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

I move:

That, noting that as the national electricity grid is rapidly transitioning to more dispersed methods of generation, transmission and storage, and acknowledging that such transitions will transgress on agricultural, Indigenous, national or marine parks, and protected environmental land, the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 June 2024:

The compulsory acquisition of land, including interests in land, for purposes related to electricity generation, transmission, distribution and storage with particular reference to:

the interaction and efficacy of compulsory access and acquisition powers and responsibilities of Commonwealth, state and territory governments;

the adequacy of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation, policies, programs, schemes and funding relating to compulsory access and acquisition of land (including an interest in land) from landholders;

the provision, and disbursement, of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments’ compulsory access and acquisition legislation and policy;

identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a fair national approach to compulsory access and acquisition consultation and compensation;

measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fishers to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management;

the efficacy of consultation processes between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and Commonwealth, state and territory governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily access or acquire agricultural, Indigenous, National and marine parks, and protected environmental lands; and

any related matters.

Here we are again: 'transmission Tuesday'. Many in this room will say, 'Why are we bringing Ross in again?' I'd say to be thankful that we haven't started our 'wind factory Wednesdays' yet!

This is a problem, and this particular reference looks at a very specific part of this: the rights of landholders. It's about property rights. We understand that for this process of Rewiring the Nation—this policy for diverse energy going forward—to be successful it has to have almost bipartisan support. With the changes of government over a long time, many of these things won't be built for six, 10 or 15 years. But what's happening now is not being done well. We see EISs of 28 days; the hamstringing of the AER regulation on the lowest cost to consumer; and that it sometimes costs more to do minor changes than to buy entire properties.

What this inquiry seeks to do is put up a long-term sustainable model by having an investigation, by talking to these people and coming up with an answer so that this policy can happen over the long term in a way that doesn't disturb farming, doesn't disturb environmental land and doesn't disturb marine parks, and in a way that all parties of government can get behind. What do we want to talk about? We want to talk about the people in Dunedoo, Oberon and other places. All these people have concerns. There's enough money going around in this process to do it better. There is enough organisation there. When we were talking out west, we talked about two 330-kVA lines, which cost $3.2 million per kilometre to run straight.

But when we bend them, they cost $7 million per kilometre. What do we do? We bend them all around, we take longer, we spend twice as much and we still don't meet the farmers' needs. We talk about the Hackneys but the only area on the farm that stays non-boggy when there is heavy rain, where they can load animals and where they can put their silos, will be taken. Why do they take that land? Because it is the best place for these transmission lines. Their farm becomes non-viable, and what do they get paid for—the narrow corridor it's in.

We want this inquiry to look at the fairness, the just terms of compensation. New South Wales has no legislation, nothing in the constitution about compulsory acquisition. They are not able to buy anything on the land, not able to buy the business. They are not allowed to do these things.

Looking at transmission in Oberon, do you remember that two-kilometre exclusion zone of houses from wind farms or wind factory towers? That was put in place when towers were 84 metres high. The towers in Oberon are now going to be 285 metres high, 400 of them. There is only one building in Sydney taller—Sydney Tower—and they are going to build 400 towers bigger than that out there. What's worse, they are not down low; they are on a mountain. They are on a ridgeline. The entire vista will be these wind factories. Where is the just compensation for all those people affected? It does not exist.

Let's get down to tin tacks. This is about property rights. This is about a person owning their property and having the right to say what goes on it and how you can do it. When they ask you to move the power lines a little bit so they can farm, if we can't compensate, why can't the owner trigger a must-buy for the entire property? Why can't the owner trigger a clause where they have to be bought out at the federal just terms rate for their property so they can continue farming unhindered elsewhere? We are seeing the community rise up about this because it is not going the right way. Up in my patch in the Hunter, we have the proposed Port Stephens offshore wind farm. There is not a commercially viable floating offshore wind farm in the world—not one. So to all those who say, 'Nuclear is not viable because it is not built anywhere,' it doesn't matter. We are doing something less viable in Australia right now, and we are up in arms again because of 28 days of EIS. How can a community come together to understand what is going on in 28 days when it has been foisted upon them?

My personal view is these things don't have to stop. They need to be done better if they are to be done at all. So how can we push ahead? I know there is a tinpot little very-narrow-scope inquiry from the electricity infrastructure ombudsman out there, but he is not hearing all of those. When someone connected with that office says the pilots like the challenge in aerial agricultural flying near lines, it is rubbish. These people deserve a voice. No-one is trying to overthrow anything here; it is about trying to find a policy that all parties of government can support in the long-term.

I sat in estimates and I heard how Snowy 2.0 is drawing out, how these transmission lines are taking longer than they thought they would. There is a 24 per cent decrease in investment in renewable energy this year compared to last year in FIDs. We know new generation is going slower. We know the New South Wales government is talking to businesses about keeping Eraring and all these other places open. It is time to admit the goals of renewable for 2030 are gone, so don't rush to fail. Slow down and succeed. Talk to these people about what is fair, about a way to do it. If you went to the Hackneys and said, 'We have to go here, even though we are bendy'—7.7 kilometres, with a 2.9 kilometre run through their land—and offered them $10 million, I don't know what their land is worth but I think they would be interested, and they could go and farm without this hassle.

When you're talking to people down around the Riverina about VNI West, it's the same thing. The Victorian government have managed to reroute the entire plan because they wanted to for political reasons. New South Wales has to pick up how it connects because it's got to connect to Snowy. These things are going on as we speak.

I keep bringing up this two-tier economy. It's like Upstairs, Downstairs. If the people in the cities can turn on their aircon, turn on their flat screens and charge their electric cars, they don't care what happens out there in the world. But the people that make things, grow things, mine things and care for things are out there, almost as the servants' quarters for the city, and it's not good enough. It's not good enough for them to be told how they have to live and what they have to deliver to be part of this country. It's like The Castle: 'It's the Constitution; it's justice; it's the vibe.' It's about doing something in a fair way and not telling them how to suck eggs. That's the real problem with this country at the moment. Too many of us people in towers, in corporations and in places like this think we know better than others how they have to live their lives. We tell them: 'Hand over your land; it's for the good of the country. We're going through here. You don't need that dry patch. You don't need that vista. You don't need anything, because we need power.' You say to these people, 'You just want more money.' No, they don't. Most of them would take no money and no powerlines or no money and no wind farms. This isn't about money; this is about justice. This is about doing something right.

And so we come for the seventh time to this chamber to try and help the country with a long-term plan that won't get rolled back. I guarantee that I will not be sitting and supporting us in government if we don't do this better and roll this back, because it is wrong the way it is. Many of the people up there in Port Stephens are environmentalists who would have voted 100 per cent for people who are going to vote this motion down today. When they feel the pain, they see what we're talking about, and they are feeling the pain right across Australia—in New England, on the coast, in Queensland and down in Victoria. This is a problem that is spreading across Australia, and it will bring us all down. We come here as leaders to bring Australia together and build a better Australia. We don't come here as politicians to divide the haves and the have-nots. This inquiry is an opportunity to give people a chance to come together for a solution that will build a better Australia. It is nothing more than that. If you tell this increasingly large number of people that they don't deserve that by voting this down again, we'll see you in the last sitting fortnight, and we'll do the same thing again. And we'll see you next year, and we'll do the same thing again. And we will bring them here, and they'll be out the front, and we know what will happen. They'll be ignored out there, just as they're ignored in here.

The people that made this country great did things. They didn't market things, they didn't insure things and they didn't sue people over those things. They built things, they mined things, they made things and they grew things. These are the people that are suffering here. It's the people that grow your food and your fibre. We are taking their water with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We are taking their land with this. We're taking their names for products under trade deals. We're taking their staff with visa deals. We are taking everything off them and still expect them to feed us and clothe us. And then we expect to tell them how to live. We say: 'You've got to have an E zone on your property. You can't farm here. You've got to protect this. There's a left-handed butterfly living in your cactus plant; you can't do anything there.' These are the things that people in towers do. You can't virtue-signal your way to a lucky country. You can't wish your way to posterity. It has to happen. We in this chamber get it. I'm a talker. I'm here, not making anything. I'm a part-time mechanic for my son's go-kart, and that's as real as I get nowadays. But, out there, people are doing the hard yards.

They are sowing, they are ploughing, they are shearing and they are milking. Dairy farmers have the hardest job in the world. Try telling a cow you can't milk it twice today because you want to go on holidays. See how that goes for you.

I urge everyone—this is nothing other than finding a path to do something you want to do better and finding a way to look after rural and regional Australia so that they will be happy to join us in the way that you want to live and do the things you want to do. Why do we not deal with the consequences of this change? There will be 285-metre towers instead of 84-metre towers on top of mountains, acres of solar farms instead of a few solar panels and structures on whale migration tracks off Port Stephens. All of these things are happening, and no-one seems to give a damn, because we're trying to get to a number that we already admit we can't get to. Isn't it better to do it in a way that lasts forever than to do it in a way where we have to overturn it and do it the right way when we get there?

You won't get final investment decisions when there is no certainty about bipartisan support. You won't. I'm not going to invest $2 billion on something when I think that, in six months time or three years time, the government is going to change it and I'm going to pull everything on it. Come to the table. That's what we're here to do. Senator Colbeck is sponsoring this with me because it needs to be done right. It is nothing more than that. The people suffering out there deserve it, and I urge your support.

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

It's with great pleasure that I stand with my colleague Senator Cadell to support a motion on this matter. It's for the seventh time. It's absolutely ludicrous that the government doesn't want to hear the voices of the communities that are coming to us to express their concerns about the way that this very important infrastructure is being rolled out. The government tries to portray this as the opposition not wanting to see the development of the grid to support renewable energy and the growth in energy needs across the country. That is simply not true. That is a lie, in fact. That is not what this motion is seeking to do.

We know, because we have been talking to people—to farmers, fishers and Indigenous communities—that there are a whole range of issues in relation to equity and fairness and the terms under which lands and seas are accessed for the development of this infrastructure. We know that because we've been having the conversations. We've been talking to them. The government know there's a problem, because they've instituted their own little in-house secret-squirrel inquiry. But they don't want the voices that are talking to that process to be heard publicly, which they would be through a Senate inquiry. Communities could come and give evidence to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. Their voices could be heard in public, rather than in secret-squirrel meetings behind closed doors where their complaints can't be heard, and the full weight and support of this chamber could be brought to the government to assist it with the solutions.

We know that the government is looking for solutions. We know that that's the case, and we want to see fair terms for access to these lands and seas and for those who are impacted. We've been told in a separate inquiry—the government's inquiry that it asked the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth to do into creating Australia as a green export superpower—that Indigenous communities get paid a lower rate in Queensland than graziers do. Tell me how that's fair. Why can't this chamber play a role in fixing that?

Off Gippsland, about 20,000 tonnes of fish come out of the South East Trawl Fishery. Ninety per cent of that fishery is impacted by the zones that have currently been declared. How do we fairly manage the impact on that fishery and on the supply of seafood from that fishery into Sydney and Melbourne regional markets? How do we make sure that's properly managed? How do we do that? The government is not prepared to say, but they don't want the seafood industry to be able to come and talk to parliament or to the Senate openly about what they think the solutions are, which we might then be able to recommend to the parliament and, therefore, to the government. They don't want to have that conversation. Senator Cadell has talked about the circumstances off Port Stephens in New South Wales, and we've seen plenty of publicity recently about the concerns that the local community has there, from a whole range of perspectives. It's not just fisheries, and it's not just fisheries off Gippsland either. It's tourism. It's a whole range of other things.

The terms of reference for this inquiry are written in that constructive mode. How do we make sure that the way in which these energy companies and those proposing these major pieces of infrastructure access the land and seas is done in a fair way and on just terms? You would expect that that's what would happen as a matter of course, but we know that there are a whole range of dodgy type contracts that are being offered out there to farmers in particular. We know that there are issues with determining the routes along which these major pieces of infrastructure will be built. Senator Cadell has talked about the scale of some of this infrastructure, and we haven't even started talking about the potential impacts on the environment and on environmental lands, which this inquiry also wants to look at. I can't understand why the Greens aren't interested in this. I genuinely can't understand it. I say that because, in Queensland, you have the circumstance where you've got over a thousand hectares of koala habitat impacted by the development of a major piece of infrastructure. Try and cut down a tree for any other reason anywhere in the country.

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

Don't build a dam!

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

Good point, Senator: don't try and build a dam. But you can impact native wildlife habitat—koala habitat—to build a major piece of energy infrastructure, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. WWF will get on television and tell you that you should donate to WWF because koalas are going to become extinct, yet here we have a piece of infrastructure that will impact over a thousand hectares of native vegetation that is important koala habitat. So what are the appropriate terms and conditions on which all of these things are done? That's what this inquiry would like to do. The terms of reference would include, for example, 'identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a fair national approach to compulsory acquisition consultation and compensation'. Why is the government and why are the Greens voting against that? The inquiry would look into 'the efficacy of consultation processes between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and Commonwealth, state and territory governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily access or acquire agricultural, Indigenous, national and marine parks, and protected environmental lands'.

This motion is about trying to make sure that the development of the energy grid, which is critical for Australia, is done properly.

There is an extraordinary amount of work that's going to have to happen, and a huge number of communities, landowners and owners of access rights in fisheries and environmental lands are going to be impacted. All that we are looking to do is play a constructive part in that process to ensure there's a decent approach and there are nationally recognised processes, guidelines and compensation, because it's all over the shop at the moment. It is seriously all over the shop. It's different in Victoria to NSW and Queensland. A farmer in Western Australia gets less than a farmer in Queensland, and there's no ongoing payment for having transmission lines on your farm in Tasmania right now.

There's significant work that has to be there because Tasmania will play its important role in the development of the national grid, through the construction of Basslink, which is a project jointly run between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian and Victorian governments. It's a really important piece of infrastructure for my home state, but it will also involve connection to the grid and transmission lines across agricultural land, particularly across the north of Tasmania. There are farmers in my communities that I've spoken to who are likewise concerned. There are communities who are concerned that the projects actually go ahead.

We had the Burnie mayor here yesterday to talk to the energy minister to make sure that the projects do go ahead, because she is concerned that the investment that will come from these new projects will come into north-west Tasmania and benefit her community, our Tasmanian communities. It is important that these things occur. It is important, though, that they occur in an orderly way. It's important that they occur under just terms. It's important that the compensation that's received is fair. If we are going to achieve the national goals that are set to expand the grid, the last thing that we need is communities out protesting against the development. The way we go about this is the most important thing. That is the thing that's going to make a difference.

And, can I tell you, at the moment, that's not what's happening. The government does not want the voices of these people, these communities, to be heard. We saw farmers come from Cairns to Brisbane to protest. For those that don't understand, it's further from Cairns to Brisbane than it is from Brisbane to Melbourne. It's a bloody long way to go to make sure that what's happening in your community is done in a fair and proper way. We had farmers in this chamber waiting for hours to hear the debate on this matter go ahead. They don't come to Canberra for no reason. The farmers do not come to Canberra for no reason. They're here because they have concerns. They're here because the government won't listen to them. They're here because they don't think they're getting a fair deal We think they should.

If we want to see the major development that is required to extend the grid to support the Australian economy—and, can I tell you, reliable, affordable energy is one of the key indicators to the economic wealth of the country and to the economic fortunes of the country—we've got to do this properly. The terms of reference for this inquiry have been written in that context, in a constructive way, so that this parliament, this Senate, can play its constructive role in ensuring that this is done properly and that we don't have farmers on tractors arriving at Parliament House in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne or wherever else—or in their local communities—to protest at the way that they're being treated.

We want a process that's done properly and fairly, one in which they believe and feel that they have had a fair voice. The government simply isn't there at the moment.

They'll trot out their talking points. They'll tell you that this is just about people who don't want renewable energy to go ahead. Well, that's not why I'm standing here. That's not why, with Senator Cadell, I have put this motion up seven times now. I want to see my communities treated properly and fairly, and I want to see communities all over the country treated the same way. Why should a community in Western Australia get more than a community or farmer in Queensland? Why should a grazier in Queensland get more than an Indigenous owner in Queensland? Why are there dodgy contracts floating around out there at the moment?

The government really does need to come to its senses on this. As Senator Cadell said, we do not intend to give up on this. This is an important matter for our communities. The government can try and dismiss it and say, 'It's all about politics and people who don't believe in renewables.' That's not true. That's not the case. The government should come to its senses and support this reference, because we want reliable energy across this country and for it to be achieved in fair and just terms.

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

Transmission Tuesday, part 7—it sounds like a bad Hollywood movie.

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

It's a tragedy.

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

It is a tragedy, Senator Cadell. It's a tragedy that you and Senator Colbeck have had to move this motion seven times. For those listening to the broadcast, I think it's really important to set the scene. Why has this motion been put up seven times? It must be an extraordinarily controversial motion. It must directly criticise the government, undermine some sort of government policy or do something terribly radical. Well, in actual fact, it doesn't. No offence, Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck, but this motion doesn't do anything radical at all. All it does is give voice, which is the one of the most important jobs this chamber has, to a group of people who want a very important issue canvassed in the forum of a Senate committee.

The issue is the huge number of transmission lines and the other infrastructure that will be installed in Australia over the next decades, based on this government's current plan, and the disproportionate impact that that's going to have on a relatively small part of the Australian community. Transmission lines feed into the city, in general, from where the power is created, often in rural and regional areas. When they hit the city, they go through a little bit of urban land, but the vast bulk of the impact of those transmission lines and that infrastructure is on regional communities. The impact is on farmland.

Those communities want a say in this plan for tens of thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines, new sites for wind turbines and new sites for solar factories. They want a say in how it's going to be rolled out, how it's going to impact them, how they're going to be consulted and how they're going to be compensated. Those communities deserve to be heard. It's not too much. In fact, having this chamber, through the committee process, look at these issues is the very least that those communities should be given.

It's not that the committee process is an adversarial one. Sometimes it gets a bit feisty, but the committee process is also a way in which future-looking bipartisan, tripartisan or otherwise multipartisan plans for contentious issues can be taken forward. In my time in this place, I have seen it time and time again. Committees have actually come together to try and reach a point of agreement and take forward a model that satisfies very divergent requirements—and the requirements are divergent. Nobody's saying that this isn't a difficult issue, but that's why we need an inquiry. It is a difficult issue. The difference between choosing path A, path B and path C for a transmission line can have dramatic impacts. It can have dramatic impacts on communities and on individual farming properties, including generational farming properties, which this chamber, through the committee system, should be empowered to look at.

I just find it ludicrous that the Labor Party and the Greens have backed themselves into a corner, rejecting these entirely reasonable terms of reference for an inquiry. There is nothing radical in here. There is nothing that's a direct attack on the government. There's nothing that says that this committee should find that there shouldn't be allowed to be any transmission lines on anybody's farm ever again. That's not part of the terms of reference. They are very reasonable terms of reference to look at an issue that is very real and that imposes burdens, supposedly for the benefit of all society, on a very narrow part of society. It's not people in urban areas who are going to have to deal with these tens of thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines or with the wind farms and the solar farms. It simply isn't. They will see the supposed benefits of these things in time—we can have another argument about that—but the fact is that people in urban centres, people in cities, don't have to deal with the transmission lines. They don't have to deal with the massive imposition.

The areas we're talking about are simply staggering. One company in Western Australia is talking about 4,000 acres of solar and wind projects—one company with 4,000 acres, and that's just to power their business. That's not powering Perth. That is not powering the grid. That's just for their business. So we are talking about staggering amounts of land use into the future. Whilst perhaps on the west coast that will be slightly less than on the east coast, the fact is that the same issues are at play no matter where you are in Australia.

These issues deserve to be ventilated in a forum such as a Senate committee where we can hear from local communities, and we will hear a lot of different perspectives. I have absolutely no doubt about that. We are not going to hear from just one view of the world. There are plenty of people who would love to see opportunities for their patch, including economic opportunities, but let's hear about it. Let's hear about how the costs and benefits can be shared between the city and the bush. Let's hear about how the costs and benefits can be shared between those who derive revenue from these electricity generation projects and transmission lines and those who have to put up with the impost upon them.

Let's hear about how we can compensate landowners for their loss of amenity and loss of property rights. If we're serious about our Constitution then we should be serious about that issue. How do we compensate property owners for the continual taking, via regulation, of their rights? Again, it's not an issue that's going to be dealt with easily, but it is something that this place should be willing to confront.

Labor and the Greens again have an opportunity to change their minds, and I ask them to consider it. They've again got an opportunity to say: 'We got it wrong the first of six times. We should have this inquiry. We should enable a Senate committee to look at what is a very important issue'—just as literally thousands of other inquiries have been held on important and contentious issues. We'll see whether Labor and the Greens can bring themselves to support what is an entirely reasonable motion from Senators Colbeck and Cadell. We'll see whether they'll listen to the voices of those in the regions who will be directly impacted by this suite of policies, and whether they'll let them tell the Senate what they think the way forward should look like. That would be the only fair and reasonable thing to do.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind people of what Thomas Jefferson said: we can have farming without cities yet cannot have cities without farming. No farmers, no Australia! Why does this Labor government use the states to steal property from hardworking landowners and rip off farmers left, right and centre? Why? Because it can. And it builds on actions of past Liberal-National governments.

Before explaining that, Madam Acting Deputy President, let me say that I have a list of eight keys to ongoing, sustained human progress—just ones that I've developed over the years. The first is freedom. The second is the rule of law. The third is constitutional continuance and competitive federalism. The fourth is secure private property rights. That's fundamental. It enables freedom. The fifth is strong families. The sixth is affordable, reliable energy. Then there's fair and honest taxation and honest money.

Secure property rights are fourth on my list. Why? Because secure property rights are fundamental to reward for genuine effort and creativity and for investing and taking risk. People won't do that if they can't keep what they earn. Secondly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise initiative. Thirdly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise responsibility and accountability, because if you can just steal it then why would you have any accountability? The fourth fundamental about secure property rights is freedom. They enable freedom. This has been well known for centuries. One of the reasons communism and socialism always fail is that they steal property rights. And it's the reason, always, that personal free enterprise succeeds until the government—and this has happened repeatedly throughout history—gets too big and infringes on civil liberties. It destroys property rights and infringes on civil liberties.

So secure property rights are very important, and our founding fathers agreed, because our Commonwealth Constitution recognises and enshrines the importance of secure property rights. Under placitum (xxxi) of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, our Constitution, the Commonwealth may acquire property from a state or person providing it is on just terms. To put that in context, section 51 of the Constitution says:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

…   …   …   

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

That is clear—'just terms'. This means that the Commonwealth, the federal government, must pay the person being dispossessed of rights to use their land reasonable and just compensation for the property the Commonwealth acquires. If the Commonwealth interferes with rights to use land, it must pay just-terms compensation.

Generally, the states lack such property protections. Should a state acquire—or even steal, as has happened—land for a state, it does not need to provide compensation. Under state constitutions, no compensation is required. Even if a state acquires land for a Commonwealth purpose, the state is not bound under the Commonwealth Constitution to acquire it under just terms. This would then enable working around the constitutional protection for landowners, as I'm going to tell you with a story that is actually factual.

This is a story about the worst theft of property rights in our country's history. It happened during the lifetime of everyone in this chamber. In 2007, after John Howard was booted from office, I wrote a personal letter of thanks to him. I thought highly of John Howard. I thanked him and acknowledged him for his 30 years of work and for being at the forefront of the governance and policies introduced by the Keating and Hawke governments as well as has his own government afterward. Yet I didn't know at the time something that I'm going to share with you. It was the former Liberal-National coalition government under Prime Minister John Howard who came up with the disgraceful mechanism of using the states to do the federal government's dirty work for it. This is not new. This goes back to 1996-97.

The story starts with the United Nations Kyoto protocol on climate variation and John Howard's admitted desire to comply with it. He said he wouldn't sign the 1997 Kyoto protocol but we would comply with it as a country. He or his government realised that people were not ready at that time to shut down industry, power stations, agriculture, travel and transport that produce carbon dioxide, so they came up with a different idea—a worse idea: stop the farmers clearing their land. Stop the farmers using their land as they were free to do. The Constitution, though, requires compensation. That would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could not afford that, so the Howard government went around the Constitution, using the states to do the federal government's dirty work of stealing farmers' land to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol, because John Howard's government realised that they could cut the production of carbon dioxide or they could stop the clearing of land, which would be getting credit for giving more absorption of carbon dioxide. It was the same net effect. He did it without any scientific basis, as I'll explain in a minute.

One of the Howard government's early responses was to do a deal with Rob Borbidge's National Party government in Queensland. We had a National Party government in Queensland and three signatures from the senior National Party people, doing a deal with the Liberal-National federal government. They did a similar deal with Bob Carr, of the Labor Party in New South Wales, and then entrenched the deal with Peter Beattie in Queensland. Despite the denials under the Morrison government, this is still something the federal government relies upon for climate compliance. The irony is that John Howard betrayed himself as a champion of the Constitution and a champion of property rights that are fundamental to free enterprise societies. If you don't believe me on this story, ask Peter Spencer, who nearly died protesting. Ask Dan McDonald and many farmers who are awake to this in Queensland and New South Wales.

In 2013, six years after being booted from office, John Howard said, as the annual lecturer on climate at the London Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is a sceptic think tank opposed to the impacts of climate policy economically, that, after doing what he did to destroy our electricity sector and steal farmers' property rights, on the topic of climate science he was agnostic. None of it was driven by climate science.

Yet he led a government that stole farmers' property rights and introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector—shipping manufacturing overseas because of high electricity prices, driving families broke and causing inflation. His government concocted the National Electricity Market, which is really a racket. It's not a market; it's a bureaucracy that controls prices. Contrary to what people have been saying about Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, John Howard was the first leader of a major party and of a government to put in place an emissions trading scheme as policy.

This set a pattern for Labor because, if you look at the history of climate policy and energy policy, the Liberal-National coalition introduces climate and energy initiatives and the Labor Party, when it comes in, then ramps them up. Have a look at the safeguard mechanism as a foundation for a global carbon dioxide tax. That was admitted when Greg Hunt, under Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership, introduced the safeguard mechanism in 2015. It wasn't Chris Bowen—he just ramped it up. The UN's net zero strategy was first introduced to Australia by Scott Morrison, and it was then ramped up by the Greens and the Labor Party. Carbon farming—or money farming—sterilises and steals and locks up the land, increasing the cost of feral animal management and noxious weed management for all the farmers in the area. Locking up land means it becomes full of weeds. For UN biodiversity policies, look at the Howard government again.

Back to the Howard government, the 2007 Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority separated water entitlements from the land. Now we see in the Murray-Darling Basin—with the loss of property rights and water entitlements—the land is now married back up with water in the hands of corporate farmers on corporate farms. One of the aims of the Water Act, which is repeatedly stated throughout the act, is compliance with international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our legislation?

Let's have a look at the Labor state and federal governments. The Beattie Labor government in Queensland ramped up the stealing of farmers' property rights by imposing more restrictions on farmers' use of land, and so did Anna Bligh's government. Campbell Newman's government failed to restore property rights and just looked the other way. Annastacia Palaszczuk has since extended the stealing of property rights and entrenched it. The states have become adept at this method of stealing land from landowners, mostly as an attack on farmers, and not paying just terms compensation. Another way the states—Queensland in particular—do this is by using environmental reasons to justify placing restrictions on farmers' use of land, reducing the worth of land, preventing it from alternative productive use and preventing the development of the land for agricultural or grazing purposes. For example, the Great Barrier Reef protection legislation—contrary to the evidence of farming having no impact on the Great Barrier Reef—is having a devastating impact on communities because of the unfounded and unscientific restrictions that the Labor government has placed on farming communities up and down the east coast of Queensland. This is destroying productive land—with woody weeds under native vegetation protection legislation—and turning productive land with a bright future into a monoculture of woody weeds and no grass, which increases erosion.

This Labor federal government has declared war on farmers and primary producers. It's hijacking prime agricultural land to install banks of ugly wind turbines and poisonous and dangerous solar panels, vandalising literally acres of otherwise productive food-producing land. Any person should be able to see the stupidity, the hypocrisy and the economic devastation of such actions. In its desperate attempts to virtue signal to the world that it is a conservation and climate-saving giant, the Labor government is hell-bent on covering the landscape with expensive and inefficient wind turbines, ugly banks of solar panels—and damn the consequences. We see huge complexes of solar and wind farms built with no connection to the grid. We see it in Victoria and we see it in Queensland.

Now they are thinking, 'We'd better build transmission lines.' Transmission lines are going to chew up prime environmental habitat and farming.

Now more than 100 square kilometres of koala habitat in Queensland is under threat from the developers of these destructive wind turbine projects, all in the name of so-called renewable energy and at the cost of the environment and the extinction of rare wildlife—another aspect of killing the environment to save it. Other damage to farming by the Labor government include stopping regional infrastructure spending to improve the productivity of the regions and stopping live cattle and live sheep exports.

Farmers are hard pressed to stop the states, acting for the Commonwealth, from stealing land and attacking the property rights of farmers. The Labor government, in bed with the Greens and the teals, is pushing inhuman and antihuman policies, antienvironment policies and anti-Australian policies. Labor, Greens and the LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, are hell-bent on promoting projects that are destroying the land, destroying the environment, increasing unemployment, destroying the economy and pushing up the cost of living in Australia and reducing our security by exporting our major manufacturing. When it becomes too expensive to sip a latte in the city, even the teals might wake up to the fact that their lefty policies are making it too hard to continue living in what was the lucky country.

If our farmers chuck it all in, this country is lost, and the Chinese can simply walk in and create a food bowl to feed Asia. I remind you that Thomas Jefferson said, 'You can have farming without cities, but you cannot have cities without farming.' No farmers, no Australia. I haven't got time at the moment, but the stealing of property rights is not restricted to farmers. It is happening in urban environments, including Caboolture, near Brisbane. It is happening in Mosman, in Sydney. I fully support this motion from senators Colbeck and Cadell. It needs to go much further to encompass past theft of property and federal-state collusion enabling uncompensated theft of property rights with no just terms of compensation.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise here today in support of Senator Colbeck and Cadell's motion—obviously, I do; you all know that. What is our nation's electricity grid? It's like a square peg in a round hole because it's being forced to adapt to unreliable and inconsistent methods of electricity generation. That's what is going on. We have this reckless push—that's what it is—towards so-called renewable energy which is not renewable at all. What's renewable about Chinese solar panels and wind turbines that end up in landfill at the end of their useful life anyway? That's not renewable. It will only push up electricity prices, and we all know that. It's smashing Australian land holders, farmers and fishers. Prime farmland and sea life are under direct threat from our nation's ill-advised solar and wind transition. Farmers are facing compulsory acquisition or, even worse, having high-voltage powerlines imposed on them through their property, with no entitlement to adequate compensation.

A few months ago what did the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, say? Antonio Gutteres informed the world that we had moved from global warming to 'the era of global boiling'. This guy is a nut case—that's what he is—global boiling! It was all very dramatic. To me it was a little bit funny, and for those of us in the Senate who eagerly wait to find out what comes after 'global boiling', perhaps it's this: perhaps next time he will come on TV and warn us about—I don't know—global microwaving. How about that? Maybe he'll tell us that we've entered the era of global molten lava. Who knows? I don't know. Do you know? This guy is nuts. But he'll be sure to come up with something dramatic in order to get a headline and keep the climate fear, which is what it is. It's like climate fear porn in the news and top of mind for the misinformed among us. That's what he is doing.

Personally, I don't mind the term 'global boiling' because—do you know what?—tempers are boiling right now. Tempers are boiling at least in regional Australia, not so much in the inner city for the woke latte sipping lefty activists. But in regional areas, tempers are boiling. Farmers are boiling mad. They're boiling mad about the government's plan to litter the countryside—that's what it is—with wind turbines. What do these wind turbines do? They destroy prime agriculture land.

Our very own climate high priest, Minister Chris Bowen, is telling our farmers that they must put up with wind turbines that are around 285 metres tall or something like that being plonked into their paddocks. If these hulking great turbines—these monuments to ridiculousness and madness—are not enough of a blight on the landscape, Minister Bowen is telling them that he's also, potentially, going to crisscross their properties with 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines.

In the town of Oberon in New South Wales, the government is planning on erecting around 400 of these wind turbines. The City of Sydney has got 16 buildings that are more than 200 metres tall. Oberon in the Central Tablelands would have 400 turbines that are higher than that. For the love of God, doesn't anyone care about the eagles? What about the eagles? Where are the Greens? Save the eagles! Apart from being an eyesore, the whir of just one of these monstrosities can be heard up to 10 kilometres away. Multiply that by 400 and you can start to understand why the people of Oberon are red hot about this issue. Let's be honest: of course the eyesore won't be seen from the Prime Minister's residence, and the noise pollution will not be heard in Minister Bowen's electorate or in any of the Greens or Teals members' electorates either. The Oberon community believe—not without good reason, I might add—that the proposed wind farm will damage the value of their homes, farms and businesses, and they're right. And for what? For nothing.

If Minister Bowen manages by some miracle to reach the end of his net zero rainbow, China will continue to increase their emissions—they're not stopping—and will quickly swallow up whatever gains Australia has made. We don't talk about China enough in this place, and we should. Here's the kick in the you-know-what: we buy these wind turbines from China, mostly, who manufacture them with energy supplied by Australian coal. Ridiculous! Net zero—it's this. It's nothing more than a wealth transfer to the CCP and, as my colleague Senator Roberts likes to say, global predatory billionaires. That's where it's going. You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. It's madness. No wonder Chairman Xi Jinping loves Australia so much—at least, he claims to. Few other things in life would give him as much to laugh about in his life right now than our energy policy. It's nuts. We shut our country down and send everything to China, and they laugh at us.

Minister Bowen wants to plonk 40 new wind turbines a month in regional areas every month for the next seven years. He says that it'll save the environment. No, Minister Bowen, it's not going to save anything. It's going to destroy the environment, and it's going to ruin people's lives. The pain being inflicted right now on the people of Oberon and all the other country folk across the country, from Queensland to Tasmania, needs to stop. It needs to end. If the government is serious about achieving net zero and if they're not just a patsy for China, they could do it with nuclear power and have the added bonus of not destroying the lives and livelihoods of all the rural communities. The government's stubborn refusal to even contemplate nuclear is frankly outrageous. It's enough to make country people's blood boil. There's your global boiling—the country people's blood is boiling. Listen to the concern of our farmers, Minister Bowen and Prime Minister Albanese. Rather than bullying them into accepting turbines and transmission lines that they don't want or need, listen to them. Consider nuclear instead.

If you really want to shore up our power supply, for God's sake stop this madness. Once again, I will commend Senators Colbeck and Cadell for their motion. We need to investigate and expose the reality of net zero. Let's be honest for a second. Net zero makes net-zero sense when you're using solar panels and wind turbines, which—once again—end up in landfill at the end of their useful life, and batteries that last seven to 10 years, if you're lucky, and then also end up in landfill at the end of their useful life. What is the point of this? Nuclear energy is the answer. It's something I hope all the adults can agree on. It's the best way forward. If you believe in the garbage, lies and misinformation that says 'CO2 is going to kill us all,' I can tell you that it will not. It's absolute garbage.

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

Senator Pocock was on his feet, but—

Well, I'll go to you, Senator Davey, then I'll go to Senator Pocock. It's unlimited debate.

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

Thank you, Deputy President! It's very competitive in this chamber! We know that this Labor government, as they were vying for election when in opposition, went to the Australian people and promised they would do things differently. They promised they would be the government of transparency and openness. We know that they are anything but. We have seen in this chamber time and time again this Labor government run from transparency and scrutiny and absolutely avoid accountability. This simple motion for an inquiry to hear from experts, impacted community members, conservationists and the departmental advisers that have been providing the government advice, which will give transparency to the Australian people about decisions being made, is being repeatedly thwarted. It's happened six times and counting. This will be the seventh time, if they vote against it. It's been thwarted by this government so they can avoid scrutiny. They did the same with the inquiry into COVID after calling, from opposition, for a robust and forensic review of the COVID response. I should know; I was on the COVID select committee.

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

Those were the days!

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

When you were in opposition—thank you, Senator Watt—it was certainly better times, and certainly a more transparent time. But they finally got shamed into setting up the inquiry. However, it had the weakest of all terms of reference, designed to avoid scrutiny. Ironically, it was not even scrutiny of themselves. It would have provided scrutiny of a Liberal-National government, but they limited the terms of reference to protect their state mates and avoid scrutiny of their state mates. Caught out, embarrassed and shamed, they've back-pedalled to slightly expand the terms of reference. But let me make it clear that the terms still explicitly exclude the decisions of state and territory governments from being investigated by the inquiry, and that's something that clearly wasn't explained down the chain of command, because, shockingly, the minister for health, Mr Butler, incorrectly stated this morning that the terms of reference explicitly included examination of those health responses. It was wrong. It was incorrect. The health minister even went on to say that it would be extraordinary to set up an inquiry that did not examine the operation of those measures, not realising that that's exactly what his government did—not just once but twice—when they expanded the terms of reference. We saw another example just today, when, in question time, I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt. He got up to answer the question but could not answer in any coherent way.

He did not know the detail, which is something that is becoming common among this government. It was very clear that the minister did not know or care what impacts the government's policies would have on communities, which is again what we're seeing with their avoidance of this inquiry. And the list goes on and on.

Time and time again we are seeing this government avoid orders of the Senate for the production of documents, and I am not alone in my concerns of that. We've seen representatives from the Greens and representatives from the crossbench call this government to account for failing to produce documents required by this chamber to allow us to do our jobs effectively. We all are calling for transparency, which is why I'm so astounded that the Greens persist in blocking this inquiry with the government.

Let me make it clear: our call for an inquiry isn't just about farmers. Transmission lines, the impacts of transmission lines, the costs of transmission lines—the cost will affect everyone—and the impact of building and constructing those transmission lines, will, yes, impact farmers, but it will also impact our landscapes, flora, fauna and amenity. Indeed, when the New South Wales parliament held an inquiry into this issue, they heard from the Animal Justice Party NSW. That's not a party I am normally prone to agree with, but on this occasion they highlighted the damage that transmission lines could have on 82 species of plants and animals in New South Wales alone. That inquiry heard from environmental activists, national parks representatives, landholders and community members who all raised significant concerns about the transmission lines, how routes are chosen, compensation offered and the impacts on their lives and livelihoods.

We know that these lines will impact on koala habitat. We know that the transmission lines require vast swathes of landscape to be cleared. We know that there are concerns about bushfire risks. We've seen reports in the West Australian and other newspapers about volunteer firefighters raising their concerns about the impact of transmission lines and the increased risk of bushfires but also about how to then respond to bushfires: the impact of transmission lines on the capability for aerial firefighting services and the impact of transmission lines on the capability of using other infrastructure and other equipment in and around transmission lines if bushfires occur. I don't understand the logic of those opposite who claim that they want to save the planet but are happy to destroy Australia's environment to do so.

We have brought on this debate time and time again, and we haven't won the vote, obviously, to get an inquiry. There are ever-increasing numbers of people also raising concerns about this issue. Since we commenced our campaign to hold an inquiry, just an inquiry, into transmission lines, we've also seen an increase in protests against renewable projects. I bet the government kind of wishes they'd accepted our proposal for a simple inquiry into transmission lines at the outset, at the beginning of this process, because that might have helped them actually quell what is now becoming an increasing issue for the government.

From Bob Brown and the eagle campaigners in Tasmania to the offshore flotillas of surfers going out from both Wollongong and Newcastle to protest against offshore wind farms, people who are not necessarily conservative, who are certainly not climate deniers or climate change sceptics—in fact, they are some of the most vocal proponents of the need to do something to address climate change—are the very people protesting against renewable projects, and they also have concerns about transmission lines. This is why we need to actually listen. This is why we need an inquiry. I will agree with Senator Babet. We also need to ask the question why are we continually blocking talking about nuclear? But I stray.

This motion is about an inquiry into the impact of transmission lines, how those decisions are made, how the routes are chosen, how communities and landholders are consulted with to bring them on the journey, because it has been appalling so far. Imagine getting home and finding a waterproof envelope stuck to your front door saying 'Your home has been chosen for destruction so we can put in a power pole.' That is effectively what is happening to farmers. They come home to an envelope on their gate saying, 'Lucky You. You have drawn out of the lottery and you are going to have transmission lines criss-crossing your property whether or not you like it.' So is it any wonder with this government's track record that you have even people like a brand-new president of the NFF calling out the Albanese government on their lack of consultation, on their lack of preparedness to work with farmers, landholders and regional communities to develop policy that will actually benefit Australia.

In closing, I will just say: get on board. Let us have this inquiry then you won't have to listen to us every other Tuesday talking about it again and again. Let us have the inquiry. Let us hear from the people who want to be heard and stop avoiding scrutiny and transparency.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. It is always good to see you in the chamber. I would like to thank senators Cadell and Colbeck for their concerns about this issue. There are legitimate concerns from landholders, from rural communities, from environmentalists. I have met with and enjoyed engaging with a number of them, both here in Canberra and on trips into regional and New South Wales, but I am very wary of the politics at play with this issue. We have a coalition who had a decade to look into this, to build the kinds of frameworks that we hear them talk about yet we saw nothing of the sort. We saw a total failure of leadership when it came to planning for the transition, to building the social licence, to ensuring that people in regional communities—many of whom have been reliant on fossil fuels—benefit from this transition in a meaningful way, in a long-lasting way, in a way that sets them up. With that in mind, I worked with the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, to secure an independent, well resourced and wide-ranging review undertaken by Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. Andrew Dyer commenced his work in this area in November 2015 as the National Wind Farm Commissioner—a few governments away, I guess.

That has now been expanded from the National Wind Farm Commissioner to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner on 26 March 2021.

As part of this review, Mr Dyer has so far held 74 meetings and spoken to some 575 people in remote, rural and regional communities, as well as meeting with stakeholders in cities. From Tamworth to Wangaratta, and to Dubbo, Muswellbrook, Ballarat and Brisbane, Andrew and his team are getting out and talking to people on the ground about these issues. They have received over 500 submissions in over 250 online responses, and will provide a final report which will be made public to the government in December. Much of the ground that we have been talking about late into the evening in these motions and debates are being covered by Mr Dyer. The review will consider community attitudes towards renewable energy infrastructure and provide advice on the best way to maximise community engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating renewable energy infrastructure.

In conducting the review, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner should have regard to the following: perceived or actual environmental impacts; perceived or actual impacts on agricultural land, including emergency management and fire and biosecurity risks—things that have been raised with me multiple times; and increases in landholder insurance premiums. We know that this is an issue, and it isn't just an issue with transmission lines. If you talk to farmers around the Pilliga, who are having gas pipelines put across their properties, you hear that they're being told at times, 'You're now uninsurable.' At the same time, Santos's plans, should there be a bushfire in the Pilliga, is to evacuate—to get out of there. And who is going to be left fighting these fires? All the farmers who are part of the Rural Fire Service are going to be the ones who have to turn up and fight these fires. These are the things we have to look at.

It will look at the impacts on tourism, and aesthetic and cultural indications—again, these are things we need to consider. There's community engagement and benefit-sharing, including financial, local infrastructure and knowledge-sharing, and any other type of benefit. The AEIC can advise on how to maximise community engagement within the existing regulatory and legislative frameworks, including the National Electricity Law, the National Energy Objectives and the regulatory investment test for transmission. There's a bunch more, and I have enjoyed engaging with Mr Dyer in his role—I found him to be knowledgeable and very passionate about his work. He certainly turns up at estimates as one of a handful who will give you a straight answer and tell you how it is. He's not hiding anything. So I look forward to seeing what his review recommends, because I acknowledge that this is a concern for communities. It's so critical that we get it right; we have to get this right as a country. And we have to act, knowing just how critical this is and the speed at which we're going to have to get this right to really lead the way.

Again, I'll just to touch on the politics of this. I would take it far more seriously if the people who raise concerns about things like transmission lines and turbines had in the past raised the same concerns when we saw the fossil fuel industry putting through pipelines and coal seam gas wells. We've seen Mr Dutton weighing into this, but a search of the Hansard of the 46th Parliament and also of the 45th Parliament doesn't return any results for Mr Dutton talking about the issue of transmission lines. So I welcome debate on this; I think it's something that needs to be looked into, but I'm very wary of some of the politics in play being used to whip up some of the fear and some of the flat out climate science denial that we've heard from some in this chamber in this debate.

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

I very much welcome Senator Pocock's contribution. I agree with much of what he just had to say. It is unfortunate that this issue has been seized upon by members of the opposition for their political ends. It is a really important issue. I say this as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry along with being a senator in this chamber.

It is an important issue that we ensure landholders are properly consulted in the development of renewable energy infrastructure, and that is exactly why, as Senator Pocock has said, the government has commissioned a review by Mr Andrew Dyer, the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner of Australia, on these issues. I've actually mentioned this to a number of opposition senators and encouraged them to participate in Mr Dyer's review and encourage concerned communities to participate in Mr Dyer's review. These are exactly the issues that Mr Dyer is looking at with regard to the consultation processes when it comes to renewable energy infrastructure, and I suggest that any opposition senator who is actually sincere in their concerns about this issue would be participating in Mr Dyer's review and would encourage affected and interested communities to do so as well. If opposition senators aren't doing that, that just exposes that they're only pursuing this for their political ends. With that, I move:

That the question be put.

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

The question is that the question be put. A division is required. It will be deferred until tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.