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

For the 10th time, I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move:

That, noting the importance of ensuring 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 matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024:

(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.

They say persistence pays off. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but I genuinely hope so. This matter clearly has a history over a considerable period of time now and has been debated a number of times in the chamber. In my view—and I don't think I'm misrepresenting Senator Cadell—this is an important matter for our communities, and the communities, particularly in regional Australia, that we represent deserve to have their voices heard in this place. Farmers have come to Canberra on a number of occasions seeking support and for their voices to be heard—and they should be heard.

This is not an unreasonable motion. It is not a motion that is against infrastructure supporting the national electricity grid. It is a motion that recognises we are undertaking a significant transition in this country that will require additional transmission, that will require access to agricultural land, Indigenous land, environmental lands and marine environments, but seeks a process that will put in place just terms and a fair and national approach to the development of that infrastructure. That's what this motion seeks. It's not anti-anything except unfairness.

With previous iterations of this motion, we have been told by those opposite: 'You don't need to worry. We are going to establish our own inquiry, our own process, and we will organise for Mr Andrew Dyer, the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, to conduct an inquiry around the country to look at this issue. You don't need to worry. There's nothing to see here. It'll be fine.' Mr Dyer did his work. He travelled the country. He had a lot of meetings. He discussed things with farmers. He talked to communities around the country. But that inquiry that we were assured by the government would resolve all the issues did nothing of the sort. In fact, when that inquiry came back the report confirmed there were chronic problems.

A survey showed that a staggering 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of engagement from project developers. It didn't matter whether they were a farmer who just didn't want it or somebody who supported the development but still couldn't get some straight answers. I have had a conversation with someone who is a dead-set supporter of infrastructure across his farm but has had seven changes of path across his land, and he's growing weary of the fact that he can't get sensible answers. The survey also found that more than 90 per cent of people were dissatisfied with the information being provided or their concerns being resolved. It's not a bad record so far. The government tells us: 'This'll be fine. Mr Dyer will do his work and resolve all the problems.' But 92 per cent are not satisfied with the engagement and 90 per cent are not satisfied with the information being provided or having their concerns resolved.

But the really disappointing thing about the report is that it did nothing to provide solutions, which is what this motion is looking to do. This motion is looking to provide solutions—'options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition' and 'options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries'.

This motion is seeking a Senate inquiry, firstly, so that the voices of regional Australia, Indigenous communities and those representing environmental lands can be heard because the government's not listening and also to provide some solutions as to how we might sensibly progress this important infrastructure. The report contains no commentary on tax treatment of payments, compensation or equitable process for negotiation of access and payment regimes, all which need attention and all which are creating friction across the country. Minister Bowen doesn't want anyone to talk about this, and Minister Watt won't stand up to Minister Bowen—or has no currency in cabinet, I don't know—and is not prepared to stand up for farmers. We heard during question time today that he's quite happy to close down parts of agriculture in this country, as the agriculture minister. He doesn't have what it takes to stand up for farmers.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn't want to get his akubra dirty!

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

We might come to the akubra later. Farmers, fishers, Indigenous Australians and those representing environmental lands in this country don't get to have their voices heard on this important transition. That's all we're asking for. This is a more than reasonable request. And, when you consider, for example, that in the fishery space off the south-east coast of Victoria the south-east trawl fishery land more than 20,000 tonnes of fish and are by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney, these fisheries are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine farm impacts on commercial fishing in Gippsland. What about the consumers of seafood in this country? Potentially they will have one of the most significant fisheries in this country impacted by the infrastructure that's been proposed in these regions, but they don't get their voices heard. The carpetbaggers in the wind industry do. They won't be supported by Minister Bowen or those on the crossbenches. Those whose lands are being impacted don't get their voice heard.

I happened to be in another inquiry by another committee where a member of the Greens organised for a group of Indigenous Australians to come and give evidence to that committee because they were concerned about the returns they were getting for energy developments on their lands. It was really quite instructive. They told us that they were getting paid less for energy infrastructure on their Indigenous lands, on their Aboriginal lands, than leaseholders were getting in Queensland, and they didn't think that was fair. They came to this other committee, at the invitation of a member of the Greens, to give evidence to that effect. Yet the Greens wouldn't support this inquiry, which is wanting to give that voice currency in this debate; they're not prepared to do it. We were told how they got a different price in Western Australia to what they got in Queensland. This motion seeks to understand how we can find a fair and national approach to this matter. They are very, very sensible terms of reference. They're not about saying, 'Don't do this,' but about asking, 'How do we do this?'

We know that the government are running way behind because they are handling this so badly. Had we gone ahead with motion No. 1 or perhaps motion No. 2 or even motion No. 3, we could have had this inquiry completed by now.

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

Motion 8 would have done it.

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

Motion 8 would have been nice too, Senator Cadell. It would have been very nice. But, no, that's not what we get. They just don't want to have this conversation. They don't want to find ways to make sure that this can work properly for our nation. They just want to say no.

Then there's the extraordinarily troubling circumstance that we are seeing in Queensland, where a number of these projects are going ahead. That's the reason that environmental lands are included in this motion. We've got a former member of the Greens, Steven Nowakowski, who is mapping these developments and came to Canberra to brief us. Mr Nowakowski actually supported the leader of the Greens in this place and helped her campaign in northern Queensland so that she could get elected. He came down here concerned about the impact of these developments right through northern Queensland, particularly in koala habitat. And, yet, the Greens won't support this. Here is the coalition concerned about the impact on environmental land, and the Greens are voting against it. He's a former member of the Greens. He's former because his own party wouldn't listen to him, somebody who lives on, works on and knows this country.

There are 1,300 hectares of untouched koala habitat being impacted by one of the developments—and what do we hear from the environmental movement? Here's the thing. I watch television advertisements from the WWF in my home state of Tasmania. I have seen them here in Canberra. They ask me to donate to them to stop koala extinction. We've got an environment minister who says, 'No extinctions on my watch.' Did the WWF put in an objection to this development in Queensland that's going to impact on 1,300 hectares of pristine, prime koala habitat? There's been not a word from the WWF. Seriously, this organisation, the WWF, should be investigated for fraud. They are asking Australians to donate to them to prevent koala extinction. I reckon the ACCC would have a case to have a look at these guys. They are advertising for money, for donations, to prevent koala extinction. They tell us that koalas could go extinct, yet 1,300 hectares of prime koala habitat is being disturbed by one development and there's been not a sound out of the WWF. We see this go on and on. It's actually quite disgraceful.

We have remained consistent and persistent with respect to this debate, and we will continue to do so. We are genuinely concerned about the impact on farmers. We are genuinely concerned about the impacts for Indigenous Australians. We are genuinely concerned about the impact on environmental lands and also on our fishers. All we are asking is for their voices to be heard and for us to play our role, as we should in this place, to help find some solutions to ensure that these important developments can be undertaken in an orderly way and with fair compensation and fair access rights. That's all we are asking for. We're not asking for anything out of the ordinary, and the government at least should come on board, because it knows it has a problem. Andrew Dyer told them they had a problem in their report. Then, of course, it was time for him to leave.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, pull the other one! If anything symbolises the unfitness of this ramshackle, failure-to-adjust opposition over here more than this resolution, it was the astroturf—

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

All you've got is personal insult.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mean, there weren't enough people to call it a rally, but it was the pretend rally held out the front of the parliament a few months ago. Pull the other one! You're on about whales, koalas and parrots. These people who have never shown a moment's interest—a vestige of interest—in the welfare of whales and parrots and koalas are suddenly in here demanding an inquiry. It's the most woeful acting performance since Beverly Hills Cop III from this show. They're pretending, having a fake campaign about what's going on out there with one of the most significant national projects that this country will ever undertake. And where are they? They're in the way. They're making up issues and making up a fake campaign. You know what? Some of the memes are just direct copies of what is peddled by the far right in the United States or Europe. They don't even bother to get the old AI app out and change the meme. It's the same nonsense meme. We saw the rally of a couple of dozen people out the front. Mr Joyce and others claimed to have had thousands of people there.

It is true that projects like this give rise to legitimate issues and real anxieties, like any project does—like building a shopping centre, a coalmine or a factory in any suburb or region, which happens every day of the week. But, somehow, this is special. The show is prosecuting this campaign with social media memes that are generated out of who knows where. Much of it comes from offshore. I can tell you this: the world is passing you by, and nothing symbolises this more than what the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, said about these issues. Look at the coherence of this campaign. This is what Mr Joyce said in a newspaper. He was not being quoted in an interview, where I suppose you can get a little bit loose. These are words that he wrote down on paper, stuck in the old fax machine in Danglemah and sent off to the Armidale Express, a very fine newspaper in north-western New South Wales. This is two paragraphs of Joyce 'coherence' on the question, which betrays how silly this campaign is. He said, 'The prevailing zeitgeist seems intent that it is religiously pure if they toss us over the power price cliff.' But what does that sentence mean?

He then goes on to say, 'Power is sold in five-minute lots.' I can verify that; it is true. The National Energy Regulator does say that that is a true thing. But then he goes on: 'Power is five-minute power noodles.' What does that mean? Five-minute noodles are a snack, not a diet that could keep you healthy. Renewables sold in five-minute noodle packages on the national electricity market are a clarion call from the island called naivete. That is the beating intellectual heart of this so-called campaign that pretends to be interested in the environment.

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

You're an electoral snob.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not snobbery to demand coherence. It is not snobbery to demand that the former prime minister, the beating intellectual heart of this so-called campaign, arranges words in sentences in a way that makes sense when it's such a critical national issue.

This is a big national project, and there are legitimate issues. But this campaign, this pretended interest, shouldn't be run by the mad old uncles at the barbecue, for whom the world is passing by on these questions, when what regional communities need and what the investment community needs is certainty, is a clear message from Canberra about these projects. The problem with this opposition is that, when they were sent a clear electoral message right around Australia—in city seats, in outer-suburban seats, in regional seats, in coastal seats, in urban seats—that their corrupted politics of climate politics and all the mad stuff was rejected overwhelmingly by the Australian people, that was an opportunity to take a breath and to act on the basis of the evidence and to act in the national interest. But, instead, when there was an opportunity, finally, for this ramshackle show to act in the national interest, it's all back to the silly stuff: it's back to Tony Abbott on climate; it's back to Scott Morrison on climate.

Let's take offshore wind. We've seen offshore wind off the Hunter Valley. We've seen offshore wind off Gippsland. These are big nation-building projects. And what's going on? Billboards with whales. It's absolute nonsense. It's made-up stuff and it's not even made up in Australia. If you're going to make up a campaign, make it up in Australia. Instead, it's imported, derivative nonsense from right-wing extremists overseas. Some of you who are sensible enough should recognise this for what it is. It's the capturing of a once-sensible, once-centrist political party by the extreme right and by social media memes. The problem is that, if you go on with this nonsense too long, you end up being captured by it—so once-sensible people get sillier and sillier and sillier, and you drift further and further and further to the Right.

This project in the Hunter Valley will employ 4,000 people during its construction—that's what one of the proponents tells us—and create 1,500 permanent jobs. It will supply vast quantities of low-cost power for households and for industry, and you've got Mr Dutton standing underneath billboards with pictures of whales on them! What garbage!

If people in one of these areas are worried about an offshore wind project that they won't be able to see, imagine how worried they're going to be when Mr Dutton finally announces his real solution: a nuclear power station in Port Stephens, in the Port of Newcastle, in Hervey Bay or in Gippsland! Name a place! Mr Dutton said three months ago, full of all the usual nonsense: 'We're going to announce it six weeks out from the budget. We're going to tell Australians where these magical nuclear power stations are going to be.' Now, Mr O'Brien is in witness protection—I've never seen him. And Mr Dutton says, 'We're going to tell you later.' Well, if Mr Dutton thinks he can tell Australians where these experimental nuclear power stations that will never deliver are going to be delivered—

I will take that interjection about submarines in a tic, because you lot should take your national security obligations seriously. You should take them seriously. But why aren't you honest with Australians about what passes for a plan? It's uncosted, it's not geographically specific and you're never going to tell people where the nuclear power station is going to be. Mr Dutton's plan requires dozens of experimental nuclear power stations all over the Australian coastline, and Australians are legitimately worried about this show that couldn't build any energy capacity in Australia. Four gigawatts went out over the last decade; one gigawatt went in—that was the contribution. And now Australians are expected to believe that this show—that couldn't build anything, that didn't build a power station, that moaned about coal-fired power stations closing and that had 14 of them announce closure on its watch—would somehow be capable of building a safe, workable nuclear power station in Port Stephens or Gippsland or Hervey Bay. That's the hypocrisy of this show. It is made up. It is uncosted. It is not real. It is partly a figment of their imagination and partly an outsourced, offshore, far-right political campaign that is about anything but the big issues that this country faces.

We are on the edge of the fastest growing region of the world in human history. We have opportunities and challenges. We have in this country vast resources and comparative advantage under the ground and above the ground in terms of our solar and wind resources, and our people. What would this show have the Australian people do? Put up with another decade of complete, hopeless inaction, of disinvestment, of capital running away to invest anywhere but in the Australian energy market? I'll tell you what: there's an alternative. This federal government, the Albanese government, has a strategy that it is implementing day after day, week after week.

I can tell you, as Assistant Minister for Trade, that when I go around the world I get two reactions. One is a giant sigh of relief from the investment community that the country is not run by the rabble opposite who debauched our electricity market so badly that capital just ran away; and the second is a very strong interest from around the world in the unfolding Future Made in Australia strategy, which will all be about this. It will be about making sure that we capture the opportunities for Australians—not in the inner city, because big factories aren't built in the inner city, but in the outer suburbs and the regions. If you want to stand in the way of national development, if you want to stand in the way of national infrastructure, and if you want to stand in the way of the national interest and the interest of regional Australians, be my guest. What this resolution shows is that you are not up to it, that you have not learned the lessons of the last election and that you are in no way interested in the interests of regional Australians.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll make a reasonably short contribution, because I want to provide colleagues who have been attracted to the chamber following Senator Ayres's contribution, no doubt, to pursue the debate. I want to give them an opportunity because they've been moved, by Senator Ayres's contribution, to come to the chamber to share their thoughts. So well done, Senator Ayres, for attracting everyone to the chamber and adding to interest in this debate.

I just want to quickly make a few points, but before I do that I just have some introductory comments. I'm sure Senator Colbeck has been accused of many things during his long career here, but I don't think he's ever been accused of being a member of the extreme right. I think Senator Colbeck is always very measured and considered in terms of his comments, and his comments in relation to this debate were no different.

The second point I would make is that there is nothing in the terms of reference that mentions nuclear power—absolutely nothing. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about whales. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about many of the things that Senator Ayres talked about during his contribution.

The three points that I'd like to quickly make are these: first, this is an extraordinarily reasonably worded resolution. It is very reasonably worded. The terms of reference are matters that should be considered. They talk about the economy transitioning to newer, more dispersed methods of generations and storage, which is the government's own policy. This is a very, very reasonably worded resolution. It touches upon matters of keen interest to many Australians, including:

(a) power imbalance—

and there is a power imbalance; that's a fact—

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—

because this is a national issue, and I would have thought that the approach that's adopted should be a fair approach and apply across the nation equally, whether it be in Tasmania or Queensland or anywhere else. It also includes:

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

Those opposite tell us time and time again about the great job they're doing in terms of enhancing our trade markets, so tell us how you're going to make sure that those who produce the products which are then marketed overseas are going to maintain their productivity, please. It also includes:

(f) any other matter.

This is a very reasonable and considered terms of reference, as one would expect from my colleagues Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck.

The second point I want to make is this: the information that came out in the results of the work that Mr Dyer undertook are extremely disturbing. I do not think anyone reasonable could look at the results of his work and not be concerned by the fact that 92 per cent of respondents were not happy with the engagement they had from project proponents—92 per cent! That's an extraordinary figure, 92 per cent! And then 90 per cent were not satisfied with the information they had been provided or that their concerns had been addressed. Those are startlingly bad figures, and, from my perspective—and Senator Colbeck was right; Mr Dyer's work was held up by saying, 'You don't need to do this, because Mr Dyer's doing the work,' but then his work came in and heightened the need for this inquiry. It actually heightened the need for this inquiry.

The last point I'll make is this: it is the job of the Senate—it is our job—to undertake these sorts of reference inquiries. As Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I've undertaken an inquiry that was referred to our committee by Senator Roberts in relation to a royal commission on COVID-19; an inquiry referred by Senator Shoebridge of the Greens, in relation to our FOI system; and an inquiry referred by Senator Green in relation to consent laws in the sexual assault context. This is our job. It shouldn't matter if a senator belongs to any other party. If you refer a matter which deserves investigation by a Senate references committee, then I believe—this is my firm belief as someone who cares about this institution—that we should undertake that inquiry in good faith. That's why we're here.

I will keep speaking in favour of this motion as long as we keep needing to put it up, but, please, reconsider your position. This is something which should be considered.

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

Thank you very much, and I too rise to support this motion, and to again implore the government to allow us to have an inquiry. I do not see how they can legitimately oppose something as simple and as straightforward as an inquiry.

We keep seeing this government refuse to acknowledge the concerns of the communities that are being impacted by transmission lines and wind turbines and solar factories, as well as of the people who face the very real prospect of compulsory acquisition of easements across their land. We have learned—through our own inquiries, through asking questions of proponents—that having easements put across their land has more than just aesthetic and physical impacts. It impacts their tax status. It impacts their income and how their income is generated and how capital gains tax is treated. There is a whole raft of ramifications—which we on this side are learning about because we're out there asking the questions—that we believe the government should learn about.

But I wonder if—instead of seeing an inquiry, which, in the big scheme of things, because we've already got the committee system set up in this parliament, is not a huge drain on resources—what we might instead see from this government is a $15 million communications campaign, as asked for by the Australian Conservation Foundation in their pre-budget submission. Yes, the ACF have written to the government asking for a mere $15 million to educate and inform and run a strategic, targeted, public communications strategy and campaign, because the ACF are concerned:

… that the social licence for constructing new energy projects and transmission—sufficient to meet the Government's 82% by 2030 target—is at risk due to increasing levels of community opposition and fear.

Well, I'm glad they see that, because this government completely ignores that community opposition and fear!

I can tell you that the answer to that fear is not a smart, glossy communications campaign like the propaganda campaign we're currently seeing across televisions everywhere, from Sydney to Melbourne to Cairns, about the Murray-Darling Basin and how we're all going to run out of food and water in the next drought, which is the biggest load of rubbish! And if the ACF gets their wish and gets $15 million, which is about the same as it cost for the Murray-Darling Basin campaign, then maybe we will see photos of wind turbines off the coast of Dover or Scotland! That's what the government did: they had photos of a Turkish citrus orchard, to justify their Murray-Darling Basin propaganda—a Turkish citrus orchard, because we don't have beautiful photogenic citrus orchards in Griffith or around the Mallee!

So I can just imagine that we'll get pictures of the solar panels built across in China, saying, 'This is the solution to Australia's problems.' That will be the $15 million spend that we'll get from this government, instead of them listening to people or actually getting out from behind their desks in Canberra—particularly the way the departments are now being instructed to do consultations: 'Yes, do a community consultation; send out an online survey web link, and get people to do an online survey.' That's how this government does community consultations.

Then, if they actually do bother to sit down across the table to talk to a real person face to face, the first words out of their mouths will be, 'Sign here,' as they produce a non-disclosure agreement, because, far from being the government of openness and transparency that they'd promised to be, this government is the government of secrecy. We've seen that just today, with their 'how not to answer a question' manifesto provided to every department. And we've seen the departments following that manifesto, verbatim, in our estimates processes, in our answers to questions on notice.

So I do actually believe that it is far more likely that we will see some sort of a glossy communications campaign before we actually see some genuine consultation with the people who are being impacted—the people of Deniliquin and of Moulamein, who have Transgrid powerlines going over their heads, or the people of Port Stephens, who have taken me to the coast and pointed to the horizon and said, 'Far from what the government would have you believe, these wind turbines will be visible; they will not be over the horizon.' We're talking about wind turbines 280 metres high.

Two hundred and eighty-four—thank you for the interjection, Senator Cadell. They will be visible from the beach. They will be planted in a whale migration zone. And then they will require massive high-voltage direct-current cables to connect them to the shore.

Now, unlike onshore transmission lines, you won't be able to see the cables; the cables will be put on the ocean floor. But there are still concerns about those cables. Where are we going to get them from? Currently, most production capacity for high-voltage direct-current cables is booked out until the late 2020s. This could lead to shortages for any country outside China. The government yells at us and says: 'Nuclear? Oh, it will take you too long to build!' Well, how long will it take to lay these cables, when we can't even guarantee that we can access them? Where are we going to miracle these cables from? There's a shortage of vessels capable of laying these cables. (Quorum formed)

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 18:32 to 20:30