Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:14): Only part of that was a question properly directed to the Treasurer. In relation to questions about carbon I would remind the senator that Senator Ludwig— Senator Cormann: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just queried whether the question was appropriately directed to her as minister representing the Treasurer. The economic point of order— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! On both sides! Senator Cormann: Mr President, the minister has invited you effectively to rule out part of my question as being inappropriately directed to her as representing the Treasurer. The economic impact of the carbon tax— The PRESIDENT: Order! This is now debating the issue, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann: No, I am raising a point of order. This is a very important point of order, because the minister— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! On my right—I need order! Senator Cormann: The minister has effectively suggested that questions in relation to the economic impact of the carbon tax and the impact of the carbon tax on international competitiveness and on jobs in Australia are not appropriately directed to the Treasury portfolio. The questions that I asked were directly relevant to the revenue and spending assumptions in the budget and, as such, the minister should be required— Senator Conroy: Even Barnaby is objecting! Senator Joyce: Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Order! No, Senator Joyce, I have Senator Cormann on his feet for a point of order. Senator Cameron: Just do what you're told, same as what Tony told you! The PRESIDENT: Order—Senator Cameron! I am waiting for order. Senator Cormann: As such, the minister should be required to answer all of the question instead of unilaterally ruling part of the question out of order without even asking you to make a ruling. The PRESIDENT: I have listened to your point of order and there is no point of order. There is a new point of order. Senator Ludwig: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. What the question— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Senator Ludwig. Order! Senator Ludwig: This is a new point of order. This issue was not raised by Senator Wong. In truth, the question that was asked should have been directed at the representative, me, handling climate change, and not to the Treasurer. It was clearly a question about climate change. Although the sceptics on the other side do not believe it, they did ask a question about the carbon price and the question should be directed to me. The PRESIDENT: I have ruled on the issue already. There was no point of order. The minister can answer that part of the question that relates to the portfolio. That has always been the way in which this chamber has operated. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr President. That in fact is what I was going on to say: that I am happy to take those aspects of the question which are properly directed to the Treasurer's portfolio. However, I would have thought that the extent of the carbon price being paid by particular coalmines is clearly a matter within the climate change portfolio. In fact, I answered maybe 100 or 200 of those questions previously. But in relation to the issue of jobs and job losses I would make this point: we have an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent. I have recently returned from a trip overseas, including to the APEC finance ministers meeting, and let me tell you that there is no other advanced economy that can look at an unemployment rate like the one Australia has. No other advanced economy has grown 11 per cent since prior to the global financial crisis. So those opposite might like to come in here and talk gloom and doom when it comes to jobs and investment, and talk down the economy because they think it is in their political interest. We will get on with the job of creating jobs. Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the minister is not being directly relevant to the question. The question was directed to the effect of the carbon tax assumptions in the budget on employment. The minister has not addressed the issue of the effect of the carbon tax assumptions in the budget on unemployment. The PRESIDENT: I believe that the minister is answering the question. The minister does have 46 seconds remaining to answer the question. Senator WONG: In terms of what has occurred in the economy since carbon pricing has been announced, we see in the year to June that private investment has grown now to be at its highest percentage of GDP in 40 years. The highest percentage of GDP in 40 years! These are the sorts of facts which fly in the way of a scare campaign that those opposite wish to engage in. They believe it is in their political interest to talk down the Australian economy. The only people who are pleased with job losses are those on that side, because they think it is in their political interest. But if he really wants to learn about job losses I suggest that Senator Cormann wanders along to Queensland and has a chat to Mr Abbott's mate, Premier Newman, as he busily gets rid of— (Time expired)