Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I'll make a reasonably short contribution, because I want to provide colleagues who have been attracted to the chamber following Senator Ayres's contribution, no doubt, to pursue the debate. I want to give them an opportunity because they've been moved, by Senator Ayres's contribution, to come to the chamber to share their thoughts. So well done, Senator Ayres, for attracting everyone to the chamber and adding to interest in this debate.

I just want to quickly make a few points, but before I do that I just have some introductory comments. I'm sure Senator Colbeck has been accused of many things during his long career here, but I don't think he's ever been accused of being a member of the extreme right. I think Senator Colbeck is always very measured and considered in terms of his comments, and his comments in relation to this debate were no different.

The second point I would make is that there is nothing in the terms of reference that mentions nuclear power—absolutely nothing. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about whales. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about many of the things that Senator Ayres talked about during his contribution.

The three points that I'd like to quickly make are these: first, this is an extraordinarily reasonably worded resolution. It is very reasonably worded. The terms of reference are matters that should be considered. They talk about the economy transitioning to newer, more dispersed methods of generations and storage, which is the government's own policy. This is a very, very reasonably worded resolution. It touches upon matters of keen interest to many Australians, including:

(a) power imbalance—

and there is a power imbalance; that's a fact—

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—

because this is a national issue, and I would have thought that the approach that's adopted should be a fair approach and apply across the nation equally, whether it be in Tasmania or Queensland or anywhere else. It also includes:

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

Those opposite tell us time and time again about the great job they're doing in terms of enhancing our trade markets, so tell us how you're going to make sure that those who produce the products which are then marketed overseas are going to maintain their productivity, please. It also includes:

(f) any other matter.

This is a very reasonable and considered terms of reference, as one would expect from my colleagues Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck.

The second point I want to make is this: the information that came out in the results of the work that Mr Dyer undertook are extremely disturbing. I do not think anyone reasonable could look at the results of his work and not be concerned by the fact that 92 per cent of respondents were not happy with the engagement they had from project proponents—92 per cent! That's an extraordinary figure, 92 per cent! And then 90 per cent were not satisfied with the information they had been provided or that their concerns had been addressed. Those are startlingly bad figures, and, from my perspective—and Senator Colbeck was right; Mr Dyer's work was held up by saying, 'You don't need to do this, because Mr Dyer's doing the work,' but then his work came in and heightened the need for this inquiry. It actually heightened the need for this inquiry.

The last point I'll make is this: it is the job of the Senate—it is our job—to undertake these sorts of reference inquiries. As Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I've undertaken an inquiry that was referred to our committee by Senator Roberts in relation to a royal commission on COVID-19; an inquiry referred by Senator Shoebridge of the Greens, in relation to our FOI system; and an inquiry referred by Senator Green in relation to consent laws in the sexual assault context. This is our job. It shouldn't matter if a senator belongs to any other party. If you refer a matter which deserves investigation by a Senate references committee, then I believe—this is my firm belief as someone who cares about this institution—that we should undertake that inquiry in good faith. That's why we're here.

I will keep speaking in favour of this motion as long as we keep needing to put it up, but, please, reconsider your position. This is something which should be considered.