WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:36): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to investigate wind farm developments in South Australia, with the following terms of reference:

(a) separation distances between wind turbines and residences or communities;

(b) the social, health and economic impacts of wind generators on individual landholders, communities and the state;

(c) the need for a peer-reviewed, independent academic study on the social, health and economic impacts of wind generators;

(d) the capacity of existing infrastructure to cope with increased wind power;

(e) the cost of wind power in South Australia;

(f) the environmental impacts of wind generators;

(g) the siting of wind generators in South Australia;

(h) the approval process of wind farms in South Australia;

(i) the preparation of the Statewide Wind Farm DPA; and

(j) any other matter the committee deems relevant.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

Members of parliament have been made well aware that South Australians do not want to live too close to industrial-scale wind generators. We know that we have more wind generation in this state than any other state. In fact, we have one of the highest penetrations of wind power in the world, and we have more than half of Australia's installed wind power in South Australia.

It is interesting, when you look at the geography of the state, that nearly every electorate that has wind generators is held by the Liberal Party, with the exception of, I think, the seat of Mount Gambier, represented by Mr Pegler, and the seat of Frome, represented by Mr Brock. However, none of the government—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I do not believe that there are any in the electorate of Giles. There could be, but I do not think there are any either in or proposed in the electorate of Giles. So, it is because the people the Liberal Party represents, the constituents in the electorates of the local members Peter Treloar, Stephen Griffiths, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, Ivan Venning, Tim Whetstone, Mark Goldsworthy, Adrian Pederick and Mitch Williams, have raised concerns for some considerable time, and that is why we felt it was important we establish this select committee to give an opportunity for some sensible and informed debate. We know that wind power generation is seen to be totally friendly and green, but really there is turbulence building over the cost, the health effects and the aesthetics.

Community opposition to industrial-scale wind generation is increasing. At the same time the Labor government is planning to approve more and more wind farms closer to homes, villages and schools. Neighbouring homeowners and primary producers want to be protected from encroaching wind farms. With the statewide ministerial DPA that has been imposed, the Labor Party, the government, wants to remove the third party appeal rights. It just seems un-Australian to do so. This move by the government almost came out of nowhere in the dying days of premier Rann's reign over this state or his party. I think it was on the Tuesday of that final week, so probably 18 October, that this was launched.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Who said that? They don't even acknowledge him any more.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, they don't acknowledge him any more; he is a forgotten beast of the past, I suspect.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: You don't acknowledge Brokey—he was a member of the Liberal Party.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I acknowledge the people who deserve recognition, but I won't be recognising you today.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Or Brokey.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire was a very important member of a former Liberal government and a cabinet minister—something you will never be.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: In a Liberal Government I won't be, that's for sure.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And you won't be in a Labor government.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So the South Australian Liberals have been called upon to protect the residents and communities from wind farms being built too close to their homes and villages. This includes protection against economic loss caused by restrictions on things such as aerial spraying, fire fighting, mustering and the like. It only occurred to me when I visited a group of landowners on Yorke Peninsula, where our local member Stephen Griffiths had alerted me to a group who were wanting to meet with the shadow minister for planning, that aerial spraying of crops is a particular concern.

I guess I have always come from the fundamental view that you should be able to do whatever you like on your property, provided you do not impact on the way the neighbours go about their daily business. Neighbours and adjacent land owners’ farm management practices and rights must not suffer because of a Labor government approved wind farm on another property.

Wind generated power is very expensive, but wind farms do not reduce the need for conventional generating capacity, because we still need to meet peak demand on hot or windless days. The Energy Retailers Association warns that we are footing the bill for both wind and back-up electricity generation, so we still have to pay for the infrastructure, even if it is not used.

Certainly I would hope that the committee resolves, when it is formed (and I hope the Legislative Council supports the motion to form the select committee), that we look at getting some witnesses from the National Electricity Market, the Australian Energy Regulator and all of them so that we can actually get some really good technical evidence given to us on exactly how wind fits into the national grid, because I have heard anecdotally from somebody who works for the Australian Energy Regulator that they do not even consider wind power as a serious player, even though we have so much of it. They really do not factor it in when they are doing the allocation of power and the bidding process that it all goes through.

I am interested very interested to get some evidence not just from wind farm proponents and those in the community who want them and like them and those who feel they suffer from them, but also we need to ensure that we get some high level advice on exactly where they fit in our market and what the long-term place is for it.

There is also a cost to individual homeowners. Homes and properties are often devalued by having these turbines nearby and in the line of sight. We have heard some evidence that has presented to the opposition that experts assess the loss of value in excess of 30 per cent and sometimes up to half of the value of the property. I suspect if they are very close to people's property and have a big impact on the aesthetics, especially in the Adelaide Hills or somewhere where people had a property because of the view, I could understand how that loss could be as much as 30 or 50 per cent.

The Liberals believe that wind farms must not be improved on sites where they create negative economic and social effects, so that is why some time ago in late December we launched a policy of having a moratorium on new wind farms being built closer than two kilometres from existing homes or five kilometres from a town, village or settlement. This mirrors the policy in Victoria and to an extent the guidelines in New South Wales. I hope it is something the committee will look at—national guidelines in relation to whether they are a sensible way to progress. It is something that the opposition thinks is sensible but this is an opportunity for other members of this chamber and the witnesses to try to develop some national guidelines regarding the separation distances and noise emissions.

Clearly, if we are to be in a national electricity market and if there are any adverse effects from these particular installations, then our community should not be put at greater risk or carry a heavier burden than other communities. Likewise, if there is no detrimental effect, then there should not be any reason not to have national guidelines because, at the end of the day, we have to make sure that this is all developed on an even playing field.

It is interesting to note that despite a recent Senate inquiry much about the South Australian wind farm situation remains unknown. Where should wind farms be built and where not? Should we allow wind farms right across the ridge of the Mount Lofty Ranges, in national parks, across the Coorong or iconic tourist areas like the Barossa, Clare Valley and McLaren Vale? There is also the question of health, the so-called wind turbine syndrome. Some people living over a kilometre from an industrial wind turbine say they suffer from sleep disruption so severe that it affects their day time functioning and mental health. The Clements Gap and Waterloo wind farms can be heard up to three kilometres away and many people report sleep disruption and nausea.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire interjects, 'Up to 10 kilometres.' It could be that wind turbines affect some people and not others, a bit like car sickness. You and I, Mr President, could be in the back of a car; you could feel sick and I could feel fine. Of course, if it was the Hon. John Gazzola, we would probably all feel sick. It could be a bit like car sickness, so this is something I would like the committee to have a closer look at, if it is established. The supporters of wind farms think it is rubbish that they make people ill. The people I have seen and read about that claim to be affected certainly appear to be affected.

One of the things I would ask the committee to do is spend a night sleeping in a house where one of these people is claiming to have their sleep disrupted. The committee members could take their sleeping bags and swags and spend a night or two right where these things are.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Right under the turbine, I reckon.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire interjects, 'Right under the turbine,' but I want to go right where the person's house is. I am not interested in sleeping under the turbine. I want to sleep where the people say they are affected because I think we will get a firsthand feel of it. Certainly one of the early things we would do is look for some houses or properties where people would be happy for us to come and sleep.

We must also investigate how turbines reduce the ability of aerial firefighting. Planes have to keep their distance from these turbines. I think the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia's guidelines say that, if you are flying parallel to a line of turbines, you cannot be any closer than 500 metres; and if you are flying towards some turbines and having to turn before you get to them, there is a three kilometre safety zone which they do not wish their pilots to enter. If you look at where these things are located and if those guidelines are observed, it will certainly have a significant impact if the wind farm or the turbines are placed right on a neighbour's property.

We want to have a close look at not only the impacts on aerial spraying and farming but also aerial fire bombing, because on an extreme day it is not only the immediate property that is under threat but towns, other communities and other private property. Even in November last year, the Southern Fleurieu CFS was called to a fire at the Starfish Hill wind farm near Cape Jervis. The CFS officers could do little but watch the blaze from a kilometre away when WorkSafe deemed it was too dangerous to approach.

I have had a close look at this and it is quite interesting to note that WorkSafe said that it was too dangerous to approach and they had a one kilometre exclusion zone. If you had a wind turbine near a major highway or a major transport route and for whatever reason it caught fire or there was a problem with it, WorkSafe would close down that area which would not only impact on the landowner whose property the turbine was on but the local community and potentially the broader community if it was on a major transport route or a regional road. I think that is something that the committee should also look at.

I also hope that we will look at some research. The divisive issue in the whole wind farm debate is the lack of a peer-reviewed independent study. The proponents of wind farms say that they welcome it. We do not have an independent study and the wind farm proponents and the people in the community who support wind farms say, 'Great, bring it on. Get some research and show that there is no effect on the health of people from these installations.' Likewise, the people who believe that there is a problem and that it has a detrimental affect on their health say, 'Bring it on. Let's have some quality independent research.' I am hoping that the committee will look at that.

I should not pre-empt the committee's findings, but I am hopeful that the committee would recommend that the government supports a South Australian university study, a peer-reviewed study, into the effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents and communities. After all, if South Australia is to be Australia's leading wind generation state, we should be a national leader in academic research into the industry.

Given former premier Rann (the person we do not hear much about anymore) was so passionate about wind farms and so passionate about having South Australia and Adelaide as a university city—and we have a huge number of overseas students here and I think we all support having high quality higher education in South Australia—I am a bit bemused that he did not see this as an opportunity to have that independent peer-reviewed study based in Adelaide to settle this issue once and for all: is there a problem or is there not? As I said earlier, I think it could possibly be a little like car sickness, but certainly the people who feel unwell and feel affected by these things genuinely believe there are some problems.

The other thing about which I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence is the impact on farm animals. I had a dairy farmer contact me—and I know the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has expressed interest on being on the committee and being a dairy farmer he might understand this—with some written evidence that dairy cattle underneath a wind turbine have a lower butterfat yield, lower fertility rates and lower growth rates. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is, then let us look at the evidence. It is worth investigating.

On my very first parliamentary study trip I went to the Netherlands. I went to look at wind generation and euthanasia. That was in late 2002, so it is nearly 10 years ago. It is interesting to note that there was a big shift from having wind turbines on land in Europe to offshore installations, where they were beyond the horizon and where people could not see them. They are very expensive to install and service, and I understand that it is probably cost prohibitive, but clearly the community was concerned. I do not know whether their concerns related to the visual impact or the health impacts. Right across the world, there have been a number of concerns.

It is certainly my view that the committee could look at this issue and recommend having a statewide zoning plan setting out where these things would be prohibited. This means no wind farms in inappropriate, sensitive or visually and culturally iconic parts of the state like Ramsar sites and places on heritage registers. I think there are areas of the state that we need to say are off limits. We will have the Arkaroola bill before us, I suspect, tomorrow and I think there are areas where these things probably should not be. I would like the committee to look at some of the areas so that we can come up with a list of areas to be part of the recommendations.

I would like to think that the committee would also have a look at the background to the ministerial DPA and the renewable energies paper that was released in the last couple of days of the former premier's time. We have a new Premier who says, 'We are going to engage and consult. We are not going to announce and defend.' Yet this decision was, we assume, a cabinet decision. We assume that cabinet signed off on it and yet it is very much an announce and defend decision.

I think the community would like to understand how that was formulated. There was no consultation with the community. Was there consultation with the wind industry sector? I think there is a whole range of answers and we would like to get the departmental people before the committee to answer some of those questions. With those few remarks I commend the motion to establish a select committee to the Legislative Council and look forward to support from the members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.