Senator MURRAY (1:04 PM) —In this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, you have to make a distinction between the arguments surrounding the broad proposal for geosequestration and carbon sink forests and so on and the actual amendment proposed by Senator Milne. I will start with the last first: there are real weaknesses, if I may say through the chair, in the amendment that Senator Milne puts, but there are real strengths in the arguments being put by the Australian Greens, Senator Joyce and Senator Heffernan. I, and also on behalf of the Democrats, put the view that this area has been poorly thought through. This is poor policy. The issue of needing to promote and to get established carbon sinks is an important one; it is a good one. The issue of resolving these issues is an important one and a good one. But I do not think the right mechanism has been found. I think it is a pig’s ear or whatever the expression is: it is the wrong policy for the right reason.

Senator Milne’s amendment is the wrong amendment for the right reason. If I may be so bold as to suggest, Senator Milne, you would be better off putting an amendment to get rid of schedule 3 altogether. That would be better than fiddling around on this basis. The shadow minister has a legitimate criticism: it is difficult to keep the books and records for the tax office and so on with respect to numerous transactions over 100 years. That is difficult to do, and so there are problems with the consequences from your amendment

But I think your central argument is right. It is a good issue. It does need to be resolved, but this schedule 3 is poor policy. The Democrats will in fact support you as much as we can, but do not take that as us supporting every item that you put in this amendment. We are supporting you because we think you have put the right argument and because we think Senator Heffernan and Senator Joyce have a real point. But I would suggest that the cleanest way to do it is just to chop schedule 3 out altogether.