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

That's a very good point, Senator Scarr—if we stopped asking questions, they would have 100 per cent record. But that's not how this government works. They promised one thing when they wanted to be elected but now it's a completely different matter. They promised transparency, but we're not allowed to have that. We saw dozens of farmers sitting here in the gallery a couple of months ago, who took the time to come to parliament, to the people's House, because they wanted to have their voice heard, but this government supported by the Greens doesn't want their voices to be heard through a Senate inquiry. As I articulated, it is not a motion that's about being anti renewable energy; it is a motion that reinforces the need for a strong electricity grid and its importance to Australians in the transition we are currently undertaking.

But it's also a motion about fairness for farmers, for fishers, and for Indigenous Australians. That is what it is about. And it is about what part this parliament, this Senate, can play in ensuring that that is what occurs. We acknowledge states have a significant role to play through the various land acts that apply around the country. Why is it that Indigenous Australians in Queensland seem to be getting a lower rate of return or a lower compensation for access to their lands than others do? Why is the rate different in Western Australia to what it is in Queensland? Why is that? Why it is unreasonable to ask those questions and to assist the parliament and the government to come up with a mechanism that's fair to everybody? That's what we are seeking to do, to give those communities who have taken the time to come to Canberra, to come to Brisbane, to turn up at rallies across Victoria the opportunity to have their say through an investigation into the process. Why won't Senator Watt stand up for those people who want to do that? As Minister for Agriculture, why won't he do that?

Why is it that off the south coast of Gippsland, where something in the order of 20,000 tonnes of fish a year comes from, the fisheries there are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts? That's a significant impact. But why is it that those fishers in those communities aren't able to tell the Senate about those impacts and how we might mitigate them so that we can not only get the benefits of offshore wind, which will be very important for the energy transition in this country, but also ensure that 20,000 tonnes of seafood that is important for supplying Australian communities can continue to be accessed. It's not an unreasonable question. We can have all of these anti extractive-industries motions passed, supported by Labor and the Greens, but dare we ask for an inquiry that supports farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians to ensure that the impact on them—their land, their communities and their seas—is managed properly and that they receive fair compensation for the changes that are going to occur?

We're not saying that the changes can't or shouldn't occur. The motion acknowledges the importance of ensuring that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy. It's fundamental to the wealth and wellbeing of this country that it does, but it needs to be done on fair terms. One of the jobs of this place is to ensure that it is. That's all we're asking. We're not being unreasonable. It's not a loaded terms of reference that's anti industry.

Senator Pratt can moan and groan and vote against industry with the Greens. That's great that she does that—coming from Western Australia, which is a huge resource industry-based state—with support from the Greens. We seek—