My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Eric Abetz. I refer to the government's agreement to include a so-called price pay-through mechanism in its carbon price repeal legislation. Has a regulatory impact statement been undertaken? And how many entities will be subject to this new regulatory regime?

The honourable senator asks about a very important piece of legislation which, hopefully, will come back before the Senate later this week and that is a pack of legislation which will, once and for all, remove the toxic carbon tax from Australia's economy.

In relation to a regulatory impact statement to the specific amendments, I would anticipate that no such regulatory impact statement has been undertaken. But in relation to the other part of the honourable senator's question as to, I think, how many entities might be impacted, from recollection—and if I need to correct this after question time, I will—about 60 entities will be impacted.

But let us make no mistake that the amendments to which the honourable senator refers relate to a package of bills on which 66 of the 76 senators in this place were elected on, namely, the repeal of the carbon tax. I think one of those 66 had a nuanced position about the repeal and Direct Action. So even if we were to have—

A nuanced position! It's a pity they didn't tell you about that.

I am referring to Senator Xenophon. Don't open your mouth when you do not know what the debate is about, Senator Carr. You, Senator Carr, went to the election with this brochure, which told us that Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax. Well, they did not.

Senator Singh went to the election in 2010, saying 'No carbon tax,' and went to the election in 2013, saying, 'We will remove the carbon tax.' We would invite Labor to join us in that task and repeal the carbon tax. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We would invite the government to join us in ensuring that an emissions trading scheme starts in this country—

The question, Senator Singh.

I refer to the commitment made by the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, Mr Frydenberg, on 26 March this year:

… genuinely consult with those parties who are most affected by any new regulation.

Can the minister outline the consultation process on the government's price pass-through mechanism?

First of all, can I inform the honourable senator that, even with my reading glasses on, I cannot see in this brochure, when referring to the removal of the carbon tax, that it was subject to an ETS being implemented. You left that out somewhere in the fine print.

Mr President, my point of order is on direct relevance. We are talking about a consultative process. The minister has come nowhere near that in his answer.

The minister has so far had 15 seconds to answer the question. I remind the minister of the question.

I am sure Senator Singh well recalls the introduction to her question, which one is allowed to address, suggesting that somehow there was this caveat on the repeal of the carbon tax, conveniently not mentioned in the Labor Party's propaganda. So let's be very clear in relation to the Labor Party's stance on this: flip, flop, flip, flop, saying—

Pause the clock.

Mr President, the minister was asked about the consultation mechanism process and the government's price pass through. He has not answered that question.

There are 17 seconds left remaining to answer the question. I remind the minister of the question.

The difficulty the Labor Party has is, when you have smart alec introductions to your question, the minister is entitled to respond.

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

Pause the clock.

But in relation to the specifics—

I have paused the clock, Minister. Senator Moore, there is eight seconds left, and I think you could hear the minister was getting to the answer. Do you still want to pursue it?

I just wanted to make sure the minister was getting close there, Mr President.

I will not take it as a point of order at this point in time. Minister, you have eight seconds remaining.

Just learn how to draft your questions and you will be a lot better off. Can I say that we have consulted with relevant business organisations to ensure that the flow-through will be effective. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I ask again: can the minister outline that consultation process on the government's price pass-through mechanism? I also ask: can the minister confirm that its proposed pass-through laws will apply only to electricity and energy suppliers and not to grocery and other major retailers?

It stands to reason, with my answer previously, that, if it only applies to about 60 entities, it will not apply to those to which the honourable senator has just referred. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious in relation to my previous answer. But that is one of the difficulties when you have prewritten supplementaries without listening to the answer.

My question is also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz. Is the minister aware of strong support in the community and by business for repealing the carbon tax?

There is a loud, consistent and very sound chorus of voices from the Australian community calling for the world's biggest carbon tax to be repealed. It is time for the Senate to heed those voices. The government, in its endeavour to repeal the carbon tax, has received support from many quarters, be it the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or the National Farmers' Federation, from BlueScope Steel to Wesfarmers. But, more importantly than those with potentially a particular interest, over 10 million Australians voted for a variety of political parties all committed to the repeal of the carbon tax—and one of those political parties was the Australian Labor Party. At the last election, even Labor pretended that they had repealed the carbon tax.

This morning, Gary Heilmann, a fishing business operator, told his fellow Australians, courtesy of the ABC, of the carbon tax impost on his operation:

The carbon tax alone cost us around about $30,000 per year here. Plus the other major impact was the $72 per kilo that it added to the refrigerant gases that we use for our refrigeration plants, both on the boats and in the factory.

He went on:

Effectively we went from a situation where a failure on a boat or piece of equipment would cost $2000 worth of refrigerant, to … $10,000 every time.

So his prices are going to come down now?

In relation to prices coming down, he also said this:

Qantas has been the first cab off the rank. They have written to us and advised us that, effective the first of July, they are taking the carbon tax surcharge off our freight …

Showing that there will be a flow-through for all businesses. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister outline the benefits of repealing the carbon tax for families, businesses and the economy?

I thank Senator Fawcett and understand his longstanding interest in the cost of living, especially for families in Australia. Repealing the carbon tax is the single most important act the Senate can perform to take pressure off families, save Australian jobs and strengthen the economy. If the Senate repeals this toxic tax, it will save the Australian economy from a $9,000 million jobs-destroying sledgehammer. Removing this tax will take the pressure off business and secure jobs. It will also deliver average savings of $550 per year to each and every household across the nation, according to Labor's own Treasury costings whilst they were in government. This carbon tax hurts jobs, hurts families and does nothing for the environment, and that is why the government is committed to its abolition.

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister advise the Senate whether there are other measures that senators will be asked to agree to in order to build a strong and prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia?

The government is seeking to implement its legislative agenda that will strengthen our economy, attract investment and create more jobs for more Australians. Part of that agenda is the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to improve productivity in our building industry. We also have reforming the Qantas Sale Act, to level the playing field in our aviation industry; abolishing the mining tax, to restore the international competitiveness of our resource industry; and repealing over 1,000 spent and redundant pieces of legislation across 10 portfolios, to cut red tape for businesses across Australia. The reason we are pursuing all these economic reforms is so that we can win not some academic prize in economics but the prize that is the social dividend of jobs and security that will flow to our fellow Australians. (Time expired)