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

We might come to the akubra later. Farmers, fishers, Indigenous Australians and those representing environmental lands in this country don't get to have their voices heard on this important transition. That's all we're asking for. This is a more than reasonable request. And, when you consider, for example, that in the fishery space off the south-east coast of Victoria the south-east trawl fishery land more than 20,000 tonnes of fish and are by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney, these fisheries are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine farm impacts on commercial fishing in Gippsland. What about the consumers of seafood in this country? Potentially they will have one of the most significant fisheries in this country impacted by the infrastructure that's been proposed in these regions, but they don't get their voices heard. The carpetbaggers in the wind industry do. They won't be supported by Minister Bowen or those on the crossbenches. Those whose lands are being impacted don't get their voice heard.

I happened to be in another inquiry by another committee where a member of the Greens organised for a group of Indigenous Australians to come and give evidence to that committee because they were concerned about the returns they were getting for energy developments on their lands. It was really quite instructive. They told us that they were getting paid less for energy infrastructure on their Indigenous lands, on their Aboriginal lands, than leaseholders were getting in Queensland, and they didn't think that was fair. They came to this other committee, at the invitation of a member of the Greens, to give evidence to that effect. Yet the Greens wouldn't support this inquiry, which is wanting to give that voice currency in this debate; they're not prepared to do it. We were told how they got a different price in Western Australia to what they got in Queensland. This motion seeks to understand how we can find a fair and national approach to this matter. They are very, very sensible terms of reference. They're not about saying, 'Don't do this,' but about asking, 'How do we do this?'

We know that the government are running way behind because they are handling this so badly. Had we gone ahead with motion No. 1 or perhaps motion No. 2 or even motion No. 3, we could have had this inquiry completed by now.