My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the Prime Minister's statement on the carbon tax yesterday:

More than half the revenue raised will be used for tax cuts and increased payments to households …

I also refer the minister to Senator Pratt's statement in the Senate yesterday where she said:

… all revenue from a carbon price will be used to provide households with fair and generous assistance.

Can the minister confirm whether the Prime Minister has again misled the Australian people or whether Senator Pratt has misled the Senate?

I am sure that Senator Pratt will be quite possibly flattered that Senator Bernardi is following her every word. I know she speaks a lot of sense. Certainly on climate change Senator Bernardi would, in fact, do well perhaps to listen to some of her arguments.

Order on my right! Senator Bernardi is entitled to hear the answer. Senator Wong, continue.

The senator might recall that at the National Press Club, I think it was, the minister for climate change talked some time ago about our commitment regarding the proportion of revenue which would be specifically allocated to households. In addition, since that time further detail has been added to the government's commitments in this area, and I outlined some of them in answer to Senator Singh's question. They include the commitment that nine out of 10 households will get a combination of tax cuts and increased payments, that pensioners will also benefit, that some three million Australians from lower income households will also get what has been described—

Senator Wong, resume your seat. Senator Bernardi?

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I simply sought confirmation as to whether Senator Pratt had misled the Senate or the Prime Minister had again misled the Australian people. I would like an answer, please.

There is no point of order. Senator Wong, you have 50 seconds remaining.

Senator Bernardi—through you, Mr President—I think I very squarely addressed—

Is it Pratt or Gillard? That's what we want to know.

Senator Wong, continue.

Through you, Mr President, I think I outlined very clearly the Prime Minister and government's commitment around the proportion of revenue to households. That has been articulated on a number of occasions and obviously the full details of that will be announced on Sunday, as the government has previously indicated. I was proceeding to go through—because I thought the senator might be interested—some of the detail which has been released in broad terms about the priorities within that household assistance package. But clearly, from Senator Bernardi's interjections, that is not something he is particularly interested in.

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I also refer the minister to comments yesterday made by Senator Sterle that truck drivers get help to ensure 'hard-working men and women in the transport industries are fully protected and compensated for their efforts'. Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister has refused to exempt truck drivers from petrol price increases as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax?

As I have said now on a number of occasions, the full package in relation to pricing pollution will be announced on Sunday. I am sure that the senator will be interested to see detail on some of the issues which he has raised in this chamber. I would invite Senator Bernardi perhaps to consider that detail when it comes forward.

Order!

Mr President, I do think that it is ironic that two parties that were totally disinterested in any of the detail when this was last before the parliament, were only interested in opposition and did as much as they could to change their leader so they could oppose, are now lecturing us about the importance of scrutiny this week. It would not make one iota of difference to you and everyone knows that, and the package will be announced on Sunday. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask another supplementary question. If the Prime Minister is not at least willing to listen to her own colleagues, will she at least listen to the Australian people in rejecting this obnoxious carbon tax?

We believe on this side of the chamber that it is important to look to the national interest and not to the short-term politics that is being played by those opposite. As I said, there is no doubt that this is a very difficult reform. There is no doubt that this is a controversial reform. I would remind those opposite that when you were led by people who actually cared about the future, when you were led by individuals who actually cared about good politics—

Order! When there is silence, we will proceed.

When the Liberal Party was in fact led by people who actually cared about good policy and what was in the national interest, when they were led by Mr Howard or subsequently by Mr Turnbull, they too supported a price on carbon. I think that says something very significant, that they have walked so far away from the policies they used to pursue because they knew they were in the national interest. Now they are simply led by people who want to play short-term politics over long-term interest. (Time expired)