Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:24): I move:

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Wind Farm Developments in South Australia that its terms of reference be extended by inserting after subparagraph I(i) the following new subparagraph:

(ia) An assessment of the impact of wind farm developments on property values.

I am sure that members will have a view as to whether that could be expressed as either a positive or a negative impact on property values, and the select committee will naturally be happy, I am sure, to explore all of the aspects of it.

There is one issue that has come to light which I think deserves further examination by the select committee. As we all know, under the current Labor government, we have seen the massive expansion of wind farms, where we now have 48 per cent of the nation's wind generation capacity installed here. I am led to believe that roughly the same amount have already been approved and are waiting to be installed, so we have quite a backlog of developments waiting to go ahead.

One issue has come to light recently, and I will read an article published in The Australian; it is not some sort of obscure publication from some country in the world we have not heard of before. I think it was on Tuesday 12 February this year entitled and it is entitled, Turbines 'tarnish property values'. The article states:

A federal magistrate has accepted that wind farms slash the value of surrounding properties, saying she found it 'hard to imagine' any prospective buyer could ignore such development.

In a decision believed to be the first time an Australian court has recognised the adverse financial impact of wind farms for neighbours, magistrate Kate Hughes ruled a property would be worth 17 per cent less if a 14-turbine facility were erected next door.

For one part of the property, in regional Victoria, she accepted a 33 per cent fall in value was likely.

The ruling came in a family law case published this month amid separation proceedings for the couple who own the property.

Ms Hughes heard two separate valuers had agreed the wind farm would have a negative effect on the adjacent property, which the couple has divided into three blocks. 'The expert value of the three blocks of land varies significantly depending on whether or not it is assumed the proposed wind farm will go ahead,' Ms Hughes said in her judgment.

'The impact of the proposed wind farm is apparent from the valuation report.'

The ruling comes on top of last month's decision by South Gippsland Shire Council to cut rates for one landowner on the basis that his property would lose value because of an adjacent wind farm that is yet to be built.

The resident had his land value reduced by 32 per cent after arguing he would suffer from the 52-turbine Bald Hills wind farm.

Wind farm developers and the renewables industry overall have insisted land values are not affected by wind farms.

The valuers engaged in the Federal Magistrates Court case, Raab and Raab, varied slightly in their estimates of how much the land value would drop, but agreed there would be a detrimental effect if the wind farm went ahead. 'We have agreed there is insufficient sales information currently available from which we could ascertain the level of reduction in value applicable to rural properties in close proximity to wind turbine facilities,' the valuers said in a joint report tendered to the court.

'The matter is therefore largely subjective (but) our opinion in relation to this subject property is not significantly different.'

Ms Hughes said both the husband and wife had opposed the wind farm, which was approved in 2009 under planning legislation that has since been tightened by the Baillieu government.

'Given the planning permit for the wind farm has...been granted, it seems reasonable to assume the wind farm is more likely than not to go ahead,' she said. 'It is hard to imagine any prospective buyer ignoring that issue.'

Outside court, the wife said she wanted the case publicised as evidence of the detrimental effect wind farms could have for neighbouring properties. 'This just went to confirm it,' she told The Australian.

'The wind companies have to take notice of it—they deny it all.

'It's going to take this sort of evidence to turn that ship.'

I will quote from the back end of an article in The Australian of 1 February:

Real Estate Institute of Victoria policy and public affairs manager Robert Larocca said not enough properties near wind farms changed hands to assess whether the projects had an impact on land values.

'The data doesn't allow us to do that,' he said. 'A professional valuer may have their own individual point of view about a property, but at an overall level we are unable to discern the impact, negative or positive.'

The British Valuation Office Agency, which decides council tax valuations, last year ruled wind turbines built near homes could sharply decrease their value, moving some homes into a lower council tax band.

Mark Burfield, who is awaiting turbine construction within 1km from his property, has already received a verbal knockback from South Gippsland council after asking for a rates adjustment.

He is trying to sell some of his property, receiving one offer for $200,000 less than he advertised.

'The people came over, looked at the house and said "That's fantastic",' Mr Burfield said. 'I said: "That's where the wind farm will go". They went to see the wind farm manager, then came back and roasted the real estate agent.

'They said there is no way they were going to buy here and what a pity it was. I have $2.5m worth of farmland, and right now it's unsellable.'

Recently, in The Weekly Times there was an article entitled, 'Rates revolt in the wind'. It states:

Wind farm opponents in southwest Victoria have sparked a rates revolt they expect to sweep the state.

Farmers near wind farms in the Southern Grampians and Moyne shires are being urged to seek valuation reviews.

The action follows a decision by a Federal Magistrates Court judge that a property would be worth 17 per cent less and parts could be devalued by up to 33 per cent, if a neighbouring 14-turbine wind farm was built.

A South Gippsland Shire ratepayer next to the proposed Bald Hills wind farm has also had his lifestyle block's value reduced by 32 per cent to match rates paid on adjoining broadacre land.

Southern Grampians Landscape Guardians president Keith Staff, of Penshurst, said the two decisions would justify legal action on the issue and he had urged ratepayers to seek a revaluation.

Some Southern Grampians ratepayers have already asked for rating reviews and Mr Staff believed land revaluations near wind farms could cost Victorian councils hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However, South Gippsland Shire chief executive Tim Tamlin said the Bald Hills ratepayer had his rates reduced by about 30 per cent because his block was next to the proposed wind farm's concrete batching plant and there would disruption during construction.

'I don't believe it is a precedent because valuation reviews are done on their own merits,' Mr Tamlin said.

Southern Grampians Shire corporate services manager Belinda Johnson said the council did not propose to revalue properties adjacent to or near wind farms 'outside the state-endorsed process'.

The Moyne Shire Council has received revaluation requests from landowners around wind farms, but has said it would follow the current process for valuation reviews.

However, farmer Jan Hetherington, who shares a boundary with the Macarthur wind farm to the west and the Penshurst wind farm to the south, said rates should be cut.

'I am right in the dead centre of the wind farms, you might as well say my land is worthless,' Mr Hetherington said.

So, you can see that there is a divergence of views. Clearly, there are some issues that need to be resolved with this particular threat to neighbouring properties if the properties are to be devalued. I think it is important from two points of view. If we look perhaps at the big proposed wind farm—I point out that those rate reductions and property value reductions in Victoria are next to proposed wind farms, not ones that have actually been built. So that, if you like, the view that could be there one day is a concern.

I guess the area that concerns me the most, and why I would like the select committee to have a closer look at it, would be if you are a young farmer, you have borrowed a fair bit of money to try to expand your business, a wind farm is built on a neighbouring property and suddenly the bank says to you, 'I'm sorry, your land value has reduced by 10, 15, 20, 30 per cent'—whatever the figure happens to be—'and you don't have the equity, in the bank's eyes, to carry on', then you could lose your farm.

As a former farmer, and as a business person, I have always had the view that you should be able to do whatever you like on your property, it is your property, but if it has a negative impact on the value of your neighbour's property then I think that is a set of circumstances that nobody in this chamber should be prepared to endorse or put up with. That is the first issue I think is very important. We are struggling to get young people back into rural communities. We understand that those who host wind farms do get a financial benefit. That is fine for the ones who host it, but if it has a negative impact on the value of people's property adjacent to those wind farms, I think that is something the committee needs to have a close look at.

Also, with the proposed wind farm on Yorke Peninsula, I would like to hope that the committee would seek some evidence or submissions from the real estate industry in relation to the value of the properties. We know real estate is very popular in the quite expensive Black Point area, but there is a whole range of coastal holiday homes and areas where people go to enjoy not only the beautiful scenery but the coast there.

Hopefully, the committee will seek to get some input from the Real Estate Institute, the local council and the Valuer-General in relation to the impact it may have on those properties. While some of them may be owned and freehold and not encumbered, there may well be some properties there where somebody is working a couple of jobs to try to buy their dream holiday home and, suddenly, that is devalued in the eyes of the bank as well.

I think I have said that I am not opposed to wind farms, and the Liberal Party is certainly not opposed to wind farms. As I have said, we do have half of the nation's capacity here, and we have another 100 per cent more already approved, and the one on Yorke Peninsula will be the biggest wind farm ever built in Australia. I am very keen for the committee to look at that.

I noticed that yesterday there was a debate in the House of Assembly in relation to wind farms and that the Premier had written to the Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, requesting a debate as a matter of urgency. It is interesting to note that the Premier's letter, which is dated 18 March (Monday), requests that the debate be held last week, on 13 March at 11am. It begs the question: if the Premier does not even know what day it is, what sort of a political stunt was this when it was to have a debate earlier on today? The Premier's letter states:

On Wednesday 13 March at 11 am, I intend to suspend government business to allow debate to proceed on this motion forthwith.

Well, we were not even in parliament that week! It really does the beg question: what was this designed to do? The letter goes on:

(e) Non-evidence based policies undermine investment and energy projects and damage South Australia's economic and environmental development

(f) Placing any moratorium on wind farm developments would have significant adverse economic consequences for South Australia including the potential loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment.

I think that 'thousands of jobs' is a stretch, and 'billions of dollars in investment', when most of it comes from overseas, is also a bit of a stretch. However—

The PRESIDENT: I think the Hon. Mr Ridgway should get back to his notice of motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —it comes back to evidence-based policy.

The PRESIDENT: Get back to your notice of motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, the reason I have referred this to—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They can't help themselves. They don't like the truth. When I told them that the Premier doesn't know what day it is, they arc up. They have been asleep all the time, now they arc up.

The PRESIDENT: And you can't help yourself either, sir. The Hon. Mr Ridgway has the call, and he will return to his notice of motion No. 2.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What day is it?

The PRESIDENT: Would you like me to remind—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What I want to come back to is that this is why we proposed a select committee last year, after the government and premier Rann and minister Rau imposed the statewide interim development plan amendment for wind farms. We moved for a select committee so that we could come up with some evidence-based policies, not something that was plucked out of the air by the former premier—or maybe minister Rau was just plucked by premier Rann before he departed.

In the history of this state parliament, this is the first time a select committee has four parties—Labor, Liberal, Greens, Family First and an Independent. So, it is the first one that has total independence, where there are five individuals. We moved for a select committee so that we could come up with some evidence-based policies.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We did struggle, sadly, but we were able to get a quorum towards the end of that meeting. It is the tragedy of this chamber that we have so many select committees that members are often not able to make it. However, we have an opportunity to explore all these issues rather than the Premier wasting an hour of the House of Assembly's time today. He said the other day in a debate that he was asked to govern. Today he was just having a talkfest.

That is why we have decided to have this select committee and that is why I would urge members to support this extra term of reference so we can actually look at the evidence, because this government is not interested. It is worried that 'a moratorium on wind farm developments would have significant adverse economic consequences for South Australia including potential loss of thousands of jobs'. This could also have adverse economic effects on the neighbours of wind farms with potential loss of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of land value. There are also council rates and all the other equity issues in relation to mortgages. It is an important issue, so I urge members of the chamber to support my motion for another term of reference for the select committee.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.