Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to draw the House's attention to a Federal Court judgement. It was a judgement of Justice Wigney, delivered on 15 July of this year, in the case of Pabai Pabai & Anor v the Commonwealth of Australia. It's significant for a reason that I'll make clear. The case involved a group of Torres Strait Islanders who argued that the Commonwealth had been negligent in not protecting them from climate change. Justice Wigney, helpfully, summarised the government's defence in this case—the defence, by the way, that was authorised by this government via this government's Attorney-General. Justice Wigney said:

The Commonwealth, on the other hand, submitted that it had no control over the risk of harm to Torres Strait Islanders from the impacts of climate change. … It is not a problem over which Australia alone has any, or any significant control. … Australia's targets alone are unlikely to have any impact on climate change or the risks posed by its impacts.

Well, well, well. On the one hand we have a government that at question time and at every opportunity tells us that, if we don't pursue these unrealistic and unachievable carbon emissions reduction targets, then effectively we will be facing bushfires, cyclones and all manner of climate risks. But on the other hand, quietly, away in the Federal Court, instructions are provided to counsel to make the very opposite submissions. I repeat:

The Commonwealth, on the other hand, submitted—

in a court no less, the Federal Court of Australia—

that it had no control over the risk of harm to Torres Strait Islanders …

This is a government that believes deeply in the maxim of 'do as we say, not as we do'. This has laid bare the hypocrisy of those opposite. I look forward to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—if he can keep the lights on during question time—advising the House of how it is that the government made that submission to the Federal Court, when its rhetoric both at question time and at every other opportunity is directly the opposite.

I also rise to draw the attention of the House—courtesy of a whistleblower in my electorate—to a proposed wind farm at Keilira in the south-east of South Australia and to highlight what I think are some true costs. The proposal would see 80 to 100 turbines of between five and seven megawatts rolled out across an 18,000-hectare patch—landholders have been contacted—and it would involve not only the turbines but also a high-voltage transmission line. The problem is the high-voltage transmission line doesn't exist. It would require a new 300-kilometre double-circuit 275 kV line from Mount Gambier to Tailem Bend, effectively. This proposal is south-east stage 2. ElectraNet previously built stage 1, Tungkillo to Tailem Bend, at a cost of $1.45 billion. That means this project would run to $5 billion to $6 billion. So, if constituents are wondering, the power bills are going up because these are the kinds of projects that have to be paid for.

I'm concerned, in particular, that there's no rehabilitation bond required in these projects, unlike mining and gas projects. I'm concerned that the developer and, ultimately, the asset owner may not be liquid at the time that these turbines ultimately fall into disrepair. Others in this place have made clear that the cost per turbine for decommissioning, in today's dollars, ranges from a quarter of a million dollars to a million dollars.

Of course, we know of the risks. There's blade rot, blade shear, PFAS chemicals, lubricants et cetera. We heard this week in this place that asbestos is present in some of the wind farm brakes. There have been concerns raised by Livestock SA, and I share those concerns. The bottom line that I want to deliver directly to potential hosts of these assets is: insist on a rehabilitation bond; get independent legal advice, and that doesn't mean speaking to the developer's lawyer; do your homework; and demand guarantees around soil, water and livestock protection. This is your asset, and you must take action to protect it.

Question agreed to.

Feder ation Chamber adjourned at 11:37

See this speech in context