Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this excellent proposed reference because it is the extraordinary rush by this government to meet its target for 82 per cent renewables that has to be so carefully considered right across this country by the landholders who are affected, as Senator O'Sullivan has already referred to, by the neighbours of the landholders who are affected and by the people who are so uncertain about what this means. Whether it be for their business enterprise, for their agricultural activity or for their mining activity, or they have just moved into a region with all the attributes that were previously required like the native habitat—whatever it might be—it is all threatened by this incredible rush to meet these renewable targets without a plan. We all know that without a plan you have a plan to fail. All that this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee is doing is seeking to get everybody in the same room to start talking about what the issues are: tenure, compensation.

Only Queensland really has a structured compensation program for power lines. What about for agricultural land, particularly intensive, high-quality agricultural land? What about regions like that around Gympie and Borumba Dam? This is a community that has already been through land reclamations for dams. They need a very clear outline from government about what's going to happen.

It doesn't matter where I go; communities are asking questions. Why is it that there are different standards for renewable programs for transmission lines than for other economic developments? I was speaking to a landholder, at the Heart of Australia Gala Dinner on Saturday night, who asked: 'Where is the plan for solar panels? If a storm or "minicyclone" comes through, does that mean we will get fragments of glass through the Murray Darling catchment?' These are very valid questions from the community. They want to know how they can plan in this environment, because it is a huge commitment that this government is heading towards. Eighty-two per cent renewables is something that has never been considered in any other country in the world. I think, after several years of real commitment, we're down from 82 per cent to about 80 per cent coal and gas-fired power. This is for billions of dollars of investment and subsidies into solar and wind farms, but that's as far as we've got. This concept of getting to 82 per cent is extraordinary and it does need a serious project plan to understand the impacts on the competing land uses that they're talking about. We know that in some parts of Australia, land tenure is terrifically problematic. Certainly, in places that I deal with in Northern Australia, the different sorts of tenure are incredibly complex, making it almost impossible to build a house—much less to build a significant infrastructure project through some of these regions.

I just think that this proposed reference committee is a very basic, simple approach to getting on with the business of Australia's future energy requirements. As I look through the provisions, it is very practical. It does cover a number of different portfolio areas, which is something that, in government, we don't do terrifically well. We don't always get across the issues of interactions between different policies—to see energy talking to agriculture, to the environment department, to mining and industry, to native title holders and to different jurisdictions. This is a very eminently sensible plan. I would be absolutely delighted if we could see the government agree to support this sort of planning. I think that the government is very keen on a review, a white paper and all sorts of inaction. This kind of action, actually planning what's going on, could only serve to benefit Australians, the regions and, of course, the industries that are most affected.

It is incredibly difficult for individuals to negotiate on transmission lines or individual projects like renewables. So I was very proud of the work that was done under the LNP government in Queensland with the CSG industry and the introduction of the GasFields Commission Queensland. That allowed landholders to go to an independent third party and say: 'I've been offered this contract. Does that stack up with what you're seeing for other contracts in the region? Is this reasonable? Can I ask for this? Is this not enough to be asking for?' It settled the uncertainty and made it much more straightforward for individual landholders to negotiate. It meant that their neighbours knew what was in these contracts and what was available.

That also allowed them to feel much more confident about the decisions that were being made.

Of course, it's now well known that the CSGM industry in Queensland has provided great wealth to those regions. We have farmers and landholders who I talk to who have been able to afford to de-risk their property, who have been able to receive an income during drought years as well as good years and who have, fabulously, been able to send their children away for higher education. One family I spoke to the other day had one child doing medicine, one child teaching and a third child who they've been able to afford to bring back onto the property and who has been able to continue his dream of being a farmer. It's meant that the lady of the household, the business partner, has also received a well-paid job and has been able to pay for somebody to come and clean her house. I think we all enjoy when we don't have to do some of those tasks.

This is the sort of thing that comes from a well-planned agreement and understanding about the impact of these kinds of nationwide projects. What does it mean for an individual business or activity? How does it fit within that community? How does the community benefit from that as well? How do you leave that region richer rather than poorer from that sort of engagement? Unfortunately, we've heard some pretty horrifying stories around New England about some wind projects going in and talking to landholders with no provision for remediation of the towers. It is shocking to hear that, for example, after a 25- or 30-year project, the landholder would potentially be left with that kind of infrastructure to be remediated. It would require cranes. There's a significant amount of concrete. We're seeing up on the Atherton Tablelands blades that have been damaged on removal or coming up being dumped into ravines or into landfill, and that's not okay. That's not what Australians are expecting these renewable projects to do. It's not the standard that we expect to be set.

Unless we have oversight and a nationwide discussion about what this means for individual landholders; for individual businesses; for agriculture, mining and national parks; for native title holders; for environmental regions—unless all of these things are discussed, put on the table and planned, we will end up with a patchwork of different scenarios across the country. Some will be good and some will be bad. When there are bad ones, we are left with communities that are fractured and unhappy, and that will happen for generations. We will end up with places that were previously very successful—harmonious and industrious, agriculturally successful—and are completely broken, and that is a tragedy.

We're seeing in Queensland and right across the country that, when we have natural disasters, whether they be bushfires, floods or even droughts, it is when a community works together that you can get great outcomes for the people who live in it. I do believe that we are all here because we believe in the people we were sent here to represent. I do believe that, despite being out on election days and having people come in and say we're all the same, the one thing that does bind us is that we do believe in better outcomes for our people. This is a way to get better outcomes for our people not just in the region that each of us comes from but right across the country, because we can do things better, but we do need to elevate it into the sort of inquiry that the Senate can have.

A Senate inquiry can be broad ranging. It can call for new witnesses as the inquiry goes on. It can provide the sort of advice and deep dive into topics that would leave the country better off. And so, like Senator O'Sullivan, I most sincerely hope that the words that have been spoken in support of this reference motion are heard by the government and members of the crossbench and that we can genuinely all join together to do something, to build a community that is in the nation's interest and will allow all communities to benefit from these significant investments.

We are talking about billions of dollars. Unless there is serious planning by government, it will be left to be negotiated by big companies. Big companies coming in from Italy and Spain in particular are the ones that I'm seeing in the north. They receive significant government subsidies, and they will be going where they think the best outcome for them will be. I've seen planning maps where proponents have not been able to negotiate over an individual farm or environmental site and so they've done a big dogleg around it. That's okay so long as there is whole-of-project planning on that. But what it can do is then push the project into some smaller property where there's somebody who's less equipped to negotiate or doesn't know that they can negotiate. In North Queensland, property owners have come to me and said: 'I didn't know that I could reject this. I didn't know that I could negotiate it. Now I'm left with a property that's cut in half, and I've not been able to negotiate for additional help to build new dams or fences or to fence off the nature refuge that's been agreed with government.'

This is important stuff. As a Senate, we can do this. We can elevate issues in a way that the House can't. We can do it in a way that individual departments can't. Ministers can't do this work. So this is the appropriate place to have a discussion about how to manage this sort of infrastructure planning. I believe it has been rushed. It's been jammed into communities. It's creating division. It's creating bad outcomes for individuals who aren't equipped and resourced to negotiate these things. We're being left with what will be future environmental disasters. We are left with economic disasters.

In Hughenden we refer to the 12 wind towers up there as 'the 12 apostles'. There's been talk of turning them into accommodation; there's been talk of turning them into a whole range of things. They were built with significant government subsidies but couldn't be plugged in because there was never a negotiation with the state government about upgrading the transmission line to take the intermittent energy that would be generated by the wind towers. Unfortunately, they're right on the highway, so they're a reminder to everybody who drives that way, every day, of what failure of planning looks like. That was a failure of planning between state and federal governments. That is a project that went broke—all of those government subsidies and taxpayer dollars disappeared—and it has been bought by a new organisation, which is trying to negotiate an outcome.

I highly commend this reference to the Senate. I think it's an important piece of work.