HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WIND FARMS

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (11:03): I move:

That this house acknowledges that—

(a) wind energy is one of the most cost-effective and efficient forms of renewable generation and plays an important role in reducing our level of greenhouse gas emissions;

(b) South Australia has established itself as the nation's leader in wind energy investment having attracted approximately 48 per cent of the nation's installed capacity;

(c) the development and construction of wind farms across the state deliver economic and environmental benefits for all South Australians;

(d) in addition to the direct employment generated by the construction and operation of wind farms, these projects also bring investment to regional towns and help farmers diversify to support their businesses and families;

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

(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.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

That the time limit for debate on the motion be limited to 20 minutes for the mover and principal speaker in opposition and 10 minutes for the mover in reply and any other member.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I rise today to move this important motion for the future of South Australia's economy, clean energy future and the jobs of many South Australian workers. The reason for the urgency in relation to this debate will become apparent when I explain recent events. Essentially, there has been a recent and rather alarming move towards a non-evidence based debate which has been emerging in relation to the wind farm sector which is threatening to stall many potential wind farm developments which would be beneficial for South Australia.

Unfortunately, the Liberal opposition has joined in by proposing a moratorium in a way which would be very damaging for the future development of this sector and it is that uncertainty that has been created by these twin phenomena, which have been raised by industry groups, which is particularly alarming. At a point in South Australia's economic history where we have, in a sense, a competitive advantage over the states of New South Wales and Victoria, who have set their face against wind farming, we are in a position to be able to attract our share of investment in this important sector. It is important that we send the clearest possible message in a timely fashion to the industry so that our reputation is not similarly damaged as an investing environment.

I want to touch on our burgeoning clean technology and renewable energy sectors and the decisions and choices that we have made as a government over the past 11 years that have seen us become a national leader in this area. I am proud to say that South Australia has established itself as a leader in wind energy investment and renewable energy generally, having attracted approximately 48 per cent of the nation's installed wind power capacity.

When we came into office in 2002 there were no wind farms in South Australia. I can recall, as planning minister at the time in mid-2003, preparing a planning bulletin which sought to give guidance to the industry and, of course, to the development assessment process to ensure that we could provide an environment which was speedy and certain for the processing of development applications in relation to this sector. Over that 11 years, since that time, 15 wind farms have been built across the state. We set ourselves a target of 20 per cent renewable energy targets, and we exceeded that.

We now supply 26 per cent of the state's energy through renewable means. So, we reset, we recalibrated that target to be 33 per cent by 2020 and we are on track to achieve that, and wind generation will play a significant role as we progress towards that target. The 2012 South Australian Electricity Report highlights that wind-generated energy accounts for 3,349 GWh with zero greenhouse gas emissions during 2011-12, making a substantial contribution to reducing South Australia's (as well Australia's) greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to the environmental benefits, wind farm developments generate employment in regional areas, especially during the construction and maintenance phases of a project. According to the United Nations energy program, renewable energy creates more jobs per dollar invested than conventional power generation. A recent Garrad Hassan report commissioned by the Clean Energy Council estimates that for a 50 megawatt wind farm, 48 FTE direct construction positions are created and a further 4.63 FTEs during operation.

The state has been a significant beneficiary from wind generators and, according to the Clean Energy Council, South Australia has attracted almost $3 billion in capital investment, which has translated into 842 direct jobs and 2,526 total jobs.

As well as the direct employment generated by the construction and operation of a wind farm, there are flow-on effects to the wider community. Local retail and services benefit from the increased economic activity in the locality of the wind farm, and it is estimated that for every direct construction and maintenance job created two additional indirect jobs are created.

Additional community benefits are created by a number of wind farm developers through community benefit funds. The amount of funding has ranged from approximately $100 to $1,000 per megawatt of installed wind farm capacity. Funds have been provided by developers for sustainability or community development projects. Some wind farm owners also contribute to local communities through direct sponsorship of projects or events, such as football clubs or community festivals.

An SKM study into the economic of the five Hallett wind farms developed by AGL in the Mid North estimates a 3.3 per cent increase in gross regional product during the construction of the wind farms, and a 1.4 per cent increase during operation. There is clear evidence that wind farms bring significant economic benefits to our regional communities. There are benefits such as the impact on the carbon price for all South Australians. Due to the changing nature of generation capacity, with the increasing contribution by wind generators individual consumers are less affected by carbon price in South Australia than in other states.

The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling assessed the carbon price impact on household expenditure for consumers in each state. For South Australian consumers the modelling found the least impact on household expenditure compared with all other states in Australia. According to the Australian Energy Regulator's State of the Energy Market Report, our wind generation capacity has now reached a scale where it is having a modifying impact on industry prices.

This will always be the way. There was always going to be a price on carbon. The price provided at the moment through the arrangements put in place by the federal government will have to be grappled with by any government anywhere in the world, so there will be probably an even higher price on carbon in the future, and those first movers, those jurisdictions that adjust their economics to this carbon-constrained future, will reap the benefits. The process of adjustment will be similarly more difficult for those who resist those changes. That is why this is such an important debate.

As at February the Australian Energy Market Operator shows there are 19 wind farm projects within the state that are committed or listed or publicly announced. This represents potential capital investment in the state of more than $5 billion and more than 2,000 construction jobs. It is clear that wind farm developments increase prosperity while reducing carbon pollution—they boost employment, they boost investment, they encourage innovation and technological development and they will deliver a clean energy legacy to our children and to their children.

South Australia has established itself in a way that creates a reputation for ourselves. We have established ourselves as Australia's most supportive jurisdiction for renewable energy investment and the development of innovative technology that so often results from this activity. So, it is no surprise that you see Zen Energy setting up in South Australia, which is pioneering world-leading technologies on battery technologies, that seek to unlock one of the great challenges with renewable energy; namely, how do you store energy that is generated in off peak times so that it can be used in peak times?

It is one of the great challenges and one of the things which potentially constrains the growth of wind energy, but because we have made that commitment in this state we attract those innovators who are coming up with the ideas that are unlocking those questions. These are difficult questions, but it is within the wit of the South Australian innovators to be able to solve the answers to these problems and, having solved them here, they can solve them around the world for the benefit of South Australians.

So it is not just this sector but those things that flow from it. We do not intend to go backwards on this or on any other front in the clean energy sector. The clean energy sector is not a fledging marginal player in the energy game: it has matured and has passed beyond being a niche operation. That development is the result of the initiatives we have all taken together in this state. What it leads to is this: clean energy is an inherent part of our mainstream energy policy and not an emerging adjunct to it. So, it belongs in the mainstream of everything we are doing both on an energy front and in manufacturing, industry and trade.

We are seeing the benefits of locally-grown clean energy supply chains. Consider the story of E&A Contractors in Whyalla who are supplying up to 20 wind towers for the Snowtown 2 wind farm project. When RPG, a well-known Adelaide wind tower supplier was placed into voluntary administration, E&A Contractors secured the key personnel and assets used by RPG in the manufacture of wind towers, and I pay credit to the Minister for Manufacturing at the time, the member for Torrens, for the role he played in that regard.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: West Torrens; sorry, I always drop the 'West.' This effort has incorporated both the personnel and assets into the existing fabrication and manufacturing business at Whyalla for the mutual benefit of the Whyalla community and obviously taking advantage of the opportunities of wind farms.

E&A Contractors is now working on the Snowtown 2 wind farm and working with the developer, Siemens, to ensure that at least 20 of the wind towers for the 90-tower project will be fabricated in Whyalla. This shows that renewable energy investment is not only good for the environment but good for jobs and for local manufacturing. This is the same Whyalla that the federal opposition notoriously claimed would be wiped off the map. It does not seem to have occurred to the people who want to buy houses in Whyalla because I noticed that property values in Whyalla actually were the largest single increase of any suburb of any town across the nation.

That dire prediction, much like the dire predictions we hear from the Leader of the Opposition here about carnage in the South Australian economy, has not come to pass. I think that Whyalla can look forward to a prosperous clean energy future, and we know from the very strong advocacy of the residents of Whyalla and Port Augusta and the other communities in the Upper Spencer Gulf that they do have a vision for themselves as having a clean future. I think we are beginning to see that emerging for them, with the positive changes in relation to Nyrstar—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —Port Augusta and Whyalla, I think we can see a clean energy future for that beautiful part—

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —of the Upper Spencer Gulf. But there is still plenty of work to do, and spurring investment in South Australia's clean energy industries remains a key component of our job creation and economic development strategy. Whilst the Labor government is committed to taking an active role in creating green jobs and long-term sustainable growth across the state, those opposite have a different view. The Leader of the Opposition claims to be genuinely committed to causes such as the environment and economic issues, but his party is hopelessly divided.

Just as we are seeing in a whole range of policy issues, they are trying to walk both sides of the street. We have seen how they got themselves tangled up on the barbed wire over the footbridge. We have seen them walk both sides of the street on Nyrstar, Holden, Future Submarines, and we see it again on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place is playing to the anti-wind farm lobby. It is a fatal character flaw in politics to walk before an audience telling them what you think they want to hear and then walk out—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and speak to another audience and say something different.

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Bragg for the first time. It would be a pity if she could not appear in question time today.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It does represent a character flaw simply to say to somebody what you think they want to hear because what that betrays is, first, a lack of personal commitment to what you believe in and, secondly, it treats your audience as fools. I think people will begin to compare notes, realise that they are being played for fools as somebody wanders out before a crowd—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Adelaide to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —tells them what they want to hear in one forum and then goes to another forum and tells the opposite side of the argument what they want to hear. People do compare notes and, as they begin to do that, they become troubled. The fact is that the member for Waite is playing to the investor community, suggesting that wind farms are a good thing, and we have the Leader of the Opposition in the other place playing to the protest groups who are suggesting that there should not be wind farm developments, and that as a political party lacks integrity.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for West Torrens to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That lacks integrity and it will not be respected, and it is troubling to the investor community because they wonder what sort of investing environment they will have.

The fact is that there is no evidence that indicates that wind farms have a negative impact on the value of property; in fact, some towns located near wind farms are experiencing booms instead of sales droughts. One of these towns is Waubra in Victoria which saw residential property values near a wind farm actually increase by 10 per cent over the two years to January 2012. It is the highest increase of any town in the Pyrenees Shire Council.

The most comprehensive Australian study to date on land values and wind farms was undertaken by the New South Wales Valuer-General. The study found no impacts on wind farms on the sale prices of rural and township properties. It found that sale prices for four out of 13 lifestyle properties were lower than expected but as they were located next to properties with no impacts it was not clear the wind farm was the cause. Overall, the study found no statistical evidence to substantiate the claim that wind farms harm land values. This is consistent with the findings of major international studies.

Despite what we hear from those opposite, there is significant support for wind farm projects in regional South Australia. The Clean Energy Council commissioned QDOS to undertake wind energy community research in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. The research was predominantly undertaken in regional areas close to wind farms. For South Australia, the community around Waterloo wind farm was polled. Seventy-seven per cent of people in regional areas close to wind farms support wind farm developments.

I do not deny for a moment that there are some people who have genuine concerns about wind turbines appearing in their backyard, especially if their neighbour is getting a financial gain from it and they are getting no gain. I do not deny that there are people concerned about the potential health effects, notwithstanding the absence of scientific evidence to support their concerns. But the truth is most people support renewable energy, even if it is large scale, even if it is built near them.

Over the past several weeks, my office has been contacted by a range of key stakeholders who are unsettled by the perceived ambivalence of the opposition to wind farms because this creates an unsettled environment just at a time when we are seeking to take advantage of the fact that New South Wales and Victoria have set their face against wind farms and we can be a relatively more attractive jurisdiction.

We have the Leader of the Opposition in the other place calling for a moratorium which is creating this uncertainty. It needs to be put to bed immediately. The kneejerk policies that are of the type that we have seen from the opposition (or at least being flirted with by the opposition) are the ones that are being rejected by a broad consortium of interests—the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, the Clean Energy Council, the Energy Supply Association of Australia—which have all come together calling for a clearer and more supportive policy environment for Australia's renewable energy resources.

I think we are beginning to see a pattern emerging in relation to the opposition. Where they can get a cheap cheer from a protest group, whether it is the Burnside Council or whether it is a few North Adelaide residents, they are there with bells on. They are there to say, yes, we are with you, comrades; we will fight them in the trenches. But when they are confronted by the reality of the broader cross-section of the community and its demands for investing in the future of our state, they wilt and they are prepared to say something different in that environment.

It is absolutely clear that we need to send a certain and clear message to the investing community about the future of our commitment to wind farms because that is what companies are looking for. They are not looking for a hand up necessarily; they are not looking for any particular free ride through the development assessment system. They are prepared to play by reasonable rules that give people rights.

Local communities should be respected. What they do not want to see is the rules change out from underneath them—and sudden lurches in policy, such as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place who suggested a moratorium should be imposed on developments of this sort, alarm them. They alarm their backers and the people who are risking their money on these investments, so it is absolutely crucial that we send the clearest possible message.

I think there is another disturbing trend that is emerging in the opposition, and that is this notion of them standing up for established interests ahead of people who want to change South Australia for the benefit of South Australia's future.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: People who are prepared—

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Bragg for the second time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They will jump on board any cheap populist cause to try to get a cheer against the long-term interests of South Australia. We saw them out jumping on board with the AHA, protecting established interests against new venue operators. They got called out on that, so they cravenly ran away, but we are seeing a pattern emerging in relation to this opposition and that is that they are the force of conservatism, they are the force for no change. The South Australian government is the force for progressive change.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:25): I sincerely want to thank the Premier for this motion today, I really do. Rarely does a Premier come down into the chamber, stick his chin out and say, 'Smack me.' The former premier would not have been that silly. I do not recall the former premier ever coming down and moving anything quite this silly.

This motion is full of political invective. It is not a genuine motion; it is not a motion that is seeking to genuinely debate the issue. You only need to listen to the mover's words. He describes the opposition as lacking integrity, divided, walking on both sides of the street, playing to established interests. It is full of political invective; it is not a genuine motion. They have the numbers; they will get the motion up.

It is so exciting, this motion, that the galleries are packed with the people of South Australia and the media just wanting to hear what the Premier had to say. In fact, is anybody there? Is The Advertiser here? Are the television stations here? Is the ABC here? Is anybody listening?

An honourable member: No.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No? Nobody is listening.

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite, would you be seated. Hilarious as this is, it is plainly contrary to standing orders in the usage of the house to make reference to a presence or absence in the galleries or indeed to anything that happens in the galleries. I think the expression is 'playing to the gallery', and it is prohibited. Member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you very much for your guidance and direction, Mr Speaker. I was getting carried away, because rarely do you get an opportunity to really address a premier's misguided motions in the house such as we are having today. For a start, I am starting to wonder—and I think many people in South Australia are starting to wonder—if this is a one-man show.

First of all, we had the motion on Holden's to which the Premier referred in his address—an attempt to divide and create mayhem. Then we had a motion on the 12 submarines project in an attempt to heap political invective on the opposition and to divide the parliament instead of to constructively debate the issue. Then we had a glossy brochure released on Friday called 'An economic statement' that did not have anything of substance in it and looked very much like the glossy brochures that his predecessor—the former premier—used to produce all the time.

Today, we have a motion on wind farms. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the whole of South Australia is hanging off every word during this debate—absolutely hanging off what the Premier perceives to be the number one priority for the day. I can tell you that what they are worried about is the price of their power bills. I will come back to that point but can I make another point to members opposite.

What we are hearing today is the current Premier continuing with the agenda of his predecessor. Wind farms! That was Mike Rann's agenda. He built his reputation on wind farms and, instead of making his own way in the world, instead of carving out his own agenda, what the Premier is doing is coming in here and hailing the praises of the former premier, the former member for Ramsay, the Hon. Mike Rann, now ensconced in the Australian High Commission in London.

Isn't it time for us to hear something genuinely new from the Premier? We heard it all before; it is like The Son of Kong. We now have the junior version of what we had for years with the former premier. We have the Son of Kong huffing and puffing about wind farms. Let us talk about getting people's power prices down. This is a poorly framed motion that is full of political invective. It could have been phrased much better so that it was non-partisan and non-political and maybe we could have had an intelligent debate.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Torrens to order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me get back to some of the issues that have been raised because, as I have mentioned, it is not a genuine motion. This debate takes shape in the context of the largest price rises on the electricity bills of households and businesses in this state in living memory. To December 2012, electricity prices grew by a staggering 18.2 per cent on the previous year. Since 2002, when this group on the opposite side of the chamber took office, prices have risen 124 per cent.

That is what the people we represent want to hear us debate—I put to the house—not this political waffle, huff and puff, that we are having from the Premier today. It is hard for us to take it seriously. A number of us, noting the political invective of the debate, have other more important things to do, to be frank, but we will pick up the issues. Since the Premier wants to come in here and stick his jaw out, we are happy to dust it over. The government keeps waffling on about all the problems of the world in regard to energy having been caused by privatisation.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes, that's right—congratulations. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, it's a terrible thing, isn't it. The government likes to pretend that all these price increases have been the consequence of privatisation in the late nineties. Remember when they bankrupted the state? Remember when they gave us $11 billion of debt? Remember the last time they were in government? Well they are doing it again. But let me get back to the substance of the motion. They keep saying that it is all about privatisation.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will stop provoking the other side.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I wouldn't want to provoke, Mr Speaker, would I? Of course, if you look at other states, like New South Wales and Queensland, where those assets are still in state government ownership, the situation is either as bad or worse than it is here. What he does not like to tell us, in the context of this motion, is that his own Prime Minister—remember we were in here talking about Rudd and Gillard over the submarines?

Rudd was much better than Gillard. But his own Prime Minister—whom the mover of the motion backed for Prime Minister, by the way; they hang around together—well, that Prime Minister disagrees with him, and so does the commonwealth minister for energy, because they have both disputed the claims by their South Australian Labor colleagues and they are calling for further privatisation around the country.

Gillard and federal Labor actually want New South Wales and Queensland to get rid of their assets so that we can have a genuinely workable market. Talk to your Labor colleagues in Canberra. You are on the wrong page. Indeed, the South Australian government has made moves to further deregulate the electricity market, slowly learning the lesson that government interference in the market will, more often than not, only put additional pressure on prices.

When you look at the other major utility burden borne by South Australians—water prices—which is still owned by the government through SA Water, aren't they doing a fantastic job there! Aren't they doing a wonderful job there! Costs have grown by a staggering 249 per cent. Imagine if they still owned the electricity assets. Look at the debt they have got.

Imagine them going out to try to build wind farms. 'Oh, we need $5 billion to build some wind farms,' because the government needs to build them. It is a nonsense. The idea of this lot still having control of our electricity assets—heavens, we are on the road to bankruptcy now.

The SPEAKER: Member—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: We would be there by Monday if they—

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite, will you be seated? It is not acceptable to refer to other members as 'this lot'; you may however refer to them as 'the government'.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are future challenges facing the South Australian energy market. Electricity demand has been declining in real and relative terms since 2007 after growing at approximately 1.8 per cent annually. The decline of manufacturing, particularly heavy industrial intensive manufacturing and processing, has shifted the demand for electricity from baseload power with high peaks towards weaker overall demand growth with greater elasticity.

There has also been an impact on the market from solar, and PV is exploding and has had a big impact on the market, and renewables, as the Premier observes—and we would agree with him—are increasingly playing an important part in that market. In the year to 2012, wind power generation in SA amounted to 3,349 gigawatt hours or 26 per cent of total supply. Natural gas provided 50 per cent and coal provided 24 per cent.

The state government settled on a target of 33 per cent renewable energy by 2020 in its State Strategic Plan, the one the Premier did not mention in his economic statement last Friday curiously enough, which makes me wonder whether we are going to have a plan come the budget. Apparently we are on track to reach this 33 per cent target.

Wind power is extremely important in South Australia. We currently provide almost 50 per cent of the nation's wind power. We have a natural advantage for wind energy production, but that has also meant that we have rapid development and a great deal of local consternation on wind farm developments centred around regional communities. We over here actually listen. We actually talk to people, particularly country people. We believe you should consult and then decide, not do what the son of Kong wants to do: announce and defend.

There is a case for wind farms, and I want to talk about the case for and the case after, because we are very supportive of wind farms. In general, the case for wind power comprising a significant part of the state energy capacity is quite compelling. As that proportion of the state's generation capacity grows, however, the case becomes less convincing.

There is energy market transformation underway in this country. The nature of the market, as I mentioned, is changing away from baseload power due to the decline of heavy industry and manufacturing and the growth of renewables. I remind the house as well that the price of gas is increasing and is going to increase even further in the years ahead. Historically we needed large thermal baseload complemented by peaking plants.

Increasingly now, we are shifting towards renewable resources, including residential solar photovoltaic production complemented by smaller peaking power providers. The long-term viability of baseload production is under pressure, and increasingly baseload power stations here and interstate are only operating intermittently. There is very little investment in this country being directed towards new baseload power, and what investment there is is largely opportunistic. Solar also provides a cleaner environment—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Do you want more? Do you want more investment?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am going through the case for it. The minister should listen; he might learn something that he could take back to the department and maybe do some good things for the people of South Australia. One of the most convincing arguments for wind is that it is clean. The technology and manufacturing base for wind turbines is currently further advanced than any other renewable energy source. The Clean Energy Council has estimated that South Australia and wind energy has avoided 3.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions being produced. That is a good thing.

The financing of wind investment is also worth noting. Investment is funded by the national Renewable Energy Target, the RET, and therefore energy consumers in other states are, in effect, paying for wind farms to be built in South Australia, which for us, on a purely parochial basis, is not a bad thing. Other people are paying for investment in our state.

A consortium will borrow to build a wind farm but will be rewarded by an ongoing income stream through the RET, and the costs to this state are comparatively marginal and indirect. This is good. Industry is saying that further wind investment is a much better long-term prospect than investment in new baseload capacity, and there is merit in that argument. Companies are incentivised to buy green energy through the carbon tax. All those things are true.

There is also a benefit of investment and jobs in the region, as has been noted. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that jobs and investment flow to the region. The Clean Energy Council has estimated that South Australia currently has 560 operating turbines across 16 wind farms able to power the equivalent of 504,000 homes or more. This has meant almost $1.8 billion of Australian investment and approximately 840 jobs. All those things are true, but there is also a case against wind farms, and we are listening to both sides of the argument, unlike the mover of the motion.

In general, there are sound arguments against excessive and inappropriate wind farm development which warrant a hearing from any government which claims to have moved away from the ethos of announcing and defending. Clearly, this government has not.

The value of land is of concern to farmers. They dispute the mover's claim that there is no impact. Farmers argue that these wind farms, when sited, should not be placed on valuable agricultural land but rather on land that is of a low agricultural grade. There have been claims that land upon which wind farms are located has devalued land adjacent. We need to explore whether this is so, whether it is because of a new revenue stream going to land that has the turbines rather than a negative impact on the land adjacent. We need to explore all that, and I will come back to that in a moment.

There are also winners and losers. Yes, some landowners do benefit but others do not. We need to explore whether or not the benefits of wind farms can be spread more broadly throughout country communities so that more people get a benefit from them. This government has not got that right. It has divided communities in many locations around the state. Energy projects are extremely capital intensive and, whilst we do recognise the considerable investment in the cab rank, critics say that only a percentage of that investment actually finds its way into the South Australian economy. These issues warrant exploration.

There are claims about health concerns; the science needs to be examined. There are claims about fire and aerial spraying, and interference with both of those by wind turbines. Again, people need to have their say; those concerns about crop spraying and about the ability to fight fires need to be explored, and we need to establish whether they are genuine concerns. There needs to be community consultation. Local councils and local communities have a right to say what they feel should be done about the visual impact, and other impacts, of wind farms in their local areas. In the same way, all local communities deserve to be treated with respect.

This government feels otherwise. They know best; announce and defend, get out there and tell people what is best for them. We do not agree. There is a visual impact, there are impacts, there are concerns, and they need to be explored.

Labor's policy is a bit muddy, I have to say. Their October 2012 announcement seemed to suggest a one kilometre from a house and two kilometres from town approach, but it seems ever flexible. We have simply said that there are concerns and they need to be examined. We have fully supported—and, in fact, gone after—a select committee in the other place to look into this very issue, and that committee is doing its work as we speak. Everyone is being listened to thanks to us, with the support of the minor parties. All the issues for and against are being explored, and that is a good thing.

In the meantime, in late 2011 the Liberal Party said that until the select committee had completed its work it would encourage a moratorium—in other words, a temporary suspension—on the building of industrial turbines that were two kilometres from someone's home or five kilometres from a town. Once the select committee has done its work and we know all the facts, we will look at that decision again and decide what we will do; whether we will toughen it up even further, maybe leave it exactly as it is, or maybe soften it a little; but we will do it on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of telling people what is best for them whether they like it or not.

In summary, the way forward is quite obvious. The government, the opposition, in fact the entire parliament, should listen carefully to the report of the select committee and its recommendations. It is comprised of ALP members, Liberal Party members, Family First, Greens and Independents. It is listening to all the stakeholders—one big happy family. It just might come up with the right answers.

The parliament should have some confidence that the select committee will consider all the issues canvassed in the Premier's motion that we are debating today. In particular, we should expect that the select committee will consider its business based on the evidence and the facts, and make its recommendations based upon the best interests of the people of South Australia. We may or may not agree with everything in the select committee's recommendations, but we will do the right thing and let the process unfold.

In a sense this motion is, in my opinion, a contempt of that committee process. It would have been better to be having this debate after the committee had completed its work. The Premier, who has moved this motion, is guilty of the very thing the motion purports to refute. He has put the motion to this house, insisting on positions, before he has even read or considered the work of the parliamentary committee set up for the express purpose of listening to people from the country, the city and the energy industry to find out the facts. He knows best—well, he needs to start listening.

In conclusion, this is just a politically motivated attempt at wedge politics. Have your motion—you have the numbers. First, the Premier tried to defy the house on other issues, and now we have this one. Just like the Premier's economic statement, it is all huff and puff generating nothing but political nonsense. There he stands, a big, glowing wind turbine, generating reams and reams of verbiage, glossy brochures and debate for the sake of debate, with little substance whatsoever, living in the shadow of his predecessor, Mike Rann, and now championing his causes. Find some new directions and get back to the issue: how are we going to get people's power prices down? That is what families want to hear their Premier—

The SPEAKER: The member's time has, alas, expired.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:45): I did appreciate the contribution from the member for Waite, but I get the impression that what he is actually saying is that the message from the opposition at the moment is: stop the world, the committee is still in session.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Good God, is there a committee in session?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a committee in session. The other implication of what the member for Waite said is that that committee, unlike everything else the opposition and the minor parties do in the upper house, is not politically motivated. It is not: it is doing this because it really cares. Well, that is news; that would be a first. For goodness sake, accusing the government of putting up a motion here for debate about this important issue, which has been turned into a problem by the attitude of those opposite, the member for Waite accusing the Premier of a political stunt, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I'll go he! Goodness me!

I want to address a few of the issues that have been raised in relation to this matter really for a planning perspective. The most important thing from a planning point of view is that the outcome is evidence based. Contrary to what the member for Waite said, the debate and the collection of evidence about this matter has been going on since about 2003, when my colleague the Premier, as the relevant minister at the time, got the ball rolling in this space. There has been a conversation going on about this ever since.

Wind farms are not something that have dropped from outer space into South Australia in the last few minutes. They have been around for a very long time, and the debate has been going on for a very long time. Not so long ago, I had the privilege of being in that beautiful part of the state from which the member for MacKillop hails. I was driving around there, enjoying the magnificent countryside near Mount Burr and Millicent, and what did I notice? Lots and lots of beautiful wind farms.

I gather that those wind farms are on the properties of happy people who are constituents of the member for MacKillop. Why are they happy people? Because they are getting happy money from the people who run the wind farms. That is why they are doing it—and why shouldn't they? Next thing, you will be saying that you should not be able to have a tower from Telecom on your property because your neighbour does not like the shadow.

As Minister for Planning, I receive countless letters both in favour of and against wind farms. Additionally, through the development of the Statewide Wind Farms DPA—which, by the way, is an official government policy with a process attached to it, just so that those on the committee over there can acquaint themselves with what actually goes on in government—and it is backed up by the independent Development Policy Advisory Committee. These people held meetings throughout the state and provided me with substantial reports and recommendations.

The diversity of views on the issue is remarkable. Those whose opinions are in support of investment in wind are just as strong as those who oppose it. Through consultation with the whole community in consideration of large volumes of advice, what is clear to me is that the best approach in relation to this is a policy that is based on evidence—which is what we are doing and have been doing.

Last week, a new study from the Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney was released looking at the differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms. This is apparently the reasoning—as the former premier would say, 'breaking news'—that is contaminating the minds of those on the committee in another place at the moment. 'There's some terrible health thing that has come out of nowhere. We must stop.' Let us see what these people who actually know something about it have to say, and I quote:

...scientific consensus that the evidence for wind turbine noise and infrasound causing health problems is poor, the reported spatio-temporal variations in complaints are consistent with psychogenic hypotheses that health problems arising are 'communicated diseases' with nocebo effects likely to play an important role in the aetiology of complaints.

I will break that down a little bit. I recognise this is very technical language, but Professor Simon Chapman, one of the authors of the report, went on to explain a bit more about this, and I think this is very important. This is really the crux of the issue, I think. He said:

We think it's a good example of what we call the nocebo [effect], everyone's heard of the placebo response where you take, say, a pill and someone says this is going to do you good and make you feel better and lo and behold it does even though the pill's got nothing in it...with a nocebo response you can tell people that something is going to be, for example, painful or unpleasant...you'll find that a proportion of people will [even] actually experience that pain or the unpleasantness even if there is nothing happening.

This is the nocebo effect. It continues:

...when you have people going into communities saying these wind turbines are going to make you get headaches and sleeplessness and put your blood pressure up and your heart race and make you feel anxious, some people are going to start experiencing that.

The committee in the other place, and those opposite, are hooked on the nocebo effect. The more they distribute the nocebo message, the sicker the community gets, the more they reinforce their own—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the speaker has just reflected on the deliberations of a committee in the other place, adversely, and I seek your guidance as to whether that is out of order.

The SPEAKER: In response to the member for Waite's point of order, the select committee in the other place has chosen to make its evidence public so I do not think any member can be restrained from commenting on it. Deputy Premier.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, it reminds me of something that happened to me personally when I was taking my children to Falls Creek a few years ago. We arrived at Mount Beauty in a bus. The bus driver got up at the front of the bus and we were sitting there after a five-hour journey from Melbourne (which was something less than perfect: if I had realised how long it was going to be, I would have chosen a different mode of transport). Anyway, there we are, and the bus driver, as we were driving up the hill, says over the microphone, 'Ladies and gentlemen, a person on this bus a week or so ago counted 372 turns from here to the top of the mountain,' and we start going up.

About a kilometre up, he says, 'And, ladies and gentlemen, pretty soon, some of you might start feeling ill,' and then he hands the plastic bags back to the people in the bus and says, 'Pass them on. Anyone who wants to vomit, please grab one of these bags.' Sure enough, within about four minutes, a lady who was sitting just across from me felt the urge and the predictable happened, and then my children had the same problem, and there was an epidemic of it in the bus. The only person who was not affected was me and, unfortunately, that meant I had to collect the bags. The point is: that is what is going on with wind farms.

Only 120 individuals across Australia appear to have complained. This represents approximately one in 272 residents living within five kilometres of farms or, to put it another way, less than half a percent of those living within five kilometres. Eighty-two per cent of noise complaints commenced after 2009 when anti wind farm groups began to add health concerns to their wider opposition list.

That brings me back again to another example of the nocebo effect. I remember there was a specialist in Adelaide, who I did not often use for my clients, Mr Mark Awerbuch, who I remember used to describe repetitive strain injury as kangaroo paw. He even wrote in one of his reports that I read, probably 50 times in respect of different clients, that this is the only recorded epidemic of injury in history. That is what all of this is based on; that is the quicksand that this edifice is being constructed upon.

We have done an extensive consultation, in the context of the DPA. Some 276 written submissions were received; there was consultation with councils and the public for eight weeks, from October to December 2011. As minister, I took note of all of the matters raised in there, and we accepted that there were some interface issues, which we have addressed. On balance, we took into account concerns such as areas in which it is appropriate to envisage wind farms, the balance that should be struck on third party notification, comments and appeals, visual impact, and potential impact of wind farms on low altitude aircraft—all of it was considered.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:56): I remind members that, back in 2002 (11 years ago), the government of the day, which is the current government, asked me to lead a delegation to have a look at wind farms in Europe. Accompanied by people from the Public Service and many leading business people from South Australia, we looked at wind farms and the manufacture of the actual turbines and the blades. We visited Denmark and also the UK, and we spent some time in France as well.

The conclusion we came to, which ultimately led to the establishment of a wind industry in South Australia, was that we did not see any evidence of harm caused to anyone. We went to farms and elsewhere, and we did not see any evidence whatsoever that there were significant side effects for health or upon animals.

The only thing I did not do was climb one of those wind towers because, contrary to popular belief, they do not have a lift. If you are a mechanic working at the top, a long way above the ground, it pays to remember to bring your pliers because, if you are up there, you have to come down again and go back up all of those steps.

We went to the Isle of Wight, where they make the blades. It is a massive undertaking to transport those blades, and there was a lot of talk about possibly setting up an industry here to make the turbines and the blades. I remember there was a lot of misinformation about wind turbines; a lot of people thought that the faster the wind blows, the more electricity you will get. Well, they are actually designed to shut down if the wind gets above about 50 kilometres or something like that because they will do damage to the turbine. They are geared so that the blade turns very slowly but, by the time the gearing takes effect, the actual turbine is going flat out.

At that stage, after that study tour and report, there were some issues about location, obviously. When you come to installing wind turbines, it is a bit similar to retailing—location, location, location. One of the issues we observed in Europe was that, in order to get away from some of the criticism of land-based wind turbines, you put them in the ocean, which is quite practical to do.

So, you get away from this problem perceived by some—and I am not convinced that it is a problem; I am yet to be convinced that there is a health issue—by putting the wind turbines in the ocean, bed them into the floor of the ocean. So, that gets rid of the problem of any health effects, as perceived by people, and any other locality-type issues. You still have the question of aesthetics; some people do not like wind turbines, some people love them.

The question about wind turbines is that they work well when the wind is blowing and they do not work too well when there is no wind. It might seem elementary, but that is how they function. I am a supporter of alternative energy sources. We need to look at that, and do further work in relation to hot rocks and wave energy, but we still need some guaranteed base load. The member for Waite said that we have had a decline in industry. That is true to some extent but the demand for computers and air conditioners seems to be increasing all the time.

What we do not have at the moment, I believe, is adequate provision for base load and wind turbines cannot provide that. I think a year or so ago when we needed more output, the wind turbines in South Australia produced a tiny fraction of what was needed on some of those very hot days—this was a year or so ago; I don't know the current figures. I think in terms of the wind turbines, it is horses for courses—location; consideration of people who live very close by; and whether the medical evidence stacks up or not, if people feel uncomfortable, then I think you need to take into account their attitudes and feelings. As I said before, I do not believe that there is any compelling negative medical evidence re the impact of wind farms.

The member for Waite referred to the electricity market. That needs to be reformed but that is really a separate issue in a way. South Australia has been dudded by the current electricity market, and I know that the minister is trying to get that changed because it is not a true market anyway, but South Australia is paying a heavy price for being a part of that so-called market and that does need reform.

Out of that, and contrary to what some people think, having people go overseas and look at what is done elsewhere, can have a great long lasting benefit for South Australia. So, on balance, I am supportive of this motion. The same thing happened in relation to Bio Innovation SA. The then premier, John Olsen, sent me to the United States (I think he was happy to send me anywhere) leading a delegation to have a look at biotechnology, and out of that came Bio Innovation SA. I think it highlights the benefit of not just MPs but senior people in the Public Service and business people going overseas together to look at what is done elsewhere, whether it is in biotechnology or wind farms.

I support this motion but, as I indicated, I think you have to have some regard for people who perceive a health risk. I do not share their concerns but I think any system in a democratic process should take account of people's views and values and preferences, and site these wind turbines, preferably offshore, where they will not negatively impact on anyone.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:03): Legitimising false science is dangerous, and legitimising false expectations is dangerous and, quite frankly, it presents a clear and present danger to this state's future prosperity, it presents a clear and present danger for the state's future investment priorities and it creates an environment of sovereign risk. The Leader of the Opposition in another place, who is a good and decent man, and who I know quite well, and I think speaks passionately about issues that concern him, said this, and it is on his website:

There should be a complete moratorium on new wind farms in settled cropping land like this until their impact is better understood.

Health concerns, three-legged sheep, chickens not laying eggs, roosters not crowing in the morning, are all concerns that are legitimate, but let's not attribute them to wind farms and let's not be hysterical. This is from the alternative government of South Australia.

Wind farms have been distributed throughout the world, so we would be aware of legitimate health concerns by now. Of course, there are not legitimate health concerns. However, the alternative government of South Australia says that there are. What concerns me about all this is that the member for Waite, who is also a good and decent man who wants to see the state prosper, says wind farms are a good idea, but I think he has been rolled in his party room.

I think he has been rolled, and today he made a speech that he does not particularly believe in. I think today he used words that he wished he had not because, quite frankly, I do not believe he supports a moratorium on new wind farms. I know that he believes that that would create sovereign risk in this state, and I know that he believes it would put at risk up to $5 billion worth of investment and nearly 1,800 jobs, but he has been locked in.

It is a pattern emerging in the Liberal Party: 'We are for the footbridge,' and arrange a protest against it. 'We are for the development of the Adelaide Oval,' yet encourage all those who say it is a waste of money.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Clever strategy! Cunning!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He practises this in the mirror before he comes in the morning.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: The grand plan is unfolding. Thank you, Tom. We didn't realise where you were coming from but we do now. Thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, there is a whole series of these contradictions in the Liberal Party. One aspect is that MPs should not have second jobs, but they will not rule it out for themselves. Those are the two contradictions. We can go on: 'The government is creating a false economy,' but then boasts that all the chairs in this convention were Marshall Furniture chairs and, 'Isn't that fantastic?' 'Opposed to false economy, unless I am benefiting.' That is what we have here again: 'We are opposed to wind farms, unless of course it's in regional areas where we hold seats.' So, if you float, you are a witch and we will burn you; if you drown, you are innocent. That is Liberal Party policy and policy making. That is how they operate: they will say anything to anyone to get a vote.

The people of South Australia want courage, they want leadership and they want people who speak truth to power. They do not want platitudes. 'We want to cut the deficit and grow the economy.' How? With words. 'We are going to use words to grow the economy and cut the deficit. That's how we are going to do it. We are opposed to false economy, unless we are buying Marshall Furniture chairs, then it's exceptionally good. We are opposed to government grants unless we receive them. We are opposed to government spending in multicultural and ethnic affairs areas, giving community groups grants, until later on we leak it to the press and say, "This was a bad thing; it could have been spent somewhere else."' We see this time and time again.

The most dishonest thing about this argument is that they know it is dishonest. They know there are no health risks, they know that it benefits regional communities, they know that it does not push up power prices, and they know that it is good for the environment. They know all these things, yet they pander to minority concerns. Why? Because it is easier than making the tough decisions, it is easier than speaking with courage in front of a community group and saying, 'You are wrong. This is good for South Australia.' That is what Tom Playford did.

I heard the member for Waite talk about the privatisation of ETSA. If the Liberal Party were ever courageous in their life, they would have gone to the 1997 election saying that they were going to privatise ETSA and then do so, but they do not have that kind of courage flowing through their veins. They might have done if someone else had won the ballot, but the current leader and the current crew who are running the Liberal Party have no courage. That is why they continually play on the fears of ordinary South Australians.

The way they want to win is by motivating people by anger. Get someone angry about something and then tell them who to blame, 'Oh, there are wind farms on your neighbour's farm, blame the Labor Party. Don't blame us, we just work here. Don't blame us, we are just parliamentarians. Don't blame us, we are just policy-makers. Don't blame us, we'll take money in fundraisers from people in the energy market, but we want a moratorium.'

Meanwhile, on the other hand the shadow minister says, 'Moratorium? No, no. It's all about the outcome of the committee. That's the important work here. Forget what we say, forget the policies that we announce, look at this obscure committee. That's the important work. That's where the work is really being done. Focus on that. Don't worry about policy pronouncements we make, they are just policy pronouncements. They are just words. They are just things we say. They are just things that we print on paper and put on the internet. They are not real.'

Seriously, does the alternative government of South Australia want to actually call a moratorium on $5 billion worth of investment—based on what? On false science. The same reason they are opposed to the carbon tax—false science. To a person, they do not believe climate change is real, but they do not have the courage to say so. Why? Because they would be laughed at. But deep down, in Liberal Party sub-branch meetings, you can know that is what they are talking about; you know that is what they say, because their leader, their inspirational hero, Tony Abbott, says it is crap and they all believe it.

An honourable member: Andrew Bolt.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Andrew Bolt. The followers of Bolt and Abbott. They do not believe in science. They believe in pandering to small groups to try to get votes. That is not leadership. He looks down on you with shame. He looks down on you and says, 'What happened to the party I established in this state—people who stood up for what I believed in?' He knew that we needed to develop the Cooper Basin; he knew we needed to find an alternative to electricity, so he went out and looked for gas. He built Moomba, he built ETSA, he built Elizabeth, he brought Holland to South Australia and what do they do? They attack every single one of those initiatives because they have become tea party experts—that is who they are.

They do not believe in government intervention. They do not believe there is a role for government. They do not believe there is a role for any of us in this room to do anything for the people of South Australia other than motivate them by anger, by getting them angry about an issue and telling them who to blame. That is the lowest form of politics. That shows absolutely no courage, no leadership and, quite frankly, it is not the Liberal Party that I knew when I was a young boy growing up in Young Labor, because they were once people of integrity; they were once people who used to have policies. They used to believe in something. Now they believe in nothing! Now it is all spin and no substance. That is who they are: 'I look good in a suit, therefore vote for me. If you are angry about something, I will show you who to blame.'

Quite frankly, you cannot say one thing in Adelaide and another thing in the regions and expect to get away with it. How can the leader of the opposition say, 'No, there is no moratorium on wind farms', yet his leader in the upper house has it on his website? How can he say he supports a footbridge to Adelaide Oval yet arrange a protest outside Parliament House? How can he say he supports newsagents and franchisees and then vote against a small business commissioner? How can you do those things? How can you balance those two opposing ideas and say that they do not contradict?

The Greeks had a word for this. The Greeks had a word for this kind of behaviour. They had a couple of words for it. I know a few words in English too. They had a word for this kind of behaviour, Mr Speaker; it was 'hypocrisy'. Hypocrisy—they will say anything to anyone to get a vote. I have to say, every time they have intervened in the electricity market they have increased power prices. When we deregulated the power market and saw price drops from 9.1 to up to 16 per cent, do you know what they said? 'You should have done it ages ago.'

I went back and checked every single policy announcement they ever made, and do you know what? Since the privatisation of ETSA—which they were never going to do, but they did—they never once said we should deregulate pricing in South Australia. Not once! But when we did it, they said we should have done it ages ago. That is what we are up against, Mr Speaker—that is what we are up against. This Premier will lead—this Premier is leading; he is making the right decisions for South Australia. We have a blueprint, not five dot points on a page.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:13): I think it is fair to say we hear a lot of interesting words in this place. The member for Torrens reflected upon Sir Thomas Playford.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: West Torrens.

Mr GRIFFITHS: West Torrens. The member for West Torrens reflected upon Sir Thomas Playford, the premier from 1937 to 1965. I hope he would look at me with a little bit of pride about the way in which I conduct myself as a member of parliament and the way in which the Liberal Party conducts itself in parliament.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay. There are a lot of words said in here that reflect sometimes the truth, sometimes a shandy of that and sometimes things that I just find that I cannot even believe. I come to this contribution today from the point of view of having lived through wind farms a lot in the last 18 months. Nearly daily I have spoken to people. I am not like a lot of other members who reside in a metropolitan seat. They know that wind farms exist in regional areas; they might visit them. I live near one. I live near the people who actually make their livings there. I live near the people who have to live near wind farms, and I live near the communities that live near wind farms.

I will put on the record that, as part of a previous job as a local government CEO, I approved of a wind farm—55 turbines at Wattle Point, near Edithburgh. The council approved of that one; it was not Development Assessment Commission. There was no process in place then to allow it to be treated in a different way, as I understand it. It did cause some unrest in the community. The council of which I was CEO went to Portland in Victoria to look at a turbine area at Portland, because it wanted to know physically what they were like. It is that physical aspect of it that allowed a decision to be made, but the Ceres project—and that is the one I am going to talk about predominantly today—is one that really has become front and centre for me, because it is something I have lived with ever since August 2011 when it was first announced.

When it was first announced, I was actually quite excited by it, because I am a pro-development person by principle. But in pro-development, I am also consoled by my thought that as a socially responsible person there is a triple bottom line that has got to be reviewed in this. I am not against the development. I have never said anything publicly against the development. What I am about, though, are the issues that the community has to consider, and there are three sides to that.

There are those who are hosting it, and there are 36 families that have agreed to host the wind farm on Yorke Peninsula and the Ceres project. That is 36 families that have been there for at least two or three generations, who have agreed to host it because it provides them with an opportunity. For them, it is an economic diversity opportunity. There is the company that has proposed the application, and there is a property owner in the area who has worked for a long time in getting a proposal up. He has got some corporate interest, they have contacted property owners, some have said yes, some have said no, some are vehemently against it, for a variety of reasons probably, but the ones that have said yes deserve to be respected.

When I held a public meeting on Yorke Peninsula on 17 February, I was asked specifically by one person, who is not a Liberal Party member—I know him from going to church sometimes. He lives not that far away from me. He said he wanted me to state my case on it and what my firm position on it is. I do hold a personal position, but it is not my member of parliament responsibility. My role is to ensure that all sides of the issue are equated.

I gave him that answer, and I do not think it was liked by people, but it respects the 36 that say yes, and it respects the company for putting the proposal forward, which is 199 turbines. They are 150 metres high each, three times as high as the grain silos on Yorke Peninsula. They are 40 kilometres long by 20 kilometres wide. That is the sort of scope of the development you have got to understand: it is 18,000 hectares. It is not a small issue; it is the largest in the southern hemisphere. I also respect those property owners who are either neighbours or adjoining it or indeed the surrounding coastal communities and central towns that have issues.

At the public meeting that I held, there was a fairly large invitation list. There were three parties unfortunately not able or who chose not to attend. One was minister Rau, one was the Development Assessment Commission—and in place of Mr Rau, I was quite happy to accept someone from the Department of Planning—and REpower. REpower had conducted information sessions about a month before that. They had been somewhat controlled, but there were three opportunities at least for people to come and listen, and they could go multiple times if they chose to.

The session that I ran, though, was purely as an information only one. It was never intended for a vote to be held, but it was based upon information provision, and that is what has always been the key thing for me—to get information out there and let people make the decision, and let them put a submission forward if they so choose. I am frustrated for the life of me that the political games have seemingly been played as part of this motion, because it is an absolutely important issue in regions that are dealing with these projects.

When it was first announced, I had a property owner who came to me—I know him casually—and who said, 'They proposed it, it is next to me, and I do not want it personally, but I am happy for it to be next door.' I respect his attitude towards that, but the important thing he forced upon me was that it cannot be allowed to impact upon the management principles of his farm. That was a position that I took to the very first meeting of the Ceres project when they told the Yorke Peninsula Council about it. Since that time, there have been a lot of words said, but it is still an absolutely important issue. That is why, when the sightings positions came out not that long ago, with the fact that some were on the boundary and therefore impacting on adjoining properties, that is an absolutely key issue for people.

I am also very concerned about aerial firefighting and water bombing situations. Those of you who have had to live with fires in your area would understand the importance of aerial firefighting to control opportunities. In a meeting I had with the CFS—it was David Pearce, who is their director of aerial operations, and Greg Nettleton, their chief fire officer, on 17 January or thereabouts—it was put to me that their position is that they cannot go within 500 metres of a turbine. That takes aerial support out of 18,000 hectares—40 kilometres by 20 kilometres long and wide, or 800 square kilometres. It puts a community at risk.

Until I have got some answers to those sorts of issues, I have a great difficulty in openly saying yes to it, because I am a person that deals in facts. That is what this parliament should deal with all the time—facts. The member for West Torrens talks about medical issues. I chose not to have anybody talk about medical issues at my public meeting, because it is unproven. I respect that. I wanted people to actually consider factual issues that they could see, appreciate and understand the implications of, and then make a decision on.

The buffer distance debate has also occurred ad nauseam today. It is a policy of calling for a moratorium on development that proposes turbines within two kilometres of a known uninvolved home and five kilometres of a township. That is the policy of the Liberal Party; that is the policy that was made known in my case, certainly with the Ceres project people. It is fair to say that, after that, there was not a lot of conversation between them and me. They told me the impact that would have on their development proposal.

I respect the fact that, even though I had problems with the first version of the ministerial DPA put out by minister John Rau in October 2011, he has revised that based upon advice given by the community—I think he quoted 253 submissions made through the group led by Mario Barone—and he put out an adjusted template that became law in October 2012. It returns some of the appeal rights and it does recognise the importance of agriculture, as we should recognise the importance of agriculture. These are important issues.

The select committee is meeting because there has been a demand from five independent people who represent different parties in the upper house to come together to consider submissions. They will not submit a report until October, but that committee has to be given the opportunity. The debate is frustrating in some ways because it is a federal government policy that actually drives the investment—it is the renewable energy certificates.

For those who do not know it, I asked the developers outright when they were in my office on, I think, 3 January. I said that it is my understanding that if you spend $1.3 billion—that is the level of investment—you will get a renewable energy certificate credit of $90 million per year until 2030; it is about a 7 per cent return. I have seen others that vary up to 11 per cent depending upon the cost of it and how much electricity is generated and that sort of thing. As I understand, it is that sort of policy which is supported by both parties and it creates the economic environment for this to occur.

As the Liberal Party we want to see economic diversity occur. As a local member of parliament I want economic diversity to occur, but a debate needs to be held about the conditions around it and the conditions that are attached to the approvals that are issued and the conditions that are considered by the authority that considers it, because you have to get it right. The Development Assessment Commission and the Ceres project will invite submissions by 28 March. Those submissions are then considered and they go as a recommendation to the member of Enfield as the Minister for Planning. He is the person, as I understand it, who is charged with making the decision.

The Premier has already basically said he wants it to be approved. There are some sections of the community, I understand, that want it to be approved, but it is the issues of real people that need to be addressed—and they are the people who we represent in this place. It is the real people who need to be addressed, but unless they get a voice of their own and unless they get a chance to put in their submission, they will not be truly heard. The debate needs to occur in the parliament, but it should not be a debate based around political opportunity, it should be a debate based around the real issues of the people of South Australia. I hope that the right decisions are made for all in the future.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:23): In the first place, I would intimate my strong support for wind farms, but those wind farms must be in the right place. The planning minister put out a ministerial DPA in late 2011. I believe that the member for Fisher and I were the only ones who put in a submission to that ministerial DPA. To those who now complain about that ministerial DPA, it is just a pity that they did not put in their submissions at the time. I do not know whether they did not because they were too lazy or just could not be bothered, but that was the time to actually address the planning of those wind farms. I will read out a bit of my submission. It states:

I wish to register my objections to the proposed Development Plan Amendment. I have read the [DPA] in conjunction with the District Council of Grant's Development Plan and have based my comments accordingly.

I object to the separation distances of 1 kilometre from residences, and 2 kilometres from townships, rural living areas etc., on the grounds of ascetics, particularly in closer settlements as occurs predominantly in the Lower South-East of South Australia. These distances should be at least 2 kilometres and 5 kilometres respectively.

The jury is still out on potential health issues arising from residential properties and wind farms within close proximity to each other and until there is full clarity on these health issues we should tread very carefully.

In saying that, I do not support having a moratorium. I just say that we must tread very carefully when considering wind farms close to residences. It continues:

There is also a problem with vacant parcels of land in both primary industry and horticultural zones that could be drastically reduced in value if people can no longer or would no longer wish to build a home on those vacant properties that are within these zones.

The properties do not adjoin the proposed wind tower areas but are within the required separation distance. It states:

I also do not support the recommendation that certain wind farm developments will be assigned Category 2 for the purpose of public notification, with only adjacent landowners and occupiers being afforded notification, can make representations, but there are no third party appeal rights.

There are a number of unanswered questions contained within the DAP, including how much information has been sought from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regarding clearance required for planes and helicopters to fly when carrying out agricultural spraying or firefighting. These are common occurrences which may be blocked due to the potential dangers associated with these activities and wind farms.

I might also point out that if one of those wind turbines does catch alight, the CFS now believe that they should not go any closer than one kilometre because it is actually throwing stuff out up to that distance, so it is something we have to be extremely careful of. It continues:

I also question whether councils have to change their own DPAs where at the moment primary industry zones place high values on scenic qualities and rural landscape.

I now turn to the first part of the motion before us, that is, 'Wind energy is one of the most cost-effective and efficient forms of renewable generation.' I think we have to be honest with the people and let them know what it actually does cost to generate the power.

A classic example was the residential solar rebate scheme in this state, when everybody thought that the government was subsidising those people but in actual fact it was the other users of electricity who perhaps could not afford those solar panels who ended up paying for those people who benefited. We should have clarity on what the actual costs are to generate the power from wind farms. I have no problem with the fact that it will be dearer and that it is probably one way that we should be going, but we should be honest with the people on what it actually costs.

The second part of that first part of the motion states 'and plays an important role in reducing our level of greenhouse gas emissions'. In the Premier's address yesterday, he said that every megawatt hour of wind energy cuts about one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. I just point out that when we quote those figures we should take into account what the carbon imprint is in building the wind farm in the first place and then, if you are going to quote figures on how much greenhouse gas is being saved, it has to be the net amount after the cost of construction. We must also measure those megawatts on the actual megawatts used or generated, rather than the potential generation, so that you are actually giving factual and proper figures; other than that, I support that first part of the motion.

The second part of the motion, that 'South Australia has established itself as the nation's leader', etc., I certainly support. Within the South-East, we have large wind farms, and they have generated a lot of money for those farmers who have them. They have also generated a lot of employment for individuals and different businesses that have assisted in constructing those wind farms. The third part of the motion states, 'The development and construction of wind farms across the state delivers economic and environmental benefits for all South Australians.' I think in the 'environmental benefits' we should also be addressing the aesthetics for some people. In those closer settled areas, the aesthetics may outbalance the environmental advantages, so we must tread carefully there.

In addition to the direct employment generated by the construction/operation of wind farms, these projects also bring investment to regional towns and help farmers. I just mentioned how much benefit many people in our district have had. As to point No.5, that non-evidence based policies undermine investment in energy projects and damage South Australia's economic and environmental development, I think we must bear in mind what happened with the proposed Allendale East wind farm, where the courts actually threw it out because it was going to have an adverse effect on the aesthetics of the region, so it is not always non-evidence based.

I support the fact that perhaps some of the health issues do not have the evidence, but we must tread very carefully as far as the aesthetics go. Placing a 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 of investment. I support that fact; I do not believe a moratorium is necessary, but we have to tread very carefully on where we do and do not approve wind farms. I intimate that I will support the motion based on that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder) (12:31): I rise, I think for the first time ever as a backbencher to speak in this place, since 1997—

The SPEAKER: No, you were a backbencher, were you not—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Very briefly, yes.

The SPEAKER: —from 1997 to 2001.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That's right; they were clinging to government, refusing to accept the richly deserved verdict of the people, as I recall it.

The SPEAKER: We would not want to forget your contribution in that capacity that John Olsen was in more trouble than a duck in a log in Macau!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, I think we will leave that, Mr Speaker. On this subject it is interesting to hear—and the great thing about a democracy is that everyone is entitled to their view. I would say with regard to some of the things I have heard that, given a choice between having within a kilometre of me a wind farm or a coal burner, I will go with the wind farm every time. I have seen promotional material about this state that puts on it, as part of our international reputation as a clean green place, photos of wind farms. I have never seen promotional material with photos of coal burners or even gas burners, because people obviously do not find them attractive and, quite frankly, for very good reasons.

The wind farm industry is a mature one. The technology has been around for a long time. I must disagree with the member for Mount Gambier, which I do very infrequently, because he is one of the few people I am frightened of getting on the wrong side of, because anyone who smokes White Ox tobacco has to be a hard nut, I reckon. I have not seen anyone smoke it who is not in prison in fact, but that is another matter. This is a mature industry and there is not one skerrick of proof to support any health effects of wind farms—there is not.

I happen to have my own personal views on things. It seems that supporting the Crows makes people sillier than the average run of people, but I would not put it forward as a scientific reason to refuse applications by them because I would have to admit that my viewpoint may not have much basis in science, even though it is rather good fun promoting it. The truth is that we must deal, as responsible legislators, with the science as we understand it. It is the way we have dealt with carbon and the way we should deal with these matters.

There is undeniable science around the effects of particulates from electricity generation by the burning of coal, and a great deal of science around the production of carbon. There is absolutely no science—none whatever—to support any health detriment from wind farms. Most importantly to me in this debate is this willingness of the opposition to disregard the rule of law when it suits them. The truth is that what is proposed by a moratorium is a proposal that certain proponents, because of a bias or a prejudice the opposition holds—or which they hold on behalf of someone else—should not be able to apply under the rule of law for a project.

The intelligent proposition, if they believe what they say, and I suspect they do not, would be that they advocate the law that should apply to these projects, under what law people should be able to make application, and I note the member for Goyder makes some good points in this regard. The notion of a moratorium is simply a disregard for the rule of law. It is a proposal that a motion in prejudice should overcome law. That is a very dangerous path down which to go. If the opposition has genuine concerns about the planning regime for wind farms they should agitate those. They should say, 'These are what the rules are.' If they somehow believe that there should not be wind farms in South Australia, have the courage to say that.

There being a disturbance in the Strangers' Gallery:

The SPEAKER: Member for Elder, could you be seated. Would the security staff please remove that man from the house. It is not within the rules to be using flash photography. I have permitted photography, but not members being assaulted in their place by flashes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It's just another example of me falling victim of my own fatal charm, Mr Speaker. You should offer tolerance in that regard. It is a burden I have had to bear for a very long time! I will wrap up, Mr Speaker, but I want to make this point: you simply cannot offer yourself as a serious alternative to government if you are going to disregard the rule of law. The people who make their application should be entitled to the law. If they believe the law is wrong they should advocate to change it. They have a capacity to do that. We have certainly seen private members' bills, on many subjects, from them, but they cannot simply say that the law should not apply for a period of time because we do not like it and we think there is some political advantage in it.

I earnestly urge people in this chamber to remember that. It is only the rule of law that protects us from arbitrary decision-making, and we have seen, Mr Speaker, and you know full well, how the benevolent Georgian used the capacity to make arbitrary decision-making rather than the rule of law to the detriment of the people of a great nation. Therefore I would urge, having referred to the benevolent Georgian which I have been wanting to do in this place for a very long time, if there are any people on that side who want to know who he was, I am free to answer questions later.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:37): I would like to make several points with regard to this debate, and reading the motion, as proposed by the Premier, he makes several claims in the motion. One is that wind farms play an important role in reducing our level of greenhouse gas emissions. Another one he keeps talking about is delivering economic and environmental benefits. Let me address both of those.

First of all, I refer to greenhouse gas emissions. When the wind blows, wind farms generally bid into the market and get dispatched. When the wind does not blow, we rely on thermal power stations principally to provide our base load. Members may or may not have an understanding of how a thermal power station works, but generally what happens is, you burn some sort of fossil fuel to boil water and then once you have heated the water to 100 degrees centigrade you actually boil it and turn the water into steam. That takes a lot of energy. I suspect that most members of the house do not understand the principle of latent heat and the conversion from the state of liquid to the state of gas, but the reality is that is why steam is used as a source of energy, converting from a fossil fuel to an energy like electricity that we can use.

But if I am running a thermal power station, like at Torrens Island or at Port Augusta, and the wind starts blowing and all of a sudden the market operator rings me up and says, 'No, we don't need your electricity anymore. The wind is blowing and we are going to dispatch all these wind farms,' I cannot switch off my boiler because in a couple of hours' time I might need it again because I will get another call from the market operator who says, 'We need your energy now.' You cannot switch a boiler on and off.

The first time I visited the Port Augusta Power Station, which was many years ago when I first came into this place, it was explained to me that it took about 24 hours to start up and make it operational from a standdown position. Even at Torrens Island, which is much quicker to fire up and lower it down, cannot be done in a matter of minutes or even a matter of hours. It is a long process. By and large, what happens is that when the wind blows, the thermal power stations keep their boilers operating.

An engineer in Victoria about 12 months ago did a study into this, using figures from the energy market regulator based on what happened in the Victorian marketplace and he proved conclusively that wind farms made no difference to the amount of brown coal that was consumed in Victoria because the boilers were kept running for the eventuality of when the wind stopped blowing, which always happens. So, the claim that wind farms contribute to our environment by reducing the amount of carbon reduced to the atmosphere is nonsense, a myth.

The other claim that the Premier makes in his motion is about the economic benefits to South Australia. The member for Waite presented the case very well. What the people of South Australia really are concerned about is the price that they are paying for electricity. The Premier told us yesterday that we have invested about $3 billion in renewables, principally in wind farms in South Australia. Who is paying for that? Well, it is the electricity consumer. Every time they buy electricity, they are paying for it.

Why are they paying for it and how are they paying for it? They are paying for it principally through the renewable energy certificates (RECs) that the member for Goyder talked about. Isn't it funny that every time a megawatt hour of electricity is reduced by a wind farm, a renewable energy certificate is created and that is traded. The going price today is about $37. They range from $35 to $40.

The Premier told us again yesterday that for every megawatt hour of electricity produced by a wind farm saves us about a tonne of carbon. I have just debunked that; it does not actually save us. That is the theory but in practice it does not. However, even if the theory worked, we are paying through the renewable energy certificates about $37 per tonne of carbon. That is a lot more than what our federal government has suggested we should pay to ameliorate our carbon footprint through the carbon tax. That is $23 a tonne. There is a big difference between $23 and $37. That is one of the major reasons why electricity prices in South Australia have gone through the roof.

Wind farm operators, as the member for Goyder pointed out, are making a killing because they are being subsidised by electricity consumers across this nation. They are making a killing. The member for Goyder told us about how the serious wind farm proposal on Yorke Peninsula will make a 7 per cent return on the investment—and that is before they sell one megawatt hour of electricity.

One of the problems is that wind farm operators—and I was just talking to the member for Goyder about this—quite often bid in a price which is negative. They bid in to the market operator that they will pay to supply. They might pay $5 a megawatt hour. Why do they do that? Because it guarantees that they get dispatched and they get the $37 back for the REC that is created and they make a $32 profit. It is distorting the market; in fact, it has made a mockery of the market. As the member for Waite said, that is why we have not had any investment in South Australia in baseload power (the cheapest form of producing power) for a long time—in fact, since we were last in government.

So, the wind farm proponents get a free ride, as well as the $37 for the RECs. As well as being able to sell electricity, they get a free ride because they hook on to the network that you and I and every other mum and dad and business in this state pays for. They get that for nothing. Indeed, we now have a proposal by ElectraNet, which maintains our transmission network in South Australia, to upgrade the Heywood interconnector, build new capacity at Heywood just over the border in Victoria to allow the export of wind farm produced electricity out of South Australia into Victoria.

It is a bit over a $100 million project. ElectraNet will be paying, I think, $64 million towards that project. Who will pick up the tab for every one of those $64 million? You've got it—South Australian electricity consumers, not those people in Victoria or New South Wales who are using that green energy. South Australian electricity consumers will pay every one of those $64 million. That is why our electricity price is going up.

That is the classic example of what people refer to as gold plating. That is gold plating and the government of South Australia knows about it because the former premier talked about it in a press release he put out, I think from memory, in July 2008 when he released the green grid report. He identified then that we needed some rule changes to the market rules to prevent that from happening. His minister at the time and subsequent ministers have failed to achieve any such rule change. That is why South Australian consumers continue to pay for infrastructure that only benefits two parties, the first being the owners and operators of wind farms and the other being consumers interstate. I ask myself on a very regular basis: why would we do that?

I accept that South Australia is obliged to meet the renewable energy target. I accept that, and we have overshot the mark already. We should have always aimed to meet our 20 per cent obligation as everybody in Australia does. The moment we go above that—and the Premier said we are already at something like 26 per cent—we are wasting our money. This is another reason why South Australian businesses cannot compete against those interstate, because they are not wasting their money. They are quite happy to see us waste ours.

It was Peter Drucker who said that there is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. I maintain that for us to be continuing to build wind farms in excess of what we need to meet our obligation is a nonsense. It is a very expensive nonsense; it does not help our economy and it certainly does not help the environment. This whole argument is based on a myth and it is a pity that the people of South Australia have not woken up to it.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT