Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. What are abattoirs and meat processors doing to save costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How do their actions contrast with the predictions about the impact of the carbon price on the sector?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for his question. He has been very active in relation to this issue in particular. Members of the House will recall the prophecies of doom and gloom made by the coalition in relation to carbon pricing and how it would operate in the meat processing sector. Guess what? The doom and gloom has not transpired. Senator Joyce claimed that a leg of lamb would cost $100. We had another claim by the coalition that for each head of cattle admitted to an abattoir it would cost $575,000. And it was all garbage; it was all rubbish. All the rubbish that the other side went on with about this issue was totally deceitful and misleading.

The reality is that the government has worked very closely with the meat industry in applying the carbon price within the industry. It is leading to new investment in new technologies that will cut electricity consumption, reduce emissions intensity, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve productivity and competitiveness. In making those commitments, the industry has worked with the government. Various grants are being provided to various abattoirs to support the investments being made.

For example, in January this year I and the member for Blair announced a $4.4 million grant to JBS Australia for its Dinmore abattoir facility and meat processing plant. The result is that JBS will slash its electricity costs by $1.1 million a year by covering its settlement ponds, capturing the methane and generating electricity for its site. The emissions intensity of that particular facility at Dinmore—that is, the amount of pollution produced per kilo of beef—will be reduced by 81 per cent. The payback period for the company's investment is only two years; it will start to get a return on this investment in two years. A very similar project is being undertaken by AJ Bush and Sons at its Bromelton meat processing plant. The government has provided a $6.1 million grant. That investment will cut the energy costs at Bromelton by 46 per cent per year and reduce the emissions intensity of the plant by 64 per cent. These are quite extraordinary productivity and environmental outcomes achieved through the application of the carbon price in the meat processing industry.

Guess what else? These things will all be abolished by the other side. The cow cockies will be down here arguing for these to be kept. The position that the opposition has is so ridiculous, so environmentally absurd and so economically irresponsible that they will be under pressure from people on their own side of politics to keep the carbon price in place. The so-called pledge to get rid of it is simply not credible. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has talked about the impact of the carbon price on industry. How is the carbon price impacting in other sectors and how is industry responding?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an excellent supplementary question by the member for Blair, because this experience is being replicated in many other parts of industry. With the application of the carbon price and the disposition of carbon price revenue towards innovative techniques, the capturing of emissions, reductions of emissions intensity in manufacturing businesses, reductions in electricity consumption and improvements in productivity and competitiveness, we are starting to see a transformation in various industries in this country.

It is precisely what is necessary to reduce the emissions intensity of our economy overall and to square up to our international responsibilities in tackling climate change. Who in their right mind and exercising any semblance of economic responsibility would imagine that our No. 1 trading partner—China, which is introducing a carbon price through an emission trading scheme arrangement and with whom they wish to link our emissions trading schemes—would imagine that Australia could simply sit around and do nothing, as advocated by the coalition? The proposition that the opposition leader has put forward to the community, that this is all the death and destruction of the Australian economy, is not only totally ridiculous and now proved demonstrably to be so, but also that it be repealed is equally absurd.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders state that question time finishes at 10 past three. We have had this debate before on two occasions and on both occasions the Leader of the House has agreed with my contention that question time finishes at 10 past three. The call was due to the opposition. The member for Canning was on his feet and therefore the call should have been given to the member for Canning, not to the Prime Minister.

eoqt

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Just before I call the Leader of the House, the member for Cowan indicated that he had a question to me. I will deal with it now. The member for Cowan has the call. I have dealt with the issue before. I will not engage in argument. The member for Cowan has the call.

Opposition members interjecting—