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

It's interesting that the government seems to want to interject on that. Obviously, the anti-industry elements of the government are at play here. But this is an important motion. We said we would be persistent on this, and we intend to continue to be.

I was in Queensland just a week or so ago, and farmers from as far away as Cairns came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact on them and the engagement with them in relation to major energy infrastructure. For those playing along at home, it's further from Cairns to Brisbane than it is from Brisbane to Melbourne; it's a long way to come to express your concerns. But the farmers did that, hundreds of them. They came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact of these energy developments on their farms and on their local environment. What we're proposing here is an acknowledgement of the importance of the national grid—and acknowledgement of the importance of the energy system in this country. A strong and viable energy system is a fundamental plank in the strength of the economy and in the wellbeing of Australians. We acknowledge that. This is not an anti-energy or anti-energy infrastructure motion. It never has been, and we have reinforced that in tonight's motion. We want to make that plain in the debate and we want to put to bed accusations coming from the other side of the chamber that that's what this is about. That's not what this is about; we stated that before. But it's now part of the motion to be moved tonight.

We want to understand, as a chamber, how the power imbalance between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers and government and energy companies that are seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their lands and fishing grounds works. We want to ensure that there are fair terms and conditions for that compulsory access or acquisition. We want to make sure there's fairness of compensation and also even compensation across the country. We've already heard from individuals around the country that there are variations in this. We've heard from Indigenous Australians that they get less compensation in Queensland than other landowners do. How does that work? Why is it unreasonable that this chamber investigates that as a part of ensuring, as the motion says, that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to a new and more dispersed method of generation and storage?

This is not an outlandish motion; it isn't an anti-renewable energy motion, but it's certainly one that seeks to understand and properly investigate the rights of landholders and seaholders. It's in that context we make, reasonably, our sixth attempt—our sixth attempt!—at having this Senate inquiry. We don't understand why the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management won't stand up for farmers and fishers in this country and support this motion. Why is that? What are the options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers and Indigenous Australians, and to maintain and ensure the productivity of agriculture and fisheries? There are lots of conversations about climate change and lots of conversations about the impact on our natural environment, but we need to remember that each time we pick up and fork each day we're relying on a farmer or fisher to provide the inputs to that. It doesn't matter whether you're a carnivore or a vegan, or anything in between. To eat every day, three times a day—for those of us fortunate enough to do that—we rely on a farmer, and also for the fibre that we use to clothe ourselves. Why has it been unreasonable, five times so far, that this chamber can't ask those questions, that this chamber can't investigate these things? I mean, this is a government that promised to be open and transparent with the Australian people. Mind you, it is a government that's only answered 20 per cent of questions on notice that have been asked of it through the estimates process; although we were told today that's our fault for asking too many questions. I mean, how outrageous. We promised—