HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Wind Farms

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That this council—

1. Notes that a decision on Neoen’s development application for a significant wind farm of 26 turbines standing 240 metres high at the proposed Crystal Brook Energy Park will soon be made by the state government;

2. Acknowledges that, according to new guidelines for Europe published by the World Health Organization, wind turbines can cause health problems if they result in people being exposed to excessive noise levels;

3. Further acknowledges that a Supreme Court-ordered report on the Bald Hills wind farm in Gippsland, Victoria, found there was a nuisance under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act despite the wind farm being compliant with state planning laws;

4. Further notes that a class action lawsuit is now being prepared by local residents against the South Gippsland council, the Victorian government and the wind farm operator following the independent report;

5. Recognises that the core objective of the Environmental Protection Authority’s ‘Wind farms environmental noise guidelines’ is 'to balance the advantage of developing wind energy projects in South Australia with protecting the amenity of the surrounding community from adverse noise impact';

6. Further recognises that the most recent State of the Environment Report (2013) by the South Australian EPA reported on the increase in noise complaints from existing wind farms, yet there has been no change to monitoring and compliance requirements; and

7. Calls on the government to place an urgent moratorium on approval or construction of any new wind farms until an independent full and thorough review is undertaken and an updated planning and compliance regime is implemented.

(Continued from 24 October 2018.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:54): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be opposing this motion. We do so because we, on this side at least, prefer evidence-based policy that is employing the best scientific evidence available in the formulation of policy over a call for a moratorium.

In speaking to the motion, the Hon. Connie Bonaros relied heavily on the World Health Organization's Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, published earlier this year. Throughout her contribution the honourable member made a series of claims about the contents of the World Health Organization report, stating that the report 'recommends that exposure to wind turbines should not exceed 45 decibels over a 24-hour period'.

What the honourable member did not reflect on in her contribution was that all the report's recommendations with regard to wind turbine noise were highly conditional. The report makes consistent references to the low quality and unreliability of evidence available on the impacts of wind farm noise. At page 80, on the potential for cardiovascular disease, evidence assessed is described as 'very low quality', and the report states, at page 81, that evidence associating wind turbine noise and annoyance is 'rated low quality'. At page 82 the report states:

no studies were found, and therefore no evidence was available on the relationship between wind turbine noise and measures of cognitive impairment; hearing impairment and tinnitus; and adverse birth outcomes.

All this was clearly important to the World Health Organization in making their recommendations. In making their recommendations on a limit to wind farm noise, they clearly labelled them as 'conditional', precisely because unreliable or low quality evidence was all they had available.

The motion before us suggests, in my view, that the World Health Organization is sounding the alarm over the health risks of noise from wind farms. With greatest respect, I submit it is not. Instead, the World Health Organization makes clear, time and again, that there simply is not enough quality evidence to back up claims relating to the health risks of noise from wind farms.

However, I contend there is an abundance of high quality evidence on the benefits of wind energy to our community, our nation and our planet. The Clean Energy Council reports that in 2017 33.8 per cent of Australia's clean energy was generated by our wind farms—and, as is often the case in these matters, particularly with renewable energy, South Australia is once again leading the way. A report published in November 2017 by the Australian Energy Market Operator stated that in the 2016-17 period, 39.2 per cent of energy generated in our state was from wind.

Wind farms are part of a movement away from fossil fuels and harmful energy generation practices toward the clean energy future. South Australia is proud to be at the forefront of this transition, and I believe rightly so. The claims of serious health problems arising from wind farm noise have not been proven. In 2014 the Australian Medical Association took a public position on wind farm noise, stating:

the infrasound and low frequency sound generated by modern wind farms in Australia is well below the level where known health effects occur, and there is no accepted physiological mechanism where sub-audible infrasound could cause health effects.

Let me read that part again: 'there is no accepted physiological mechanism where sub-audible infrasound could cause health effects'.

The Hon. Connie Bonaros is right that as technology develops further and innovations are made, wind farms are getting larger, generating more electricity, powering more homes, businesses and communities. It is, of course, integral to the role of a member of parliament to assist constituents who have concerns about developments in the area, and to support them in reporting and recording those concerns. It is integral to our work that we take up those cases and explore them as best we can with the authorities available to us.

However, even the report of former prime minister Tony Abbott's National Wind Farm Commissioner, published in March this year, reported that since November 2015 only seven reports have been received about proposed wind farm developments in South Australia. In that same period—more than two years—only 17 complaints had been received about operating wind farms in South Australia. The commission's report stated:

despite numerous invitations to complainants to provide evidence of their medical conditions, complaints regarding health concerns received by our office have provided only anecdotal evidence regarding stated health issues and perceived causality.

The community at Crystal Brook clearly have concerns about the proposed development, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros has outlined, and it is really important that those views and concerns of the local community are listened to by the developer, Neoen Australia, and the State Commission Assessment Panel.

The Advertiser has reported that the panel has met with community members and has heard their submissions, while I am advised that Neoen has halved the proposed number of wind turbines in response to community concerns. However, the community also needs to have full and accurate information at its disposal, not half-truths, not conspiracy theories often peddled by climate change deniers in Canberra and the fossil fuel industry. Residents should be informed about the facts of these kinds of wind farm developments. In my view, calling for a moratorium on the approval of construction of wind farms is absolutely the wrong approach to take.

Flinders University scientists are currently conducting a five-year study on the impact of wind farms on health and sleep, and I understand the government is looking at reviewing the EPA's guidelines on wind farm noise, and that is for the government to advise us on. Considered responses to community concerns backed up by the best available science, I believe, is the only sensible way to go about this. For these reasons, the opposition will not be supporting the motion today.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:00): I am yet to meet a single person who does not profess to agree that we need a cleaner, greener, more sustainable and a fairer world. If there is such a person who is genuinely happy to hand over a trashed planet to their children and grandchildren then I have not met them. Protecting the environment, living more in harmony with nature, caring about social justice and future generations are all universal values, and everyone says that they want them. So what do we do?

This motion asks us to stop or slow down one of the most effective and efficient forms of renewable energy available. It asks us to put the brakes on one of this state's most important and growing industries that is part of the solution to climate change rather than part of the problem. The Greens are absolutely opposed to this ill-conceived call for a moratorium on new wind farms, and here is why.

The world is facing a climate emergency. It is now beyond all doubt that human-induced climate change is having a profound effect on our planet. It is changing the environment irretrievably and it is sending species extinct. Climate change risks the world's food production capacity and it impacts hardest on the poorest communities with the lowest resilience. Climate change is also increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which affect us all.

This climate emergency is an existential threat. It is indeed, as others have said, the greatest moral challenge of our time, but thankfully there are things that we can do. We have the knowledge, we have the technology and we have the overwhelming bulk of the community on side. If we have political will, we can take real and effective action to address climate change and to minimise the harm that it will cause to people and the environment on which we all depend.

One of the most important areas identified for action is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The lowest hanging fruit is to change the way that we generate electricity. That is exactly what South Australia has been doing, and we need to do more of it. Putting the brakes on the development of renewable energy in this state is absolutely the wrong way to go, and the Greens reject it. In rejecting this motion, I want to delve a little deeper into the rationale for the motion and the evidence that has been relied on.

I have received a number of submissions from stakeholders, and I want to put those on the record. The most important stakeholder is the Clean Energy Council, which represents the entirety of the renewable energy industry, including wind, solar, batteries, pumped hydro and all of the other forms of electricity generation that are helping to reduce climate change. I received a submission from Kane Thornton, the CEO of the Clean Energy Council, which states:

Dear Mr Parnell,

…I am writing with regards to a motion that was tabled in the Legislative Council on 24 October by SA-Best member, Connie Bonaros MLC, advocating for a moratorium on wind farm developments in South Australia.

This motion is based on a poor interpretation of the relevant information and it seeks to undermine public confidence in the robust planning and environmental controls already in place for wind farm developments.

Ms Bonaros' statement to the Legislative Council cites a number of concerns regarding the size of turbines proposed for the Crystal Brook project, a recent World Health Organisation…report, a class action at Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria, and the EPA's 2013 State of the Environment Report. The Clean Energy Council does not consider that these matters provide evidence as to why a moratorium or a review of the state's wind farm planning and compliance regime should be necessary.

There are stringent planning and environmental policies and regulations in place in South Australia, developed over many years, which govern the way that the wind industry develops its projects. South Australia's noise standards for wind farms are already amongst the strongest in the world and are in line with the noise limits conditionally recommended by the WHO's Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018). These standards apply to every wind farm, regardless of the number of wind turbines or their megawatt capacity.

Further, the WHO's Guideline Development Group found no studies available with respect to cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, hearing impairment or tinnitus. The only available evidence for the health impacts of wind farms related to 'annoyance', but here it determined that the evidence was 'low quality'. The WHO also examined six cross-sectional studies on wind turbine noise and self-reported sleep disturbance, and here too deemed the evidence to be of 'low quality'…

A primary function of the National Wind Farm Commissioner's office, which was established in 2015, is to receive and refer complaints to the relevant respondent. In 2017, the office received a total of 73 complaints across Australia and just one of these was in South Australia. While the industry strives for zero complaints, we note that these numbers are nevertheless comparatively low when compared to the 80-plus wind farms currently under operation and the further 65 wind farms currently in some form of development.

Furthermore, according to the Commissioner's 2017 Annual Report (31 March 2018), noise complaints fell by 27 per cent and health complaints fell by 58 per cent year-on-year. Were it the case that wind turbines adversely affected human health, one would expect to observe growth in the number of these complaints as the number of wind farm developments across Australia increased.

The Hon. Ian Hunter has already alluded to the Wind Farm Commissioner. Members will recall this was created largely at the behest of the climate denialists and anti wind farm members of the federal parliament, the Hon. Nick Xenophon and the DLP Senator Madigan in particular. It has a budget of $2 million over three years, and just a few weeks ago the office was continued for another three years. So the amount of work that they have to do for the money that they have is remarkable.

I want to take members to the annual report of the office of the Wind Farm Commissioner to offer a few statistics. The first thing is the number of open files they have—across Australia, 18. That is not bad for a $205,000 per year part-time job with three staff, to have 18 open files. As a junior solicitor earning about $20,000 a year I had about 150 open files. It is a remarkably low number.

Let us have a look under the heading of Complaint Activity. In terms of operating wind farms, for the year 2017 there were 11 complaints Australia wide. In terms of all complaints since the office has been going, there have been 57 in total, over 26 months of operation. Another statistic that the Wind Farm Commissioner offers is complaints over the entire existence of the office that relate to South Australia—17. The number of wind farms those complaints relate to—two. Two wind farms. I know one of them the Hon. David Ridgway and I spent some time at, at Waterloo. We slept in the haunted house and hardly heard a thing. We had a good night's sleep.

Another submission I received was from the Australian Wind Alliance. This is a group that specifically represents the wind industry. They were alarmed at this motion before the house, and they asked me if I could consider the following material. Andrew Bray, from the Australian Wind Alliance, says:

In the breathless rush to portray the WHO report as some kind of fundamental shift in our understanding of wind turbine noise, Ms Bonaros has overlooked a key detail in the WHO's determination. The WHO's recommendation around wind turbine noise is only conditional—this is, it is only tentatively made, and the WHO acknowledges there is little evidence to support it.

The WHO report updates WHO guidelines on a range of different noise sources. These updated guidelines are graded into strong and conditional categories, based on the WHO's confidence in the research regarding the noise source and the efficacy of proposed noise limits.

There is then the technical analysis, and the Hon. Ian Hunter referred to that. As has been said, their recommendations in relation to wind turbines was that they had very little confidence. The communication goes on:

The primary reason the report states for the low rating of their recommendations around wind turbine noise is either the lack of evidence to support claims of ill health, or, where such evidence exists, the research is of such poor quality that it cannot be relied upon.

The fact is, there simply isn't reliable evidence to support or back up the kind of claims of ill health Ms Bonaros makes. Indeed, respected Australian medical bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Medical Association have both put out statements to this effect.

This lack of evidence is not for want of trying.

Wind turbines have been operating continuously in Europe for over 40 years. In Australia the first large scale wind turbines were installed 30 years ago, with many thousands of people living in close proximity to wind farms in South Australia for the last ten years. As turbine numbers have increased across the country in the last five to ten years, these numbers run into the tens of thousands.

All wind farms have been assessed to operate within approved noise limits and the number of complaints is extremely low. It is worth noting that many host landholders agree to allow exposure to higher levels of noise than is stipulated under the EPA guidelines, as part of their commercial agreements with wind farm operators. Complaints, or evidence of ill health, from this cohort is almost non-existent.

…In short, the conditional recommendation of the WHO to a particular level of wind turbine noise, may be a signal that we should keep an eye on this issue. But it falls a long way short of a justification of the extreme measures Ms Bonaros calls for, such as moratoriums on approvals or constructions for new wind farm projects.

Another submission that I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros has received herself, because it is a submission that has been posted on the web by David Clarke, who is a long-term campaigner in relation to renewable energy—he was the person who camped under the wind turbines at Waterloo all those years ago when we were last debating this issue. David Clarke has written an open letter to Ms Bonaros and put it on his web page where anyone can see it. He states:

G'day, Connie:

You probably haven't come across my response to your complete misinterpretation of the WHO report yet so I will point it out to you.

He then signifies a web page. He goes on:

I wonder, does climate change, ocean acidification, sea level rise, the millions of deaths world wide each year from air pollution, damage to the Great Barrier Reef, increased frequency and seriousness of fires, floods and storms, thousands or millions of species going extinct, etcetera, all resulting from the burning of fossil fuels bother you at all? Or do you somehow see renewable energy to be a greater threat to the future of the planet?

I will not go through all of the detail but most of it the Hon. Ian Hunter has put on the record. He goes through in forensic detail, page by page, the World Health Organization report and shows that the motion before us is not a natural consequence of that report.

I want to refer quickly to some of the media commentary around the issue of wind farms generally and then around this motion. I refer members to an article that appeared in The Conversation last year on 7 April 2017. The author was Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney. He again refers to the tiny number of complaints that have been received over the last few years. It is a year old so his figures do not reflect the report that has just been released. Basically, he points out that, as of when he wrote last year, there were 46 complaints relating to nine operating wind farms—and that is Australia-wide. He points out that there were 76 operational wind farms in Australia in 2015. He says:

These figures are frankly astonishing.

The complaint investigating mechanism was set up after a Senate enquiry report that cost undisclosed millions to deal with a 'massive' problem with wind turbines.

But the hordes of people who apparently needed a way to help them resolve matters have now gone shy.

He does, though, as a professor of public health, specifically address the issue of wind turbines and sickness. Professor Chapman, after referring to the lack of complaint, then goes on:

This is all very awkward for those who argue wind turbines cause illness. How is it that if wind farms are a direct cause of illness, that 67 wind farms around the country (88%) [of the total] saw not one complaint, about health or anything else across a whole year?

The stock answer given here by wind farm opponents is that wind farm illness is like sea sickness: only a few get it. So in the whole of two states,—

and he points out there were two states where there was not single complaint about any wind farm—

and across 88% of wind farms, there's apparently no-one with susceptibility to wind farm illness.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who described wind farms as 'ugly', 'noisy' and 'visually awful', threw the senate committee a giant political bone.

The committee, and the Office of the Wind Farm Commissioner, put up their 'we're open' shingle and invited the alleged throngs of suffering rural residents to air their problems.

This annual report shows very few did, and the great majority of 'complaints' dissolved by being sent information.

This sorry episode in appeasing the wind farm obsessions of a tiny number of cross-bench senators needs to have its time called, fast.

The final commentary I will refer to was published back on 25 October in the RenewEconomy online journal by Sophie Vorrath, and under the heading, 'SA-Best calls for wind farm ban as it seeks to rekindle health concerns', the first paragraph of the article says:

Nick Xenophon may be gone, but his anti-wind legacy remains. What is now known as the SA-Best Party has—again—called for an inquiry into the human health impacts of wind farms, and demanded an 'urgent' ban on all new wind energy developments in South Australia until that review is carried out.

I will not go through the whole article, but it includes:

…the new call for yet another 'independent' parliamentary review of wind health impacts is disheartening—particularly in light of the numerous parliamentary inquiries, reviews and medical reports that have already been produced on the subject, and returned little tangible evidence that it is any sort of a thing.

Further on:

Even the very WHO report Bonaros says should be terrifying us all—a broad report on the health impacts of noise pollution—found little to support the claim that wind farm noise, audible or otherwise, had direct long-term health impacts.

Having put all that on the record, we need to point out, as I think the Hon. Ian Hunter did, that that is not to say that every location is appropriate for every wind farm. Obviously, we have to have a rigorous planning process, which we have. We need a rigorous environment protection process, particularly in relation to noise, which we have, and there are certainly locations where wind farms are inappropriate, but to call for a moratorium to basically pull the plug on one of South Australia's most important and growing industries that is part of the solution to climate change is ill-conceived.

I will conclude with the following remarks. Again, this is just to conclude the submission from Kane Thornton, the CEO of the Clean Energy Council. He says:

The motion's reference to the noise nuisance case regarding Bald Hills Wind Farm in Victoria is premature as the Council's investigation is ongoing.

Australia is currently witnessing an unprecedented wave of investment in clean and lower-cost new energy generation capacity, which is stimulating regional economic activity, creating new employment opportunities, putting downward pressure on electricity prices for consumers and businesses, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In South Australia, the wind energy sector currently employs hundreds of people, provides steady income for landholders and local governments, and benefits broader communities through the numerous community enhancement funds in operation.

It is important that the design, planning and delivery of these new projects is managed responsibly, and over the past few years, the wind industry and the CEC have taken many positive steps to improve community engagement approaches. These have included a range of best practice guidelines and a new Best Practice Charter for Renewable Energy Development. These enjoy strong support from our members and we are committed to working together to continue to raise the bar further.

In summary, wind energy generation investment in South Australia is proceeding within the context of a mature planning regime that aligns with international standards, and an industry that observes responsible community engagement practices. We therefore encourage members of Parliament to reject the SA-Best motion for a wind farm moratorium.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (18:19): I rise on behalf of the government to make some remarks in relation to the motion moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. State government policy seeks the provision of reliable and affordable energy that supports households and businesses based on an appropriate mix of existing and new generation for sustainable, long-term development and economic growth.

The Crystal Brook Energy Park Development is currently being assessed by the independent State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP). SCAP heard from a number of representatives at a two-day meeting in Port Pirie on 10 and 11 October 2018. SCAP have requested additional information from Neoen, including further details in respect of potential noise impacts.

The EPA has already assessed a proposal and did not raise any objections subject to the appropriate conditions being applied to the construction and operation of the development. Following the conclusion of their assessment process, the Minister for Planning will be in a position to review SCAP's recommendation, if satisfied that all relevant information has been provided, including further advice from state agencies that determine the application.

Current planning policies include specific guidance on wind farm developments, backed up by mandatory referral mechanism and licensing requirements overseen by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA). This includes post-operation monitoring and compliance checks on constructed wind farms.

The State Planning Commission is currently reviewing all planning policies as part of the new planning and design code to be implemented under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. The Minister for Planning has requested that the commission review wind farm policies. A number of updates to existing renewable energy policies are being considered, which will be informed by the current practice and research.

The EPA is also undertaking a technical review of its 'Wind farms environmental noise guidelines' in light of the latest international standard on wind farm acoustic noise measurement techniques. This report will be finalised by the end of November 2018 and will provide expert guidance on whether existing policy settings require further review or updating.

Court determinations in other states are noted but they are not directly comparable or relevant to our own independent regulatory and licensing frameworks. In addition, I refer to the National Wind Farm Commissioner, who has been referred to by two previous speakers. Interestingly, my statistics differ from some of the other statistics so perhaps all our researchers could get their heads together and make sure we check the statistics.

This commissioner of course is independent of state government, and investigates complaints from members of the public with respect to wind farm developments. A total of 73 complaints were reported in 2017 and only one complaint was received from South Australia in respect of an operating wind farm. On this basis, it would be premature to introduce an arbitrary moratorium on wind farm developments in South Australia.

The Minister for Planning is still to receive a planning recommendation on the Crystal Brook development, and the EPA's technical review is still to be concluded. Any of these recommendations need to be taken into account to ensure a fair and transparent process. Those wind farms that are currently under assessment are subject to the regulatory framework at the time of lodgement. A moratorium is not something that can be applied retrospectively. At a state level, there are only two wind farms under assessment—one at Crystal Brook and the other at Twin Creek, north-west of Truro—and one wind farm under construction, being Lincoln Gap Wind Farm, west of Port Augusta.

The overwhelming majority of renewable energy developments in South Australia either proposed to be lodged under assessment or recently approved are large-scale solar photovoltaic or pumped hydro projects. The government does take seriously the potential for environmental noise impacts to affect human health and wellbeing. This was a matter specifically addressed in the recent report from the World Health Organization, and its Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region October (2018), which considered a number of noise sources arising from various traffic modes, leisure activities and wind farms.

It is noted that the World Health Organization report only makes conditional recommendations in respect of wind farms, due to the absence of high-quality, definitive research. The government is aware of a number of other jurisdictional reviews into wind farm noise and ongoing National Health and Medical Research Council funded studies into the evidence base for the effects of wind farms on human health. The findings of this Australian-based research will guide any future response in respect of potential noise and health impacts from wind farm developments with any recommendations to be provided to the government by the EPA and SA Health, whose legislated responsibilities are focused on safeguarding the wellbeing of all South Australians. With those few comments, I indicate the government will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:24): I indicate my thanks first to those members who have spoken on this most important matter. Did I expect anything different? Frankly, I do not think I did. I would like to thank the people sitting in the public gallery behind us today, the people who are most impacted by these developments: residents from Keyneton, from the Barossa Valley, from Twin Creek, from Palmer and from Crystal Brook, obviously, and surrounding areas.

Can I say to those people who have joined us here today for this debate that this is an important matter to you. I know that it has been an extraordinarily long day and not everyone who was here this afternoon was able to stick around, given the hour at the moment. I thank you all very much. I am grateful to you for giving up your time to be here. I think it is a testament to your commitment to this most important issue, something that affects each and every one of you and your lives, your livelihoods and your families. Thank you.

The world-famous and iconic Eiffel Tower stands at an impressive 324 metres tall. By comparison, Westpac House, across the road, Adelaide's tallest building, stands at 135 metres in height. A wind farm being proposed at the gateway of our world-renowned Flinders Ranges is to have 26 wind turbines that will be a massive 240 metres in height per wind turbine. The total span of its rotor blades, from tip to tip, will be 160 metres, only seven metres short of the entire length of the Adelaide Oval.

A wind tower that is only 80 metres smaller than the Eiffel Tower and almost twice the size of Westpac House just across the way—if you have not seen it, cross at the lights, have a look at how tall it is and try imagining that by another 100 metres—with a wingspan just shy of the length of a football field is simply overwhelming. Sadly, it is a trend that is emerging, and emerging fast right here on our doorstep.

Just as frightening is the pace at which wind farms are increasing, not only in size but also in generation capacity. This debate is not about climate sceptics. It is not about being a climate denier. It is not about not believing in the merits of renewable energy. It is about our communities and it is about listening to the wishes of our communities. This is why SA-Best has called for the state government to place a moratorium on the approval or construction of any new wind farm until an independent, full and thorough review is undertaken.

At the moment, the current planning and environmental guidelines are not keeping pace with the burgeoning size of these projects. A wind farm being proposed by French company Neoen at Crystal Brook, at the gateway—again, at the gateway—of SA's world-renowned Flinders Ranges in the Mid North, is a classic case in point. Currently before the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) for approval, each of the project's 26 wind turbines—I am going to say it again—will stand 240 metres high, the tallest ever built in this state and double that of many of the existing turbines in South Australia. Each turbine will have an output of just under five megawatts—again, around double that of most existing wind farm developments in this state.

Neoen's proposed wind farm is situated just three kilometres from the township of Crystal Brook and a lot closer to nearby rural living properties, an issue that has concerned local residents, many of whom have contacted SA-Best. I point out that this is not an issue that I went to Crystal Brook looking for. This is not an issue that my colleague and I went out in search of. This is an issue that members of the community of Crystal Brook, and surrounding communities, brought to us.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With the chamber's indulgence, there are a number of people who have made the long trip here today. I will try my best to finish as quickly as possible, but they have been here since the early hours of the morning waiting for this debate to conclude today.

As I was saying, Neoen's proposed wind farm at Crystal Brook affects residents living at Crystal Brook, as well as people living near the proposed Twin Creek Wind Farm near Kapunda, the Waterloo Wind Farm, located 30 kilometres from Clare—both are located in SA's Mid North—and the proposed Keyneton Wind Farm on the cusp of the Barossa Valley, many of whom joined the protest today on the steps of Parliament House.

Wind farms around the world, including many either being built or proposed for SA, are getting ridiculously large in size and capacity. I am not suggesting that that may necessarily be a bad thing, but it is something that we need to consider very carefully in the context of where these wind farms are situated. It is imperative that they are located in areas that do not impact local communities and the people who live in those communities, not to mention the local wildlife.

For all the reasons that I have outlined so far, SA-Best has called on the government to place an urgent moratorium on approval or construction of any new wind farms until an independent, full and thorough review is undertaken. We are also seeking the implementation of an updated evidence-based planning and noise pollution compliance regime that is transparent, effective in protecting health and relevant for much larger and more powerful wind turbines.

We have to ensure that both operating and future wind farms in South Australia are not allowed to emit noise that causes sleep disturbance or otherwise cause disturbances to human health or local communities. We need to review the legislation surrounding wind farm developments to ensure that SA residents are adequately protected from harm, whether or not that harm may be questionable in some members' views, over the lifetime of each and every project.

The state government also has a responsibility to ensure that South Australian taxpayers will not foot the bill in any future noise nuisance litigation because inadequate planning and noise pollution regulations have failed to protect our residents from harm. I am going to say again for the record that SA-Best supports renewable energy, including wind farms, but we must ensure that appropriate laws and guidelines are commensurate with advances in wind farm technologies and generation capacities.

In guidelines developed for the European Union, but which the WHO stressed are relevant globally, the organisation recommends that exposure to wind turbines should not exceed 45 decibels over a 24-hour period. On the presumption that a wind farm is permitted to operate throughout an entire 24-hour period of a day, the WHO guideline for the nominated acoustic metric would give rise to a limit of 36.3 decibels as a measured background level. This level is lower than the 40 decibels, or background plus five decibels, whichever is greater, provided in wind farm noise guidelines by South Australia's EPA. By comparison, the WHO has said soft radio music is 50 decibels.

Current laws in SA permit wind farms to be built one kilometre from a property without the owner's consent and two kilometres from a town. When in opposition, the Liberal government—this Liberal Party—had a longstanding policy to better protect residents by banning new wind turbines from being built closer than two kilometres from an existing dwelling without the homeowner's consent and five kilometres from any town or settlement.

I have sought urgent meetings with the planning minister, Stephan Knoll, and the environment minister, David Speirs, to be briefed on the government's stance on this issue, but I am not getting anywhere fast. While in opposition, the Liberals made all the right noises about what it would do to tackle this alarming issue if it won government. Indeed, when I moved this motion, I read onto the record a letter that a number of Liberal members—including the Hon. David Ridgway, who is not here at the moment—sent to their constituents and to constituencies for the Liberal Party in relation to this very issue. That letter outlined the Liberal Party policy in relation to this issue very clearly.

The EPA's wind farm noise guidelines for South Australia exclude noise characteristics specifically identified by the WHO as being of concern, including low-frequency noise and amplitude modulation (thumping). Any reviews by the government must be undertaken with full transparency with independent acousticians and input from the very communities that will be impacted at the local level, and improved safeguards for nearby residents must be in place before any new wind turbines are approved or constructed.

Until these issues are resolved, it is absolutely imperative that the state government place a moratorium on approval or construction of any wind farms. In my discussions with the minister, I have said to him that this is not about saying, 'We don't want wind farms in South Australia.' This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying, 'We will undertake to implement our policy, the policy that we took to the 2014 election and the policy that we have held in relation to wind farms. Until such time, we will not allow any further applications to be lodged and decided under the existing rules.'

This is not about banning wind farms: this is about wanting to draw a line in the sand and have a review. I think we owe it to the people who have the misfortune of living close to these wind farms to do just that. Earlier today, I stood with a group of those here in the gallery on the steps of parliament to help them raise their cause and also to listen, albeit briefly, to some of their stories, like Natalie, whose property is to be surrounded by 51 turbines in a semicircle fashion, with each turbine 165 metres in height and located two kilometres from her local township. Hers is only one of countless stories that we have heard today and over the years.

There have been alarming anecdotal reports—I agree that they are anecdotal reports—about the impact that this is having on families. There have been reports of people who have taken their lives due to their concerns over this issue; others who have made claims about suffering from ongoing health issues; families who have been forced from their homes and properties due to the disturbances that they have faced; property values plummeting as a result of wind farms being constructed near houses; reports of pool fences vibrating due to the sound emanating from wind farms; and the list goes on.

The Hon. Ian Hunter said that I omitted important facts from the WHO report. He says that the jury is out on many of these sorts of issues and impacts. What I would say is that, for me personally, if the jury is out, then that is even more reason to support this motion. Many of the decent, hardworking folk in the public gallery today believe that they are not being heard, and for very good reason. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind for this city-centric government and maybe the Labor opposition, too.

I ask—in fact, I implore—politicians here today to take a good hard look at the people in the gallery. They are the ones you as a government are letting down, not because you have not implemented your policy and not because they will not be voting for you at the next election, but because you failed at the most basic level: you have not bothered to listen, to genuinely listen, to the concerns that they have raised. You hear what they say, but you do not listen. That is all they have been asking for.

We have heard about the number of reports that apparently have or have not been made to the commission, but we ignore the fact that, in one case alone, there are at least 230 submissions that have been made in the Crystal Brook case. There are 230 submissions that have been made by the local community in opposition to that wind farm, but apparently there is nobody saying that they do not support these wind farms.

The purpose of this motion is that SA-Best is asking the government to implement what they said they would do in opposition, something that has fallen on deaf ears now that they are in government. We throw about names of usual suspects in a discourteous and disrespectful manner: the antagonist, the troublemakers, the wind farm sceptics, but we do little to actually listen to those individuals. They are simply community members who are worried sick about their family's future. They are worried sick that, despite having the support of the vast majority of their own communities, when it comes to their representatives in parliament their concerns continue to fall on deaf ears. They are the people you are letting down, failing, not me. It is an absolute disgrace.

Yesterday, four of your regional members crossed the floor over your very own proposed mining bill. There is nothing like a bill to refocus our attention. It is a pity that this motion could not be done in the other place to focus the attention of the mining minister, the planning minister, the environment minister and some of their colleagues, the very same MPs who made all the right noises in opposition but who are now backpedalling at a rate of knots.

There are a lot of naysayers and deniers out there who are very critical of those opposed to wind farms, those they call 'the crazies'. On a personal level, this is probably the most divisive issue I have confronted since being sworn into this place earlier this year. As I said, we support renewable energies, and I will repeat it again: we support wind farms. Our track record in relation to renewables speaks volumes to that end. There are no climate sceptics in SA-Best, but we are willing to listen to our communities and we must ensure that appropriate laws and guidelines are commensurate with advances in wind farm technologies and generation capacities.

I know that I have taken up more of the chamber's time than I ought to. I do have a very lengthy response that I would like to table in relation to Mr Clarke's email to me and the comments that we have from a renowned leading Australian expert in acoustics. I seek leave to table that correspondence.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In closing, I end on this note: I will happily stand side by side with those community residents who are mocked for being opposed to wind farms, because as the old saying goes—and unlike other politicians I will not attempt to attribute this quote to anyone in particular—first they ignore you, then they say you are mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no clapping in the chamber.

The council divided on the motion:

While the division bells were ringing:

The PRESIDENT: The person with the sign, put it away, otherwise you will be thrown out of the chamber.

Ayes 2

Noes 19

Majority 17

AYES
Bonaros, C. (teller) Pangallo, F.
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T.
Parnell, M.C. Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W.
Scriven, C.M. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P.

At 18:48 the council adjourned until Thursday 28 November 2018 at 11:00.

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