ELECTRICITY (WIND POWER) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2010.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:11): I rise to support this bill. I note that the Hon. Acting Speaker currently in the chair brought this matter to the house and I think it is very sensible legislation. The objectives of the Electricity Act 1996 are to promote efficiency and competition in the electricity supply industry; promote establishment and maintenance of a safe and efficient system of electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply; establish and enforce proper standards of safety, reliability and quality in the electricity supply industry; establish and enforce proper safety and technical standards for electrical installations; and protect the interests of consumers of electricity.

The bill seeks to amend Division 3AB—Feed-in mechanisms of the Electricity Act 1996. Section 36AC—Interpretation will be amended in relation to the definition of a 'qualifying generator'. Currently the definition is associated with a small photovoltaic generator. However, the amendment would add a second definition to therefore include the small wind turbine generator.

The wind turbine generator will be operated by a 'qualifying customer' and will comply with any standard prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. It will also be connected to a distribution network in a manner that allows electricity generated by the wind turbine generator to be fed into a network. As I said earlier, I commend the member for Finniss in bringing this bill to the house. It does seem odd that we can have solar power and get the benefit of having feed-in tariffs for that and not for another great renewable energy source—wind power—as an addition to photovoltaic cells.

We have a government that keeps telling us how great they are at dealing with renewable energy sources in this state. The sad thing is that so many of these renewable energy sources are so far from being developed. We on this side of the house certainly do back geothermal power as baseload power and we certainly understand the economics of providing baseload power which is being developed under solar, with different technologies moving forward there (that is a good word; moving ahead I should say. I will have to get Hansard to fix that up) with the option of new solar power being able to be run over 24 hours where the power is stored when it is captured during the day and then can be utilised obviously at night.

Certainly we have heard a lot from this government about how much wind power there is in this state, but you have to remember that wind power is capable of operating for only a small percentage of time. Sometimes there is no wind and sometimes there is too much wind, but it certainly is not a baseload power. Certainly, for individual operators, whether they be in outback areas or too far away to connect to the grid, people for a long time have been used to using things such as free light towers and wind power to provide power in their situation, and a lot of these people tie that in with solar power. Obviously, if you are disconnected from the system, you cannot get the benefit of getting any feed-in tariff. However, it certainly shows the initiatives individuals can take on an individual basis, because of the effort involved in shifting power lines or even to shift a power pole.

A bit of work was done on a road entrance into the T&R meatworks. I stand to be corrected, but there was a major pole on the corner of the road and to shift it was going to cost $240,000, which is just absolutely ridiculous. In the end, T&R and the people involved in adjusting the road managed to put the road up as hard as they could, within reason and legalities, to this pole. Returning to wind power, as I have said before, we have many wind farms in this state. People have different views about wind farms, but there is certainly a lot of production going on, which is good. Let's not ever shy away from the fact that we are a long way from having sustainable green energy of a baseload nature in this state.

In relation to geothermal energy, I have been on the site at Innamincka, where they have been trying to tackle the great pressures and heat of geothermal energy. The rig is sited about 15 kilometres out of Innamincka. They have brought in bigger rigs to dig deeper holes. It is all about managing to control the water flow and controlling it as water that comes up to the surface and where it comes out.

I hope they harness it in the future but, in the shorter term, there should be the opportunity for people who live wherever there is wind, and in most places there is. South Australia is well known for wind power—the Mid North, the West Coast, Yorke Peninsula, Cape Jervis and even through quite a bit of Adelaide, especially in the Adelaide Hills. There are plenty of spots where people, with the right amount of incentive, could generate green power for themselves, which would certainly ease the load on the coal-fired power stations in this state.

Let's never shy away from the fact that, while it seems to be taboo to debate nuclear power in this state, we will have to rely on coal-based generation for our main baseload generation needs for a long time yet. There are many factors involved in that: it is so cheap and it is easily accessible. In fact, I noted the other day that, as far as our coal exports out of this country are concerned, there is a port near Mackay that at times has 51 empty coal ships waiting to load at any one time to export the product.

This is where the federal government, under former prime minister Rudd, did not seem to understand, when it brought in its 40 per cent mining tax, the impact it could have on the Australian economy in regard to regional people and regional employment and also the gross wealth of the nation. The federal government just wanted to tax the mining industry to bits, and I believe that was the final death nail for Kevin Rudd and when Julia decided to throw the knife in.

However, be that as it may, I do commend this motion. I think it is a very sensible piece of legislation. We should all be doing our best to generate as much green power as we can. I note that the Premier comes into this chamber and keeps talking about the 100 gigalitre desalination plant that will be hooked into green power. Well, no, what will happen is that the desalination plant will be plugged into essentially the black grid and we will pay more for the power. It will just be a feel good option that, supposedly, we are running on 100 per cent green energy. Well, if the government can guarantee that the wind will be blowing all the time and that the sun will be up all the time, which I don't think it can, it will not be running full time on green energy.

We do support green energy on this side of the house, but we know the realities of generating it and we know the vagaries of when it is available, and it is certainly not available all the time. However, anything we can do to ease our load as our population grows is worthwhile so that people can feel good about themselves in their own small way. In fact, we will have people who will virtually be able to wean themselves off the grid, but it does take a big investment. So, there is certainly that disincentive for people. However, people need options such as wind power so that they can make it economical.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:21): I rise very briefly to speak on this subject, which I have a fair bit of passion about. I indicate that I support the motion, and I also congratulate you, Mr Acting Speaker, for introducing it. I think this motion is correcting an oversight. I think it is quite wrong that people installing photovoltaic cells on their roof can get the feed-tariff, whereas they cannot for a wind power generator, or anything else for that matter. If you can get a feed-in tariff for these photovoltaic cells, I cannot understand why that is the case. Apparently, there has been an attempt to right that, but it has not happened.

I was brought up with wind power. Some would say that I generate a fair bit of it myself! We were brought up with 32 volt power and, living with it, we had many options back then. We had the free lights, as we called them, the 32 volt free lights, and we had the generators and batteries. We had two or three options. When we were shearing, we had the generator on to top up the batteries all the time. So, there were a lot of options open to us.

I thought that free light was part of the scene back then, particularly in country South Australia, and you still see the occasional tower. In fact, our free light tower is still there, thinking that one day we might just put it back again. So, we were brought up with the free light, or the wind turbine, and I think communities, families and homes today ought to all have their own wind turbine, and then families would feel that they are doing their bit to help save the environment.

They are a very visual thing, sir, as you would know, and they are not unattractive in a home situation, whereas I believe as a wind farm they are not attractive. That is the problem; I do not believe that wind farms are the answer. I was initially quite supportive but I have to say that now I believe they are unsightly, especially at night with all those flashing lights, and they are very high cost. It is costing millions to put them there and, of course, they are extremely high maintenance.

I happen to know a couple of people who are doing the maintenance and they are fully employed, particularly as we have a lot of the lesser quality ones being installed in South Australia and, I am sorry, they have to be at them all the time. So, the question is: how long will these machines last and whose cost is it, if it does fall over, to remove them? That is always a question I put up. I do not believe it is a long-term answer, sir, I really do not, but I do believe this is and I commend you for it.

We have wind turbines to the south of our farm at Crystal Brook and yes, we are used to them, but I often enjoyed the beautiful ambience you have in living in the country looking at the skyline and the horizon, but with these things up there I have to say that I feel as if it has been vandalised, it has been vilified, and now there is an extra push in the next few weeks to install 60 more of these wind turbines between Crystal Brook and Collaby Hill, which is right alongside the southern Flinders there, which is going to have a high visual impact. This is a lovely skyline horizon and I am not in favour of that, but I will certainly go along to the public meetings and find out about it.

If these wind farms are a good idea, then why not run them across Mount Lofty? You know and I know that would not be acceptable, it would go down like lead boots. So, why then can you foist these onto other smaller communities where the voting power is not so strong? In certain locations I think I could accept them, where they do not have the visual impact, but when you can see them from 30 or 40 kilometres away that is a visual impact.

This idea of households having a wind turbine, in conjunction with photovoltaic cells and a generator, I think, is a great idea. We have to give this incentive to people to be able to invest the money in it—because it does cost to invest in it—and then to be able to get the benefit of the feed-in tariff. We went through this exercise ourselves as a family, where we were considering putting in the photovoltaic cells and the rest of it. We had a very good arrangement with our electricity supplier anyway, but if we put these things in it would change the tariff regime that we were currently on. We would lose the discount that we were running on, and I thought that was wrong.

When we worked it out, for us to put the photovoltaic cells in was a disincentive, our power would have been more expensive, so we did not do it. I think a lot of the power companies were using this leverage over their consumers to say, 'Well, okay, if you're going to put these things in you won't get the same rate of power per unit from us.' I think that was unfair and it ought to have been addressed.

I think that families can play their part, very much so, in relation to addressing the power needs of the future. I think that everybody who puts up a wind turbine, a photovoltaic cell or a generator can feel that they are doing their bit. It is good training, not only for the families but also for the young people coming on to say, 'Hang on, this power, when you switch a light on it just doesn't happen, it has a cost.' I think this is a good idea and I am amazed that it has not been done before. I congratulate the member for Finniss and we certainly support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.