Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in continuation, but, as I now have more time, I can start at the beginning of my speech instead of trying to race through the key points, as I was yesterday. I rise yet again to implore the government and the Greens to back our calls for an inquiry into new transmission line builds and the process of consultation with landholders, farmers and Indigenous stakeholders in determining the routes and the methods of transmission. Their continual refusal to support this inquiry demonstrates the absolute contempt this government has for regional communities. Just as it has done by changing distribution priority areas, which has seen doctors desert regional communities for periurban centres, just as it is doing by cancelling a whole industry in closing down the live sheep export trade, and just as it is doing by implementing a biosecurity tax on domestic agricultural producers, this government yet again turns its back on the regions.

All we are asking for here is an inquiry, an opportunity for people to have their say and to explain the dearth of consultation, the potential impact on their businesses and the mental stress and anguish they have experienced throughout the process. For example, it would give the people who have written to me just in the last week an opportunity to raise their concerns. One letter is from an agronomist based at Barham who has been informed that they are now under a preferred route for the Transgrid VNI West project—a preferred route that did not exist in the original consultation papers. They explained that many people are confused as to how this project will affect them, as there are mixed messages provided by Transgrid and when they look at other projects and other offerings that have happened around them and just across the border. They go on to outline the flawed mapping that has been used in determining the preferred corridor and the lack of recognition of wildlife protection areas in our region. Another correspondent, from Moulamein, under the same project, said there'd been little consideration of the impact on the economies of farming communities, the devalued property valuations and the flood-prone nature of our area, which is in a recognised flood system.

Even the New South Wales government was willing to have an inquiry. Even though some say it was a lip-service inquiry, they had a brief inquiry into the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines. Established in June and reporting last week, this inquiry—and it shows the level of interest—garnered over 300 submissions and held five public hearings across the south of the state and in Sydney. But unfortunately, as is so often the case with government led committees, it appears the outcome was a foregone conclusion, as evidenced by Premier Minns declaring publicly on radio, before the inquiry had even concluded, that undergrounding was not feasible and was too expensive.

So I get it. The government doesn't want the inquiry we're calling for. But I am bitterly disappointed by the Greens and the Independents who keep opposing this inquiry. I point them to the dissenting statements contained in the New South Wales report. The Hon. Emma Hurst from the Animal Justice Party—it's not usual for the Nats to even acknowledge the Animal Justice Party—noted in her statement:

… we received evidence that clearing of native forests and bushland required for HumeLink—

which is just one project out of the estimated 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines needed in New South Wales—

will have 'serious impacts' on the habitat for 82 threatened species of plants and animals, including the koala, Booroolong frog, wedge-tailed eagle and powerful owl.

Ms Hurst says she supports further inquiry and notes the concerns expressed in the final report by every single non-government representative on the committee. Cate Faehrmann from the Greens said:

This Inquiry … was a missed opportunity to provide strong recommendations …

She said:

It was made abundantly clear to the committee that HumeLink, as currently proposed, has no social licence.

She proposed a finding that the strong community opposition will lead to 'lengthy and costly delays', and she cited concerns about bushfire risk and climate risk, amongst other issues. Ms Faehrmann said:

The transition to 100% renewable energy does not have to mean 500kv transmission lines with hundreds of giant steel towers criss-crossing through our national parks, state forests and productive agricultural land, with all of the associated fire risks.

I couldn't say it better myself. I know: a Nat quoting Greens and quoting the Animal Justice Party; who would have thought? It must be very cold in that fiery place down below! But I've always given credit where credit is due, particularly when people accurately reflect the evidence they have heard through a committee process and what they have seen through the site visits of the committee process along with my state colleague Wes Fang MLC, who together with Liberal Taylor Martin provided a dissenting report. That means that every single non-government member of that committee wrote a dissenting report. Of a committee of eight, only four actually agreed with the committee report, but, being a government chaired committee, that is enough to ensure that that report is the one that becomes the committee report even though it is certainly not a reflection of the committee. That's Labor for you.

While the dissenting representatives in New South Wales are now calling for another inquiry, I am just asking this Senate to back an inquiry to listen to the concerns of the communities; investigate the processes for consultation, which have been so poor and lacking to date; look at the compensation that's being offered and the compensation evaluations; and ensure they're using accurate mapping. I was on an update the other day, and I was able to point out that the maps they were using for irrigation districts were only reflective of irrigation farms within an irrigation network and completely ignored the fact that there are river pumpers and groundwater irrigators right across that district. This is what we are calling for: consideration of environmental factors, route options and alternatives. It doesn't even mean underground or overground, but why can't they look at going along state or Crown land corridors, next to roadways or along disused rail corridors?

I'm calling on the Greens to follow the advice of their NSW state colleagues. I'm calling on my friend David Pocock to apply the same principle to transmission lines as he does to gas pipelines. I saw, Senator Pocock, your comments the other week in Narrabri, standing there saying agriculture is too important to see gas pipelines built across the landscape. Well, the same should be said for transmission lines. If you're willing to call out gas pipelines, you should be willing to call out transmission lines or, at the very least, support an investigation and an inquiry. Come on. Get on board, people, and support this inquiry.