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

It really is an honour to follow my very good friend and colleague Senator Rennick, and I very much enjoyed that contribution. There were many themes in that contribution which have been pursued diligently by Senator Rennick through estimates and elsewhere. From a personal perspective, some of my favourite moments at estimates have been watching the interactions between Senator Rennick and his good friend Larry Marshall of CSIRO. It was always engaging, always good tempered and always fascinating to watch. I'm sure Mr Marshall remembers his times in estimates very fondly, Senator Rennick. In relation to this notice of motion—

I don't really know much about wombats, Senator Ciccone. I'm not sure if we have many wombats in Queensland, but we do have koala bears. Regarding this motion we're considering, as a matter of principle I would hope that—as a matter of comity in this chamber—if a large number of senators in this place want a matter to be referred to a references committee then that reference should, wherever possible and practical, be entertained. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I continue to diligently pursue references which have been referred to that committee by members of the Australian Labor Party but also by members of the Greens and by other members of the crossbench. And I will continue to do so.

But I think it really is important, as a matter of comity in this chamber, that, where such references can be entertained by a references committee, then the Senate should do its best to actually endorse referrals and approve referrals to a references committee. And this is no exception. This should not be an exception.

I was in the chamber last night when Senator David Pocock made his contribution. There are two matters I want to touch on in relation to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night. He said this referral is political. He said it's political. The point I would make to Senator David Pocock is this: he may not remember, but I certainly remember—I'm sure Senator Hughes remembers; I'm sure Senator Dean Smith remembers; I'm sure that Senator Matt O'Sullivan remembers—when that gallery up there was full of farmers and their families from regional Victoria who took the time out of their busy lives to travel all the way from Victoria to this chamber, to this Senate, to call for this inquiry. This isn't political. This is the Senate doing its job as a house of review, a house of scrutiny. This is the Senate respecting the wishes of those members of the Victorian community and thousands like them all over Australia—certainly thousands in my home state of Queensland and no doubt thousands in Senator Hughes' home state of New South Wales and Senator Smith's and Senator O'Sullivan's home state of Western Australia—who want to see this matter considered by this Senate.

It's a question of not just respecting, in the interest of comity, the perspective of a large number of senators in this place, that this matter should be referred to a References Committee, but actually respecting the Australians who took the time out of their busy lives, trying to make a living, trying to do all the things that you need to do, living in regional Australia, to come to this place to sit in that gallery. And that gallery was full. It was absolutely full of Australians who wanted this Senate to consider this issue. They wanted this Senate to consider this issue. So, from my perspective, their wishes should be respected. Their wishes should be respected. For the life of me, I can't understand why those on the other side of the chamber and the Greens are obstructing the reference of this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

The second point I want to make with respect to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night is to pursue a comment which my good friend Senator Rennick made. It's simply not good enough to say, as Senator Pocock did, that the matter is being considered by someone who has been appointed by executive government to look into the matter. I'm sorry—that's not good enough. That's not good enough. We are the elected representatives of the Australian people. We have a role to discharge in that respect. That role, those obligations, shouldn't be outsourced to someone who has been selected by the executive government. There is a world of difference. While giving due respect to the person who's conducting the inquiry on behalf of the government, there is a world of difference between an inquiry being conducted by someone who has been handpicked by executive government on the one hand and an inquiry being conducted with all the benefits of parliamentary privilege and all the benefits of the rules, processes and procedures that we have as a Senate on the other. There's a world of difference between those two types of inquiries. That should be noted, that should be acknowledged, and that is one of the reasons why this motion should be supported by the senators in this place.

The next point I want to discuss in relation to this motion—and I've discussed it before—is in relation to the terms of reference. These are reasonable terms of reference, extraordinarily reasonable terms of reference. There is nothing which predicates or predetermines the outcome of this inquiry.

There is nothing preconceived about the output or the recommendations that would be made by the committee once it considers these terms of reference. The terms of reference are very even-handed. The language is moderate. It is sensible, logical and rational. In my view there is no objective reason why a senator in this place could reasonably object to these terms of reference. Let's consider them. The first is:

(a) the interaction and efficacy of compulsory access and acquisition powers and responsibilities of Commonwealth, state and territory governments;

This is a real issue in terms of how the different laws interact with each other from a Commonwealth perspective and from state and territory perspectives.

The second is:

(b) the adequacy of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation, policies, programs, schemes and funding relating to compulsory access and acquisition of land (including an interest in land) from landholders;

To what extent does the compulsory acquisition of land in my home state of Queensland differ, for example, from the compulsory acquisition of land in Senator Ciccone's home state of Victoria, Senator Ayres's home state of New South Wales or Senator Barbara Pocock's home state of South Australia? To what extent are there differences and to what extent should we consider the practical outcomes flowing from those differences in compulsory acquisition schemes?

The third paragraph says:

(c) the provision, and disbursement, of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments' compulsory access and acquisition legislation and policy;

It is one thing for a state or federal government or a territory to compulsorily acquire land or an interest in property—and that is bad enough; it can be destabilising and can cause great hardship, especially if the recipient of that compulsory acquisition notice has a lasting connection with the land—but it's another thing again as to whether or not the person is being appropriately compensated. How is the compensation measured? Are there differences in how the compensation is measured according to, say, the Australian government perspective and the perspective of the different states and territories? That is a material issue. What are the rights of appeal with respect to compensation? To what extent can those rights of appeal be practically enforced, especially by someone who doesn't have experience? Probably the only time in their life that they're going to have experience of going through a compulsory acquisition is the first time. To what extent can they practically exercise their rights of appeal. Who can assist them in exercising those rights of appeal? You have a situation where there is a total divergence and discrepancy between, on the one hand, the power of the state in exercising its rights of compulsory acquisition, and, on the other hand, the power of an individual Australian family who have never gone through the process before. How do we protect their interests? This is what this chamber is meant to be doing as a house of review and scrutiny. Why resist such a reasonable proposition, which is that this is something that should be considered by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

The fourth paragraph says:

(d) identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a fair national approach to compulsory access and acquisition consultation and compensation;

Nearly every single referral to the committee I chair, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, considers, compares and contrasts different approaches with respect to a whole range of matters, whether the matter be sexual consent laws or whether it be the response of federal, state and territory governments to the tragic issue of missing First Nations women and children, as we are dealing with in a relational inquiry I'm currently conducting in my capacity as chair of that committee. On nearly every single references matter that is referred to the Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs we look at different approaches in different states and territories and form a view as to what is best practice and what we should be doing.

That's one of the benefits of this institution—the Senate. We have the ability to consider approaches at a federal level and approaches which are adopted by each of the six states and the two territories, and to make recommendations. We have that ability to take the helicopter view by virtue of our position here in the Senate, so why not take advantage of that? Why not? Then we have:

(e) measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fishers to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management; …

I came from the mining industry, and one of the key issues with regard to the acquisition of land by the mining industry is when someone is using a piece of land for some sort of agricultural purpose—how you acquire rights with regard to that land without causing unreasonable interference with the continued agricultural use of that land. It's a key issue, and many cases have gone to court in respect of whether or not compensation has been calibrated appropriately, given the disturbance to ongoing agricultural activities in relation to land in a compulsory acquisition context. That's a real live issue. We then move on to:

(f) the efficacy of consultation processes between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and Commonwealth, state and territory governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily access or acquire agricultural, Indigenous, National and marine parks, and protected environmental lands; …

I don't believe in a system where the first time that someone who holds an interest in property hears about a compulsory acquisition is when they receive something in the mail. There should be open and transparent discussion and communication with affected communities. The first time someone hears about a compulsory acquisition shouldn't be when they come home, open the letterbox and see a formal-looking letter from a state, territory or Commonwealth department. There should be consultation, and the form of that consultation, both at the community and the individual levels, is something which needs to be considered. We need to know about the extent to which local communities and landowners are not appropriately consulted before these compulsory acquisition processes are triggered. Once we know about it, we can apply pressure to make sure that appropriate practices are adopted. That's our job—it's our job as the house of scrutiny and the house of review.

So I tell senators in this chamber that we'll keep raising this issue. We'll keep speaking about it, so maybe you should reflect on whether or not you should change your minds.