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

I have waited because I just wanted to make sure that Senator Birmingham's filibustering attempts were exhausted as far as they could be before I responded to the two questions that he asked some hour ago, as I understand it. Everyone in the chamber agrees with this amendment. Why? It is a clarifying amendment. It is as simple as that. It makes plain the matters to be taken into account. Clearly, it is supported, and we should pass it as soon as possible.

I will cover this first question in a little more detail so that Senator Birmingham does not get up for another 15 minutes and filibuster on an agreed amendment that he also has a proposal for. Because it is a clarifying amendment in relation to the substantive legislation, the regulations will not change. That is plain—it is plain from your side, it is plain from our side and it is plain from the Greens' perspective. He has made much of that but I suspect it is just a case of filibustering. Senator Birmingham knows the answer; I have provided it to him. The reason he put up the amendment, the reason we put up the amendment, was to clarify it. It is as simple as that and he knows it.

The regulations are out there for consultation and community engagement. If Senator Birmingham wants to add his voice to that he certainly can, but I ask him to save some of his breath for the legislation currently before us. Some of the other speakers seem to have ranged quite widely outside the amendment. As the person responsible for the passage of the legislation, Senator Birmingham may have enjoyed listening to them and I am sure he may even have agreed with some of their filibustering attempts. Notwithstanding that, let us focus on the legislation and the amendment before us. By filibustering he is now preventing his own farming communities, his own supporters, from accessing the Carbon Farming Initiative. Let us look at the bigger picture. This is about ensuring that we do sequester carbon. I know he is fundamentally opposed to that but, notwithstanding that, he might be able to consider that some of those on his side do actually want this to pass so that farmers can sequester carbon and obtain an income stream.

In relation to Senator Birmingham's second question, the government is not saying through this amendment that there can be no revegetation. In many areas revegetation will have no or limited impact on land for agricultural production, as he well knows.