I ask the minister to answer the question. The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is being relevant to the question. The minister has 27 seconds remaining to address the question. Senator WONG: That point of order was made—if I may say, Mr President—without listening to the answer. Senator Brandis: No, you may not say, Minister! Senator WONG: I commenced the answer with a discussion of the liability and the free permits. I commenced the answer with a discussion of the assistance that the government is providing. I commenced the answer with a discussion of the Point Henry review. You just do not want to listen, do you, Senator Brandis? Senator Cameron: He wants to talk about Fairfax! The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Brandis: Mr President, in the time that has gone by since you ruled on Senator Ronaldson's point of order, the minister has done nothing other than comment on the point of order. That is plainly out of order for two reasons: firstly, the point of order was disposed of by you and, secondly, a critique of a point of order that has been ruled on has nothing to do with answering the question. In the eight seconds remaining, you should require the minister to address the narrow question Senator Ronaldson posed. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Jacinta Collins: On the point of order, Senator Wong was highlighting how she had quite clearly been relevant in answering the question. She went back and covered how at the start of the question she commenced with the carbon price liability of aluminium. I cannot see how she could be clearer. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I had ruled on the point of order and there is no need to debate the outcome of a point of order once the ruling has been made. I draw the minister's attention to the question. There are now eight seconds remaining to answer the question.