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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Colbeck, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

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

(a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments 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 the 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.

Here we are again, transmission Tuesday. I said it would come. This is the fifth time we've moved a similar motion to this. They say stupidity is doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. I call it hope. There are people out there who need this. We're not asking to change legislation. We're asking to talk about these things. There are so many consequences to what transmission lines, to what gas pipelines and to what so many things do from compulsory acquisitions, and they all hurt rural Australians. They hurt rural towns. They hurt cultural lands. But the power of divested compulsory acquisition is absolute. We want a balance so that landholders, rights holders and traditional owners can have a say, can have a balance—nothing more. Come and tell us your stories.

We hear of transmission towers getting ever bigger, up to 174 metres. We hear of the consequences getting ever bigger. But these people are shut down. They don't have a voice. They can't have a say. Regional and rural Australia is becoming the kicking bag for everything in this country. If you want to own regional and rural land, it's the best way to have no say in what you own. 'We will make it an E zone. We will tell you what you can plan. We can tell you what you can grow. We will tell you what land we are taking off you. We will take that land and do what we want with it. You'll have to consult with every other person around you, some of whom wouldn't know your land, on what you want to do.' But it is your land. It is land you have paid for, and land where you are having your rights taken away from you.

That is not good enough. You deserve a voice if you have your land. And that is what we're asking for today. We want to give you that voice. If the evidence is so great from when you come to this committee and tell us what is going on, the government will need to change the laws because it is obvious. And let's get to what we're looking at here. We're looking at the possibility of undergrounding lines where that's possible.

We are looking at different routes where that is possible. We are looking at whether it is needed, because the consequences are so great. We're looking at unintended consequences. If you get a transmission line through your property through compulsory acquisition, you have no choice; it is dedicated as off-farm income. What happens if there's a bushfire? What happens if there's a flood? What happens if anything happens? What happens if there's a drought and you no longer qualify for government assistance because your off-farm income is a greater proportion than is allowed? No-one has considered this. No-one is looking at this. What happens if the upfront money puts you in a different tax bracket. All these things and the way things are done need to be looked at.

I heard and I listened with intent to Senator Cox just now say that it is never right when there's a top-down approach to these things. It is the same for us. These things need to be done with consensus. There will always be a problem where we can't fix everything, a problem where something is difficult or where something is hard. We get that. We will never ever get 100 per cent, but we need to try. We need to aim for it because, if we aren't aiming for best practice, we are deciding to fail.

So we are here today again, asking that rural and regional Australia, traditional owners of land and environmental land be given a voice in how we do this. We hear about the just transition authorities that will look after workforces in these areas. But if you're a landholder you are left out of that. You don't deserve a just transition. You don't deserve a look at how this works, how it affects you and what happens. And remember the numbers from last time. We are talking about stage 1 and stage 2 requiring 77,000 square kilometres. That is the size of Singapore or Bahrain. They're just going to take that land in Australia. And let's not forget stage 3 of Rewiring the Nation, which is 28,000 kilometres—it is almost three times as big as that.

Are we saying that this is the way to look after the environment of Australia? This is not the way to look after the environment of Australia. This is the way to look after towers in Brisbane and in Marrickville and in Melbourne. When you want your power, when you want your 400 flat screens in a tall building, when you want your 200 electric cars powered downstairs, the bush can pay. Why? Let's get down to it: it is because they have no power, because they are spread out, because they are vulnerable and because they don't vote Labor and they don't vote Green.

I think Ms Webster in the other place had some people show up at a protest when the Prime Minister was there, and suddenly there's a bit of an inquiry—not a real inquiry, a bit of an inquiry. We hear that they're going to refer this to the electricity infrastructure ombudsman to have a look at it. That's not a public inquiry. That's not a real inquiry. That's a cover-up. In St Arnaud yesterday, a public meeting was shut down when there were questions asked. I have been told that—I don't know it, so if I'm wrong I'll say so—but, if that is true, that is exactly what we are talking about.

Back in the 2000s, people were hailing the movie An Inconvenient Truth. This is the inconvenient truth: there are real victims of what you are doing, and you don't want to hear about it. You don't want to give them a voice, and you don't want to see it because it will bring into question what we are doing—and it is wrong. Bringing these people here is asking the question. We had 60 farmers up there who travelled through the night last time this came up. If we lose today, we'll be back again later with something until the right thing is done. Nothing less is deserved. This is not something that should be in question. We should all be supporting this. It shouldn't need a debate. It shouldn't need a division. It should be: 'That is fair.' What's going on here is politics.

In a different debate the other day, I said—I like it and I'll say it again—leadership shouldn't divide; leadership should unite. What we have here is a government policy dividing the powerful and the powerless over power. The politics are that you don't count if you live in a region, so you can shut up and go home—and that is wrong.

We need to do the right thing at every stage. Those of you in this chamber know that I don't rally behind stuff. I don't go off on rants. I don't do those things unless it is warranted. And here it is. Something so very simple: a reference to an inquiry, to see what is going on. If I'm wrong, if I'm making this up, then it's bad on me. Ross is full of rubbish. I'll take that. But we know that we are not. This is happening and we are watching it, and this government is standing by, not only letting it happen but facilitating it happening.

As it gets worse, we see this government building a Ponzi scheme of policy mistruths. When things are failing, when wind farms are not getting there, when the Kurri Kurri hydro plant is not getting there, when all of the things aren't getting there, we just promise more. We'll never deliver these things. We will not get there, but we'll promise more because that is the way of diverting from what is really happening. When we see farmers losing agricultural land to towers, when we see environmental lands bulldozed for these 150-metre wide easements, when we see all of this happening, when we see pipelines going through private lands—and with the state governments, Victoria can reroute an entire section of their plan because it is politically inconvenient.

These people want to be part of the future of our country. If we are to rewire, if we are to go renewable, bring them with us. Let's not fight them. Give them a say to find a better way to do this right. We are living with cost of living. I get that. That's precious. But doing this twice is more expensive than doing it once, doing it right and doing it with consensus. That is all we're asking: find a way forward for these people. I urge all of you today: just consider giving them a voice. There's nothing more. That's all we ask.

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

Again, we bring this matter, which, quite frankly, as Senator Cadell has said, should not be controversial. This should not be a controversial issue. I said that in the debate on this matter last time. We're looking to understand the power imbalance between farmers, fishers, governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire land. We know that that's happening across the country. We had 60-odd farmers here in the gallery the last time we talked about this. They don't come to Canberra for nothing. Farmers don't shut up shop and come to Canberra for no reason at all. They're coming here because they're concerned about their rights. All this seeks to do is to give them some voice. There's a lot of discussion about voice in the broader debate at the moment, but these farmers aren't being allowed to be heard. We're asking for a Senate inquiry, for heaven's sake. That's all we're asking for.

It shows how two-faced the government, the Greens and some on the crossbench are on this issue—how fundamentally two-faced they are. I was reading an article a couple of weeks ago from Far North Queensland: 1,000 hectares of native vegetation to be cleared for a wind farm. There is no mention of a koala or a greater glider from the Greens in this debate. If you want to build a wind farm, go for your life. If you wanted to harvest and regenerate a thousand hectares of forest in Queensland, Tasmania or Victoria, there's no way known that you would be allowed to do it. In Victoria, you can't. It's been banned. In Western Australia, it's been banned. You can't do it. Build a wind farm? Go for your life. What hypocrites. What complete and utter hypocrites.

What we're asking for, through this motion, is to conduct a Senate inquiry so that we can suggest sensible terms and conditions for compulsory acquisition of land, access for farmers and Indigenous owners and fairness of compensation.

Why is this controversial? Why have Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock now voted against this four times? Why have they done that four times? Why is it controversial to have options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers, fishers, Indigenous Australians to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries? It is because the minister, Mr Bowen, doesn't want to have the conversation. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt—a doormat—hasn't got what it takes to stand up to him. As I said, if you want to harvest and regenerate a thousand hectares of forest under our world-renowned forestry standards, you can't do it. If you want to knock over a thousand hectares of forest for a wind farm next to a World Heritage area, go for your life! What complete and utter hypocrisy. And this place, this chamber, can't give a voice to the farmers, to the fishers and to the Indigenous Australians.

In another inquiry that I'm participating in through the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, the Greens asked some Indigenous Australians to come in to talk to us, concerned that they were getting paid less for access to their land for these sorts of projects, so that this information could be put on the public record. So it's not as if they're not really interested. And the evidence from this group was from a Doctor O'Neill.

As I said in my answer to a previous question, there are several broader trends, and certainly what the lawyers are telling me at the moment is that people in Western Australia are getting paid a lot more than people in New South Wales and Queensland. I've also heard that in Queensland, pastoralists are getting paid more per installed capacity rate than traditional owners are. So there are different rates. But the Greens, having asked someone to come to put this evidence on the public record, as they've done, won't vote for this inquiry that will give us—this chamber, the Senate—the opportunity to investigate that and suggest a fair system for compensation. They're voting against this. Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Another farmer in New South Wales—we're told about climate change, we're told about the risk of fires—has a 3,700-acre property at Mulla Creek in north-east New South Wales. They've worked it and it's going to be cut in half by powerlines. The airstrip on their land that is used to fight fires will be made inoperable by the lines running through the farm. Lecture us about climate change, bushfires and the impact of climate change. Farmers are trodden all over. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. It's two-faced. It's a disgrace. In other parts, the compulsory acquisition letters are being left in black bags pinned to the fence. Farmers turn up and there's a document sitting on the gate.

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

It's recyclable.

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

Oh, it's recyclable! Well, that's important! Compulsorily acquisition letters have been sent to landowners along the Central Coast.

When it comes to our fishers—in Commonwealth territory, I might add—Minister Watt doesn't have what it takes to stand up for them or let them have their say. The South East Trawl Fishery, where there are huge zones proposed for offshore wind, lands more than 20,000 tonnes of fish. It's by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney. These fisheries are likely subject to 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts on commercial fishing. What are the terms of compensation for these fishers? They don't even get a run-in with respect to what's happening in the state regulations. They don't get a look-in. Who cares?

Now, of course, the Greens don't like commercial fishing. They'd rather have a marine park—lock it up; don't use it. Twenty thousand tonnes of fish is a significant contribution to the local economies around the south coast of my home state of Tasmania, but we're not allowed to look at that. They voted against it four times—four times!

All we want to look at is:

The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines …

That's all we want to do. Senator Pocock won't vote for it. The Greens won't vote for it. And because Minister Bowen doesn't like it, doesn't want somebody scrutinising what's going on, doesn't want farmers to have a voice, and because Minister Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up to him—he's just trodden on, walked over—we do what Minister Bowen says. Farmers don't get a voice. Fishers don't get a voice. Fascinatingly, Indigenous Australians don't get a voice. They have some sort of control or rights over almost 50 per cent of the landmass, but they don't get a voice.

All we're looking to do is understand what is a fair and reasonable compensation process for those that are going to be impacted. Why is that controversial? Why is it possible to cut down and clear 1,000 hectares of land next to a World Heritage area for a wind farm—mind you, there's another one just next door, so it is not just one, it's more. But this particular project, 1,000 hectares, you can't harvest it and sustainably regenerate it for timber, for carbon storage, for biodiversity, for all of the other values that Australia's world-class forestry brings. You can't do that, but you can cut it down for a wind farm. No-one cares about the frogs, the greater gliders, the koalas. My understanding, from the article, is that it's one of the few chlamydia-free koala communities left in the country. Don't worry about that. We can watch the WWF advertisements on TV telling us to send them money because koalas are going to become extinct, but we can take out 1,000 hectares of their habitat. Those people in that corner will vote for that and against even investigating it. As I've said a number of times, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

And it's a Senate inquiry to investigate fair terms for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians. Evidence already on the public record says Indigenous Australians are getting paid less than others. Why is that? Why is it so controversial that we, as a Senate, might want to understand that? After all, it was the Greens who sent those people to the other inquiry, through the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, to put the evidence on the public record. Now they don't want to take it any further. They'll vote against it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The impact on farmers lives, their livelihoods, and the stress that's being put on them because there's this great march of infrastructure across their properties—this place, four times now, has been told it can't look at the terms and conditions to deal with that. In Tasmania, state Labor are running around complaining about acquisition of land for irrigation projects. Down there, they're siding with the farmers; up here, they're voting against the farmers.

Labor is voting against the farmers. Senator Watt hasn't got what it takes to stand up for the farmers, the people he is paid to represent. The Greens don't care about farmers. They tell you they do, but they don't. Senator Pocock says: 'It doesn't matter. It's not happening in Canberra, so it's no big deal. But I am interested in stopping forestry and sustainable industries. I'll shut them down. But I'll let 1,000 hectares go for a single wind farm. I don't care about the greater gliders, the koalas, the frogs and other biodiversity that's in that area right next to a World Heritage area.' In Tasmania the Greens and Labor put 74,000 hectares, a lot of it previously harvested forestry land, into the World Heritage system. When it comes to this, it's only second-rate country.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Some people get a voice, some people are promoted for a voice and some people are told they can't have a voice. If you are a farmer or a fisher in this country, you don't get a voice. You don't have a minister who will stand up for you. He hasn't got what it takes. He's just a doormat for one of his colleagues. It's outrageous. As Senator Cadell has said, we are going to keep coming back on this because these farmers, these fishers and these Indigenous communities deserve to have their two bobs' worth in this discussion. There's going to be significant disruption to their lives, and they deserve to have a say. Labor should be ashamed that they are stopping them from doing that.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We, the government, are going to be voting against this inquiry because we know the motivation of those opposite, and it isn't genuine and meaningful conversation about social licence and communities. For those opposite to say—

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

You cannot presume to know our motivations.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened in silence. For those opposite to say that they care about the impacts of an industry that they have refused to engage in for the last decade is rich.

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

That's not true.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. There is a need to ensure communities have a say in projects being built, which is why we announced the community engagement review in July. The community engagement review will be led by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner and report to government in December 2023.

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

I thank my colleagues for their contributions. I will note the project that Senator Colbeck talked about in Queensland next to the wet tropics World Heritage area, the Chalumbin wind farm project. Imagine if that were being built in Tasmania. You would have Bob Brown out there chaining himself to windfarm pylons, because he has protested against wind farms in Tasmania because apparently his wedge-tailed eagles are far more important than our last remaining community of chlamydia-free koalas. As Senator Colbeck says, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Senator Cadell quite rightly said this is about allowing people to tell their story. We keep getting our stories—this proposal, this project and this inquiry—blocked by Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock on the crossbench. Luckily for them, we can stand in this place and share parts of their stories. I have spoken previously about the HumeLink Action Group and the work they have done to try and bring the attention of people to the HumeLink transmission line project that is going from Snowy 2.0 to the South Australian border over some of our most pristine highland country and also over native forestry areas and softwood plantations.

Just this week, the New South Wales softwood group said that the HumeLink transmission line project could be the final nail in the coffin for the Highland softwood plantation, which have been through bushfire, which have been through COVID, which have suffered supply chain issues. But the HumeLink is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I also want to talk about something a little bit closer to my home. On 18 July, I had the opportunity to join a packed room of concerned landholders at the Deniliquin RSL club to meet with a team of Transgrid staff, with the guidance of a professional moderator, to talk about the New South Wales side of the VNI West project. This is a project that is going to connect to the Dinawan renewable energy zone near Coleambally in New South Wales to Victoria and then power Melbourne. Good on Melbourne! I hope you're very comfortable in Toorak! One of the amazing things about this project is that a draft corridor report was published in February, and it had a range of options, but it also identified the preferred option, which it said would 'maximise the positive net economic benefits to those who produce, consume and transport in the National Energy Market'. The preferred option was from Waubra onto Echuca Moama and then on to the Dinawan Energy Hub in New South Wales. That was the preferred option in February.

Fast forward to July, Transgrid publishes a new corridor report with a new option, option 5(a). No-one had heard of 5(a) before. It goes from Dinawan, north of Jerilderie, passed Conargo, over almost the whole of one of Australia's longest merino bloodline studs—160-odd years of a single merino bloodline—across some of our most productive sheep and rice producing areas, around the Werai State Forest, because, on this occasion, they've worked out that they shouldn't be going over state forests, then crossing the Murray River at Murrabit. Everyone is scratching their heads, asking why the New South Wales leg of the VNI West project suddenly increased from 184 kilometres, which would be the most direct route, following roads, probably following a road corridor, to 216 kilometres over predominantly private farmland.

It is estimated this change in route will cost New South Wales an extra $154 million. Everyone is questioning why. Well, thanks to the investigative reporting of Peter Hunt, at the Weekly Times, we now know why. The Victorian energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, demanded option 5(a). We thought—silly us!—that the Australian Energy Market Operator would choose the appropriate route based on an option that maximises the positive net economic benefits. But we found out that Minister D'Ambrosio insisted that the AEMO consider option 5(a), unbeknownst to anyone else.

When these farmers in Deniliquin gathered at the Deni RSL to try to understand why, they also rightly asked, 'Well, what does this mean?' Now, apparently, you can't go underground, you can't follow the road corridors, you can't follow the predominantly disused but still government-owned rail corridors and so you need to go over private agricultural land. What does that mean? It means, once the final route is selected, a 70-metre-wide easement. It means 80-metre-tall towers every 450 metres. It means an air-exclusion zone 120 metres wide and 60 metres above the top of the transmission lines.

We are in an irrigation area. As much as some in this place would like us to do away with irrigation, irrigation is still a vital part of our economy. One of the things that irrigation farmers do is farm rice. Ours are the most water-efficient rice growers in the world, but we still do have flooded rice bays, and the best way to maintain that rice and get the best bang for your harvest is by aerial application of fertilisers. Sometimes, in a wet year like the year we've just had, where it was flooded, the only way to get the rice onto the bays is to aerial sow. Could you imagine having 120-metre-wide air-exclusion zones? You can't fly drones in that 120-metre zone, so for the graziers who now utilise drones as an efficient way to monitor their stock and their stock water points it's: 'Sorry—no can do. You can't do that anymore.' That is an impact on your farm business. You will have to change the crops you grow, you will have to change the way you apply water and you will have to change the way you manage your livestock. Forget about the fact that, during the construction period, you can't have livestock in those paddocks. When asked, Transgrid said, 'Oh, well, you just agist them somewhere else for the duration.' Biosecurity, anyone? I'm just mentioning it. You can't just transport 160-year-old merino bloodlines to a different station and hope they come back disease free.

As Senator Cadell said, there are other impacts. What is the impact on the capital gains status of the farm? Some of these farms have been in the same family for five-plus generations. But, because you're changing land use on a corridor of it and changing income streams, the advice that some of our farmers have had is that that will change the capital gains status from that point on. How do you value that when you're trying to work out what the upfront compensation package should be? What will the impact on land tax be? As Senator Cadell said of off-farm income, how does that impact you when you're applying for primary industry grants?

The other thing in our area is that we are a recognised plains-wanderer habitat. There are farms throughout our area that have nature conservation caveats on their titles. When we asked Transgrid about that, Transgrid said, 'We'll just offset it.' The plains-wanderer is an endangered species. My area is the offset. There is no alternative offset area you can go to. When we asked about having a nature conservation caveat, they said that, obviously, we'd have to go somewhere else. We said, 'Clearly, you've done a survey to understand where these caveats are held?' We got a blank look. 'We haven't done that work yet. We'll do that work after we've determined what corridor we're going to follow when we lodge our EIS.' I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

Why would you not do it all concurrently, so you know you're planning for a corridor where you don't have to have these problems? And that would have also happened up at Chalumbin—if we did them concurrently.

This is what we want to explore in this inquiry. We want to hear more of these stories. We want to hear where the planning processes are letting us down and actually adding to our costs, even if we still continue with an overhead powerline option. With the planning processes, instead of following a Labor state minister's demands to skirt around their preferred electorates, we want to make sure there is net benefit. We want to make sure they've considered nature conservation caveats. We want to make sure that they are going in the most direct route, instead of the most politically convenient route.

Let us have this inquiry. I don't tire of asking, because I quite like standing here and standing up for my constituents and communities so that their stories are heard. But wouldn't it be better for all of you if, instead of hearing it through me, you heard it direct? So let us have this inquiry to hear from the people who are directly impacted and to hear from the TransGrids of the world, because it would be an open public inquiry; we would not block anyone. Let us have this inquiry.

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

When Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell first moved this motion I voted in favour of it, but I must admit that I don't think I looked at it. The second time it came up, I had a bit of a read. I thought: 'Oh, they mustn't have talked to the Greens about it. It'll go through this time.' No. The third time it came up I thought: 'What's going on? Do they just not like you guys?' The fourth time it came up, I looked at the motion in detail and I thought: 'Well, I've got to speak on this. This is a serious issue for regional Australia.' And here we are for the fifth time—the fifth time!

For those listening along at home, what are we debating for the fifth time? Are we debating a fundamental change to government legislation? Are we debating a new impost on the renewable energy industry that's going to stop them in their tracks? Are we debating a fundamental change to our legal system? No. We're debating a Senate inquiry. That's what we're debating: a Senate references committee inquiry.

I'm a great believer in the Senate system, the committee system and what we do through those inquiries. They're valuable, and they inform policymaking in this place. The idea that this very straightforward reference to an inquiry would be blocked in this place for the fifth time beggars belief. And it demonstrates an arrogant government that is approaching these issues in a way that brooks no dissent, that doesn't want to hear from impacted communities.

And we've seen this in other places. In fact, we talked about it in this place today: arrogant Labor governments that want to impose their will on regional communities without listening to those communities, without talking to those communities and without hearing their quite legitimate perspectives on issues that, in the main, are delivering resources to the cities. These powerlines are not going to be of great use to the regional communities themselves. The gas transmission lines don't necessarily get tapped off to industrial development in the regions; occasionally they do, but not always. Mostly, they're taking a commodity, be it electricity or gas, to the cities, to keep them powered and to keep them operating in the levels of comfort that Australians have come to expect.

But the imposition is on our farming communities in particular. It's on our regions. It's they who face the taking of their land.

As I've said in this place before, under the federal Constitution, if the federal government compulsorily acquires land, at least it needs to be done on just terms. At least that protection is in our federal Constitution. But that protection is not in our state constitutions. We are therefore reliant on a variety of state regimes to operate in this space to ensure that landholders, in particular, are properly compensated for these takings. On the Western Australian government's page about compulsorily acquisitions it says that, as decided in the engineers case in, I think, 1912—don't quote me on that, Senator Colbeck; it might have been 1914—the High Court found that, because state constitutions are silent on the issue, there is no requirement for just terms under the state constitutions. This is made very explicit on the Western Australian compulsorily acquisition website. I'm a Western Australian senator, so I only looked at WA. If I went around and looked at the other states, I suspect they'd say exactly the same thing—that land can be compulsorily acquired and impositions such as those talked about by Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck can be placed upon private land without compensation.

That is not always the case; I understand that. Some state governments do pay compensation. It varies. Some private companies involved in these projects pay landholders and others who are impacted, but it varies. There is no consistency of regime. But we have a unique circumstance, and that's why this inquiry is justified now. We have a government in power that is planning the rollout of up to 22,000 kilometres of new electricity grid. That's a staggering amount. And, as I've said before, that's not 22,000 kilometres that's going to go through the inner cities. Think about it: it can't. Yes, some of it might go through outer metro areas, but the vast majority of it is going through our regions. It's going through communities in the bush.

We have to stand up for regional Australia. Regional Australia feels under extraordinary pressure at the moment, and it's only those of us on this side who are standing up for regional Australia. We need to defend the rights of property owners to continue to be able to do with their property what's in their economic best interests. We need to be able to see regional communities consulted when these massive projects are going to be imposed upon them not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the big cities. We need to consider these impacts on regional Australia.

We will keep putting this motion up and, Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell, I will keep coming along and speaking on this motion, because it is important that we allow these voices to be heard in this place through a Senate committee inquiry. I was sitting here listening to Senator Colbeck, Senator Cadell and others and I thought: 'Maybe I'm actually wasting my time today. Maybe the Labor government is actually just going to say: "Yes. Have your inquiry."' I really thought they might do that. But, no, they're not; they're going to keep opposing it.

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

It's a secret process.

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

As Senator Colbeck said, they've got their own secret process that nobody is going to have any insight into it. So we'll keep coming back here. We'll keep putting up this motion every Tuesday. It's a date. I'll be here. I'll be standing up for regional Australia, as I know many of us on this side will.

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

Like Senator Brockman, I was sitting in here doing my duty, listening to Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck. It is just unbelievable. Senator Colbeck referred to the hypocrisy as breathtaking. Well, what we do know about the Australian Greens is that if they didn't have double standards they wouldn't have standards at all. I think we're starting to see that also from those opposite, because we will quite often hear—and I note Senator Ciccone likes to get out and visit with Victorian farmers. His Facebook and his Instagram are quite full of photos of him out meeting with farmers and promoting agriculture. Quite often, on this side of the chamber, we suggest that Senator Ciccone should actually be the minister, because potentially he might stand up to Minister Bowen.

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

Here here!

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

Here here—that's right, Senator Davey. But I don't know how Senator Ciccone is going to go out to those farmers anymore, when he will not even support an inquiry to ensure that those farmers are going to be appropriately compensated as their land values plummet and so does their ability to farm their land. I was just listening to Senator Davey talk about what's going to happen to farm values. Perhaps this was part of their hidden motivation when they put the super caps in, as they absolutely destroyed farmers and the fact that they will be able to use their farms as their superannuation. This is actually their way of helping, because if they diminish the values of those properties, they might not hit the $3 million threshold anymore, because they are no longer productive farmland!

I don't know how anyone sitting opposite in the government can turn up and talk to a farmer or a farming group and look them in the eye and say: 'We don't care. You don't matter, and we're going to do everything we can to barge over you.' We know that with the Greens it is like a triangle that we have when it comes to their values and their concerns. And I use the term 'values' in the loosest possible way when approaching and referring to the Greens. We know that the pinnacle of that triangle is renewable energy. It's all about solar panels and wind farms and, 'Let's get that renewable energy!' Sitting just underneath that are critical minerals, because we know: 'Coal bad, critical minerals good.' There are two different types of mining, because that feeds into their renewable energy obsession. You cannot ask a question of the Greens like: 'What happens when up one of those electric vehicles catches on fire? How do we even put the fire out? Do you know how dangerous a chemical battery fire is?' You just have to let it burn. It is very dangerous. But don't worry. That's okay because it's an EV; it's a renewable car. How much it is going to cost for everyday Australians to have to put chargers in their houses? Well, that doesn't matter, because cost-of-living pressures are not that applicable when we talk about renewable energy and EVs and all of their obsessions.

I wasn’t around in 1949, Senator Colbeck, but I remember, when the Greens used to be about 'save the whales'. Remember when they used to have the stickers that were on everyone's cars? Save the whales? Bugger the whales! I've got a wind farm! I've got an offshore wind farm that's going to upset their migration routes and completely decimate whale populations. But that's okay, because it's a wind farm!

They do! Wind farm operators donate much more than whales! And there are the koalas. Senator Hanson-Young comes in here regularly to talk about the plight of koalas and how tragic it is for koalas, and she very emotionally explains to us that they are at risk and we need to do more to protect the koalas—except if we want to build solar panels over their habitat or except if we want to put powerlines right through a koala habitat. Then it's bugger the koalas! Again, potentially, it's because solar panel operators contribute more than the koalas do when it comes to political donations.

In the koala suit with the bucket! I do long for the days of Senator Patrick, when you knew there would be an outfit coming up!

It is absolutely astounding, but the thing is that this isn't an amendment to a piece of legislation. This isn't saying, 'No, no, no, we're not going to support this rewiring the grid.' Which, quite frankly, will more than likely end up one of the most expensive white elephants this country has ever seen—but the Labour Party will probably compete for those titles; they like a bantamweight fight over how much money they can waste, because it's just Australian taxpayers. But it's not even about that.

This is about Australians who pay taxes, who vote, who are actually covered by the Constitution at the moment. All of us are equally covered by the Constitution. There is not a carve-out that says all Australians are covered by this document except for farmers and fishers. The irony of Indigenous Australians currently being told that they need their own voice in the Constitution is that they are covered by this. Their voices don't count.

I know, sitting on this side with my female colleagues, that we're the wrong kind of women. We know that when left-wing women all rally around to protect women, it is 'all women', 'me too' and go, go, go but it is not conservative women; they are the wrong kinds of women. I actually have the T-shirt, thanks to Caroline Di Russo. We know we are the wrong kinds of women but there are the wrong kinds of Indigenous voices. I mean, we heard Senator Liddle ask questions today, with the denigration, the condescension, the paternalisation and the unbelievable commentary coming from those opposite because Senator Liddle is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. Senator Nampijinpa Price is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. We know Warren Mundine is the wrong kind of Indigenous voice. Apparently, now, all those Indigenous voices out in rural and regional Australia are the wrong kinds of voices too. If we start to look at how this is all mapping out—honestly, bring on the asteroid—it is seriously turning into crazy town here, because we have WA putting in all these heritage laws that farmers are protesting against.

Senator Wong's answer was just insane. I mean, look, I feel for Senator Wong. I'm not sure if she's ever been to a farm, so I can understand it is probably difficult for her to speak with any real authority in this area. But we have farmers having mass rallies and meetings because they are being charged. It is a rort. It is an absolute scam, these businesses now charging to come and decide what is heritage and what is Indigenous culture on the farmer's land. In fact, it is not even farmers. This is the best part: it is suburban blocks. You can't even put the new camellia in because you might have to dig a little bit too deep. You have to pay $3,000 to the local Indigenous to group to say, 'It is alright; the camellia can go in.' It is just lunacy.

We have from those opposite that we have to protect all this Indigenous heritage. We won't hear from the Labor Party that the government will not rule out that they will not roll these laws out across the country. If the Voice gets up—we know it is voice, treaty, truth telling—guess what else it will be? It will be cultural heritage protections for every inch of this country so that another cottage industry can set up. But it is not for the Indigenous Australians based out in the regions. The government are about to just pound their land through with all of these absolute ridiculous powerlines, with no sensitivity about whether they are going to impact any culturally sensitive areas—nothing. They probably won't even look at it.

We now know we have the wrong kind of women in this place and we have the wrong kinds of Indigenous voices. Those Indigenous voices out in rural and regional Australia might actually be those very sensible Indigenous people who are saying this Voice thing is absolutely ridiculous, that it will do nothing to protect them. Not only is it going to divide this nation—it is dividing this nation; it has divided this nation and will continue to do so—but what it is actually saying to Indigenous Australians is we're going to divide you into Indigenous Australians in the inner city that live in the Teal seats and the Greens seats and those in the regions. We are going to divide it up. For the Indigenous voices in the city, you're all kosher; you're all good. We're happy to hear from you. You just tell us how great we all are and we will help boost you with another cottage industry to keep that cash flowing. But if you are a rural or regional Indigenous Australian, not on your life, my friends; you guys just suck it up. We don't mind if we damage your cultural sites. We don't care because, guess what, we have a power line that has to be built, because solar and wind can't connect to the current grid. Let's remember, this is not the only grid; this is grid No. 2. So a lot of these farms already face this situation.

I'm just going to mention the word—nuclear. Honestly, I am going to be popping the popcorn to watch the Labor Party convention when this all comes up. I will be very, very interested to see where those people sit when the votes come through because I think the left delegation may have some different views than Senator Green's question today in question time. I will be very interested to see where everyone is sitting at the conference or convention—whatever the Labor Party call it—on the weekend. We won't be allowed to talk about nuclear, but do you know the thing about nuclear?

For lack of a better analogy, it actually plugs into our current grid. Let's look at it this way: you have a nuclear power plant, and you just plug it in like you plug in the vacuum cleaner—if you vacuum—or the iron. I'm not sure I'm big on that either, Senator Cadell, but I hear it can be done. I hear there is a thing called plugging in an iron! This is what we can do with nuclear energy, we can plug it in to the current grid. We do not need to destroy farmland and we do not need to destroy fishers. We do not need to disrespect rural and regional and Indigenous Australians to make the lefties in the city, with their pyramid of concerns that has renewable energy is at the top, feel good about themselves.

It is an absolute disgrace that you will not support just an inquiry so that those farmers, who pay a lot of taxes and provide our food, can come and talk to us. They provide our food, so I hope none of you are going home tonight and thinking about having a steak or going down to Portia's and having a bit of fried rice, because you won't be getting any more rice out of the Riverina. I hope you are not going out to dinner and eating any of the food or drinking that wine that our farmers produce, because you are turning your back on them. You won't allow them to come in here and explain what is happening on their land, to their families and to their business.

Like Senator Brockman I look forward to being here on transmission Tuesday. We've coined the term, and we'll be back here every Tuesday—transmission Tuesday it is. We could get T-shirts made, maybe get a drinks card, transmission Tuesday is on. RSVP optional, just come and have a crack, because these guys are unbelievable—unbelievable. But we won't see Labor and the Greens and Senator Pocock. I can remember him chaining himself to machinery to stop trees being cut down. Trees are now irrelevant because at the pinnacle we have wind farms and solar panels, which trump all. Maybe some will see the light. We can hope Senator Ciccone—but I'm not sure if there is anyone in that side other than Senator Ciccone who visit the farms—can speak some sense to his Labor colleagues and say: 'Hey, guys, it's an inquiry. Let the farmers have their say. Let the fishers have their say.' Then perhaps those who are most vocal in supporting the Indigenous Voice will see sense.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will see sense. He seems to be leading the charge on the Voice. And I'd like to put on record that, if it fails, welcome, Mr Albanese, that would be your mistake. The buck stops with you. But perhaps Mr Albanese, who's such a big proponent of the Voice and so keen to give Indigenous Australians a voice, might point out to his team here in the Senate that this is an inquiry to give Indigenous Australians a voice on which significant cultural sites might be damaged. Those Indigenous Australians deserve a voice, but I fear that we may be hoping for too much because, as I said at the beginning—and I will say it again as I finish up—if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

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

I'm glad to be given another opportunity to speak on the need to hold an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines versus farmland. As a voting member of the RRAT committee, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from concerned constituents whose land will be impacted by the construction of transmission lines and also other stakeholders who are concerned about the construction of transmission lines in, say, state forests or national parks or on personal property, wherever that may be. I have to say I'm very disappointed with the Labor Party for refusing to vote on this particular motion to hold an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines across our natural landscapes, because we are in the Senate. The Senate is a house of review. We are entitled to ask questions. We are entitled to go out and engage with the community about their concerns.

I have heard from many farmers and many other constituents who are concerned about the impact on the environment from the construction of transmission lines. I don't think it is fair because I well remember the Prime Minister saying, when he was opposition leader in the lead-up to last year's election, how he was going to lead a government of transparency, and yet we are not seeing that.

We have seen the Labor government refuse to be transparent about aged-care workers, about the number of nurses being placed in aged-care centres. They're not being transparent about the price of energy; our colleague Senator Duniam has asked for quarterly reporting into energy prices, and they're not being transparent about that. They're not being transparent about the National Cabinet and the release of minutes of the National Cabinet. And yet again we see another example of where this government does not want to be transparent—on the impact of transmission lines on our environment.

The other thing we need to look at is the impact of the financial consideration that will be given to stakeholders if transmission lines—and other renewables, for that matter; not just transmission lines but wind turbines and solar panels—are built on private property, and how these farmers will be compensated. If they're not going to be compensated, who picks up the bill for when these transmission lines or wind turbines have to be deconstructed in 20 years? These are reasonable questions, and I think the public deserves to have a say and other concerned constituents are entitled to listen to and hear what the particular stakeholders have to say about the impact of renewables on the environment and also on property rights for our hardworking farmers and other stakeholders involved in this process.

I look forward to holding the division. I have to say I'm very disappointed in the Labor government for not voting for this. I hope we get the crossbench onside; I'm sure One Nation will be. I can well remember Senator David Pocock, when he gave his maiden speech, saying he was on the side of the farmers. This is your opportunity, Senator Pocock, if you're listening, to lend your support to an inquiry about transmission lines and how they will impact farmers not just on their farmland itself but financially, and what contractual obligations they will be under to clean up the renewables when they come to the end of their useful life, whether it be in 10 years time or 20 years time. This is something we need to see get up. I don't expect the Greens to support it because they're not really interested in protecting the environment whenever it comes to things like this; they do not want to look at the potential damaging impact of renewables on the environment. That is something that we will continue to prosecute in opposition—to call out the hypocrisy of both the Labor Party and the Greens in not wanting to be honest about the environmental damage that renewables will do to the environment.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak in relation to this motion. The only thing Senator Rennick said which I disagree with, and I'll explain why, is that he didn't have an expectation the Greens would support this. I think every senator in this chamber should support this reference because there's a principle involved here. If a considerable portion of this chamber believes that something should be referred to a committee for further analysis and examination, providing stakeholders in the community a chance to give evidence and give their views, then the chamber should support that. I say that as someone who is the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. We are dealing with a number of important references to that committee which were initiated in one case by the Greens and in another case by a government senator, and I fully supported those references. I'm engaging in that process in good faith. That's the importance of this institution. It is incredibly disappointing to see senators not support this referral. It is a shocking and terrible precedent.

Do senators remember when we had the galleries filled with farmers and members of rural communities from Victoria? They came all the way to this place, to Canberra, and sat in those galleries because they're desperately concerned about this issue.

Why not give them an opportunity to give evidence before a Senate committee? Why not give them that opportunity? Why deprive them of that opportunity? It is a terrible precedent which senators in this place will set if, on the division on this motion, a majority of this chamber is against the referral. Everyone should reflect on it.

Consider the terms of the reference. It is even-handed in terms of its drafting. It's objective. It doesn't presuppose a conclusion. But it's dealing with a matter of great importance to people in our rural and regional communities. This Senate chamber should represent all Australians, from our cities to our country, and when there's an issue of concern to a significant proportion of residents—wherever they live in Australia—and when a considerable number of senators in this place say a matter should be referred to a committee, that referral should be accepted and supported. Then all of us have an opportunity to participate in that process and to provide our comments in relation to the analysis of the evidence and any recommendations which are made.

What are you scared of? Are you concerned that the evidence is going to be damning with respect to how these matters are being considered? Is that what you're concerned with? The people listening to this, the people watching this debate, could well say that if that's the case, all the more reason for there to be a referral.

Let's consider the actual paragraphs of the referral motion. The introductory words are:

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

(a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments and energy companies …

Those power imbalances between farmers and fishers on one hand and governments and energy companies on the other are real, and this chamber performs such an important function across all of our committees in terms of giving a voice to people who are on the wrong end of those power imbalances. That's part of our job.

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

I'm deeply interested to see what the terms are for that access and compulsory acquisition. Why are you depriving me as a senator of the opportunity to engage in that committee inquiry? On what basis?

(c) fairness of compensation;

Isn't that our role? Isn't one of our roles, as a check and balance in Australia's democracy, to consider the fairness of how our fellow citizens are treated, especially when the government uses its powers of compulsory acquisition? That goes to the heart of our role as the Senate chamber.

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

I want to know if the way people in Victoria are being treated is the same as for people in my home state of Queensland. Are there any differences? What is the best practice model? What is the fairest approach? Again, those who will vote against this motion are depriving the Senate of the opportunity to inquire in relation to these matters.

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

Again, isn't that something we should be desperately concerned with? Why deprive us of the opportunity of participating in this inquiry?

When you go through the terms of reference, there is nothing that's loaded there. There are no embedded premises or findings. It is quite objectively worded. So I'm absolutely aghast that so many senators in this place would deprive a material number of senators who are desperately concerned about this, representing their constituents from their home states, of this referral. It's a terrible, terrible precedent. I would suggest that the leadership of the government in this place should carefully consider this.

From my perspective, you might not agree with where the outcome falls, but you've got the opportunity to put in a dissenting report, to make additional comments. Don't attack the process. Don't stop the process.

Every senator in this place is a custodian of this institution for as long as we are here. We're the ones who set the precedents with respect to practice, what is usually adopted and what is usually followed, and it desperately concerns me that in a case where a material number of our senators would like a referral on a matter of key importance, deep importance, to their constituents, that seems to be about to be defeated on a majority of numbers. It's a terrible precedent. I think the leaders of the government in this place should carefully reconsider.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been sitting here listening to the contributions in the last few minutes, and it's made me realise just how grateful I am that the opposition is no longer in government. Thank you. That's my contribution.

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

The question is that the reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, standing in the names of Senators Colbeck and Cadell, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that we are past division time, and the division will be deferred until tomorrow.