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

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The adequacy and fairness of process and compensation to acquire compulsory access to agricultural land, Indigenous land and marine environments for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to:

(a) power imbalances between Traditional Owners, farmers and fishers with governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds, to:

  (i) ensure community benefits are delivered with ongoing supports for communities, including First Peoples.

  (ii) ensuring proponents and governments obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent of First Peoples and the protection of cultural heritage.

  (iii) protection of flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on threatened species and habitat corridors.

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

(c) fairness of compensation;

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

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

(f) any other matter.

This is the coalition's fourth attempt to have an investigation into what I have to say I don't regard as controversial circumstances. We are seeing in this country a significant, required change in land use as a result of the government's proposals for significant investments in renewable energies, and those land use changes and the requirements of that are having a significant effect. Farmers don't often down tools and come to Canberra, but they're here in the gallery today because they are grumpy, and deservedly. I don't blame them. I've sat down on farms where large proportions of the farms are now unusable because of new powerlines going through their property and their centre pivot irrigator will only be able to be used on half the paddock, and these are significant investments. They're investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in their centre pivot irrigators and their equipment, and their properties are becoming unusable. We're seeing this right across the country, and it's not just on agricultural land, as we see from the farmers who are here today to put their case. I congratulate them on the work that they have done in this place today to get a motion agreed that might have some chance of success on its fourth attempt.

Why is it controversial to understand the power imbalance between traditional owners, farmers and fishers and big power companies and big governments? Why is it controversial to consider that? Why is it controversial that there should be fair terms and conditions consistent across the country for that compulsory access? Why is that controversial? Why should this chamber, this Senate, not investigate that? Why is it controversial that there should be fairness of compensation? It's not. That's what these communities who've come here today are seeking. That's what they're asking for. That's all they're asking for, yet, three times now, this government with the Greens have voted against it. There's another chance today.

We know that the minister for agriculture met a cow in the last few days. I hear it didn't go too well!

An opposition senator: Did he know what it was?

I'm not sure he knew which end stuff goes in and which end stuff comes out. I'm not sure he understands that. I did suggest they should take him down to see the member for Braddon's Angus bull—he's a beauty. I'm not sure that the minister would want to get in the same paddock. I'd be happy to, but I'm not sure the minister would. But what's clear is the minister doesn't have what it takes to stand up to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He's the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's doormat. Every time we bring this up, there is lots of cooing from people on the other side who have some sympathy for the agriculture sector but the Minister for Climate Change and Energy says: 'I don't want to know. I don't care about the farmers. I don't care about the fishers. I don't care about Indigenous owners. We're not doing this.'

It's interesting that in another committee that I sit on we had evidence from Indigenous owners around the country who came to say they have an interest or control 54 per cent of Australia's landmass. They came to the committee to express their concern about these developments. Indigenous landowners in this country came to give evidence, and their evidence was that, in Queensland, there are different rates for pastoralists than there are for traditional owners. Why is it controversial that we should inquire into that? That's the evidence that was given to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth in their inquiry into making Australia a green energy export superpower.

Off the south-east coast of Victoria, South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association says in their submission to Mr Bowen and Minister Watt that the South East Trawl Fishery lands 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 wind farm impacts on the commercial fishing in Gippsland. Why is it controversial that this chamber should look into that? Clearly, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy doesn't care about farmers, and you have to question whether the minister for farmers actually cares himself because he hasn't got what it takes to stand up to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He doesn't care about the impacts on fishers and their businesses and industry, and clearly he's not interested in the impact on Indigenous Australians, who've also come to this place, just like the farmers and the landholders in the gallery tonight, to express their concerns. Why is it controversial? Why should it take four attempts to look at what is not a controversial issue but is a matter of fairness for growers, for fishers and for Indigenous Australians around this country? Why is it controversial, and why won't the Labor Party support, for the fourth time, what is a reasonable request for us to make?

They're uncontroversial terms of reference. They're not saying we don't want to see the development; we just want to look at the power imbalance. We want to look at the terms and conditions. We want to make sure they're fair and equitable across Australia. And we just want fishers, farmers and First Nations people to get a fair go. That's why those people are sitting in the gallery this afternoon. That's why they've come to Canberra. That's why they've put their lives on hold and their farm activities on hold. They don't come here lightly. But they're here tonight. They've sat in the gallery for ages. they want to see some fairness, and they want the opportunity to have their say before a Senate inquiry, and those opposite should support them.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to give a big shout-out to primary producers from my home state of Victoria and the state of New South Wales. Some have been up since 1 am. They got on buses and travelled thousands of kilometres to make sure this place knows what they are going through in areas far, far away, in areas that many in this chamber and the other won't have ever heard of, places like Boort, Rupanyup, Saint Arnaud, Charlton, Donald—I could go on and on, but I know there's limited time. I just want to give a huge shout-out. There are 60 farmers—and I can see the next generation of primary producers in the pram in the gallery!—here representing thousands that could not actually take the time off property to come up. Thank you. We hear you. And we know that you are making your presence felt right across the parliament today.

The big hoax is that net zero was going to be net zero pain. The reality is that certain people and certain industries are going to do much more of the heavy lifting than others in Australia, and those opposite didn't want to have that conversation. It was the coalition—the Liberal Party and particularly the National Party—who said: 'It's not going to be net zero pain. There are going to be certain communities and certain industries that are going to be more heavily impacted—high energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing, agriculture and the like.' That's why we put forward, along with our plan for net zero by 2050, a plan to support these communities, to seize and harness the opportunities that that transition will bring and to overcome the challenges. This is support that the Labor Party cut in their first budget, in October.

We now know the communities that have come to Canberra today are just the first tranche of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines crisscrossing this country as we electrify everything from our cars to our cooktops. We pull wind farms and solar farms right across our beautiful prime agricultural land, and no-one is talking about what that's going to do for food production and what that's actually going to do for food security not just for us—we explore 80 per cent of what we grow—but for the countries that purchase it. We are not against renewables. We are not against a net zero by 2050 position, but it has to be fair, and there has to be an acknowledgement that the impact is going to be felt differently for some people.

I just want to go to the former chief scientist's view of the future:

Think forests of wind farms carpeting hills and cliffs from sea to sky. Think endless arrays of solar panels disappearing like a mirage in the desert.

This is Finkel, who's no stranger to transition to net zero, telling people of the reality of what that will actually look like, which is something that this parliament hasn't wanted to actually grapple with. What are we going to do with prime agricultural land? What are we going to do with private property rights? What about biodiversity and the impact of these transmission lines, not just on primary producers and their communities but on the water tables, on the ecology of systems where they're being put? What is the social licence?

You on that other side can sneer, but do you know what is actually happening? You are purchasing land. You are absolutely not giving landholders the right to appeal. There is not fair consultation or compensation. That is actually what's happening. These are sensible questions that a house of review in a liberal democracy like ours should be able to ask.

We've sat here for two hours and listened to all the reports the Senate has delivered today on a vast variety of topics of interest to people here and outside in the community. But the nine million of us who do not live in capital cities deserve to have the interests of our communities investigated by this place. And for the fourth time we come to the Senate and we say: 'Please hear us. We're on the renewable journey. We want sustainable communities and a sustainable future. Why don't you just let us have the conversation and let people come and put their views forward?'

So to Barry, Batters, Bill, Glenda, Jason, Marcia and all the others, thank you so much. These are the faces and places that actually have to deal with the impact of the decisions that are made in this chamber, because we're not carpeting Brunswick with solar panels and wind farms and we're not carpeting Kooyong. No, no: they can afford their $60,000 electric vehicles, but the people that produce our food and the people that back our capacity as a nation to do stuff are the ones left picking up the pieces. All they're asking is that this chamber agree to hold an inquiry so we can understand the impacts and make some recommendations to government that will mean the next tranche of rolling out these transmission lines across this country will be better than what's happening now. I commend this motion to the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.

People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it's not just the city people paying for power; it's rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.

I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you're showing is democracy in action. You're putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.

Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government's plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN's 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities.

Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability.

The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers.

Queensland Premier Palaszczuk's plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It's absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where's the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project?

It's a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you're wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that's the reason they're called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they're called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That's why they're renewables.

Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that's less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That's why we need this inquiry to explore this issue.

One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians' backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let's look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It's a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.

The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what's going on with the Victorian government. They're suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There's strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling.

This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there's China's environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: 'Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.'

I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too acknowledge the people in the gallery. Thank you so much for driving up here and showing your commitment to your landscape and to your environment. As Senator Roberts said, this issue is not limited to Victoria and New South Wales. I've also received letters from regional Queenslanders objecting to power lines going through the Borumba national park and the catastrophic effects that such lines will have on wildlife and plant life—all in the name of connecting an as yet unbuilt $14 billion pumped hydro project that itself has minimal community support.

I want to note the importance of what you're doing today—because sometimes people listen. In 2021, Transgrid was forced to have an independent review of the footprint that its proposed HumeLink was going to have and the route that it was going to take. This review found that Transgrid's projects and processes did not meet best practice, and they got sent back to the drawing board. What has come out since does not satisfy everyone's needs but it is certainly a far better proposal than the original one. Had it not been for the work of the communities—the HumeLink Action Group and others—that project would have a 150-kilometre larger corridor than it now proposes.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are asking for, Senator Grogan, is that these people have the opportunity to be heard. You won't even listen to them.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are riding roughshod over those people and their concerns. You won't even listen to them.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Davey, please take your seat. I've called the Senate to order. I know that we're getting very close to the end of the time for this debate, but I remind all senators that interjections are always disorderly and ask those senators with the call to please direct their remarks through the chair. Senator Davey, you have the call.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I also want to refer to a report from April this year by former Powerlink COO Simon Bartlett and the Victorian Energy Policy Centre's Bruce Mountain, where they slammed AEMO's VNI West transmission line project, which will go across a lot of the areas that these farmers are from, as a 'monumental mistake'. Their report says there are other options, including using existing corridors. These people from these communities would like those other options explored, and that is what we are proposing by this Senate inquiry. We are not saying absolutely no to transition lines, but we are saying we need to review the processes that have been put in place. We need to understand and we need to let these people be heard so that we can ensure, unlike the first iteration of Transgrid, that best practice is followed.

The minister refused to meet with these farmers today. Shame on the minister. We are saying: let the Senate chamber listen to the concerns of the communities and the people who are going to be impacted. The people are going bear the burden and the brunt of this race to net zero before we have in place a proper pathway or even considered the option of nuclear power. We see the price of copper going through the roof and a worldwide shortage of copper, but somehow we're going to miraculously criss-cross copper right across this country. I commend this inquiry to the Senate.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we were talking about covering an island like Tonga in something, there'd be outrage, with people looking into it and calls for the Australian government to act. But we are talking about stages 1 and 2 of this transmission line, which is 10,000 kilometres long and 77,000 hectares in area—it is the size of Tonga. It is the size of Singapore; it is the size of Bahrain. But, because it's on our land and because it affects these poor people up in the gallery, we don't care. We don't care about our own backyard. We don't want to talk about it or investigate it or look at options. We're just going to tell them to do the right thing and shut up. This is not why this place is here. That is not why we should be here. We aren't talking about legislation that will change something; we're talking about any inquiry to hear something. These people have not gone away. They were in the gallery at five o'clock to hear this debate. They hoped it would go longer. They hear all these things go on. I've got about 15 seconds left, so I say to these people who were here today: we have heard you, we have seen you and we will fight for you. If they shut this down today and if they do not vote for this tomorrow, we will be back. We won't go away. We will stay here and business of the senate on Tuesday will be known as 'transmission Tuesday' until this bill passes.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cadell, the debate is adjourned and you will be in continuation.