Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, but they are going to end up with millions. This is not even a fraction of what is likely to occur once the instruments change under emissions trading or under a more robust carbon market. So the voluntary market to date is no indication of what the market is going to be in the future. Also I would like to know where these 80,500 hectares of land that you expect these trees to go on is, because, as I have said, it is likely to be prime land. There are no specifications as to where or when and, as you say, Minister, we will have to wait for the environmental guidelines.

I really want to say to the government that this is really ill considered. It was the former government’s legislation. The former government had no climate credentials and no decent climate policy. Why would you think that they would come up with anything half-decent? Why on earth didn’t you look at their legislation before you adopted it and brought it in here when it is so ill considered? As I have said so many times, you would have been far better off—and you would have got the full support of the chamber for this—if you had come in here and repealed the managed investment schemes, instead of leaving the MIS for forestry and adding another one with this carbon sink legislation—because that is what it is. But my amendment stands. I believe it is a sound amendment. It specifies what a carbon sink is and then I will give the chamber the opportunity to knock out this schedule from this bill. That is what my amendment seeks to do. Everyone has the opportunity to do that. My amendment is in the Notice Paper and has been moved.