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

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 17, page 21 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(d), and without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if any part of the area is in any of the following marine parks:

(a) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

(b) the Coral Sea Marine Park;

(c) the Hunter Marine Park;

(d) the Solitary Islands Marine Park;

(e) the Murray Marine Park;

(f) the Boags Marine Park;

(g) the Franklin Marine Park;

(h) the Zeehan Marine Park;

(i) the Perth Canyon Marine Park;

(j) the South West Corner Marine Park.

We've seen over recent months and recent years a mass delusion come across the nation in many aspects of policy, and catastrophic mistakes have been made. Therefore, I propose to ensure that we allow the development of offshore wind wherever it is economically viable but protect our sensitive environmental zones. Therefore, I propose and would like to read out the amendment:

… without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if any part of the area is in any of the following marine parks:

(a) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

(b) the Coral Sea Marine Park;

(c) the Hunter Marine Park;

(d) the Solitary Islands Marine Park;

(e) the Murray Marine Park;

(f) the Boags Marine Park;

(g) the Franklin Marine Park;

(h) the Zeehan Marine Park;

(i) the Perth Canyon Marine Park;

(j) the South West Corner Marine Park.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect the marine parks that we have around our coastal waters so that large industrial scale wind turbines up to 260 metres high and made of steel and fibreglass cannot be built in those areas and cannot be bolted down in the seabed in a marine park. This is the opportunity for members of this House to stand up and show they truly want to protect those marine parks that we have, those magnificent marine parks around our nation. They should be free of these large-scale industrial wind turbines. I commend this amendment to the House, and I would hope that it has full support.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the United Australia Party amendment (1) be disagreed to.

Question agreed to, Mr Kelly voting no.

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

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Clause 17, page 21 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert:

(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(d), and without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if, were a wind turbine to be constructed or installed at any location in that area, the turbine or any part of it (for example, its blades) would be visible from any part of the following beaches:

(a) the Gold Coast's Main Beach, Coolangatta Beach or any beach in between them;

(b) Newcastle's Stockton Beach, Merewether Beach or any beach in between them, including Newcastle Beach and Nobby's Beach;

(c) Sydney's Palm Beach, Stanwell Park Beach or any beach in between them, including Manly Beach, Bondi Beach, Bronte Beach, Coogee Beach, Maroubra Beach, Wanda Beach, Elouera Beach, North Cronulla Beach, Cronulla Beach and Garie Beach;

(d) any other Australian beach that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliated surf life saving clubs.

We also need to avoid the catastrophic mistakes that we make when we suffer from groupthink and delusion. The purpose of amendment (2) is to protect our magnificent beaches and the vistas that they have around the nation. These beaches are among our greatest tourist assets. People from around the world come and see the beautiful crystal-clear waters of our beaches and look out in the morning and see the magnificent sunrises on our east coast and the magnificent sunsets on our west coast. I do not want to see a situation where someone goes out and looks at one of those magnificent sunrises or sunsets and sees across the horizon giant industrial structures 260 metres high sticking out. That would be visual pollution and would create far more environmental harm than any benefit that we would get. The purpose of amendment (2) is to protect our magnificent beaches from being despoiled by large industrial wind turbines up to 260 metres high. I'll read out the amendment:

… without limiting the circumstances in which an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, an area is not suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure if, were a wind turbine to be constructed or installed at any location in that area, the turbine or any part of it (for example, its blades) would be visible from any part of the following beaches:

(a) the Gold Coast's Main Beach, Coolangatta Beach or any beach in between them;

I'm sure no-one wants to go to the Gold Coast and look out across the magnificent natural beaches and see giant industrial wind turbines on the horizon. The amendment goes on:

(b) Newcastle's Stockton Beach, Merewether Beach or any beach in between them, including Newcastle Beach and Nobby's Beach;

I would hope that the member for Newcastle would support this amendment, because, if the member for Newcastle doesn't support this amendment, she is sending a message to her constituents that she is happy to see large industrial wind turbines built off Newcastle's beaches. The amendment continues:

(c) Sydney's Palm Beach, Stanwell Park Beach or any beach between them, including Manly Beach, Bondi Beach, Bronte Beach, Coogee Beach, Maroubra Beach, Wanda Beach, Elouera Beach, North Cronulla Beach, Cronulla Beach or Garie Beach;

The member for Kingsford Smith is in the chamber, and I know he is a keen surfer and a keen supporter of surf lifesaving clubs. He should support this amendment because it would send a message to the people who love those beautiful beaches in the eastern suburbs that they are not going to be spoiled by having these giant metal and fibreglass installations, up to 260 metres high, installed off them. The amendment continues:

(d) any other Australian beach that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliated surf life saving clubs.

This would mean that, if there is a beach in this country that is patrolled by Surf Life Saving Australia or its affiliates where people go to enjoy the magnificent, beautiful coastal waters of Australia, those views will not be spoiled by giant industrial wind turbines visible off the coast of those beaches. I would hope every member of parliament who loves our beaches, who loves our natural environment, would support this amendment, especially those members of parliament who have coastal regions and beaches in their area. I'm sure that they could then go back to their constituents and tell their constituents: 'I stood up to protect our environment. I voted to ensure that there would be no giant industrial wind turbines off our beaches.' That is the opportunity that I'm giving every member of this parliament. I'm going to stand up to protect the beauty of our natural beaches. I hope the rest of this House supports this amendment.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to, Mr Kelly dissenting.

The question now is that this bill be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.