Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a great deal of sadness to actually rise in the Senate tonight to speak on behalf of the thousands of rural and regional Victorians who have been significantly impacted by the rollout of transmission lines in their communities in and around Ballarat, throughout the Mallee and beyond. There was the lack of consultation with these communities and the riding roughshod over their private property rights with incursions onto farm properties. We know the Victorian Farmers Federation has condemned OzNet's incursion onto farm properties along the Ballarat to Bendigo transmission line. OzNet services workers entered without prior contact or seeking permission from landowners.

It reminds me of when I first arrived in this place. We had coal seam gas companies rocking up to farm properties seeking to enter at will and exploring whether that particular property had resource under it et cetera. There was a great deal of concern among the agricultural communities impacted that these companies were not giving the property owners the basic courtesy of letting them know that they were coming and, in the end, a right of return of a lot of the wealth generated as part of the exploration and development of coal seam gas enterprises on their land. We have moved a long way from those sorry days of 13 years ago.

But to be here in 2023 and have a serious corporation not seeking permission to enter a private property is absolutely unconscionable. There are safety and biosecurity issues associated with individuals and companies entering farmers' properties. It is blatant disregard of property rights, and farmers are rightly sick of it. They do a hard day's work and produce fabulous produce. They want to be prosperous and sustainable into the future, and they expect a level of respect for what they do and for the fact that these are private properties.

Let's face it: the rollout of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines across this country isn't being equally shared between private property owners and public owners. State and Commonwealth land is not being asked to carry the burden of these transmission lines. It is actually farmers and rural and regional communities—out of sight, out of mind—who are expected to put up with strangers coming on their properties, marking out lines and not checking: 'How is this going to impact your enterprise? Is it better if we spend a little more time and go along the boundaries of your property?' In typical bureaucratic fashion, the quickest way from A to B is a straight line: 'We will carve up your properties with transmission line overhead, over your cattle herds or sheep flocks and right through your horticultural enterprises.'

Farmers aren't asking for a free ride. The agriculture sector in this country signed up to net zero by 2050 before the parliament did as a whole. The beef industry, in particular, signed up to net zero by 2030. So this isn't about the veracity or otherwise of climate change. It is about who has to pay the cost of transition. I've said in this place many, many times—and I will never tire of saying it, because it is the people who have sent me to this place whom I have the great privilege to represent—that it is unconscionable for a government and government entities to seek to penalise one sector of our community over another and to penalise the most marginalised, most vulnerable and poorest sections of our communities. Never mind what it's going to do to food production and prosperity.

I think for us in Victoria this has been quite a potent public debate, particularly in the Ballarat region, for over 18 months, and it is growing across the country as more and more communities are being subjected to not being consulted and to having strangers rock up at family properties—because these aren't just businesses or hay sheds. They are family homes where children are raised and where, often, multiple generations of individuals live. The level of disrespect that has been shown time and time again beggars belief, and it shows what the government really thinks about those of us who don't live in a capital city and who live in National and Liberal Party seats: not a lot. You don't care for our opinions or our consent, and that's why you choose not to consult us, because you feel you don't have to.

That's why men and women from the Mallee in Victoria got up at 1 am to get on a bus and to travel to Canberra to make it very clear to this Prime Minister and, in particular, to his energy minister, Minister Bowen, the devastating impact of their policy, because it seems that—no matter how many submissions or letters they write, how many phone calls, petitions or Facebook pages they produce or how much they contact their local council, their state government, AusNet or AEMO—no-one's listening.

And so they do what so many people in the regions, unfortunately, feel like they have to do: come here to the nation's capital to be seen and to make a ruckus. Bear in mind that making a ruckus isn't their natural character. These are men, women and families who just want to get on with the job at hand, which is producing food. But they don't expect their government to disrespect them in such a way. There's this fury building right across regional Australia, from Ballarat to Port Stephens, Gippsland and the Illawarra. It's out around Tamworth and the New England. Labor are riding roughshod over the Australian people with their ideological agenda to build massive transmission towers across prime agricultural land.

There are better ways to do this, and the least they could do is have the decency to sit down and have a conversation about how to do it in a way that works for all the stakeholders, not just for Minister Bowen. All that this motion seeks to do is to set up a Senate inquiry. We've had some pretty quirky Senate inquiries in my time in this place and this would hardly be the strangest. This would actually be a Senate inquiry that has wide public support—it has been called for by a community which feels it has no voice in this government. That is what this chamber has so often been called on to do: to give a voice and platform to the marginalised and vulnerable in the Australian community—to those who aren't feeling that they're getting a fair go. If the marches in country towns are anything to go by, the fact that these guys and gals will get on buses in the middle of the night to come up here—and these aren't activists! This isn't the Environmental Defenders Office crew. These are not men and women hitting the streets for Palestine every weekend. These are men and women who run small businesses, so it actually costs them money and opportunity to take a day and a half out of their community and off farm to come up here and make sure that this building has heard them. Why? Because this chamber refuses—refuses!—to hold a simple Senate inquiry. It's insane!

We're supposed to be the chamber that gives voice to the Australian public in a proportional way. The variety of Senate inquiries we've had range from coal seam gas to forced adoptions—that was an amazing Senate inquiry that I was on. There was an inquiry on the Murray-Darling Basin and we had huge inquiries into the disability sector before the royal commission. So this chamber and its committees have performed a crucial role in a whole raft of areas in making sure that those who don't have power and agency can be heard, and can have their concerns aired publicly. That's particularly so when powerful entities, such as governments or corporations, are seeking to abuse that power, as is happening in this case.

No-one is arguing that net zero by 2050 isn't going to be a challenge. But what is occurring, increasingly —and, hopefully, there's more cognisance of it in this building—is that the poorest communities in our nation are being asked to pay the most burden. It isn't the suburbs of Canberra that are being crisscrossed by transmission lines and carpeted with solar panels. It's not the suburbs of Brunswick and Fitzroy, or those on the North Shore. It's the communities far away—out of sight and out of mind. I humbly beg this chamber, again, to actually give them a voice and allow us to have a Senate inquiry so that their voices can be heard.

I heard David Jochinke, the newly-elected National Farmers Federation president, talk about the cumulative impact on agriculture of Labor government policy initiatives—policy across governments.

It is not just Minister Watt's biosecurity tax. It is not just Minister King's truckies tax. It is not just Tanya Plibersek's abhorrent abuse of the Murray-Darling Basin plan, even turning her back on the deal that Tony Burke did all those years ago to get everyone on the same page, turning her back on the social and economic devastation that water buybacks and the additional 450 giga litres—which was never part of the plan—will actually have on the basin and on food production. If it's not that, it's this.

Everywhere you look in this government, there are decisions being made that impact on the agriculture sector and take rural and regional communities and our industries for granted like we're always going to be there and we're always going to be doing what we're doing, exporting 70 per cent of what we grow. One in four jobs in this country is as a result of our great status as a trading nation. The Prime Minister is in China this week celebrating ag getting back into China at the very same time that his ministers here at home are making decisions to nobble and cripple that industry. It's not me saying that. It's not the National Party. It is the National Farmers Federation, who very clearly articulated their need to be part of the solution.

Why aren't public landholders carrying the same amount of burden for these transmission lines as private landholders? They are genuine questions. Why won't you consult? Why won't these entities ask permission? These are basic rights, you would have thought, in a liberal democracy such as ours.

I hope we can find a way through. I hope that this chamber will reconsider its obstinance about allowing the men and women that grow our food to have their say through a simple Senate inquiry. We've all been here. We can all bring our usual suspects. The left bring their witnesses, the community bring their witnesses and the opposition bring their witnesses. Everyone gets a say. That is how it should work in this chamber and with our committees, but the fact that this government is refusing to allow the Senate inquiry to occur for these very genuine concerns to be publicly aired and be transparent says a lot about the culture of this government and its faux commitment to transparency and accountability.

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

I rise to speak in favour of this motion the very simple reason that this side of the chamber cares about the environment. For so long we've heard that side of the chamber pretend to care about the environment, but, when the rubber hits the road, they go running. And it's not just the environment that we care about. We care about the economy because, without cheap energy, we cannot power the homes and the businesses that provide jobs to the hardworking Australians across the country. It's not just the economy and it's not just the environment; it's about our farmland and about our culture. Most of all, it is about respect: respect of property.

For the benefit of those listening at home, I'll read out what this motion says, because this matters. This is an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines, windmills et cetera across our country: across our farmland, across our oceans, across our national parks. Some of the issues we're going to be looking at are 'the provision and disbursement of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments compulsory access and acquisition'. Compensation is very important. If there's one thing that governments are very good at doing, it's screwing people. It's shafting them.

We do not want to see our farmers, fishermen and whoever else get destroyed by the government. I hear from constituents every day whose government, the bureaucrats, are putting up wall after wall of impediments in their lives. I think that people are more than happy to pay some taxes in return for essential services, but they're not happy for governments to control them to within an inch of their lives.

Another thing that this inquiry wants to look at is identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a national approach to compulsory access. Best practice is something that is sadly lacking in government. The words 'quality assurance' never pass the lips of a bureaucrat. There is only one word that ever comes out of their mouth, and that is the word no. It's not like, 'Yes, we can find a way to do that.' No, it's never that. It's always, 'No, we can't do that.' We just saw it recently in estimates, in the RRAT committee, where we had a bureaucrat on over $900,000 complain that his 2,000 staff had to answer 400 questions over a five-week period. No, that's all too hard. But that's our bureaucracy for you. When it actually comes to serving you, they don't want to know about it, but, when it comes to controlling you, they love it. You can just see them licking their lips.

Another thing this inquiry is going to look at is measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fisheries to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management. Can somebody tell me how this doesn't matter? Property rights is a fundamental right of any democracy. This is something that warrants investigation. But, of course, does the Albanese Labor government want transparency? No, of course not. So many times in this chamber, since the Albanese government has come to power, we have asked for the detail and transparency and we have not got it. I know my colleague Senator Duniam wanted quarterly reporting from the Productivity Commission on the cost of energy prices. I was taught this in the private sector: what gets measured gets improved. It's called benchmarking. But does the Albanese government want to measure anything? No, of course not. We asked for the vaccine contracts. Did we get them? No. We asked for the minutes of the National Cabinet. Did we get them? No. We asked for the details of how many nurses are employed in aged-care centres on a 24-hour basis. Did we get that detail? No.

Yet again the Albanese government is running for cover because they know they don't want to actually compensate the farmers and they don't want to compensate our fishermen. These guys are determined to destroy primary and secondary industry in this country. I've said this many times in this chamber. Who can remember the Button plan of 1985 that destroyed manufacturing? And we can replace manufacturing with the Dawkins plan in 1990 where we decided to send everyone to university so they could get a degree. And of course our children today graduate from university broke and brainwashed, without one real-life skill in the world. So now we import everything. We have to go back to our basic values. We have to go back on the tools, and we cannot do that if we destroy our primary industry.

What else we got on here? Personally I think there's enough already, but I'm just going to read some out. There's the interaction and efficiency of compulsory access, secure land rights, best practice, proper compensation and consultation. Consultation—now that's a good idea.

I'll mention Senator Pocock's contribution to this last night. His idea of consultation is for the bureaucrats to have a little committee to look at it, led by a bloke by the name of Andrew Dyer, who was the National Wind Farm Commissioner. This guy has been knee-deep in the renewable subsidy industry for years. The last time I looked, in a democracy, it is the representatives who actually do the scrutiny in this place, not the bureaucrats. As we know from the last referendum, they are completely out of touch with the rest of the country on what really matters. They are the last people that we want looking at this issue.

Speaking of bureaucrats, who could forget my last question to the CSIRO in the recent round of estimates? I asked quite a reasonable question: Which one of the 40 models are we going to use to calculate net zero? That's right—the science is settled, but there are 40 different models. The CSIRO's answer—I can't wait to put this one up on my social media; this is going to run—was: 'That's the great thing about science. You can have 40 different ways of calculating something and you all get the same result.' At that stage, the chair, Senator Walsh, cut me off. I said, 'That's not an answer, Chair.' She said, 'Your time's up.' I would have responded with: 'You do get the same result—that is, the taxpayer being shafted.' They have a right to know which model out of the 40 different models that are out there to calculate net zero Australia is going to use and which models other countries are going to use. We do not want regulatory arbitrage going on here whereby we start gaming the calculations. I know from another set of questions I asked the CSIRO previously that the phytoplankton in the ocean, which absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2, doesn't even come into it. How on earth can you calculate your net contribution to carbon dioxide if you're not going to take a look at the full picture, at the entire biodiversity of planet Earth?

I love planet Earth. When I was a young chap, I quit my job and went backpacking around the world. I knocked back a job to work in Switzerland and kept travelling. I went to 85 countries, climbed mountains, scuba dived, surfed—you name it. I love planet Earth. There's probably no-one more qualified in this chamber to tell you how beautiful planet Earth is. Let me tell you something: I do not want to see those dirty, stinking wind turbines littering our coastlines threatening the birds and our whales. I'm following a Facebook page now about Upper New Jersey, where whales are suddenly washing up on the beaches of New Jersey as they are building wind turbines. Has anyone looked at that? We're going to have transmission lines carving out huge scars across the earth's surface. We're going to have massive lithium mines. It's common but it's a very rare commodity. There's a one or two per cent content. Lithium, for example, might be found at one or two per cent. You're going to have to mine 100 tonnes of ore to get one tonne of metal. On top of that, you have stripping ratios. You might have a stripping ratio of 10 to one. So, suddenly, from one tonne of ore you might have to mine a thousand tonnes of dirt. I don't think that's going to be very good for the environment—not at all. Again, in Senate estimates—I love this process—the great Larry Marshall, the former CEO of the CSIRO, said that it costs three times the amount to recycle a battery as it does to actually make it. Funnily enough, the CSIRO don't actually include the cost of recycling in their GenCost report. Here's that modelling again!

When it comes to the real world, we know that those on the other side of the chamber like to deal with feelings and with fantasies. It's interesting, because one of the last things that happened under the last Labor government was that they commissioned an independent peer review of the Bureau of Meteorology. Do you know what they found? I'll tell you what they found. They did not rate the observation practices of the Bureau of Meteorology as world class.

Do you know what an observation practice includes? It is called taking the temperature—measuring the temperature. What did the Bureau of Meteorology do? They thought that if they couldn't measure properly and accurately—because they had a margin of error of plus or minus half a degree Celsius, whereas the world standard for margin of error when you measure temperature is plus or minus 0.2 degrees Celsius—they'd start homogenising data. That's a posh word for basically fiddling the books. As someone who was an accountant once upon a time, if I fiddled the books I'd go to jail.

I want to be careful about the bureau because they've got a climate division and a weather division. The guys in the weather division do what they should be doing, which is measuring and reporting the temperature and doing forecasting. Then you've got the climate division, which is effectively a euphemism for the fearmongering division. The climate division constantly comes up with these big doom and gloom forecasts. I think we heard Senator Whish-Wilson saying, 'If we don't act now it will be too late,' and 'The world is going to come to an end very soon, and if we don't do something it's all going to change.'

Let me tell you that it's not going to change. Even without radiative forcing, the climate is always going to change because the earth spins on its axis every 24 hours, it rotates around the sun every 365 days and it's slightly tilted to its orbit because of the gravity of the moon. We have Milankovitch cycles. Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler discovered in the early 1700s that the earth travels in an ellipse and not an orbit. That means that at certain times of the year the earth is going to be further from the sun than at other times. That creates weather volatility, people. This is life—absorb it and do not be afraid of it.

Yet what we have on the other side of the chamber is fearmongering. They use feelings and fearmongering rather than dealing with facts. And the facts of the matter are that renewables are going to have a terrible impact on our environment, our biodiversity, our birdlife and our marsupials—including the hairy-nosed wombat. I know how much Senator Hughes loves the hairy-nosed wombat because she talks about it all the time. We love our koala bears. Who can remember the great Austen Tayshus back in 1983: 'How much can a koala bear?'

I'll have to go soon, but when I do I will say to the Labor Party, 'Put your money where your mouth is and back this motion.'

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

It really is an honour to follow my very good friend and colleague Senator Rennick, and I very much enjoyed that contribution. There were many themes in that contribution which have been pursued diligently by Senator Rennick through estimates and elsewhere. From a personal perspective, some of my favourite moments at estimates have been watching the interactions between Senator Rennick and his good friend Larry Marshall of CSIRO. It was always engaging, always good tempered and always fascinating to watch. I'm sure Mr Marshall remembers his times in estimates very fondly, Senator Rennick. In relation to this notice of motion—

I don't really know much about wombats, Senator Ciccone. I'm not sure if we have many wombats in Queensland, but we do have koala bears. Regarding this motion we're considering, as a matter of principle I would hope that—as a matter of comity in this chamber—if a large number of senators in this place want a matter to be referred to a references committee then that reference should, wherever possible and practical, be entertained. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I continue to diligently pursue references which have been referred to that committee by members of the Australian Labor Party but also by members of the Greens and by other members of the crossbench. And I will continue to do so.

But I think it really is important, as a matter of comity in this chamber, that, where such references can be entertained by a references committee, then the Senate should do its best to actually endorse referrals and approve referrals to a references committee. And this is no exception. This should not be an exception.

I was in the chamber last night when Senator David Pocock made his contribution. There are two matters I want to touch on in relation to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night. He said this referral is political. He said it's political. The point I would make to Senator David Pocock is this: he may not remember, but I certainly remember—I'm sure Senator Hughes remembers; I'm sure Senator Dean Smith remembers; I'm sure that Senator Matt O'Sullivan remembers—when that gallery up there was full of farmers and their families from regional Victoria who took the time out of their busy lives to travel all the way from Victoria to this chamber, to this Senate, to call for this inquiry. This isn't political. This is the Senate doing its job as a house of review, a house of scrutiny. This is the Senate respecting the wishes of those members of the Victorian community and thousands like them all over Australia—certainly thousands in my home state of Queensland and no doubt thousands in Senator Hughes' home state of New South Wales and Senator Smith's and Senator O'Sullivan's home state of Western Australia—who want to see this matter considered by this Senate.

It's a question of not just respecting, in the interest of comity, the perspective of a large number of senators in this place, that this matter should be referred to a References Committee, but actually respecting the Australians who took the time out of their busy lives, trying to make a living, trying to do all the things that you need to do, living in regional Australia, to come to this place to sit in that gallery. And that gallery was full. It was absolutely full of Australians who wanted this Senate to consider this issue. They wanted this Senate to consider this issue. So, from my perspective, their wishes should be respected. Their wishes should be respected. For the life of me, I can't understand why those on the other side of the chamber and the Greens are obstructing the reference of this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

The second point I want to make with respect to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night is to pursue a comment which my good friend Senator Rennick made. It's simply not good enough to say, as Senator Pocock did, that the matter is being considered by someone who has been appointed by executive government to look into the matter. I'm sorry—that's not good enough. That's not good enough. We are the elected representatives of the Australian people. We have a role to discharge in that respect. That role, those obligations, shouldn't be outsourced to someone who has been selected by the executive government. There is a world of difference. While giving due respect to the person who's conducting the inquiry on behalf of the government, there is a world of difference between an inquiry being conducted by someone who has been handpicked by executive government on the one hand and an inquiry being conducted with all the benefits of parliamentary privilege and all the benefits of the rules, processes and procedures that we have as a Senate on the other. There's a world of difference between those two types of inquiries. That should be noted, that should be acknowledged, and that is one of the reasons why this motion should be supported by the senators in this place.

The next point I want to discuss in relation to this motion—and I've discussed it before—is in relation to the terms of reference. These are reasonable terms of reference, extraordinarily reasonable terms of reference. There is nothing which predicates or predetermines the outcome of this inquiry.

There is nothing preconceived about the output or the recommendations that would be made by the committee once it considers these terms of reference. The terms of reference are very even-handed. The language is moderate. It is sensible, logical and rational. In my view there is no objective reason why a senator in this place could reasonably object to these terms of reference. Let's consider them. The first is:

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

This is a real issue in terms of how the different laws interact with each other from a Commonwealth perspective and from state and territory perspectives.

The second is:

(b) 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;

To what extent does the compulsory acquisition of land in my home state of Queensland differ, for example, from the compulsory acquisition of land in Senator Ciccone's home state of Victoria, Senator Ayres's home state of New South Wales or Senator Barbara Pocock's home state of South Australia? To what extent are there differences and to what extent should we consider the practical outcomes flowing from those differences in compulsory acquisition schemes?

The third paragraph says:

(c) the provision, and disbursement, of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments' compulsory access and acquisition legislation and policy;

It is one thing for a state or federal government or a territory to compulsorily acquire land or an interest in property—and that is bad enough; it can be destabilising and can cause great hardship, especially if the recipient of that compulsory acquisition notice has a lasting connection with the land—but it's another thing again as to whether or not the person is being appropriately compensated. How is the compensation measured? Are there differences in how the compensation is measured according to, say, the Australian government perspective and the perspective of the different states and territories? That is a material issue. What are the rights of appeal with respect to compensation? To what extent can those rights of appeal be practically enforced, especially by someone who doesn't have experience? Probably the only time in their life that they're going to have experience of going through a compulsory acquisition is the first time. To what extent can they practically exercise their rights of appeal. Who can assist them in exercising those rights of appeal? You have a situation where there is a total divergence and discrepancy between, on the one hand, the power of the state in exercising its rights of compulsory acquisition, and, on the other hand, the power of an individual Australian family who have never gone through the process before. How do we protect their interests? This is what this chamber is meant to be doing as a house of review and scrutiny. Why resist such a reasonable proposition, which is that this is something that should be considered by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

The fourth paragraph says:

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

Nearly every single referral to the committee I chair, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, considers, compares and contrasts different approaches with respect to a whole range of matters, whether the matter be sexual consent laws or whether it be the response of federal, state and territory governments to the tragic issue of missing First Nations women and children, as we are dealing with in a relational inquiry I'm currently conducting in my capacity as chair of that committee. On nearly every single references matter that is referred to the Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs we look at different approaches in different states and territories and form a view as to what is best practice and what we should be doing.

That's one of the benefits of this institution—the Senate. We have the ability to consider approaches at a federal level and approaches which are adopted by each of the six states and the two territories, and to make recommendations. We have that ability to take the helicopter view by virtue of our position here in the Senate, so why not take advantage of that? Why not? Then we have:

(e) 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; …

I came from the mining industry, and one of the key issues with regard to the acquisition of land by the mining industry is when someone is using a piece of land for some sort of agricultural purpose—how you acquire rights with regard to that land without causing unreasonable interference with the continued agricultural use of that land. It's a key issue, and many cases have gone to court in respect of whether or not compensation has been calibrated appropriately, given the disturbance to ongoing agricultural activities in relation to land in a compulsory acquisition context. That's a real live issue. We then move on to:

(f) 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; …

I don't believe in a system where the first time that someone who holds an interest in property hears about a compulsory acquisition is when they receive something in the mail. There should be open and transparent discussion and communication with affected communities. The first time someone hears about a compulsory acquisition shouldn't be when they come home, open the letterbox and see a formal-looking letter from a state, territory or Commonwealth department. There should be consultation, and the form of that consultation, both at the community and the individual levels, is something which needs to be considered. We need to know about the extent to which local communities and landowners are not appropriately consulted before these compulsory acquisition processes are triggered. Once we know about it, we can apply pressure to make sure that appropriate practices are adopted. That's our job—it's our job as the house of scrutiny and the house of review.

So I tell senators in this chamber that we'll keep raising this issue. We'll keep speaking about it, so maybe you should reflect on whether or not you should change your minds.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in rising to speak on this reference, and I also appreciate the opportunity to follow two Queenslanders, who are kindred spirits when it comes to understanding the use of land in this country. With me being from Western Australia and Senator Scarr, and Senator Rennick before him, being from Queensland—

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

Great resource states!

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Great resource states that really understand the value of our land, particularly our arable land. They presented the case as to why this reference should go ahead. And it's not the first time that senators Cadell and Colbeck have brought this reference before the Senate. Sadly, it might be, yet again, another occasion where the Labor Party vote against this very sensible reference to this committee.

I say that it's sensible, because anyone following this debate would see the very sensible, pragmatic and reasonable terms that have been put in this reference. So it's disappointing that the government might actually vote against this, we believe. I hope that's wrong. I hope that through the contributions that my colleagues have made here and, quite possibly, what I'm able to say in the time that I have right now, that we might change the mind of the government about this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

As I said, they're very sensible and reasonable terms of reference that are looking at the matters that would concern particularly landowners and farmers but also those that have native title. We know that in my home state of Western Australia huge tracts of land are under native title, particularly in the Goldfields, the Mid West and the Pilbara, where a lot of solar projects are earmarked to go ahead. By connecting them to the South West Interconnected System, the grid, there will be transmission lines that will cut across these vast landscapes. An examination of the impact of these policies upon those landholders and land users is a very sensible thing to do. It's a very respectful thing to do, I might add. What this government is doing by marching ahead with these policies and these ideas without adequately considering the views and the concerns of those landholders and land uses is very disrespectful.

I am disappointed, but I'm not surprised about this government's actions. The reason I'm not surprised is that we have seen time and again this government riding roughshod over parties with vested interests, and we're seeing that right now in the industrial actions arena, for example. They're riding roughshod over workplaces and business owners, particularly small businesses that are working hard to make ends meet. They pay themselves after they've paid their workers, and then, from whatever is left, they might be able to find a bit to pay themselves and to keep the lights on. It's a demonstration yet again that this government is not really listening to the needs of the community when it really should be, and allowing this reference to be supported would be an opportunity to listen to the needs of the community and to respond to those needs. I really do implore the government to support this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

Debate interrupted.