WONG: Thank you very much for coming. Greg has just introduced into the House the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. As we said to the Opposition, we would be introducing it today, debating it next week and then debating it in the Senate in the week beginning November 16.

We obviously are prepared to continue good faith negotiations with the Opposition led by Ian Macfarlane and we look forward to those discussions continuing and hope that we can come to a resolution of the issues so that this very important legislation can pass the Parliament this year. Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: How are the negotiations going with the Opposition on the CPRS? 

WONG: Well as you probably know I’m not going to broadcast every single aspect of the discussions. As I’ve said publicly, we are pleased that the Opposition has put forward their position. We look forward to receiving more information from them. We think that the discussions commenced in a constructive way and we look forward to working through the things that are on the table. Obviously there is a lot of work to do, but we are prepared to engage in this in good faith, as I understand the Opposition is too.

JOURNALIST: Have you had further discussions with Mr Macfarlane since earlier this week?

WONG: Not directly at this stage. We propose to do that very soon.

JOURNALIST: Is he an easy person to deal with? He was very complimentary of you the other night. Is he a good person to negotiate with?

WONG: I think Ian’s a straight shooter. He’s very practical, he is certainly across the issues. And I think he approaches these things very constructively and I think he’s a good person to deal with.

JOURNALIST: In the interest of being constructive, in the outyears, a lot of this debate is going to be about what happens to the revenue from permit sales past the forward estimates. Has the Government made any decisions as to what that revenue would be used for? Can you tell us what will happen to that revenue, and if not, how can it be a good faith negotiation if we don’t know that?

WONG: Well there’s a few non-sequiturs if I may, in that question Lenore. We have published... Sorry, I’m being dive bombed by a bogong moth. Has it gone?

JOURNALIST: Better than a magpie.

WONG: OK – are they the options are they? Obviously the Government has published, as is the normal practice through the forward estimates very detailed estimates of what the expenses and revenue from the CPRS will be. And as all of you would be aware, that shows that the CPRS revenue through that period is fully committed. That gives you an indication of certainly what will occur in the first part of the scheme. In terms of beyond the forward estimates, obviously that is not usually the information that is provided by governments and there are a range of reasons for that including the difficulty of estimating in advance. But obviously, we are interested to see where the Opposition has come up with their figure from. They have put a figure on the table. I’m certainly interested in understanding how they have arrived at that. And these will be issues we will continue to discuss with them.

JOURNALIST: What is your figure then?

WONG: Well as I have said, the Government doesn’t usually release figures beyond forward estimates. But I’m interested in finding out where it is that the Opposition has – how it is that they have come up with that figure. But I think an indication of the way in which the CPRS revenue will be allocated, or the effect of additional allocation, will be demonstrated in the forward estimates period where the CPRS revenue is fully allocated.

JOURNALIST: But you may know that a lot of the compensation schemes fall off during that period (inaudible) and all I’m asking is if you have made any decisions about what you’re going to do with it.

WONG: And what I have indicated to you is that we will have a dialogue with the Opposition about their amendments. And we’re interested in having a discussion with them about where it is that they got this figure.

JOURNALIST: Are you suggesting that their figure is different to your figure?

WONG: No, I think I’m suggesting exactly what I have just said which is we will have a discussion about these, about the Opposition proposals, with the Opposition. It is the case, as I’ve said previously and as others in the media have been pointing out, there is no bottomless pit. There is no bottomless pit of money when we look at this legislation. We will have to make judgments on what is economically and fiscally responsible as well as environmentally effective.

JOURNALIST: If or when you come to any agreement on any of the amendments, would you be dribbling an announcement out on that?

WONG: I try not to dribble.

JOURNALIST: Or would you be making one big announcement regarding what you have accepted and what you’d be rejecting?

WONG: Well I haven’t turned my mind to any announcement strategy. I’m interested in a negotiation, and that is what we will be doing.

JOURNALIST: Very quickly, this morning at doors Wilson Tuckey suggested that terrorists could be masquerading as asylum seekers in boats that reach Australian shores. What do you make of that comment?

WONG: These are comments that are not worthy of a Member of Parliament. And Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party should simply get rid of Mr Tuckey. It’s not enough to try  and dismiss this or diminish these sorts of comments by making jokes about odd uncles. These are not comments that are worthy of parliamentarians. They are clearly incendiary, inaccurate and unhelpful to this debate. Mr Turnbull should come out and be clear that he won’t be supporting Mr Tuckey at the next election.

JOURNALIST: Is it also unhelpful for the Prime Minister to be using the term illegal immigration when referring to people who arrive by boat?

WONG: You know what the issue today is? It is that we have a Member of Parliament, a member of the Liberal Party, a member of Malcolm Turnbull’s team, suggesting to the Australian people –completely inaccurately – that people, the majority of people or many of the people who are asylum seekers, are terrorists. That’s the issue and Mr Turnbull should be dealing with it.

JOURNALIST: What about the Prime Minister’s comments?

WONG: Well the Prime Minister has always made clear that our policy is tough but fair and humane. That is the Government’s position and the Prime Minister continues to communicate that.

JOURNALIST: But isn’t it wrong to say that they are illegal?

WONG: Look, what is wrong is for a Member of Parliament to be coming out and suggesting that all asylum seekers are terrorists. That is unhelpful to this discussion; this is a difficult policy area. We all know it is a difficult policy area. It requires difficult judgments to be made. And we have a very clear position about the importance of securing our borders but also behaving towards asylum seekers in a fair and humane way and that is the way the Government...

JOURNALIST: Do you think that there’s enough adequate measures in place to deal with dubious characters that may arrive on these boats?

WONG: The Government is clear that asylum seekers are subjected to health and security checks. And it is unhelpful for Mr Tuckey to be making these sort of irresponsible comments in this debate.

 ENDS