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

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

That, noting the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments, the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

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

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

(c) fairness of compensation;

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

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

(f) any other matter.

Previously when moving a similar motion to this we said that we would be persistent in this matter because we believe it is important, and we are true to our word. It's interesting to note—and I take care in reflecting on a vote of the Senate—that a number of anti-industry Senate inquiries have been established in this place of late, supported by both the government and the Greens, but there's genuine reluctance to support motions that are supportive of industry, particularly primary industries. We had a motion earlier today to set up an inquiry to attack development in the Northern Territory at Middle Arm. On the motion of the Greens, supported by the government—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How well do you think that would go? It would probably make it harder, not easier!

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

It's interesting that the government seems to want to interject on that. Obviously, the anti-industry elements of the government are at play here. But this is an important motion. We said we would be persistent on this, and we intend to continue to be.

I was in Queensland just a week or so ago, and farmers from as far away as Cairns came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact on them and the engagement with them in relation to major energy infrastructure. For those playing along at home, it's further from Cairns to Brisbane than it is from Brisbane to Melbourne; it's a long way to come to express your concerns. But the farmers did that, hundreds of them. They came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact of these energy developments on their farms and on their local environment. What we're proposing here is an acknowledgement of the importance of the national grid—and acknowledgement of the importance of the energy system in this country. A strong and viable energy system is a fundamental plank in the strength of the economy and in the wellbeing of Australians. We acknowledge that. This is not an anti-energy or anti-energy infrastructure motion. It never has been, and we have reinforced that in tonight's motion. We want to make that plain in the debate and we want to put to bed accusations coming from the other side of the chamber that that's what this is about. That's not what this is about; we stated that before. But it's now part of the motion to be moved tonight.

We want to understand, as a chamber, how the power imbalance between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers and government and energy companies that are seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their lands and fishing grounds works. We want to ensure that there are fair terms and conditions for that compulsory access or acquisition. We want to make sure there's fairness of compensation and also even compensation across the country. We've already heard from individuals around the country that there are variations in this. We've heard from Indigenous Australians that they get less compensation in Queensland than other landowners do. How does that work? Why is it unreasonable that this chamber investigates that as a part of ensuring, as the motion says, that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to a new and more dispersed method of generation and storage?

This is not an outlandish motion; it isn't an anti-renewable energy motion, but it's certainly one that seeks to understand and properly investigate the rights of landholders and seaholders. It's in that context we make, reasonably, our sixth attempt—our sixth attempt!—at having this Senate inquiry. We don't understand why the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management won't stand up for farmers and fishers in this country and support this motion. Why is that? What are the options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers and Indigenous Australians, and to maintain and ensure the productivity of agriculture and fisheries? There are lots of conversations about climate change and lots of conversations about the impact on our natural environment, but we need to remember that each time we pick up and fork each day we're relying on a farmer or fisher to provide the inputs to that. It doesn't matter whether you're a carnivore or a vegan, or anything in between. To eat every day, three times a day—for those of us fortunate enough to do that—we rely on a farmer, and also for the fibre that we use to clothe ourselves. Why has it been unreasonable, five times so far, that this chamber can't ask those questions, that this chamber can't investigate these things? I mean, this is a government that promised to be open and transparent with the Australian people. Mind you, it is a government that's only answered 20 per cent of questions on notice that have been asked of it through the estimates process; although we were told today that's our fault for asking too many questions. I mean, how outrageous. We promised—

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

If we didn't ask any questions, they'd have a 100 per cent record!

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

That's a very good point, Senator Scarr—if we stopped asking questions, they would have 100 per cent record. But that's not how this government works. They promised one thing when they wanted to be elected but now it's a completely different matter. They promised transparency, but we're not allowed to have that. We saw dozens of farmers sitting here in the gallery a couple of months ago, who took the time to come to parliament, to the people's House, because they wanted to have their voice heard, but this government supported by the Greens doesn't want their voices to be heard through a Senate inquiry. As I articulated, it is not a motion that's about being anti renewable energy; it is a motion that reinforces the need for a strong electricity grid and its importance to Australians in the transition we are currently undertaking.

But it's also a motion about fairness for farmers, for fishers, and for Indigenous Australians. That is what it is about. And it is about what part this parliament, this Senate, can play in ensuring that that is what occurs. We acknowledge states have a significant role to play through the various land acts that apply around the country. Why is it that Indigenous Australians in Queensland seem to be getting a lower rate of return or a lower compensation for access to their lands than others do? Why is the rate different in Western Australia to what it is in Queensland? Why is that? Why it is unreasonable to ask those questions and to assist the parliament and the government to come up with a mechanism that's fair to everybody? That's what we are seeking to do, to give those communities who have taken the time to come to Canberra, to come to Brisbane, to turn up at rallies across Victoria the opportunity to have their say through an investigation into the process. Why won't Senator Watt stand up for those people who want to do that? As Minister for Agriculture, why won't he do that?

Why is it that off the south coast of Gippsland, where something in the order of 20,000 tonnes of fish a year comes from, the fisheries there are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts? That's a significant impact. But why is it that those fishers in those communities aren't able to tell the Senate about those impacts and how we might mitigate them so that we can not only get the benefits of offshore wind, which will be very important for the energy transition in this country, but also ensure that 20,000 tonnes of seafood that is important for supplying Australian communities can continue to be accessed. It's not an unreasonable question. We can have all of these anti extractive-industries motions passed, supported by Labor and the Greens, but dare we ask for an inquiry that supports farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians to ensure that the impact on them—their land, their communities and their seas—is managed properly and that they receive fair compensation for the changes that are going to occur?

We're not saying that the changes can't or shouldn't occur. The motion acknowledges the importance of ensuring that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy. It's fundamental to the wealth and wellbeing of this country that it does, but it needs to be done on fair terms. One of the jobs of this place is to ensure that it is. That's all we're asking. We're not being unreasonable. It's not a loaded terms of reference that's anti industry.

Senator Pratt can moan and groan and vote against industry with the Greens. That's great that she does that—coming from Western Australia, which is a huge resource industry-based state—with support from the Greens. We seek—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck, could you take your seat. At this late hour, it would be helpful for the chamber if we could have the ceasing and desisting of interjections. I have let a few from both sides. Senator Colbeck, please continue.

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

I've been quite measured in my remarks.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

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

I am entitled to take interjections from across the chamber, even though those interjections may be disorderly. But thank you for your protection, Acting Deputy President; I appreciate it. We're being extremely reason with this process, but we will be persistent because the fairness of outcomes for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians is important to us. If it's not important to other side that's their problem—that's their business—but farmers don't come to Canberra for no reason. They don't fly from Cairns to Brisbane which, as I said, is further from Brisbane than Melbourne is. It's a long way. It's a big effort for them to make to come and express their concerns, as they did when they came to Brisbane a week or so ago.

It's not unreasonable that a very reasonable terms of reference to ensure fairness in process and compensation for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians should be properly considered by this place. So we will continue to fight for this. We know we are asking reasonable questions. These are not unreasonable terms of reference. It would be wonderful—and I'm sure that farmers around this country and fishers and, for that matter, Indigenous Australians would appreciate the opportunity to have their say in this process so that we can ensure that the process of the rollout of the national grid and expansion of the national grid and all of the other infrastructure that goes with it is done on a fair and reasonable basis with fair and reasonable compensation and some equality of outcomes, as well, which is not what is happening right now.

These are not unreasonable terms of reference. It's not an unreasonable inquiry. We will continue to be persistent in bringing this to the chamber because we think it is fair and reasonable do so.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again debating this motion. Already this motion to refer the matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has either failed or been withdrawn on a number of occasions. The coalition are keen on persisting with repoliticising energy policy, so here we are.

The government won't support the motion, because we know the motivations of those opposite are focused squarely on the political, not the national, interest. Their motivations are about whipping up scare campaigns around energy and infrastructure that have no intention of facilitating genuine, meaningful conversation with communities. Of course it's easy for the coalition to push an agenda now that they are out of power. It's convenient for them to bring this motion before the Senate again today and pretend to engage with the energy debate in Australia, because they can claim their intentions are pure but then don't actually have to do anything. But where was the interest and concern with the energy market and the energy infrastructure over the last 10 years of their government?

The coalition had 10 years to deliver nationally consistent energy rules for Australia, but instead they had 22 failed energy policies to their name. They had 10 years to at least punt up something that lasted one term, but they were too incompetent and too divided even to manage that. Even now they have no plan to address the immediate energy needs of this country, so instead they are using this Senate reference to concoct a scare campaign which seeks to somehow position the government as appearing not to listen to regional Australia and First Nations Australians.

Of course, that is not the case. The fact is that the government acknowledges that there is a need for a conversation about building social licence in communities during Australia's energy transition, particularly because many of our traditional energy assets are ageing and, like many things in Australia, suffered under 10 years of coalition government. We know that this is an important issue in rural and regional Australia, and we want those conversations, which is why the Albanese government already announced on 4 July this year a community engagement review in relation to energy infrastructure. This review is led by Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, and will provide advice on the best way to maximise engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating energy infrastructure, including for the communities, landowners and First Nations people referenced in the motion we are debating. In fact, the discussion for this review was released just yesterday and is now available on the website of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. I had a look at that discussion paper this afternoon and, frankly, it really is clearer and more comprehensive than what we are debating right now.

The purpose of the review, and the government's intention, is to seek real feedback from affected communities. That intention is wholly different to what we are hearing in this debate and through this proposed inquiry, which seeks to further politicise energy policy in Australia and allow the Nationals to play political football with regional communities and their needs. After 10 years of not actually delivering energy certainty for their constituents—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; could you resume your seat? Senator Hughes, what is your point of order? I won't take argument.

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

This is about the imputations that have been consistently made in this speech about intention—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. Please resume your seat, Senator Hughes. Senator White, you have the call.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The work experience kid did not write this speech. This is what is deeply felt—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, it's embarrassing to have 10 years—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator White, through the chair please.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is embarrassing, Acting Deputy President, to have 10 years of opportunity that has been wasted. It's probably embarrassing for those opposite to have it pointed out yet again, as it was last time this inquiry was put up.

But it is clear. After 10 years of not actually delivering energy certainty for their constituents, you'd think that the Nationals and the Liberals would take an opportunity to engage constructively in the government's plans to improve community consultation—something they never did.

Beyond the review, which I mentioned was announced in July, the government is doing more to consult and make sure communities are heard. We are partnering with the states, territories and transmission network service providers to improve planning, community engagement and community outcomes for new electricity developments. We have also recently expanded funding for the independent Office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, who works with communities where there are concerns about the development of renewable energy infrastructure projects. The commissioner's role is to refer complaints from concerned community residents about wind farms, large-scale solar farms, energy storage facilities and new major transmission projects as well as to promote best practices for industry and government to adopt with regard to the planning and operation of these projects. It is through this independent body that those complaints and concerns are addressed. It's through this independent body that the government seeks to have conversations and a dialogue with concerned communities about Australia's energy infrastructure future. That is the best way forward when it comes to the matters we are debating here today, not the political circus being proposed by the opposition. What's more, we are also making changes to the National Electricity Rules to clarify consultation requirements for transmission developers, to ensure that development begins at the very start of the route selection process. This will improve community engagement and give stakeholders more confidence and trust in the consultation process.

I also want to make a few points in relation to consultation with First Nations people on this matter of energy infrastructure and electrification. As you would expect from a government that is committed to delivering an enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in the Constitution, consultation around projects on First Nations land is a priority for this government. In relation to that, the government is developing a First Nations Clean Energy Strategy to ensure First Nations people have a say in energy policies and programs in the energy transformation. We're working with the First Nations Clean Energy Network and the National Indigenous Australians Agency to deliver this, and I'm confident about this project.

It's also worth mentioning the developments around wind energy infrastructure. The Albanese government is establishing the offshore wind energy industry in Australia in consultation with communities, not in spite of communities. We've declared areas capable of providing up to 15 gigawatts of power in the Hunter and Gippsland combined. That's enough to support 6,000 jobs in construction and 4,500 ongoing jobs. All of these areas are being created with no less than 60 days consultation. The results of the final areas that are declared reflect the genuine consultation that takes place with sea users and other communities where these projects are established.

In my state of Victoria there are a range of exciting wind energy projects either in development or coming online. Frankly, if the coalition were interested in seeing cheaper, cleaner energy in all states and territories they would be supporting those initiatives and working with us constructively. Sadly, this is not to be. As I mentioned, as we transition energy infrastructure that is ageing and tired towards an improved and stronger future of energy infrastructure, partnerships between government and communities will help inform Australia's next stage of energy development and energy security. This is important for the Albanese government's agenda of delivering cheaper, cleaner energy and fighting climate change. On the other hand, it seems that attempting to turn energy policy into another political football is the only trick in the book of the coalition—so much so that they've tried to make this politicised motion happen three times now, showing us that they have no new ideas and it's the same old coalition.

When we were elected, the Albanese government ended the climate wars, which had toppled Liberal leader after Liberal leader over more than a decade. We have no interest in returning to that place and, frankly, the Australian people have no interest in going back to that place. We are taking action on climate change and energy policy, we are leading the way forward in a way the coalition failed to do for more than a decade.

All this inquiry represents is a kneejerk reaction of the coalition to politicise energy policy, to divide Australians along confected political lines and to try to endear themselves to a constituency which, the fact is, they largely ignored for the decade that they were in government. Nevertheless, the government will continue to do the right thing by consulting with communities and progressing our consultation review, thereby delivering on our climate and energy commitments while bringing rural and regional communities and First Nations Australians along with us on the journey.

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

I'm calling again on the government and the Greens to back our calls for an inquiry into new transmission line builds. In the short time I have, I want to draw the attention of the Greens and the crossbench, in particular, to the report of the New South Wales parliament's inquiry into undergrounding transmission lines. It was a government led inquiry on which 50 per cent of the committee were Labor government members, so of course they found there was nothing to see here, overhead transmission lines are great and our national parks don't matter, our koala habitat doesn't matter, our Booroolong frog doesn't matter.

But Cate Faehrmann MLC, from the Greens, said the inquiry report missed an opportunity to provide strong recommendations. She said:

It was made abundantly clear to the committee that HumeLink, as currently proposed, has no social licence.

The Hon. Emma Hurst, from the Animal Justice Party, noted that the committee had received evidence that the clearing of native forests and bushland required for the HumeLink—which, I might point out, is jut one project—

Debate interrupted.