Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:17): Well certainly not as many as would have received a tax cut if those opposite had not indicated that they would vote with the Greens to oppose a tax cut. Let us remember that those opposite, if they are interested in talking about tax policy when it comes to businesses— Senator Brandis: How many? Come to the question. Senator WONG: I will come to the question, Senator. Senator Brandis: Come to the question now. Senator WONG: If they are interested in talking about— Senator Cormann: You are required to be directly relevant. Senator WONG: You don't like the fact that I am on my feet, do you? The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, your comments should be addressed to myself as the chair and not across the chamber. Senator Wong, continue. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr President. I am simply making the point that there are a range of prices and taxes in the economy and that those opposite profess to care about business but in fact were to combine with Bob Brown to vote down a tax cut for their constituency. In terms of what was the emissions-intensive trade-exposed, and now I think is the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, those permits are allocated on the basis of emissions intensity. All of that is in the public arena. Senator Cormann: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this week the minister asserted that free carbon permits would reduce the cost of the carbon tax impact on exporting businesses. I asked a very specific question: how many of the 42,500-plus exporting businesses will actually receive such free permits? There is only one answer that can be directly relevant to that question, and that is a number. Either the minister knows what the number is or she does not. There is nothing else that can be directly relevant to that question. The PRESIDENT: I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. Senator Ian Macdonald: But you can sit her down. The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have said on numerous occasions, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. You may well have an answer to the question fixed in your mind, but I— Senator Abetz interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Previous Presidents have ruled consistently that they cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. I have been listening to the minister's response. I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister has one minute and two seconds remaining to address the question, and I call upon the minister to address the question. Senator Abetz: Mr President, from time to time you have recourse to quoting rulings of former Presidents. Former Presidents never had the sessional order which required compliance to direct relevance. Therefore, with great respect, yet again, Mr President, the coalition makes this plea to you that if the changed sessional order, which we just confirmed again the other day, is to be implemented then recourse to previous rulings clearly cannot apply to sessional orders that were not in existence at that time. The PRESIDENT: That was not relevant to what I just said, but— Senator Abetz: Yes, it was. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Abetz: So the answer is relevant but I am not? The PRESIDENT: I had ruled that I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. That is consistent with the way this chamber has been ruled over a long period of time. I am aware of the sessional order that you refer to and I have drawn the minister's attention to the question and the fact that the minister does have one minute and two seconds remaining to answer the question. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr President, Perhaps I could be of assistance by explaining how the program works. The program works by way— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator WONG: If I could perhaps answer the question, rather than just have— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections do not help. Senator WONG: The program works by establishing eligibility and baselines and those are worked through by the department with industry, including with the independent expert advisory panel. Firms would then need to apply for eligibility under the program in accordance with those established baselines and eligibility criteria. So I do not have a particular number within each sector as to how many firms there are. I can give you an indication. For example— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Go on, Minister, continue to answer the question. Senator WONG: Mr President, I do not think they are interested in the answer because they are continuing to interject. The PRESIDENT: Minister, you have got four seconds. Senator WONG: What I can indicate is that— Senator Jacinta Collins: On one second! Seriously? Senator Brandis: I raise a point of order. The opposition has given this minister all the latitude in the world. As Senator Collins just pointed out in her interjection, there is only one second left in the answer. The only thing that the minister has not said, but still has time to say in the remaining second of her answer, is to answer the only thing she was asked: the number of businesses to which these permits will issue. That is what she was asked, even if, consistently with your ruling, everything else that she has said so far can be regarded as preamble or context, she can now only answer the question or admit she is ignorant of her own portfolio. Senator Chris Evans: On the point of order: it is of no consequence whether Senator Brandis thinks he has given Senator Wong enough latitude. While his personal views are, of course, of interest, they have no relevance to how the Senate is conducted. I would point out in response to the— Senator Ian Macdonald: Tony Sheldon was right! Senator Chris Evans: I am glad to hear that is where you are getting your advice from, Senator. Senator Wong actually answered the question and perhaps the senators opposite did not hear it because Senator Cormann, who asked the question, continually shouts across the chamber at Senator Wong as she tries to answer it. Therefore, he is probably not able to hear the answer. If the opposition is serious about wanting answers they ought to listen to the answer and not constantly interject on the minister. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I still have one second remaining on the clock.