John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the fact that the meat processing industry is a highly carbon-intensive industry with major emissions flowing from the use of anaerobic ponds and the use of coal in boilers. Given there is relatively no inexpensive method of reducing emissions in the meat processing industry and other alternatives require large investments in replacement capital items, can the minister outline the number of meat processing companies in Australia which are currently above the 25,000 tonne threshold and therefore are required to pay the carbon tax directly, and also how many of those would qualify for assistance under the clean energy Jobs and Competitiveness Program?

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

Firstly, I am being asked to indicate specific firms which may or may not be eligible under a program which has a particular set of criteria around access, which is in part emissions thresholds. I think the senator actually asked me this in the committee stage of the legislation which, of course, as I keep reminding the opposition, has actually passed the parliament and is the law of the land—something they obviously have not got over, given their focus on it today. Even if I had at my fingertips all of the emissions data for every firm in Australia, which I do not, I do not think it would be appropriate for a minister to be suggesting that a particular firm would or would not be entitled to assistance. If we could extrapolate this to any other program it would be very unusual for a senator to ask a minister to confirm whether a particular company or business—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a point of order. The answer is not directly or indeed at all relevant to the question. The minister was asked 'how many' companies, not 'which' companies. She is approaching the answer on the basis that she was asked to name companies and is declining to do so. She was not asked to name any companies. She was asked for the government's estimate of the number and only the number of companies affected.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Brandis in taking the point of order has simply picked out a part of the question and then tried to reemphasise it. It is inappropriate for Senator Brandis to do that and to paraphrase the question as well. The minister has been answering the question. The minister continues to be directly relevant to the question and the way the minister is responding is dealing with the substance of the question. What the opposition are now asking for is an answer to a specific question which they have formulated because they want a particular answer. It is inappropriate to argue for that. The minister remains directly relevant.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: the minister was clearly answering by saying it was inappropriate to give the name of specific companies. The question was very clear. It said: can the minister outline the number of meat processing companies? How many of these would qualify? At no stage did the questioner seek the name. The minister is hiding behind the false assertion that a name was being sought in the question. Given the very specific question that was asked, I would invite you to invoke sessional orders.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is reminded of the question and has 32 seconds remaining. I draw the minister's attention to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I am advised that most meat processing facilities are likely to fall below the coverage thresholds of the scheme and hence would not be directly liable. All meat processors, like other industries, will obviously pay some indirect cost increase for electricity use and gas consumption. I remind the senator of the dedicated support of some $150 million for the food and beverage processing industry which is available under the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program. Meat processors that may have a direct carbon cost— (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am glad the minister mentioned that technology. Given the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program provides just $25 million per year for investment to reduce emissions and under its guidance investments must go beyond replacement of capital items, can the minister explain how this funding will be sufficient when reducing emissions in the meat industry requires multimillion dollar investments in replacing capital equipment?

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

It is a little difficult to know how to answer this because I believe—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't know.

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

It is so clear that they want to fight. They are not interested in my response.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I am trying to be helpful today, as I always am, but particularly helpful today—extra helpful. I think the senator is asking me to make an assertion about how the program will be rolled out in practice. My advice is that the program can be used to fund capital to reduce or even eliminate the liability, such as technology to capture and use methane for boilers or as a source of electricity. The government has also provided the Energy Efficiency Information Grants Program to help industry peak bodies such as those in the meat industry. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the meat processing industry employs tens of thousands of people directly and indirectly and many regional communities depend on their continued existence to survive, why has the Gillard Labor government placed another massive cost burden in the form of the carbon tax on this industry and put so many jobs in regional communities at risk?

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

In relation to first part, we agree that the meat industry is important. In relation to the second part, we do not agree with your assertion that putting a price on carbon will put these industries and jobs at risk. I refer you to the Treasury modelling which shows that under a carbon price meat product manufacturing is estimated—

Senator Joyce interjecting—

You do not like to hear the truth, do you? Under the Treasury modelling, meat product manufacturing is estimated to grow by 12 per cent to 2020 and 137 per cent to 2050. The problem is that the facts asserted by the opposition in the question consistently fail to match up to reality. They are railing against a bill that has passed. They are railing against modelling which shows that we can grow our incomes, grow jobs, grow the economy and put in place a carbon price.