Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this motion this evening. It is a matter of some considerable interest to me as a Victorian and as someone who is very interested in the development of clean energy industries. I know certainly that for this government the promotion of clean energy industries is something that we regard as critical in order to develop a sustainable, healthy and safe energy future for our country. It is for this reason that I was very pleased to speak in favour of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill last sitting week.

As part of the clean energy mix, wind farms have a very important role to play in achieving the government's target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. Increased renewable energy, along with energy efficiency and putting a price on carbon are each fundamental to our clean energy future. The renewable energy target is of course designed to ensure that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. It is an important means to change our energy generation mix and to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions.

Last Friday, 15 June, was Global Wind Day. It is an international event coordinated by the Global Wind Energy Council and is designed to raise awareness of the value of wind energy worldwide. On the same day here in Australia, it is important to note, the Clean Energy Council released the findings of a very significant new report undertaken by Sinclair Knight Merz, on its behalf, into the economic benefits of wind farms. The study found a great many things, and I commend it to members to read. It found, for example, that $4.25 billion has so far been invested in Australia in wind power projects and that there is a potential for a further $17.8 billion to be invested locally in wind power through a variety of proposed wind farms. Australian investment includes manufacturing of towers that support the wind turbine generators and blades; and the civil, electrical and other site works, amongst a range of other things. Importantly, the study found that the construction of a 50-megawatt wind farm would provide a gross value-add of around $50 million to a state and could contribute between 0.012 per cent and 0.21 per cent to gross state product, depending on the size of the state economy.

In terms of employment the study found that the same size wind farm could generate around 238 jobs nationally through direct employment in its construction and total employment of around 795 full-time equivalent jobs directly and indirectly during the course of construction. In addition to that, the report estimates that a wind farm of the same capacity could generate 16 full-time equivalent jobs directly and 44 jobs in total as a result of its ongoing operation—that is, a single wind farm.

The report estimates that the current direct employment in the industry could be as much as 2,300 full-time equivalents and total employment—that is, both direct and indirect employment—could reach around 6,900 full-time equivalents. It is an extraordinary number of people who are currently employed in the industry.

As I mentioned earlier, Australia has committed to having 20 per cent of its energy supply from renewable sources by 2020. It has also committed to a carbon reduction of between five per cent and 15 per cent—or 25 per cent below 2000 levels—by 2020. The five per cent target, as we all know, is unconditional. If we are to achieve this we need wind energy in our renewable energy mix.

The report I mentioned by Sinclair Knight Merz mentions the current status of wind farm investment, employment and carbon abatement. It found that the average abatement achieved by 100-megawatt wind farm developments across Australia is around 246,200 tonnes per annum. That is the equivalent of taking around 57,000 cars off our roads. No doubt, members will join with me in supporting wind farms and wind energy as a means to significantly reduce our carbon emissions and achieve the targets that we seemingly all have signed up for, even those sitting across the chamber from us.

The expansion of Australia's wind energy industry is of critical importance in promoting Australia's energy security while decreasing pollution. It is in that context that I am extremely disappointed with the planning arrangements that have been put in place arbitrarily, without consultation and without regard to the future generation of wind energy in Australia by the Victorian government. The damage that can be done to the future growth of wind farms in Australia through unreasonable planning restrictions has been demonstrated by the actions of the Victorian government. Since coming to office in 2011 this government has sent a clear message to the wind farm sector, and that is that it is not welcome. They have done this by introducing excessive planning restrictions on wind farm development through the Victorian government's new planning amendment VC82. The major change of this amendment is that wind farms cannot be built within two kilometres of an existing dwelling without the written consent of the owner. That means that a single objector has been given a veto on all wind farm developments within two kilometres of their dwelling. This is referred to as the two-kilometre setback. There are also five-kilometre dead zones—areas where wind farms are prohibited, even if everyone in that community supports a wind farm. It is quite extraordinary.

They have also listed an extensive maze of wind farm buffers and bans which specifically exclude whole sections of the state of Victoria. When you add these restrictions together you can see that the state government is trying to strangle the wind farm renewable sector in Victoria. These are extreme and have gone much too far. They have been rightly reported to be Australia's most restrictive planning laws for wind farms.

The devastating effect of this policy has been estimated by industry consultants Carbon Market Economics, who have concluded that this policy could mean that between 50 per cent to 70 per cent of proposed wind farms would not be developed in the state of Victoria. And much of that investment is in regional Victoria, so it is extraordinary to me that members of the National Party, of all parties in this place, should be supporting these sorts of measures. Global wind farm developer, Windlab, has closed down its Melbourne office, moving its operations to Canberra, blaming the restrictive new Victorian planning laws. Windlab's general manager, Mr Nathan Steggel, said that the Victorian government's planning laws had gone too far and made it 'difficult to develop projects in Victoria'. Pacific Hydro's general manager, Mr Lane Crockett, is on the record as stating, 'Unfortunately, these new wind farm laws will hold Victoria back while other states power ahead.' The ridiculous nature of these restrictions is further emphasised by the comments of the head of the world's largest wind energy company, Vestas, Mr Ditlev Engel, who is reported as saying that he has no idea where the government's new restrictions come from or what they are based on.

The impact on clean energy generation from this action will be to freeze output. The Victorian government's own Department of Primary Industries forecasts that, over the term of the current Victorian government, there will not be any additional wind-generated power put into the grid. So not only is this likely to threaten jobs and future investment but also it obviously puts under pressure the renewable energy targets that Australia has set and the emissions abatement targets that it continues to set.

The Victorian government has also imposed additional administrative and specialist costs on local government as part of its new approval regime for wind farms in Victoria. These are new costs for noise and engineering experts, lawyers and accountants, and no doubt they will flow on to ratepayers through their rates. I know that many regional councils have already voiced their opposition to this considerable cost-shifting and the imposition of red tape on industry and job development. We hear regularly from those opposite about the damaging effects of introducing red tape in industry development, yet extraordinarily we have people here this evening who no doubt will be supporting the Baillieu government's attempts to restrict the wind farm industry. It is really a drastic restriction on industry, and it needs to be said that it was done with minimal public scrutiny. It was done originally without legislation—just a decision by the Liberal Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, supported by his government.

I have mentioned this evening the very significant effects on industry development and jobs creation of the wind farm industry. It is extraordinary to me that, in a state which is struggling at the moment, we are not making better use of our opportunities to generate new industry, to generate clean energy industry and to support the regions, as those opposite would have us believe they do. It is extraordinary to me that we are putting in jeopardy jobs and revenue streams for farmers. There is much more that I could say on this, but for this evening I am afraid that that will suffice. I support the motion and I encourage other members to do likewise.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this motion moved by the member for La Trobe, for this motion gives the House an opportunity to take a reality check and to examine the effects and the costs of diverting our nation's scarce and precious resources into subsidising industrial wind farms. Firstly, far from state planning regulations being unreasonably restrictive on wind farm developments, as this motion claims, the states have so far abjectly failed to protect our rural communities, by having planning regulations and noise guidelines so lax as to be perfectly biased in favour of inappropriately sited wind farms. This motion displays a complete contempt for the rural people of Australia, many of whom are unlucky enough to be situated in areas where wind turbines could potentially be located.

Back in 2005, the United Nations Environment Program, with one of those 'the science is settled' predictions, asserted that global warming would create millions of climate change refugees. By 2010, it was said, these people would be forced to flee their homes because of rising sea levels from melting ice caps. Well, 2010 has come and gone and there has not been a single person made a climate refugee because of rising sea levels. However, here in Australia we now have some of the world's first climate refugees, forced to flee their homes not by rising sea levels but by government policies subsidising industrial wind turbines. Dr Sarah Laurie has documented over 20 Australian families who have been forced to flee their homes in Victoria alone because of wind turbine noise and infrasound. Dr Laurie states:

… current noise guidelines are completely inadequate to protect people's health because they do not involve measurement of infrasound and low frequency noise.

Today I received a letter from Mrs Pamela Connelly, an Australian climate change refugee forced to flee her home because of inadequate planning regulations which have allowed wind farms to be built too close to her home. I would like to read her letter:

I am writing to share with you our personal experience of living for three years alongside (1.2 km away) a Pacific Hydro wind turbine and more importantly the contrast after having lived away from them for 18 months.

The first time the turbines started to turn … imagine our shock of hearing a constant sort of jet engine/sonic boom whooshing sound and more annoyingly feeling a vibration sometimes in our chest bone every second or so.

When the turbines were at their worst, this noise continued day and night even through closed double glazed windows. I recall sitting on the couch on one of those earlier nights and amazed that not only could I clearly hear the turbines, but also feel the wave of vibrations every second or so through my whole body.

Another thing that increased very gradually was headaches, and in the last year or so I was taking Nurofen migraine tablets regularly … The headaches were sometimes so bad that unarmed with Nurofen, the migraines were completely debilitating … These headaches stopped straight away after moving away and in the past 18 months I have only taken two Nurofen tablets.

Mrs Connelly continues:

We asked at a meeting Pacific Hydro for written proof that it was safe for the health of us and more importantly our children but this could not be supplied.

On further questioning to Pacific Hydro at a meeting at our house we were told no further testing was needed—

and nothing could be done. She continues:

It is not until you move away from the turbines that you realise the profound effect that they had on you. You don't particularly connect the symptoms to the wind turbines because they very gradually build up over time and you put it down to co-incidence or anything as you really don't want to believe that staying where you love is making you unwell, it really only becomes clear in a short time after you leave the vicinity of the turbines how much of an effect they were having on you when the symptoms disappear.

So to the member who bought this motion I say, 'Shame,' for your motion seeks to inflict the type of pain and suffering experienced by Mrs Connelly on hundreds if not thousands of rural Australians and strip away their property rights and force them out of their homes.

This motion also farcically talks about considerable opportunities for increased employment in connection with the construction of wind turbines. This is a complete fallacy. Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants. Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seventeen billion.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies.

So what this motion actually seeks to do is to promote the interest of wind farm developers—either the union-controlled Pacific Hydro or foreign multinationals—at the expense of Australian families and businesses. The evidence from overseas is clear. While the member for La Trobe may talk about the wonderful jobs that they create, we also have to look at the jobs they destroy. The evidence, as I said, from overseas is clear: policies to subsidise wind and solar power have proven an absolute disaster in Germany, Denmark and Spain, where it has been calculated that, for every 'green' job that is created, in the real economy it has destroyed 2.2 jobs. A recent Verso study in the UK has found these types of subsidies destroy 3.7 jobs for every green job created. It is clear—for every wind turbine constructed in our country, jobs are lost, our nation's prosperity is reduced, we become less competitive and costs of living become higher. As Henry Ergas pointed out today:

NEXT year, each man, woman and child in this country will pay $450 in electricity charges for "green schemes"…

That totals, across the economy, $10 billion. For a mother raising three young kids, that is $1,800 it will cost them in the next year alone in electricity prices.

We need to consider the opportunity costs of subsidising hopelessly inefficient wind turbines. We live in a world where billions go to bed hungry at night. We live in a world where millions will die this year from particulate and water pollution. We in this parliament have to try and find $8 billion a year to fund our National Disability Insurance Scheme. No-one will ever know what new products, what new processes or what medical breakthroughs will have failed to come into existence, killed before they were born, because of the diversion of our nation's precious, valuable resources into wind turbines. No-one will ever be able to compute the price that we all will pay for this public policy failure, keeping our standard of living lower than it would otherwise have been.

And for what? What is this for; what is the entire point? Well, members on the other side often regurgitate that delusional phrase: 'We are taking action on climate change.' Firstly, we need to be clear how little power wind turbines actually produce. You would need 3,500 giant steel windmills to produce the equivalent output of one single, medium-sized conventional coal or gas fired power station. Secondly, even if we built these 3,500 steel windmills, we would still need a gas fired power station as a backup—for when the wind doesn't blow, the power doesn't flow. It is that simple. And of course any gas fired backup power station needs to be ramped up and down to compensate for the intermittency of the wind. A gas fired plant runs inefficiently, burning more gas and having a shorter life span than a plant which is just working normally. It is like a car battling through heavy traffic—less fuel efficiency and more wear and tear. Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently.

We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health. That is what this motion seeks to do. By any analysis, this motion is to support a public policy disaster. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to express my support for the motion moved by the member for La Trobe reaffirming the parliament's commitment to the promotion of clean energy industries and the importance of wind energy as a renewable energy source. I refer the member for Hughes to the Wind turbine health impact study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, whose epidemiological studies suggest no association between wind turbine noise and psychological or other distress. As for this question of needing backup sources of power, I do not know whether the member for Hughes is aware of it or not, but there is such a thing as a national electricity grid which serves to ensure that renewable energy sources are used to maximum effect. Wind power is a significant component of any effective response to climate change. Building more wind farms will help facilitate the structural change we need to become a low-carbon economy.

It is with great concern, then, that I note that the Victorian Baillieu government is imposing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. Its changes extend considerably the areas to be excluded from wind farm development in Victoria. In effect, they create wind farm no-go zones. Wind energy facilities are to be excluded from such areas due to various concerns that they raise. Quite remarkably, proposed wind farm developments now need to obtain the written consent of any owner of a dwelling within two kilometres of any turbine. While the Baillieu government says that such amendments provide certainty, the amendments effectively create a presumption against wind farm development over a large part of Victoria. There will be negative consequences for investments in wind farm facilities. By creating many no-go zones for wind farm development in Victoria, the amendments will re-entrench existing patterns for energy transmission and generation and impact on Victoria's commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendments are also tarnished by the revelation that a Victorian Liberal MP, Simon Ramsay, lobbied against the wind farm if its developer, Acciona, did not meet a series of requests, including buying his family's Western District farm. He sought a string of concessions, including that the company pay him $66,000 to grow trees as a noise and visual screen, scrap all turbines within two kilometres of his home and pay for works, including the sealing of the local gravel road. Mr Ramsay represents western Victoria in the state upper house and made the demands in a letter to Acciona over its plan to erect to 63 turbines at Birregurra, near Colac. In the past, he had been a champion of wind farms and had in fact obtained permits for turbines on a parcel of land that he has since sold. His lobbying triggered allegations that he sought to use his political access for personal gain and that he may have failed to adequately notify parliament of his interest during key debates on new wind farm rules last year.

A new report by the accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers for Acciona finds that the Waubra wind farm has boosted the economy of its region, near Ballarat, by $346 million and has created nearly 1,700 jobs for the area. The modelling by PricewaterhouseCoopers finds that investment in the Waubra farm of $226 million has increased Victorian industry output by $685 million and created over 1,800 new full-time jobs. In New South Wales, investment of over $50 million in the construction and operation of the Gunning wind farm created over 350 full-time jobs in its region, reduced regional unemployment and added over $69 million to gross domestic product for the area.

Renewable energy infrastructure, construction and maintenance create more jobs per dollar invested than conventional power generation. The Baillieu government needs to rethink its new laws for wind farms, which will cost jobs and investment in regional Victoria, stunt the growth of the wind farm industry and damage the environment. It is a remarkable double standard that the Victorian government is giving landowners within two kilometres of wind farms an effective right of veto when in every other circumstances you can think of it is eroding local residents' rights to object to planning proposals. Not only do my constituents in Brunswick not have a power of veto over the planned expansion of the Brunswick electricity terminal station; the state government expressly moved in to override the decision of the Moreland City Council to reject the expansion.

I challenge the Victorian government to nominate any other piece of infrastructure—power stations, coalmines, freeways, airports—where every resident within two kilometres is required to agree before the project can proceed. There is none and it is a dead giveaway of the Victorian government's unreasoning and inexplicable hostility to wind power that it should be singled out for such treatment.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important for Australia to establish a sustainable, healthy and safe energy future, but we must ensure we do it without putting environmental measures before people and livelihoods. Support for wind power generation has been driven by a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a diversification of energy sources. A study by University of Edinburgh economics professor Gordon Hughes for the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that using wind turbines to cut emissions costs 10 times the price of a gas fired power station. Professor Hughes concluded that wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing carbon emissions compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible combined cycle gas plants.

Reg Brownell, of Australian Landscape Guardians in Victoria, a body committed to achieving better outcomes for natural and cultural landscape through the planning process, has stated that electricity from wind is four times as expensive as coal. He says that the cost of carbon saved is $500 a tonne compared with $15 a tonne by switching from coal to gas. Why then are those who portray themselves as being for the environment so eager to push the wind energy agenda?

Is it because these massive structures look like something is being done? Is it because they will not be erected in their own electorates? The green voters of Melbourne will not be seeing a wind turbine erected in the central city anytime soon, but they are more than happy to tell those in the country that wind turbines should be placed on their properties. I say, 'Shame on them.'

The placement of wind turbines on properties has an impact not only on a specific property, but also on surrounding properties and those people who live on them. It drives those properties' values down and if those living on them wish to move it is almost impossible to sell because no-one wishes to live on a property next to a wind farm. I am sure the member for La Trobe would not want that.

There are also serious concerns from people about the adverse health effects of wind turbine operation and these cases are starting to attract attention from medical professionals. A peer-reviewed study from Danish University researchers into wind turbine noise has found that newer, larger turbines are emitting lower frequency noise than older turbines. It is this low-frequency noise which has been the basis of many claims of adverse health effects for rural residents. Executive Director of the Australian Environment Foundation, Max Rheece, said this study has confirmed his anecdotal accounts of the effects of hundreds of 150-metre-tall wind turbines on rural communities and the health of residents. A number of Australian medical professionals including Ballarat's sleep physician, Dr Wayne Spring, and Dr Andja Mitric-Andjic, a rural general practitioner practising in Daylesford, have publicly highlighted their concerns about the health problems experienced by patients who live in the vicinity of wind turbine developments. They join Dr David Iser, the first Australian clinician to voice his concerns about wind turbines in 2004 based on a small study he conducted on patients living near the Toora wind development in South Gippsland, Victoria.

There have also been concerns raised about the increased fire risk wind turbines present through an inability to extinguish wind turbine fires. This is an unwelcome burden to many rural communities whose firefighters are nearly always solely volunteers.

It is important that strict planning restrictions are put in place regarding wind farms to ensure that they have a very minimal impact on people who will have to live near them, especially as studies prove that wind power is not the miracle answer to greenhouse gas emissions which it has been touted to be. I just wonder whether this government, because it is so beholden to the Greens, is pushing this agenda because it has been cobbled together by the Greens and that is what keeps them in power. The member for Hughes has highlighted how hopelessly inefficient and expensive wind turbines are and, as he said, when the wind does not blow the power does not flow.

There is a better way. The National Party room heard only tonight from the Buckwaroon Catchment Landcare Group which has got a wonderful Cobar regeneration model involving property vegetation plans. They get the litter from the ground and put it into a heat furnace and convert it into energy, and that is providing better grassland and energy prospects for the mining operations that they have near Cobar. There is a better way and it is certainly not wind turbines. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.