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

I rise in continuation, but, as I now have more time, I can start at the beginning of my speech instead of trying to race through the key points, as I was yesterday. I rise yet again to implore the government and the Greens to back our calls for an inquiry into new transmission line builds and the process of consultation with landholders, farmers and Indigenous stakeholders in determining the routes and the methods of transmission. Their continual refusal to support this inquiry demonstrates the absolute contempt this government has for regional communities. Just as it has done by changing distribution priority areas, which has seen doctors desert regional communities for periurban centres, just as it is doing by cancelling a whole industry in closing down the live sheep export trade, and just as it is doing by implementing a biosecurity tax on domestic agricultural producers, this government yet again turns its back on the regions.

All we are asking for here is an inquiry, an opportunity for people to have their say and to explain the dearth of consultation, the potential impact on their businesses and the mental stress and anguish they have experienced throughout the process. For example, it would give the people who have written to me just in the last week an opportunity to raise their concerns. One letter is from an agronomist based at Barham who has been informed that they are now under a preferred route for the Transgrid VNI West project—a preferred route that did not exist in the original consultation papers. They explained that many people are confused as to how this project will affect them, as there are mixed messages provided by Transgrid and when they look at other projects and other offerings that have happened around them and just across the border. They go on to outline the flawed mapping that has been used in determining the preferred corridor and the lack of recognition of wildlife protection areas in our region. Another correspondent, from Moulamein, under the same project, said there'd been little consideration of the impact on the economies of farming communities, the devalued property valuations and the flood-prone nature of our area, which is in a recognised flood system.

Even the New South Wales government was willing to have an inquiry. Even though some say it was a lip-service inquiry, they had a brief inquiry into the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines. Established in June and reporting last week, this inquiry—and it shows the level of interest—garnered over 300 submissions and held five public hearings across the south of the state and in Sydney. But unfortunately, as is so often the case with government led committees, it appears the outcome was a foregone conclusion, as evidenced by Premier Minns declaring publicly on radio, before the inquiry had even concluded, that undergrounding was not feasible and was too expensive.

So I get it. The government doesn't want the inquiry we're calling for. But I am bitterly disappointed by the Greens and the Independents who keep opposing this inquiry. I point them to the dissenting statements contained in the New South Wales report. The Hon. Emma Hurst from the Animal Justice Party—it's not usual for the Nats to even acknowledge the Animal Justice Party—noted in her statement:

… we received evidence that clearing of native forests and bushland required for HumeLink—

which is just one project out of the estimated 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines needed in New South Wales—

will have 'serious impacts' on the habitat for 82 threatened species of plants and animals, including the koala, Booroolong frog, wedge-tailed eagle and powerful owl.

Ms Hurst says she supports further inquiry and notes the concerns expressed in the final report by every single non-government representative on the committee. Cate Faehrmann from the Greens said:

This Inquiry … was a missed opportunity to provide strong recommendations …

She said:

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

She proposed a finding that the strong community opposition will lead to 'lengthy and costly delays', and she cited concerns about bushfire risk and climate risk, amongst other issues. Ms Faehrmann said:

The transition to 100% renewable energy does not have to mean 500kv transmission lines with hundreds of giant steel towers criss-crossing through our national parks, state forests and productive agricultural land, with all of the associated fire risks.

I couldn't say it better myself. I know: a Nat quoting Greens and quoting the Animal Justice Party; who would have thought? It must be very cold in that fiery place down below! But I've always given credit where credit is due, particularly when people accurately reflect the evidence they have heard through a committee process and what they have seen through the site visits of the committee process along with my state colleague Wes Fang MLC, who together with Liberal Taylor Martin provided a dissenting report. That means that every single non-government member of that committee wrote a dissenting report. Of a committee of eight, only four actually agreed with the committee report, but, being a government chaired committee, that is enough to ensure that that report is the one that becomes the committee report even though it is certainly not a reflection of the committee. That's Labor for you.

While the dissenting representatives in New South Wales are now calling for another inquiry, I am just asking this Senate to back an inquiry to listen to the concerns of the communities; investigate the processes for consultation, which have been so poor and lacking to date; look at the compensation that's being offered and the compensation evaluations; and ensure they're using accurate mapping. I was on an update the other day, and I was able to point out that the maps they were using for irrigation districts were only reflective of irrigation farms within an irrigation network and completely ignored the fact that there are river pumpers and groundwater irrigators right across that district. This is what we are calling for: consideration of environmental factors, route options and alternatives. It doesn't even mean underground or overground, but why can't they look at going along state or Crown land corridors, next to roadways or along disused rail corridors?

I'm calling on the Greens to follow the advice of their NSW state colleagues. I'm calling on my friend David Pocock to apply the same principle to transmission lines as he does to gas pipelines. I saw, Senator Pocock, your comments the other week in Narrabri, standing there saying agriculture is too important to see gas pipelines built across the landscape. Well, the same should be said for transmission lines. If you're willing to call out gas pipelines, you should be willing to call out transmission lines or, at the very least, support an investigation and an inquiry. Come on. Get on board, people, and support this inquiry.

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

There's a pandemic across this country, and this time it's a real one. As we speak, thousands of hectares of land are being cleared for millions of solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. Lines are being cut through family backyards, rainforests and prime agricultural land for the tens of thousands of kilometres of powerlines the UN's net zero pipedream demands. The net zero pipedream demands that towering gum trees be ploughed over, grasslands be slashed to nothing, fences be erected and all animals killed inside, and wetlands for migrating birds be decimated, and there's not a peep from the supposed Greenies. In fact, there's encouragement.

Every day, we hear from a new community under threat from a wind, solar or powerline project turning people's lives upside down. On my travel through Queensland, farmers from Smoky Creek approached me. They're nervously awaiting a decision on that solar project from the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, on 27 September. Unless the environment minister is a hypocrite, the project should be rejected on environmental grounds.

We could make a speech every day for the rest of this parliament about a supposedly green project turning yet another Australian's life and land upside down, inside out and back to front. Ben Fordham reported another story yesterday morning, with farmer Greg Bennett in Callide, Queensland. The first stage of a solar power development is going to cover the entire valley on the way to his property. Imagine driving past that every day. It is 2,700 hectares for just the first stage. That is over 4,000 football fields of scorched solar panels. Greg will have to drive through nine kilometres of sterile, scorching solar panels to get to his property. It's reported that the final project will stretch over 6,500 hectares of land, millions of solar panels filled with toxic heavy metals at risk of feeding into the Calliope River and straight on to the Great Barrier Reef. What do we hear from the supposed protectors of the environment? Crickets.

Two weeks ago I was in Chalumbin, North Queensland, near Ravenshoe, where old wind turbine blades have been dumped and left to rot. They have just been dumped in the bush. They are aluminium that could have been recycled, but it's too expensive to recycle them. They were 20-metre blades. The modern blades going up now are 87 metres plus and made from composite materials that cost far too much to recycle, so they won't be recycled. They'll just be dumped in the bush in wind turbine graveyards.

The UN's net zero is the enemy of the environment. This parliament keeps on refusing to look at the facts—all for nothing. Listen to this from yesterday's the Australian newspaper: 'New South Wales is to seek a deal to keep Eraring open.' This was reported yesterday, but the very first thing the New South Wales environment minister said when the New South Wales Labor government got into power in the March, was that they were going to look at extending Eraring. It was the very first thing the New South Wales government did, because they know they're heading into a catastrophe. The Australian said yesterday: 'New South Wales will seek a deal with Origin Energy to prolong the life span of the state's largest coal generator beyond 2025 after the state government said it had accepted the recommendations of an independent report that Eraring coal power station would need to stay open to safeguard electricity supplies'. To safeguard electricity supplies, we need to keep a coal-fired power station running. That's from the Labor Party minister. 'Origin's Eraring station was set to retire in 2025', the article goes on, 'but an independent report said such a closure at that time would expose the state to possible black-outs and further price increases'. Expose the state to back outs and further price increases. See these lights? Coal. NSW Premier Chris Minns said affordability in guaranteeing electricity supply is paramount, and it is. Mr Minns said:

One of the biggest challenges facing NSW is ensuring we can keep the lights on while managing the biggest change in energy mix and consumption in the shortest period of time in our nation's history.

This is insanity. You cannot keep the lights on—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, we're moving on to a lockdown scenario. You will be in continuation. Senators, it being almost 7.00 pm, a scheduled test of the Senate's emergency procedures is going to be undertaken. With the concurrence of the chamber, I ask that the sound and vision broadcasting now cease. The Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Sitting suspended from 18:59 to 19:35

Thank you to all senators who participated in the lockdown exercise and made suggestions about improvements to our system. The senator who was speaking at the time will be in continuation the next time that matter comes to the Senate.