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

Oh, it's recyclable! Well, that's important! Compulsorily acquisition letters have been sent to landowners along the Central Coast.

When it comes to our fishers—in Commonwealth territory, I might add—Minister Watt doesn't have what it takes to stand up for them or let them have their say. The South East Trawl Fishery, where there are huge zones proposed for offshore wind, lands more than 20,000 tonnes of fish. It's by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney. These fisheries are likely subject to 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts on commercial fishing. What are the terms of compensation for these fishers? They don't even get a run-in with respect to what's happening in the state regulations. They don't get a look-in. Who cares?

Now, of course, the Greens don't like commercial fishing. They'd rather have a marine park—lock it up; don't use it. Twenty thousand tonnes of fish is a significant contribution to the local economies around the south coast of my home state of Tasmania, but we're not allowed to look at that. They voted against it four times—four times!

All we want to look at is:

The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines …

That's all we want to do. Senator Pocock won't vote for it. The Greens won't vote for it. And because Minister Bowen doesn't like it, doesn't want somebody scrutinising what's going on, doesn't want farmers to have a voice, and because Minister Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up to him—he's just trodden on, walked over—we do what Minister Bowen says. Farmers don't get a voice. Fishers don't get a voice. Fascinatingly, Indigenous Australians don't get a voice. They have some sort of control or rights over almost 50 per cent of the landmass, but they don't get a voice.

All we're looking to do is understand what is a fair and reasonable compensation process for those that are going to be impacted. Why is that controversial? Why is it possible to cut down and clear 1,000 hectares of land next to a World Heritage area for a wind farm—mind you, there's another one just next door, so it is not just one, it's more. But this particular project, 1,000 hectares, you can't harvest it and sustainably regenerate it for timber, for carbon storage, for biodiversity, for all of the other values that Australia's world-class forestry brings. You can't do that, but you can cut it down for a wind farm. No-one cares about the frogs, the greater gliders, the koalas. My understanding, from the article, is that it's one of the few chlamydia-free koala communities left in the country. Don't worry about that. We can watch the WWF advertisements on TV telling us to send them money because koalas are going to become extinct, but we can take out 1,000 hectares of their habitat. Those people in that corner will vote for that and against even investigating it. As I've said a number of times, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

And it's a Senate inquiry to investigate fair terms for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians. Evidence already on the public record says Indigenous Australians are getting paid less than others. Why is that? Why is it so controversial that we, as a Senate, might want to understand that? After all, it was the Greens who sent those people to the other inquiry, through the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, to put the evidence on the public record. Now they don't want to take it any further. They'll vote against it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The impact on farmers lives, their livelihoods, and the stress that's being put on them because there's this great march of infrastructure across their properties—this place, four times now, has been told it can't look at the terms and conditions to deal with that. In Tasmania, state Labor are running around complaining about acquisition of land for irrigation projects. Down there, they're siding with the farmers; up here, they're voting against the farmers.

Labor is voting against the farmers. Senator Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up for the farmers, the people he is paid to represent. The Greens don't care about farmers. They tell you they do, but they don't. Senator Pocock says: 'It doesn't matter. It's not happening in Canberra, so it's no big deal. But I am interested in stopping forestry and sustainable industries. I'll shut them down. But I'll let 1,000 hectares go for a single wind farm. I don't care about the greater gliders, the koalas, the frogs and other biodiversity that's in that area right next to a World Heritage area.' In Tasmania the Greens and Labor put 74,000 hectares, a lot of it previously harvested forestry land, into the World Heritage system. When it comes to this, it's only second-rate country.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Some people get a voice, some people are promoted for a voice and some people are told they can't have a voice. If you are a farmer or a fisher in this country, you don't get a voice. You don't have a minister who will stand up for you. He hasn't got what it takes. He's just a doormat for one of his colleagues. It's outrageous. As Senator Cadell has said, we are going to keep coming back on this because these farmers, these fishers and these Indigenous communities deserve to have their two bobs' worth in this discussion. There's going to be significant disruption to their lives, and they deserve to have a say. Labor should be ashamed that they are stopping them from doing that.