Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak in relation to this motion. The only thing Senator Rennick said which I disagree with, and I'll explain why, is that he didn't have an expectation the Greens would support this. I think every senator in this chamber should support this reference because there's a principle involved here. If a considerable portion of this chamber believes that something should be referred to a committee for further analysis and examination, providing stakeholders in the community a chance to give evidence and give their views, then the chamber should support that. I say that as someone who is the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. We are dealing with a number of important references to that committee which were initiated in one case by the Greens and in another case by a government senator, and I fully supported those references. I'm engaging in that process in good faith. That's the importance of this institution. It is incredibly disappointing to see senators not support this referral. It is a shocking and terrible precedent.

Do senators remember when we had the galleries filled with farmers and members of rural communities from Victoria? They came all the way to this place, to Canberra, and sat in those galleries because they're desperately concerned about this issue.

Why not give them an opportunity to give evidence before a Senate committee? Why not give them that opportunity? Why deprive them of that opportunity? It is a terrible precedent which senators in this place will set if, on the division on this motion, a majority of this chamber is against the referral. Everyone should reflect on it.

Consider the terms of the reference. It is even-handed in terms of its drafting. It's objective. It doesn't presuppose a conclusion. But it's dealing with a matter of great importance to people in our rural and regional communities. This Senate chamber should represent all Australians, from our cities to our country, and when there's an issue of concern to a significant proportion of residents—wherever they live in Australia—and when a considerable number of senators in this place say a matter should be referred to a committee, that referral should be accepted and supported. Then all of us have an opportunity to participate in that process and to provide our comments in relation to the analysis of the evidence and any recommendations which are made.

What are you scared of? Are you concerned that the evidence is going to be damning with respect to how these matters are being considered? Is that what you're concerned with? The people listening to this, the people watching this debate, could well say that if that's the case, all the more reason for there to be a referral.

Let's consider the actual paragraphs of the referral motion. The introductory words are:

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, with particular reference to:

(a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments and energy companies …

Those power imbalances between farmers and fishers on one hand and governments and energy companies on the other are real, and this chamber performs such an important function across all of our committees in terms of giving a voice to people who are on the wrong end of those power imbalances. That's part of our job.

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

I'm deeply interested to see what the terms are for that access and compulsory acquisition. Why are you depriving me as a senator of the opportunity to engage in that committee inquiry? On what basis?

(c) fairness of compensation;

Isn't that our role? Isn't one of our roles, as a check and balance in Australia's democracy, to consider the fairness of how our fellow citizens are treated, especially when the government uses its powers of compulsory acquisition? That goes to the heart of our role as the Senate chamber.

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

I want to know if the way people in Victoria are being treated is the same as for people in my home state of Queensland. Are there any differences? What is the best practice model? What is the fairest approach? Again, those who will vote against this motion are depriving the Senate of the opportunity to inquire in relation to these matters.

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

Again, isn't that something we should be desperately concerned with? Why deprive us of the opportunity of participating in this inquiry?

When you go through the terms of reference, there is nothing that's loaded there. There are no embedded premises or findings. It is quite objectively worded. So I'm absolutely aghast that so many senators in this place would deprive a material number of senators who are desperately concerned about this, representing their constituents from their home states, of this referral. It's a terrible, terrible precedent. I would suggest that the leadership of the government in this place should carefully consider this.

From my perspective, you might not agree with where the outcome falls, but you've got the opportunity to put in a dissenting report, to make additional comments. Don't attack the process. Don't stop the process.

Every senator in this place is a custodian of this institution for as long as we are here. We're the ones who set the precedents with respect to practice, what is usually adopted and what is usually followed, and it desperately concerns me that in a case where a material number of our senators would like a referral on a matter of key importance, deep importance, to their constituents, that seems to be about to be defeated on a majority of numbers. It's a terrible precedent. I think the leaders of the government in this place should carefully reconsider.