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

For the 10th time, I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move:

That, noting the importance of ensuring the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments, the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024:

(a) power imbalance between indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and government and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds;

(b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition;

(c) fairness of compensation;

(d) options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition;

(e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and

(f) any other matter.

They say persistence pays off. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but I genuinely hope so. This matter clearly has a history over a considerable period of time now and has been debated a number of times in the chamber. In my view—and I don't think I'm misrepresenting Senator Cadell—this is an important matter for our communities, and the communities, particularly in regional Australia, that we represent deserve to have their voices heard in this place. Farmers have come to Canberra on a number of occasions seeking support and for their voices to be heard—and they should be heard.

This is not an unreasonable motion. It is not a motion that is against infrastructure supporting the national electricity grid. It is a motion that recognises we are undertaking a significant transition in this country that will require additional transmission, that will require access to agricultural land, Indigenous land, environmental lands and marine environments, but seeks a process that will put in place just terms and a fair and national approach to the development of that infrastructure. That's what this motion seeks. It's not anti-anything except unfairness.

With previous iterations of this motion, we have been told by those opposite: 'You don't need to worry. We are going to establish our own inquiry, our own process, and we will organise for Mr Andrew Dyer, the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, to conduct an inquiry around the country to look at this issue. You don't need to worry. There's nothing to see here. It'll be fine.' Mr Dyer did his work. He travelled the country. He had a lot of meetings. He discussed things with farmers. He talked to communities around the country. But that inquiry that we were assured by the government would resolve all the issues did nothing of the sort. In fact, when that inquiry came back the report confirmed there were chronic problems.

A survey showed that a staggering 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of engagement from project developers. It didn't matter whether they were a farmer who just didn't want it or somebody who supported the development but still couldn't get some straight answers. I have had a conversation with someone who is a dead-set supporter of infrastructure across his farm but has had seven changes of path across his land, and he's growing weary of the fact that he can't get sensible answers. The survey also found that more than 90 per cent of people were dissatisfied with the information being provided or their concerns being resolved. It's not a bad record so far. The government tells us: 'This'll be fine. Mr Dyer will do his work and resolve all the problems.' But 92 per cent are not satisfied with the engagement and 90 per cent are not satisfied with the information being provided or having their concerns resolved.

But the really disappointing thing about the report is that it did nothing to provide solutions, which is what this motion is looking to do. This motion is looking to provide solutions—'options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition' and 'options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries'.

This motion is seeking a Senate inquiry, firstly, so that the voices of regional Australia, Indigenous communities and those representing environmental lands can be heard because the government's not listening and also to provide some solutions as to how we might sensibly progress this important infrastructure. The report contains no commentary on tax treatment of payments, compensation or equitable process for negotiation of access and payment regimes, all which need attention and all which are creating friction across the country. Minister Bowen doesn't want anyone to talk about this, and Minister Watt won't stand up to Minister Bowen—or has no currency in cabinet, I don't know—and is not prepared to stand up for farmers. We heard during question time today that he's quite happy to close down parts of agriculture in this country, as the agriculture minister. He doesn't have what it takes to stand up for farmers.