Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The adequacy and fairness of process and compensation to acquire compulsory access to agricultural land, Indigenous land and marine environments for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to:

(a) power imbalances between Traditional Owners, farmers and fishers with governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds, to:

  (i) ensure community benefits are delivered with ongoing supports for communities, including First Peoples.

  (ii) ensuring proponents and governments obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent of First Peoples and the protection of cultural heritage.

  (iii) protection of flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on threatened species and habitat corridors.

(b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition;

(c) fairness of compensation;

(d) options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition;

(e) options to maintain and the ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and

(f) any other matter.

This is the coalition's fourth attempt to have an investigation into what I have to say I don't regard as controversial circumstances. We are seeing in this country a significant, required change in land use as a result of the government's proposals for significant investments in renewable energies, and those land use changes and the requirements of that are having a significant effect. Farmers don't often down tools and come to Canberra, but they're here in the gallery today because they are grumpy, and deservedly. I don't blame them. I've sat down on farms where large proportions of the farms are now unusable because of new powerlines going through their property and their centre pivot irrigator will only be able to be used on half the paddock, and these are significant investments. They're investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in their centre pivot irrigators and their equipment, and their properties are becoming unusable. We're seeing this right across the country, and it's not just on agricultural land, as we see from the farmers who are here today to put their case. I congratulate them on the work that they have done in this place today to get a motion agreed that might have some chance of success on its fourth attempt.

Why is it controversial to understand the power imbalance between traditional owners, farmers and fishers and big power companies and big governments? Why is it controversial to consider that? Why is it controversial that there should be fair terms and conditions consistent across the country for that compulsory access? Why is that controversial? Why should this chamber, this Senate, not investigate that? Why is it controversial that there should be fairness of compensation? It's not. That's what these communities who've come here today are seeking. That's what they're asking for. That's all they're asking for, yet, three times now, this government with the Greens have voted against it. There's another chance today.

We know that the minister for agriculture met a cow in the last few days. I hear it didn't go too well!

An opposition senator: Did he know what it was?

I'm not sure he knew which end stuff goes in and which end stuff comes out. I'm not sure he understands that. I did suggest they should take him down to see the member for Braddon's Angus bull—he's a beauty. I'm not sure that the minister would want to get in the same paddock. I'd be happy to, but I'm not sure the minister would. But what's clear is the minister doesn't have what it takes to stand up to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He's the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's doormat. Every time we bring this up, there is lots of cooing from people on the other side who have some sympathy for the agriculture sector but the Minister for Climate Change and Energy says: 'I don't want to know. I don't care about the farmers. I don't care about the fishers. I don't care about Indigenous owners. We're not doing this.'

It's interesting that in another committee that I sit on we had evidence from Indigenous owners around the country who came to say they have an interest or control 54 per cent of Australia's landmass. They came to the committee to express their concern about these developments. Indigenous landowners in this country came to give evidence, and their evidence was that, in Queensland, there are different rates for pastoralists than there are for traditional owners. Why is it controversial that we should inquire into that? That's the evidence that was given to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth in their inquiry into making Australia a green energy export superpower.

Off the south-east coast of Victoria, South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association says in their submission to Mr Bowen and Minister Watt that the South East Trawl Fishery lands more than 20,000 tonnes of fish and are, by far, the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney. These fisheries are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts on the commercial fishing in Gippsland. Why is it controversial that this chamber should look into that? Clearly, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy doesn't care about farmers, and you have to question whether the minister for farmers actually cares himself because he hasn't got what it takes to stand up to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He doesn't care about the impacts on fishers and their businesses and industry, and clearly he's not interested in the impact on Indigenous Australians, who've also come to this place, just like the farmers and the landholders in the gallery tonight, to express their concerns. Why is it controversial? Why should it take four attempts to look at what is not a controversial issue but is a matter of fairness for growers, for fishers and for Indigenous Australians around this country? Why is it controversial, and why won't the Labor Party support, for the fourth time, what is a reasonable request for us to make?

They're uncontroversial terms of reference. They're not saying we don't want to see the development; we just want to look at the power imbalance. We want to look at the terms and conditions. We want to make sure they're fair and equitable across Australia. And we just want fishers, farmers and First Nations people to get a fair go. That's why those people are sitting in the gallery this afternoon. That's why they've come to Canberra. That's why they've put their lives on hold and their farm activities on hold. They don't come here lightly. But they're here tonight. They've sat in the gallery for ages. they want to see some fairness, and they want the opportunity to have their say before a Senate inquiry, and those opposite should support them.