WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway:

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.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (20:01): It will come as little shock to members here that the government opposes this motion. I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief again, in the light of what I expect what will happen when this comes to a vote. Indeed it will bring to 11 the number of select committees now for consideration in this chamber. I think it might be a good idea to place some facts on the record.

The success of South Australia to develop substantial capacity to deliver clean green electricity from wind is a tribute to our state. The Clean Energy Council estimates that $2.8 billion has been invested into the state's wind power sector, generating 806 jobs directly and 2,417 jobs indirectly. I understand that the state has 1,150 megawatts of capacity and that this represents in the order of 54 per cent of Australia's total wind power generating capacity.

In 2010-11, wind comprised 21 per cent of electricity generated within South Australia. This means that the government's target of having 20 per cent of its electricity coming from renewable sources by 2014 has been met three years ahead of schedule. It is also nine years ahead of the national target. The government is now moving on to the next phase of the development of the renewable energy industry by working towards its further target to have 33 per cent of its electricity come from renewable sources by 2020.

The ability of South Australia, and indeed the nation, to adapt to a low carbon future is of paramount importance but, more than that, honourable members may be aware that the Statewide Wind Farm DPA is currently being reviewed through the consultation process. I understand that the Hon. Mr Parnell has made a submission to the consultation process. However, I am led to believe that there have been no other submissions from members of this chamber, though I understand that members from the other place have also contributed. The consultation process is still progressing with the independent advice of the Independent Development Policy Advisory Committee, taking into account the content of all submissions expected to be provided to the minister shortly.

It seems to me to be pointless to duplicate much of the work the Independent Development Policy Advisory Committee is undertaking. Surely it is at the very least premature for the motion to be moved for the reasons given, when many of the concerns may well end up being addressed by the process underway currently. The government opposes this motion because of the unnecessary duplication it will lead to. There may well be some elements worth investigation within the terms of reference, but to undertake this while an independent agency is already reviewing much of the same content is, to the government, unnecessary. For all the logical reasons I have just outlined, I urge other members to also oppose this motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:05): I move:

Delete paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) and insert new subparagraphs as follows:

(e) The costs and benefits of wind power in South Australia;

(f) The environmental impacts of wind generators and wind power generally;

The Greens will support this motion, this call for the establishment of a select committee, but I have suggested, and now move, two small amendments that have been circulated. I will quickly run through what these amendments are before I speak to the merits of the proposal. The terms of reference of the committee are listed in the motion at (a) through to (j), and I am proposing minor changes to two of those terms of reference.

Term of reference (e) currently reads 'The cost of wind power in South Australia'. I propose that be changed to 'The costs and benefits of wind power in South Australia'. I think that is important, because it broadens out the scope of the inquiry to make sure that the benefits—in particular the environmental benefits of wind farms—are considered along with the costs.

I am also seeking to amend term of reference paragraph (f), which currently reads 'The environment impacts of wind generators', to read 'The environmental impacts of wind generators and wind power generally'. The importance of that amendment is that we want to make sure that the environmental impacts that will be considered are more than just the footprint, if you like, or the immediate impacts of generators in the local landscape. We also need to look at the environmental impacts of wind power generally. That will include the carbon reduction potential of generating electricity from wind rather than from fossil fuels.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo in her contribution mentioned that I had put in a submission to the statutory process of public input into the development plan amendment for wind farms, which is a ministerial state-wide DPA. Members might be surprised that the conclusion the Greens came to in that submission was to actually reject the mechanism that the government had in mind for changing the planning rules for wind farms.

It is not that we are at all against wind farms—in fact, we want to see more wind farms in South Australia; they already play an important role in our clean energy future and we think they will play a bigger role in the future—but we are not convinced that the way the government has approached the planning of wind farms is the right way to go, so I put in a submission opposing that particular DPA.

I think where the Hon. Carmel Zollo has missed the point is that she is suggesting that this inquiry is somehow an unnecessary duplication of the inquiry that the Development Policy Advisory Committee is undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you think about it, what role do members of parliament have to ask questions in a DPAC hearing? None; we have no role at all to inquire or investigate, and we certainly have no role in reporting.

As members would know, DPAC's job is to advise the minister, and we have discussed amendments to the Development Act in the past, but the final outcome of all that is that we still do not get to see their report until after it is pretty well all over. So there is absolutely no duplication with members of parliament being able to hear from witnesses, whether they be from industry, the community or from the government itself, and to come to our own independent conclusion—which may be a very different conclusion to that reached by the Development Policy Advisory Committee.

I also reject the other point that the Hon. Carmel Zollo made that the exercise is pointless. She also said that it is premature. It is not premature; in fact, it is absolutely timely, because the Minister for Planning will, hopefully, have the advantage of a very considered report of the select committee of the Legislative Council at the same time that the minister has the ability to consider the DPAC advice. So rather than being premature it is, in fact, the right time for an inquiry like this.

With the changes I have proposed—and I understand from the Hon. David Ridgway that he is comfortable with the changes—I expect that this committee will be established. What will be interesting, of course, is who goes on the committee. I have said to the mover of the motion that I am happy to represent the Greens on that committee. We will see what the final outcome is, but it may well turn out that we have five different parties, or representatives, Independents, on the committee, which will be a very different look committee to those we normally see, which comprise Liberal, Labor and maybe one crossbencher.

Hopefully, we will be able to come to a common conclusion. I hope we do not have a committee that results in five minority reports, but certainly I am looking forward to exploring some of the issues in these terms of reference. I will be doing it from the point of view of trying to make sure that we provide for a solid future for wind farms in this state, that we do not ride roughshod over local communities, and that we make sure that we bring communities with us.

I think there is great potential for communities to embrace wind farms, provided their concerns are dealt with and listened to and that we get clear planning rules in place that are not arbitrary and do recognise local and regional differences. So, the Greens will be supporting the creation of this select committee.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:10): The issue of wind power and wind farms is difficult and is an issue in which I have a particular interest, as my son is development executive for wind power generation of a major Australian energy company. Nobody disputes that renewable energy is undoubtedly beneficial to the environment and therefore to the community in the long term; however, any potential negative impacts must be examined, and a risk assessment conducted, in order to assess the viability of renewable energy alternatives—this is particularly true for wind farms.

In October 2011, former premier Mike Rann announced the state government's commitment to reach a renewable energy target of 33 per cent by 2020. Some saw this as a move to support the development of the controversial Allendale wind farm, which was blocked by the courts on the basis of visual pollution. Whatever the reason, for future planning the state should aim to wean itself off its reliance on fossil fuel. Renewable energy is better in some respects; however, there must be a balance.

I understand that the current research into the health effects of wind farms is inconclusive. There is no scientific evidence which proves that wind farms are harmful, nor is there any research which shows that wind farms are safe. There are, however, plenty of examples of people who live in the proximity of wind farms who suffer from a range of ailments, including headaches, nausea, depression, high blood pressure, insomnia, and pressure to their ears and head. Similarly, there are plenty of examples of people who live in the proximity of wind farms who have no reaction whatsoever.

Some say that adverse health effects may be a consequence of stress attributed to living in the vicinity of a wind farm and that this stress is especially elevated where there is no financial recompense. I want to make it clear that I do not think that people who are not being financially compensated are making up their symptoms; I am merely saying that these symptoms could be attributed to a number of things and that there is no conclusive evidence as yet.

In addition to the health effects of wind turbines, I note the concerns that the South Australian Farmers Federation has with relation to crop spraying. There are concerns that turbulence caused by wind turbines can affect planes. However, I am not aware of any cases around the world where planes have been adversely affected as a result of flying too close to a wind farm. Further to this, I am advised that the Aerial Agricultural Spraying Association has issued guidelines for buffer zones in regard to wind turbines similar to those that current exist for transmission lines and silos; however, I understand these buffer zones are quite large and not always adhered to.

I understand the federal government established a Senate committee to investigate the social and economic impact of rural wind farms. The terms of reference for this select committee are very similar, and I note that the Senate committee recommended that, as a matter of priority, the federal government should fund further studies on the possible effects of wind farms to human health. I understand that there are ongoing studies into the effects of wind farms around the world. I believe it is important that this research continues so that that any issues identified can be addressed to protect those who may be adversely affected.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:15): Family First have done a lot of work on this wind farm issue. In fact, I have a significant file just on the wind farm issue. We will leave it up to the mover of the motion as to how he goes about taking amendments, as the Hon. Mark Parnell has already highlighted to the chamber. Suffice to say that, in his dying days the former premier (the Hon. Mike Rann) made some decisions that I feel, again, were not within process, were unprecedented and put at risk the basic principles and processes of planning.

There are also arguments about the impost on right to farm, amenity of locality and the enjoyment of that, health issues and what may occur with respect to the cost of renewable energy and baseload power provision. So, there are a lot of issues there. I think the Hon. David Ridgway has done the right thing in moving this select committee. Family First think the unwinding of this debate so that we can come back in with some specific recommendations and facts is sensible. Therefore, Family First will support this committee.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:16): I will quickly sum up the debate and indicate that I am happy to accept the amendments of the Hon. Mark Parnell. I think they are sensible amendments, and I do not want to constrain the inquiry at all. In relation to wind farms, as members are well aware, I participated in a fact finding mission to Eyre Peninsula last week. I did meet with some—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That's not how they described it.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did actually visit some tourism operators and you should hear what they say about you, so I would not go down that path if I were you. I will get distracted; if I have to start talking about tourism, regional development, agriculture and food and fisheries, I will be here all bloody night, so I do not want to start. However, I did visit a group of farmers near Elliston who have a proposal—I think it is from Origin Energy—for 600 turbines, and they are desperate—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Six hundred?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Six hundred. There are about six farmers affected and only about four houses in that area. They are the sorts of areas I think we should be looking at for these developments, because it is a massive development. I am sure that wind power will be an important part of the mix of our energy requirements going forward, but I think it is an opportune time to look at this issue. That is why I have moved the select committee.

It really was in response to former premier Rann and planning minister and Deputy Premier John Rau's arrogant move to the statewide Ministerial Development Plan Amendment that imposed a one-kilometre exclusion zone. The catalyst to all of this was that suddenly the government was treating the whole state as its own little plaything when it came to wind energy. I do not wish to prolong the debate. I thank members for their contribution and I indicate that I am happy for the chamber to support the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments.

The PRESIDENT: I must say the government is very tolerant with this late tabled amendment tonight.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:19): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. A. Bressington, the Hon. R. Brokenshire, the Hon. M. Parnell, the Hon. C. Zollo and the mover.

We have, I think for the first time, a select committee with one member from Liberal, Labor, Greens, Family First and an Independent, so it is one of the most democratic select committees we have ever had.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

That the select committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 18 July 2012.

Motion carried.