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

Last night we had 60 farmers in the chamber who'd travelled since 1 am the previous night. They came here and sat here and listened to a debate about having some of their concerns heard and some of the concerns of native landholders heard and all sorts of concerns heard about letting landholders have their say on a committee.

They don't want to stop these things. They want just terms on land ownership. They want us to underground transmission where we can, which is something that I know we have support for. We're talking about a new power system, but we're using an old transmission line. We're taking away their rights to their land. We're taking it all the time. We heard of 77,000 hectares of land being reclaimed—the size of Bahrain and the size of Singapore. But we couldn't get it to a vote. We couldn't get it quickly enough. They waited here and they stuck it out.

This will probably go down again tonight, but we'll bring it to a vote and we will bring it back. We will bring it back and we will bring it back until they are heard, because every day these people are suffering and every day their lands are being claimed, so we will keep going.

In the interests of time, I will finish up here and hand over to other friends. Senator Canavan wants to speak. But this will come back and this will come through eventually, and thank you for that.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a very quick, short contribution. I just want to say that the best decisions are always made when they're made on the basis of advice from people on the ground, at the grassroots—local communities. Too many decisions are being made about our so-called energy transition from our large capital cities by people who have no actual on-the-ground knowledge of how their decisions impact not just people but the local environment too.

It might not shock the Senate for me to say that I'm not the world's biggest greenie, but I think I'm about to get myself fitted up for a koala suit because some of these renewable energy projects near my home town of Rockhampton are destroying our local environment, destroying local koala habitats and destroying local sugar glider habitats. It's an absolute environmental outrage. It is vandalism on an industrial scale that these projects, with government approval and often government funding, can come along and just knock off the tops of mountains to put 200 x 200 square metre pads for wind turbines.

Farmers from down the valley can't cut down a tree in the Great Barrier Reef without being accused of being criminals, but these large investors—often from overseas—can just walk in and totally destroy our local environment, with no questions asked. There must be a greater spotlight put on these practices because people are making decisions out of complete ignorance. They do not know what's going on on the ground, and it will be too late when we wake up 10 or 20 years hence and vast swathes of our wonderful, rural, green landscapes have been turned into industrial wastelands. People on the ground deserve this inquiry today. It should have been done yesterday, before we made some of these decisions, but it needs to be done as soon as possible.

I want to recognise all the people who travelled to Canberra over the past days to witness this debate. They're trying to get their voice heard. That's all they want. They just want a voice. I would implore the Senate to please give them that right and respect as Australians to have that voice and support this inquiry. I also want to recognise my colleagues in the other place, the member for Mallee, Ann Webster, and the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, but I know others as well have been working very hard on this, trying to give local constituents the opportunity to bring their concerns to their nation's capital.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are voting against this inquiry, but I just want to try and put a bit of balance into this debate about where we actually are and what the situation is as we see it. We can all disagree; that's totally fine. But let me just put where we're at on this. We think that the motivation for a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee is not about getting an outcome, and it's not a genuine and meaningful conversation. But I'm not really surprised about that. We've watched, in the last 12 months, a great interest in this all of a sudden, whereas for 10 years there was much, much less interest. We know that those opposite are driven by an anti-renewables agenda, and we know that yesterday the stunt, in my opinion, of bringing 60 farmers—which is great—and landholders—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no—finish that—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan, resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! There is a senator on his feet. Minister, a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order: opposition speakers were heard in silence while they were making their contributions; certainly while I've been here tonight they were. I'd ask that the same respect be provided to Senator Grogan.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Thank you, Minister. And senators, it can be a bit boisterous in this chamber at times. I don't partake in that behaviour myself! But I would advise: can we just hear the senators in silence, and everyone will get the chance. Senator Grogan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The stunt I refer to was informing the gallery last night of a variety of things that I think are untrue and the accusations that requests for meetings were denied. In my original inquiries to the minister's officers, they couldn't find the relevant invitations. So, I'd be keen, as I said very clearly last night outside of this chamber to members of those opposite, for them to let me know where those requests were sent. Who requested them? And let me follow them up, because the people you brought to this chamber deserve to be heard. Their views deserve to be heard. And I was offering a practical solution, which was not taken up.

You say that you care about the impacts of an industry, while you've refused for the last decade to engage in this conversation—buried your head in the sand and left these communities to fend for themselves. It took 10 years to deliver nationally consistent energy rules, changes to the market, improvements. But no, we're 22 half-there half-not-there failed policies later; we had nothing for 10 years. So, now that we are doing something, I would ask that you actually reflect on that at least with the facts.

What we've done is partner with the states and territories and the transition network providers, and together we are improving the planning, community engagement and community outcomes for all of the new electricity developments that we've put forward. As we have ageing traditional energy assets—as they reach their retirement—upgrades and new build of energy transition are essential for our energy security, essential for the future of this country and essential for delivering cleaner and cheaper energy.

Recently we expanded the funding to the office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, who works with communities. He works with people's concerns, complaints and challenges and is very well known as being great on the ground, dealing with people, working with communities, working through problems and looking for outcomes. Even members of the opposition have praised his ability to engage with communities. He has done an excellent job and is part of the consultation, engagement and improvements that we are making.

We're working to give better guidance to landholders and communities about their rights and their entitlements. We're introducing reforms for earlier and better engagement with communities by those proponents to ensure that those complaints and concerns that people have are genuinely looked at, genuinely investigated and genuinely engaged with. We're also making changes to the National Electricity Rules to clarify consultation requirements for transition developers to ensure that consultation begins at the very start of the route selection. This will absolutely improve community engagement. You only have to talk to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner for him to tell you the story about how they're moving those routes and negotiating those corridors. He has a great story to tell if you wanted to listen to it. These reforms are going to make sure that these communities will be more engaged. They will be engaged early, and their concerns will be and are being listened to.

In August 2022 the energy ministers across the country established the National Energy Transformation Partnership. That's working in partnership with the states—something that wasn't happening a lot in the last 10 years but something that we have reinstated to get better engagement, better planning and better outcomes. So this partnership makes sure that all those levels of government are working together to enhance that community engagement and working through the reforms of the electricity transmission regulations to ensure that we get the best possible outcomes. A key priority of that partnership is developing a national best-practice guideline for that community engagement to hear the voices of those people out there who are impacted.

So everyone is listening. This is exactly what we are doing: working alongside all of the partners to make sure that the people are heard. I think that the way to get an outcome is to try and find one, not to try and find some splash. Yes, I know I heckled last night, because I was incensed at what was happening—at what was being said in this chamber.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thank you very much. I didn't get a text from anyone.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan, resume your seat. Senators, interjections are disorderly. I'm struggling to follow Senator Grogan's comments.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're struggling to follow them as well!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not helpful, Senator Brockman. Senator Grogan, you have the call.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My final point is that, if those opposite genuinely wanted an outcome, they would go about it in a completely different manner. They don't want an outcome. They want to use the poor unfortunate people they brought up here as a battering ram and as a political stunt. That is how I see it and that is exactly how I saw last night playing out.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was astounding to refer to 60 farmers who travelled overnight to come to their nation's capital as a stunt. It's unbelievable. There are these protestations that ministers are super responsive and are so open to talking to constituents. I'm so glad that Senator Watt is here at the moment, because I have a series of WhatsApp messages here from someone who works for Redland City Council. They are in Canberra at the moment for the local government conference. They have a massive regional funding issue that they are here for. They have requested meetings with regards to nothing being done around a number of highly disadvantaged island communities on North Stradbroke. I will read a message out: 'Hi, we're desperately trying to get a meeting with Minister Watt for the week of 12 June. Any suggestions on the best way in? It regards disaster management, and we have tried going through NEMA'. So this council in Queensland, Redland City Council, has made requests to meet with the minister about North Stradbroke and some desperate issues that they have, with no response.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Acting Deputy President. I have a point of order on relevance. I'm not sure what that meeting request has to do with the matter that we are debating. In addition, I have this afternoon met with at least six different councils, at their request, about agriculture and disaster management. Of course, I haven't been able to meet with every single one of the 20 councils that requested a meeting, but I'm happy to arrange for someone to meet with them.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, that is not a point of order. Senator Hughes, I am ruling on what I assume you're about to stand up and call a point of order on. Senator Watt, this is not an opportunity for a debating point. In my reading, that is not entirely a point of order. But I would remind all senators of the importance of relevance. Senator Hughes, do you still wish to make a point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, thank you, Acting Deputy President. I will just conclude on the point about the message I got from the staff member at this council. Another mayor just raised with Darren Chester that ministers aren't willing to meet with local government and no-one is getting meetings.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, on a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that specific matter, I met with Mr Chester and three of his councillors yesterday afternoon.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, resume your seat! Senator Watt, resume your seat! Senators, there are multiple points of order being made on both sides. It is impossible for me to make a determination on them if I cannot hear them and two are being made at the same time. Senator Watt, do you have a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to respond at the end, but Senator Hughes is providing incorrect information to the Senate.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Misleading the Senate! You guys know all about that!

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, your interjections—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think you want to go there, Senator Hughes.

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

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senators, for me to be able to make a determination on a point of order, I need to be able to hear it. One point of order at a time, please. Senator Watt, have you concluded?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask that Senator Hughes withdraws the accusation that ministers have refused to meet with councils from the Gippsland region, because I personally did that yesterday afternoon with Mr Chester, at his request.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, resume their seats. Senator Hughes, resume your seat. If you would like to take the conversation outside the chamber, it would really assist me. I cannot hear the points of order being made if you are both seeking to make them at the same time. Please wait until I call you on your point of order. Senator Hughes, it would assist the chamber for you to withdraw your remarks.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes, you have the call.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since we have had to withdraw comments from actual constituents because they are so offensive to the minister, and it is in relation to the fact that we just heard—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are wrong.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not wrong, because this is what people who are constituents in Queensland have said to me.

Not, obviously, all the councils in Queensland who have problems, particularly those representing North Stradbroke Island—

Interjections are disorderly, Minister Watt, and I would appreciate you not yelling over women, as you are want to do. That is your speciality. We never hear you yelling over the boys. You just can't wait till the girls get up to have a go. As Senator Grogan was having a go at the fact that those farmers—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, on a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that Senator Hughes withdraw that remark. I think there are any number of male senators over there who would recognise that I am just as interventionist when they're making stuff up as I am with Senator Hughes.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking to make a point of order, Senator McKim—an actual point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to make the point that Senator Watt is an equal-opportunity yeller and interjector, in my opinion!

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, resume your seat. I am yet to rule on a point of order which has been made. I will say again: it is very difficult to make a ruling on a point of order when multiple senators are standing up at the same time seeking to talk over the top of each other. Senator Watt, can I clarify: are you requesting that Senator Hughes withdraw a specific remark?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am—the accusation that I only yell at women.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, you don't need to repeat the remark. Please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, it would assist the chamber—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. He likes to yell at everyone and interject at everyone.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, I have asked you to assist the chamber by withdrawing. It does not assist when it is done with reservations. Senator Hughes.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth hurts. Senator Grogan came in here making the point, 'Please let me know which ministers wouldn't meet with the 60 farmers that travelled all night to talk about the concerns they have about an entire new grid and power lines being put through their lands.' There was dispute from Senator Grogan that this open and transparent government was so keen to meet with constituents to understand their issues about the 22,000 solar panels needed every day, the 40 wind turbines that are going to be required every month, all those new transmission lines over productive farming land, and communities that are about to be divided because of some pipedream being chased. We know that the department, in estimates, couldn't even answer the question, 'How many solar panels have been installed since, over 250 days ago, Minister Bowen said we needed 22,000 solar panels per day and 40 wind turbines per month to meet their renewable energy target?' The department had no answer. And they have no answer, but they did say, 'We know we're a little bit behind.' They're that far behind—we know the 22,000 solar panels per day are going to be a lot more than 22,000 now because we're way behind schedule.

We also, today, heard Senator Hanson-Young come in very upset about environment minister Ms Plibersek's approvals of coalmines, because they upset koala habitats. I'm desperately waiting to hear from Senator Hanson-Young and her concerns about the 22,000 solar panels per day, the 40 wind turbines per month and this entire new grid that is going to be placed over farming land—and guess where else, for those at the end of the chamber—or through koala habitats. But we don't want an inquiry into it, with the Greens and Labor bubbling up again, making sure there's no transparency, no investigation, no surety and no care for those in rural and regional Australia. Quite frankly, most of them couldn't even find it on a map. They don't leave the coast, they wouldn't know where anything is, and they don't meet with constituents.

We hear it, all of us. I'll cast my mind to which minister has been hearing from so many groups about concerns, but we hear all the time, over here, frustrations from constituents, from farming groups, from those in rural and regional areas, from business groups, from those that are concerned about the impacts on their small businesses, from people that represent groups that manage families, from Christian schools—they were here today, very concerned about the activity over Calvary Hospital; we know you're coming for them next. Don't believe the same as Labor; they'll come for you. We hear from them regularly how it doesn't matter who they write to, who they call or how many times they try and get in touch. We know that every single Labor minister's door is shut. On top of that, Labor backbenchers—we know they hide in their offices when the Pharmacy Guild walk around here because all their businesses are about to be closed and impacted. We're about to see shortages of drugs. We're going to see a reduction in services, especially to aged-care facilities, by pharmacists, because those opposite don't believe in consultation. They believe in saying: 'This is what we're doing. We'll tell you all about it and you'd just better get on board.'

This is an inquiry to make sure that farmers' views are represented and that rural and regional communities are represented. People in rural and regional communities—they're smart enough to not vote for you lot!—deserve to be listened to. You are an absolute disgrace with the activities to block the vote from going ahead tonight. It will come back tomorrow, and guess what? You will all get together on this side of the chamber and say: 'No, we don't want to hear from farmers. We don't want to know how much farmland's going to be destroyed. We don't want to know how many koala habitats are going to be destroyed, because, in the scheme of things, we have renewable energy as the Almighty God! We used to care about the whales and we used to care about koalas'—but they're lower down on the triangle of left-wing ideology. If koala habitats are destroyed and if whale migration is absolutely upset by offshore wind, those opposite will say, 'That's not a problem for us anymore, because—guess what?—it's renewable energy.' The absolute apex of the left-wing woke ideology triangle strikes again. Once again we'll see a denial of transparency and a denial of consultation, with no information provided and a message that says: 'Take what you get. You don't vote for us, so we don't care.'

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution because I think this is a debate well worth having. I commend both Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell for what I think is a fantastic motion that addresses many of the issues with the implementation of renewables across the country. But, before I go into the detail of this particular motion and the actual inquiry, I just want to address Senator Grogan's statements that somehow we are anti-renewable. She's right; I am anti-renewable. But I am pro-environment, because, at the end of the day, renewables aren't good for the environment. They're a threat to our biodiversity and they cannot be recycled. The name itself is a lie, because you cannot recycle the concrete blocks that go into the ground, you cannot recycle the wind turbines, you cannot recycle the wind blades, you cannot recycle the solar panels and you're going to rip out large swathes of land with transmission lines.

This is the lie that we have to address—that, somehow, because you don't believe in renewables or climate change you don't care about the environment. I am very passionate about the environment. I'm a sixth-generation Australian farmer. My mother's family, the Brocks and the Pikes, grew up in the Macleay Valley near Kempsey. That is a beautiful part of the world. The Macleay River is a beautiful river, and I often stop off when I drive to Sydney. I'll always stop in Kempsey and visit the old family dairy and things like that. I strongly recommend that anyone who's driving up to northern New South Wales takes the opportunity to enjoy the beautiful Northern Rivers that go through there. My father's family moved up from Narrabri. My great-great-grandfather on my mother's side was a convict and a vagabond that was picked in Dublin and came out in 1826. My father's side moved up progressively from Victoria, through New South Wales and eventually to Chinchilla. My father, who will turn 88 on Friday, is still a farmer. He's still out on the farm, as is my brother.

So, just as I'm passionate about the environment, I'm also passionate about our farmland. I'm very passionate about our farmers because it is the farmers that feed this country, and our agricultural sector has always been the backbone of this country. It's an absolute insult to think that you're just going to walk onto their land and build all these renewables without actually properly explaining what you intend to do. Farmers are quite rightly concerned. They are very concerned. But I want to address that issue later on.

I want to come back to the fundamental issue that if you're not pro-renewable you're not pro-environment, and that's just not true. That is just not true. I have to admit that the Left have been very good at conflating the two issues. If there's one thing we have to improve on this side of the parliament, it's delineating our passion for the environment, whether it be our biodiversity, our land management, plastics in the ocean or our riparian zones. They're all things that I know this side of the chamber are extremely passionate about, and we have to fight very hard for them. But, at the same time, the greatest environmentalists in my view are the farmers and the greatest way to protect the environment is through land management. Having grown up both on a mixed farm property in Chinchilla and further out in western Queensland, I just know that some of this ideology is not actually converting to good results. There's no greater example of that than the mulga country out in south-west Queensland, where people think that locking up the mulga instead of actually pulling it is the right thing for the environment. It is not the right thing for the environment, because, when the mulga is allowed to grow, it destroys the grass underneath it. Eventually the grass dies and the ground cover seals. Then, when it rains, the water runs over the top of the ground, not into the ground. We need grass cover. Our grasses and our grasslands are just as important as our native forests and our other types of tree life.

Nothing exemplifies the complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the inner-city greenies and lefties, who supposedly want to save the environment, more than the solutions they're proposing, which are actually going to do more damage to the environment. One of the things about western Queensland and certain other areas is that you actually have to allow sunlight into the ground. If you don't, the trees will eventually block the sunlight and you will end up getting sealed ground cover. Not only that—and I know Shaun 'Zoro' Radnedge was just down from Charleville this morning—but we see shires die because these blocks of land are being sold off to foreign multinationals. They don't manage the land, so the land then gets an infestation of pests. We don't want wild pigs, wild goats and wild cats—it's just horrendous, the number of cats out there in outback Australia. I've seen a few of those big cats in my time out there, and it's amazing just how much damage they do. So we need to keep our farmers on the farmland, managing the land. That is true environmentalism, in my view.

There's this myth that somehow carbon dioxide is bad for the environment; it is actually a part of photosynthesis. I know people will mock me for saying that, but it is a natural part of the environment, and it is recycled for free through grass, trees and phytoplankton. Phytoplankton in the ocean actually absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2. It was interesting that there was an ABC article just after the bushfires in southern Australia a few years ago that even commented that there was a phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean because of all the carbon dioxide released into the environment. I think that's a much more environmentally friendly way to recycle energy, through photosynthesis, than pretending that you can recycle batteries, recycle solar panels or recycle wind blades and other sorts of things.

I just want to address some of the points in this motion and some of the issues that this committee will look at. I think that they are excellent points that need to be addressed. I'll just talk about them in any order. Unfortunately, Senator Sterle, it looks like we're not going to get it. I have to say that I'm very disappointed that it isn't coming to the rural and regional affairs committee. It looks like it's going to go to the environment committee. We're going to look at the 'terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition'. There are very, very good questions to ask here. How on earth are these transmission lines going to cross farmers' lands? What will they be compensated? Will the land be taken from the farmers? What rights do they have? That's an excellent point. 'Fairness of compensation' is another excellent point. You might say that the land is worth $500 an acre, but, if you've got a big transmission line running across your farmland and you can't—

Yes. Think about if, for some particular reason, you're no longer able to access the land or, more importantly, other people can come onto and access your land at any time. I happen to know about this because of the stories I've heard from my own home town about when the gas wells were put into farmlands in Chinchilla. A lot of people don't understand that you can't just go driving around paddocks willy-nilly. You've got to stay on the road and not drive at 80 kilometres per hour past a herd of cattle or you'll basically upset them. You want quiet cattle; you want cattle that are going to walk up to the ute and not be afraid of you. If you've got people who aren't familiar with how to treat livestock, you can actually end up upsetting your herd and making them much harder to muster because they won't want to come near human beings.

Other things that this inquiry is going to look at are 'options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition'. These are excellent points to cover here. 'Options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries'—these are excellent points.

I like this one as well: 'power imbalance between traditional owners, farmers and fishers with governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds'. Yet again my home town of Chinchilla was smack bang in the middle of all of this. Unfortunately, George Bender, my own cousin by marriage—he was married to my second cousin—committed suicide over this because felt he was shafted by the gas companies. You cannot have in small towns one farmer getting lots of money because of a good deal out of the gas company and another farmer being shafted by the gas company. It breeds tension within a small community. It's very important that everyone is compensated in a fair and equitable manner, otherwise you will breed tension between neighbours and within communities. We cannot have that.

It is not just compensation itself; it's also the neighbour. You might agree to having a transmission line or a gas well on your farm. You might want it as far away from the house as possible, so you put it on the boundary. That is obviously then going to impact the neighbour as well because it's on the neighbour's boundary as well. Do they want a transmission line or a gas well? We're experiencing that right now on the Jimbour Plains where we have perceived subsidence problems. I'm not familiar with the exact issue, but I certainly know the locals out there are concerned about it. The Jimbour Plains have some of the best cropping in Australia. They are getting subsidence. Farmers are understandably very concerned about that. We have to look at not just the people being compensated but also the impact on the neighbours and how they are treated.

What else are we going to look at here? The protection of flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on threatened species and habitat corridors. Yet again this is the crux of the issue about protecting the environment. There's this notion that somehow renewables are going to save the environment. They will not do that. It doesn't matter how many renewals you build they are not going to save the environment. If anything, they are a threat to the environment. This is interesting. I'm currently following a page on social media about the wind farms they're building off of New Jersey. A lot of whales are being washed up on the beaches there. There are more than normal. It's very difficult to prove that that is from the construction of the wind turbines. Yet again it raises the question: are we actually looking at what will happen if you go ahead and build lots of offshore wind farms in the Bass Strait and off the New South Wales coastline later on? These are legitimate concerns that should be addressed.

The Senate is a house of review. The role of the Senate is to ask questions. Yet again I put to Labor and the Greens: why are you opposing this inquiry? Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would deliver transparency, yet you don't want to go into the detail here of all of these renewables. You can't even explain how you are going to pay the cost of getting to 82 per cent renewals by 2030. Probably even more important than the cost is the actual social and environmental impacts—the impacts on both the environment and our communities.

Once the transmission lines are built and the solar panels are built they will be there for a long time. Once they have reached their use-by date, how do we get the big wind turbines transported off the land? Who's responsible for that? Is it going to be the responsibility of the farmer or is it going to be the responsibility of the energy producer? How are they going to get these massive concrete blocks out of the ground? You don't want concrete blocks sprinkled around your farmland for ever and a day, and they will be if they're not removed at the time. Good luck trying to get rid of them.

It's the same with solar panels. These things are ugly. I'm sorry, but I think these things are ugly. You might get away with it on top of the roof of a residential house, but out on the farmlands it's just disgusting. It breaks my heart to think that we're going to be littering the countryside and the environment with these things under the notion that somehow this is the way forward.

I think this is a fantastic motion. I think this inquiry is desperately needed. I'm incredibly disappointed in Labor and the Greens, because, if they genuinely cared about the environment, if they genuinely cared about regional communities, they would agree to this motion because there are legitimate concerns here that need to be addressed. I think regional Australia has every right to expect these issues to be addressed before we go ahead with this transition to 82 per cent renewables by 2030—ha, ha, ha! But that's what you guys signed up for, so show that you actually care about regional Australia, show that you actually care about the environment and actually approve this motion.

Vote for this motion, and actually put your voting power where your mouth is when you say you care about the environment, because, if you don't vote for this, this is going up on social media. I'd love to telegraph to the world, but that's all I've got. I'm going to call you out on your hypocrisy, because that's what this is. If you do not support this motion, if you do not support this inquiry, it is blatant hypocrisy on environmental concerns, on community concerns and on accountability and transparency concerns.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In following the very wise words of Senator Rennick, I want to start by reading an extract from the Western Australian government website concerning the compulsory acquisition of land. It reads:

The High Court decision of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) … held that the sovereignty of each State Parliament empowers it to take or acquire land with or without payment of compensation.

So where we have a protection in the federal Constitution of governments not being able to take property without just compensation, there is no such protection in the state constitutions. In fact, the High Court has actually found that state governments can take without compensation. So you have in this country a stated government objective reflected in significant modelling of the energy regulators that show up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines will be required, the vast bulk of which are not going to be in cities. We're not going to be suddenly knocking over suburbs in Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane or even Perth. The corridors for those transmission lines are already present in those cities. There will be no disruption to particularly the inner city but to anyone who is living in one of our capital cities. The disruption will be minimal.

Who are these up to 28,000 kilometres of new power lines going to impact? It's an obvious answer, and it's pretty obvious when you see those on our side who have been standing up and making these points. It's going to impact on the regional areas of this country. It's going to impact on particularly landholders and land managers in this country. As many people in this chamber know, very close to my heart is the impact on our farming communities, and this is not an issue that is just restricted to the 60-odd farmers that were here yesterday and who brought their concerns to the capital, to Canberra, as they rightly should have. This is a concern for farming and regional communities right across this nation, including in my home state of Western Australia. This issue will see the potential reconfiguring of much of our energy grid. If the policies put forward by the government continue and probably are even ramped up over time, we'll see an extraordinary part of the burden of this change being carried by regional communities and being carried by farmers. All this motion does, all this motion seeks to do, is set up an inquiry into the way multiple levels of government are going to deal with this issue of an extraordinary impost on local communities, an extraordinary impact, particularly, on our farming communities—20,000 kilometres and that's only the start of it.

I spoke to one company in Western Australia—my good friend Senator O'Sullivan was at the same briefing I had—which is planning on installing, over the next few years, 4,000 hectares of solar panels. That's one company. This is a burden that is not, as I say, going to be placed on the cities. It's not going to be 4,000 kilometres in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or Perth; it's going to be 4,000 hectares in the regions. That's one company. And then you need the powerlines to support those 4,000 hectares of solar panels, and then you need the wind infrastructure to balance the power requirement, and you still need the backup power, whether it be gas or diesel generators, for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Who will be the ones impacted by this significant development? It's going to be our regional communities, once again. They will bear the burden of this change—and it will be a burden. Make no mistake about that. Powerlines have never been loved. I can remember, back in my childhood, powerlines going through the periurban area where we lived at the time. They're disliked intensely by those who have to put up with them—but it's farmers, so you don't care. It's farmers, so you don't care.

The fact is that this burden is not something that's just a NIMBY attitude, a not-in-my-backyard attitude. That's not true. Farmers are not NIMBY. Farmers are actually pro development. Farmers want to see new infrastructure in their areas. They want to see reliable power supply to their areas. I could name 20 or 30 Wheatbelt communities that, right now, could have new industries moving to their towns, if only they could secure reliable power from Western Power in WA. So farmers are not against development; they just want to be consulted. They want to know where, when, how—how they are going to be compensated.

I'll go back again to the statement on the government of Western Australia's website. Under the High Court decision, compensation, when it's a state taking, does not need to be paid. Compensation at state level is voluntary. That is why Commonwealth governments have always left the heavy lifting in this area to the states. They know, if the states do it, they can undervalue it a bit; they can cut the costs. They don't even have to pay at all if they don't want to. So we have a regulatory framework that means, as this Commonwealth government, in particular, seeks to impose this vision of an energy grid upon Australia, people do have the right to be consulted. They do have the right for their representatives in this chamber to stand up and say: 'Hang on a minute. Let's just take a bit of a look at this.' We've got a particular community in Victoria who travelled overnight to be here to raise this concern. Let's step back. Let's take a look at this issue. Let's consider what we are doing in the overall picture of changing the energy grid and how this will impact individual communities.

It shouldn't be ad hoc. It shouldn't be done differently in Western Australia to Queensland to Victoria; there should be some consistency in the process, particularly as it is being driven from this place. If it was being driven from the parliament of Western Australia or the parliament of Victoria, then I would say: 'Fine. I'm a federalist. I believe that the states should determine their own destiny in this regard.' But this policy framework is being driven from this place. Therefore this place has the right—in fact, I would say beyond the right. This place has the obligation to look into what these decisions are going to do to regional communities across this state.

Again, it's not about farmers being NIMBY or landowners being NIMBY; they've got serious concerns. There's the economic loss, of course. Others have talked about that, and I won't go into that. It's about the fairness of the consultation process, the power imbalance between one or two farmers who are impacted versus those who are not directly impacted versus governments and large energy companies. Of course there's a power imbalance in that negotiation.

But it's also about other things, such as biosecurity. Biosecurity probably isn't something that most people in urban areas have to think about. Biosecurity might be something you worry about when you go through an airport check-in, or you're coming back from Bali or you're coming back from Singapore—do you have to declare something? Farmers have to think about that every day. The traceability is only getting more significant. The need to manage and control access to property, access to stock and even access to grain paddocks is extraordinary. You will now see biosecurity signs on the entry points of a vast percentage of farms in Australia, because traceability, trackability—the need to maintain and be aware of what is coming onto your property, when it's is coming onto your property, whether it's undergone proper clean-down procedures, and whether it's bringing in foreign matter from other farms, from other places in the state, perhaps even across state borders—is of paramount importance. This isn't just something that farmers put on their gates for fun. This is about them maintaining their biosecurity credentials in a global marketplace where those credentials are of increasing value. Farmers have a right to be concerned about that. They have a right to be concerned about who has access to their property, when they have access to their property, and the procedures they are taking when they come on to farming land.

It's also about burden sharing. The fact is, as I've said, that this burden is unfairly shared. Wholesale suburbs will not be knocked over in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Perth. New electricity corridors will not be created in those cities. They already exist and they will be utilised. Perhaps the capacity will be increased. But we are talking about up to 28,000 kilometres of electricity lines being imposed on regional areas, who certainly didn't ask for them. As I said, regional areas aren't against development. They quite like development, and they'd like to see it. But we need a process by which that is done in a fair way, in which the burden and the rewards of that investment are shared fairly across the community, and a recognition is given of that contribution that is being made by those regional communities to this entire process, because we also have other burdens coming from the suite of measures the government is talking about.

We have the companies that are involved in the safeguard mechanism. Considering how they are going to meet these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, one of the ways they're considering is the purchase of agricultural land—locking it up, turning it into sequestration zones. That could have a potentially damaging impact on regional communities right across this country. If we see the wholesale move of productive agricultural land into sequestration zones then this could fundamentally undermine the economic viabilities of hundreds of communities across this country and leave farming communities smaller and less financially viable. And just as you see large mining companies, for example, buying up agricultural land, that of course that leads to a loss of population in those areas.

So the transmission lines, the solar panel, the sheer amount of land that is potentially going to be required to be put under solar panels all have impacts on our regional areas. They all require significant investigation. And then the flow-on impacts, again, of the other parts of this policy mix that we are seeing from this government, which has the potential to absolutely devastate agricultural production in this country, must be looked at by this place. We can't pretend that these things are not real, that they're not going to have real consequences on businesses, on families and on communities in the regions of Australia. They will. And this Senate has every right to look at this narrow set of issues.

It's not a highly political reference. It's not seeking to embarrass the government in any particular way. It's a straightforward reference. The fact it's been knocked back three times already, I believe—it's just beyond belief that the government are so embarrassed that they would not be able to support what is a genuine inquiry that literally hundreds of farmers, thousands of farmers, across this country and other land users have been making to senators in this place. The fact that they're not willing to even take this very small step of having a Senate inquiry into this issue beggars belief. It really is something that this Senate has an obligation to look at. I understand there won't be a division tonight, so I urge the government to really have a think about this, as to why they are voting against what is a perfectly reasonable motion.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion be put. A division is required, and, therefore, it is deferred until tomorrow.