Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

I am making the point, Senator—you may not like the answer—that even the sugar industry itself has recognised the impact of climate change on it. Given that the sugarcane industry is—I will not deal with that; I am sure that the senator knows that.

I also make the point that some evidence was given by Mackay Sugar at the committee hearing on 5 August which pointed out that, whilst there was what was described by the business development manager as 'a short-term cost impost':

In the long run, the proposed carbon tax policy provides opportunities to Mackay Sugar. … in the longer term, a carbon price is likely to promote diversification projects for our business. As a large sugar manufacturer, Mackay Sugar generates considerable quantities of renewable energy using by-products of the annual cane crop. … under the proposed carbon tax Mackay Sugar will be largely exempt from direct greenhouse gas emission liabilities. Also, a carbon price will drive our business to improve overall energy efficiencies and reduce the use of supplementary coal fuel at our factories.

I think that has responded to senators on the sugarcane industry.

In relation to tourism, I make the point that, first, international aviation is not subject to a carbon price. I know from the number of questions that I have been asked in question time that the senator might not have recalled that. The domestic industry is subject to a carbon price. That has been factored into the cost-of-living impact of 0.7 per cent to which I referred earlier and which forms the basis of the Household Assistance Package. I also reference the effect on the tourism industry—for example, the Great Barrier Reef—of climate change, just to remind us that there are economic costs to climate change to which we need to have regard.

In relation to coal, I have answered a number of questions previously from the senator. We do not believe that it is appropriate to classify coalmining as emissions-intensive trade-exposed because most Australian coalmines do not release a great deal of pollution per tonne of coal produced and are expected to face relatively minor cost impacts in the carbon price. The policy issue is a small number of underground mines which are extremely gassy, which have high volumes of fugitive emissions. I have gone through—I think on Thursday—the assistance that the government is providing to this sector. I also make the point that, despite the sorts of scare campaigns that the senator has been part of, we continue to see increasing investment in the coal industry, including a takeover bid on the day that Mr Abbott suggested that this was the death of the coal industry.

I am also asked about CCS. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is intended to deliver investment into renewable energies and low-pollution technologies such as co-generation. This is in addition to the government's existing support for clean coal technologies, which will continue to be delivered through our existing programs, which include the CCS Flagships Program and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

In relation to defence, Senator, the government does fund defence. The 'enormous cost' that you are talking about would be, obviously, the electricity price increase, to which I have already referred. I note that the defence budget in 2011-12 was some $26 billion, so I suggest that we perhaps should keep in context the additional electricity costs.

I think that has dealt with most of the issues the senators raised.