David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I will briefly respond. The casual observer of this debate would be forgiven for not being able to recognise the fact that we have now spent the best part of three hours considering a government amendment that is agreed to by the opposition. The reality is that we are witnessing here a manful attempt by those opposite to filibuster this debate. Let me tell you for free, Senator Colbeck, that on filibustering points you are the winner. Your speech gave the greatest impression that you were trying to talk about the subject. You were not, of course, but to the casual observer your speech would have given the most effective appearance of at least trying.

Senator Colbeck, on the 30 seconds of content that appeared in your remarks and your questions in terms of long-term rainfall and those tables—while not relevant to the debate at hand—this is a matter that was obviously part of the consultation paper, the feedback process and the draft regulations. You know all of that. You have asked those questions and got those answers previously. While not relevant to the debate at hand, I will also make the comment that it is an issue that you have already taken up with the government and I am sure that you will continue to do so.

In terms of King Island and your forensic remarks about it, I look forward to the day when you go to King Island and explain how your direct action policy imposes a direct cost of $1,300 per household upon each of them. I will also watch with great interest how you explain to them how your $70 billion worth of budget cuts will impact on them and their community.