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

There are moments in our nation's history when opportunities have been seized which were critical to our country's long-term prosperity and the quality of life of our citizens. We are at another of those tipping points right now. As a result of the actions of this government we are starting to make real strides in clean energy industries, real gains. Investments are up and emissions are being reduced. There is innovation, employment, diversification and a transition away from such a heavy reliance on older, polluting industries. It is why this debate about wind energy and other sources of renewable energy is so important. It is why the renewable energy targets are so important, and it beggars belief that there are those in this place who would try to turn back this transition to a clean energy economy.

Bipartisan support for Australia's renewable energy targets is essential to reducing carbon emissions in our electricity sector. Sensible, rational policy debate is essential at a time when clean energy presents our nation with both economic opportunities and the chance to play a part in responding to a global solution to climate change. If we cannot have bipartisan support, let us at least have honesty in the debate. Let us not have people hiding behind junk science and puffed-up claims that are simply not borne out by credible evidence. Let us acknowledge that opposition to renewable energy and opposition to wind energy is almost entirely ideological.

Let us have the debate that I suspect so many of those opposite, in fact, want to have but cannot have because they will look like the fringe dwellers that they are. It is the debate in which they come out and say what we know they want to say, that they think climate change is not real. Let them say what they want to say—that they do not believe that human beings have an impact on climate change, that they do not believe in renewable energy and do not want to support it, that they really want to stick with exclusive reliance on older polluting sources of energy without any change. But they will not be upfront. They will hide behind the junk science and the anti-wind farm scare campaign because at least some members of their party room realise that renewable energy has mainstream support in this country, so they cannot completely attack it.

Sometimes you do get a glimmer of what they really think. For instance, we know that last week the opposition leader's proposed business adviser Maurice Newman is reported by the Guardian Australia to have described support for renewable energy as 'a crime against the people'. Mr Newman, who I understand is to chair the coalition's proposed business advisory council, is reported to have rejected the science of climate change and to want the renewable energy target scrapped entirely. We know that there are comparable calls to scrap the renewable energy target entirely from people like Senator Ron Boswell and the candidate for Hume and the member for Hume. So sometimes we get to see the real debate, the debate that they want to have.

This resolution recognises wind energy as an important and safe source of renewable energy. It recognises that wind energy does and will play a critical role in enabling Australia to meet its existing renewable energy targets and those targets are important.

But there are others who say that wind energy generation is a hazard. There is a contention from some that exposure to noise from wind farms produces a cluster of symptoms which has been called wind turbine syndrome. The National Health and Medical Research Council has an ongoing agenda which involves looking into the possible health effects of wind farms. The NHMRC's Wind Turbines and Health report in July 2010 considered that the so-called 'wind turbine syndrome' is based mainly on the work of one individual whose assertions were then yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and had been heavily criticised by acoustic specialists.

Notwithstanding that, let us have a look at what are raised as health impacts and what some other people have had to say about them. These concerns appear to relate to long-term exposure to infrasound—that is, very low frequency vibrations below the threshold of hearing—and exposure to continuous noise, to intermittent audible sound and to flickering from blades. The NHMRC's 2010 report points out that infrasound is not new nor is it solely connected with wind turbines. It is constantly present in the environment being caused by air turbulence, ocean waves, some ventilation units in buildings, aircraft and some road vehicles and some sorts of machinery.

A report by the South Australian EPA in January this year has also found that infrasound from wind farms is 'no greater' than infrasound in other rural environments. The South Australian EPA has said:

… the contribution of wind turbines to the measured infrasound levels is insignificant in comparison with the background level of infrasound in the environment.

Let us also have a look at a paper prepared in January 2012 for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health which looked at aspects of wind turbines that have been reported to cause health effects. According to the authors of the paper:

… the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental problems.

It goes on to say:

There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterised as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome."

Closer to home we have a recent journal article by the Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Simon Chapman, which tried to determine the basis for claims that wind turbines are associated with something called 'vibroacoustic disease'. Indeed, his research found that only a small proportion of residents living near turbines do actually complain and, when they do, the complaints seem to bear a correlation with the campaigning of anti-wind energy groups. The report notes that vibroacoustic disease:

… has received virtually no scientific recognition beyond the group who coined and promoted the concept. There is no evidence of even rudimentary quality that vibroacoustic disease is associated with or caused by wind turbines.

He goes on to say:

The claim that wind turbines cause VAD is a factoid that has gone 'viral' in cyber space and may be contributing to nocebo effects among those living near turbines.

Before I inevitably become a target for complainants I should say that I do not doubt the sincerity with which so many people hold the belief that they are the subject of so-called wind turbine syndrome or vibroacoustic disease. My complaint is not with those who consider themselves affected by wind turbines in some deleterious though unspecified way. To those people I say this: the NHMRC is already charged with investigating public health impacts. It is a reputable and an impartial body. This is the correct body to be considering your concerns. In addition, if it is actually an objection to development near your property, then that is another issue entirely.

My complaint is with those who would seek to use unsubstantiated claims about these ailments in order to advocate to stop an important source of renewable energy. Wind energy has accounted for approximately 38 per cent of all renewable capacity installed since 2000. It has attracted over $5 billion in investment directly in Australia since 2001 and it is expected to continue to be a very significant contributor to our renewable energy mix. But this is just to speak of one source of renewable energy. This government's agenda has been to foster growth in renewable energy overall. And so it is troubling that the opposition now seems to be backing away from the RET. The Renewable Energy Target scheme is, as members will know, designed to ensure the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. In March this year the government released our response to the Climate Change Authority's review of the Renewable Energy Target. We confirmed that the 41,000 gigawatt hours large-scale target should remain and that this is likely to result in us exceeding 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020—it is a great thing.

However, the coalition has not indicated its full support for the full legislative target and has shown no willingness to exceed 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. In fact, fairly recently on radio in Adelaide the opposition leader expressed his concerns about the current Renewable Energy Target exceeding 20 per cent by 2020 and called for yet another review as early as 2014. This is in addition to the comments by the proposed chair of his business advisory council, which I referred to earlier, and the comments of opposition members undercutting the RET and in opposition to renewable energy sources. Now, the coalition regularly bangs on about sovereign risk, but not when it comes to renewable energy investment, not when it is out there talking about scrapping or watering down the legislated RET, not when it is out there talking about repealing the carbon price, abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and duplicating state and territory planning requirements over windfarm noise. It fails to acknowledge that all of this poses a considerable risk for renewable energy investment certainty in Australia.

All the while, wind energy has been a significant contributor to our renewable energy mix and I am pleased this evening be able to speak in favour of renewable energy as a whole, the RET and wind energy. So let us see who on the opposition benches stands alongside the anti-windfarm campaign and who recognises the need for credible, responsible political parties in this country to stand up for renewable energy for the good of our country. If this is ideological, then say so. If this is just about constituents who do not want development in their backyard, say so. Do not jeopardise a clean energy— (Time expired)

See this speech in context