My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Will compensation paid to households under the government’s proposed ETS compensation arrangements be paid to a designated householder or to each taxpayer in the household?

Thank you, Senator Back. Senator Back, as was made clear last year when we introduced the legislation—at a time when the Liberal Party were going to support the legislation, at a time when you believed in the need for urgent action on climate change, at a time when there was a consensus in Australian politics on the need for action—all this information was released. That included fully costed compensation to Australian families that made sure that big polluters carried the cost of the trading scheme. What we have now seen from the Liberal Party is that the taxpayer is going to carry the can for the Liberal Party’s policy, which does not even cap emissions.

As was made clear at the time, the Australian government undertook to provide, through the tax and welfare systems, compensation to families and households for the costs involved in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the trading mechanism introduced. We said that compensation would be paid. We laid it out. We costed it. We made clear how it was to be paid. At the time, the Liberal Party indicated its support for the proposition. It was going to support the proposition. But there was a revolution inside the Liberal Party. The people who deny climate change is having any impact got the numbers and now the Liberal Party’s policy is to deny climate change but to pretend they have a policy—a con job—that somehow says, ‘Even though we don’t believe there’s climate change’—

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Sessional orders require the minister to be directly relevant to the question asked. The minister has ranged far and wide and has not even accidentally drawn near to the actual question asked, which went to whether the compensation would be paid to a designated householder or to each taxpayer in the household. I would ask you, Mr President, to require him to abide by sessional orders or to sit down.

I cannot tell the minister how to answer the question, but I do remind the minister that he has 14 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator Abetz might not like it, but I actually told him the answer. It will be paid through the normal tax and welfare systems. It was made clear. It was costed by Treasury. All this information is on the record.

Well, then, tell us!

You may not have paid attention at the time because of your internal divisions, but it is all on the public record. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Where, for example, three or four young people are sharing a house, who will receive the compensation? What will happen in cases where there is a change in the membership of the household during the course of a year?

It is pleasing to see that Senator Back is now taking an interest in the government’s legislation. But, as I understand it, Senator Back and the Liberal Party will be opposing the legislation. It seems a bit odd that, when they were voting for it, they were not interested and now, when they are not voting for it, they are interested. Senator Back, as I made clear, the compensation will be paid through the tax and welfare systems. The normal rules that apply to pensions, family payments and the definitions of households et cetera will apply to the compensation payments that are made. This is normal practice. For adjustments and compensation packages it has been done by successive governments, and that is all on the public record. Under our proposal, Australian taxpayers and Australian families will be compensated. Under yours, they will pay $11 billion more in tax.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Order! Senator Fifield, the time for debate is at the end of question time.

Senator Forshaw interjecting—

Senator Forshaw, I am waiting to ask Senator Back if he has a further question.

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the government’s proposed ETS compensation arrangements for households are based on so-called ‘cameos’ of typical households, what is Mr Rudd’s definition of a typical household under this flawed and increasingly complicated ETS?

I do not know what Senator Back is seeking to achieve, but I can say to him that we have debated this legislation twice in this parliament. It has been rejected by the Senate twice.

The legislation has now been introduced into the House of Representatives again. You will again get the opportunity in this chamber to debate the legislation. You will then get a chance to decide what your latest position on climate change is, whether you believe there is human induced climate change or not. All this information is out there in the public arena. All the normal tax and welfare arrangements in terms of definitions of families and definitions of households will apply. Under the Rudd Labor government families get compensated for the costs. Under the Liberal Party proposal, Mr Abbott’s proposal, taxpayers bear the burden of big polluters and their greed, according to your finance spokesman, Senator Joyce. (Time expired)