Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will continue. Renewable energy certificates have enabled developers of wind farms to maximise their returns. Because of the commitment to the 20 per cent target, we have seen, as I said, this proliferation of wind farms in South Australia and this has seen our state pass the 2020 target in the year 2012. So we are eight years ahead of everybody else.

Senator Boswell interjecting—

I am not sure. There are a lot of reasons that we can attribute that to. So concerned was the South Australian community that my state Liberal colleague David Ridgway MLC, who was the shadow minister for urban development at the time, commissioned an inquiry into the activities of and the lax planning laws for wind farms in that state. Last year, the South Australian state planning minister brought in an interim change to the planning rules governing wind farms, which basically meant that it was a free-for-all for wind farm developers. The change allowed turbines to be built just one kilometre from people's homes and stopped people from being able to use existing laws to stop developments close to their home. The minister took away appeal rights. The minister has made an interim regulation in response to court action taken by a landowner against a wind farm proposal in the state's south-east. The court found in favour of the landowner and the development was dropped. We have a Labor minister in South Australia who is so keen to support the federal Labor Party in the proliferation of wind farms that he is prepared to give up his constituency in an effort to be the golden-haired boy amongst his federal parliamentary colleagues.

Wind farm developers have concentrated on South Australia because of the lax planning regulations and the absolutely unfettered ability to get approvals in that state, and this has been a fault of the Rann-Weatherill Labor government. The guidelines have left South Australia out on its own—out there as an absolute beacon of light for those who want to proliferate the development of wind farms in this country. In relation to that heavy hand of government coming down on people in the south-east of South Australia, the Law Society, when providing evidence to the committee of inquiry into these regulations, shared their deep concern about the power that the planning minister had used in setting up interim regulations. Disturbingly, they provided the minister with unrestrained powers to override the community when approving wind farm developments. No wonder there is deep suspicion and deep division within all communities—particularly in South Australia because we have had much of this development.

Politics is not above people, and if people are continually rallying, as they did in Middleton some two Sundays ago, and are wanting to be heard and are failing to be heard by governments then that is a hallmark of a government out of touch. Why can't and why wouldn't the government support the coalition's amendment to have a proper review of this science? I urge governments of all persuasions to have a look at the economics of it to just see if there is potential market failure. We see a procession of superannuation funds—basically those superannuation funds which are controlled by boards of management or have on them directors with trade union backgrounds—that are all flocking to government sponsored policy which protects investment. We have all found in the past that anything a government gives it can take away. So with the subsidies that exist for renewable energies we have to be very careful that we do not get a distortion of one energy type which can then be taken away by another government. What would happen to the economics of wind farms and wind farm developments if they did not receive a rebate for the purchase of renewable energy certificates? They would collapse. This is the problem with creating a business based on subsidies from governments.

The renewable energy target and the subsidies that go with it are relatively well protected because, generally, it is accepted by all in this parliament that we have to have a target for it. But what happens when governments of the ilk that we have in this country run out of money because of rising debt and mismanagement of the budget? Actually, where is Treasurer Swan at the moment? We have not seen him around for weeks now. He is probably lost out in the western suburbs of Sydney, I suspect, trying to find his fearless leader.

We have a reckless government with a cavalier attitude to their budget. On Christmas Eve, they said: 'That surplus we promised? It's not going to be there. Happy Christmas!' What happens to government policies where they subsidise things—and that it is the case with renewable energy—is that they tend to review them when they run out of money: 'How can we pull back? How can we restrain spending?' That is the risk for the Australian people with anything that is government sponsored welfare, if you like—if it receives a subsidy, a payment. Anything that happens with a change of government policy will see those wind farms stand silent—which is what they have to do, if I may digress, when it is a little bit too hot or, ironically, when the wind is blowing too hard. They have to be switched off.

There are many, many aspects to this whole wind farm debate. I am passionate about it. I know people whose health is affected. There are real people whose lives are affected through the regulation and the lack of compassion or understanding. This bulldozer style is typical of socialistic governments, where they just mandate laws without any consultation. I think they commonly call it 'announce and defend'.

A lot of people, including senators opposite, say that wind is wonderful and it does not increase the cost of living. They say that the carbon tax is a magic pudding for all of us and that, while we export jobs, we will all get healthier. Senator Di Natale attributed the deaths of many people to climate change. I guess that Dorothea Mackellar was a visionary. She must have been a visionary because she spoke all that time ago of the effects on this land of 'droughts and flooding rains'—long before the coal fired power stations that you talk of as the evil of this country came into effect. I urge you to support the coalition's proposed amendment.