John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that in September 2004, just prior to the last election, he issued a press release in which he stated:

The people of Gippsland who are opposed to the Bald Hills wind project should carefully consider their vote if they want a say in the future of their local area with respect to wind farms ...

Can the minister also confirm that after the election he tried to justify blocking Bald Hills on the grounds that ‘the special problem they’ve got here is that the state government have chosen to remove planning controls from local councils’? Don’t these statements show that the minister’s opposition to the Bald Hills wind farm had nothing to do with orange-bellied parrots and everything to do with marginal seat electioneering? Did the minister spend 450 days searching for an excuse to block the Bald Hills project—an excuse which eventually came in the form of a parrot?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer, broadly speaking, is no.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said in answer to another question from—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just a dead duck. It is not a dead parrot; it is a dead duck.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr and other senators on my left, the minister has had nine seconds to speak and immediately we have this tirade from my left. I ask you to come to order and allow the minister to answer the question.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to a question from one of Senator Faulkner’s comrades I have said that the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage advised that we should get a report on cumulative impacts. That report identified four birds that would be at risk through wind farm development. They include wedge-tailed eagles. That is the species that Mr Hulls used to stop a wind farm at Ballan only a few months ago, even though the report that he relied on and the report that I relied on said that wedge-tailed eagles are in fact abundant and, although they will get killed by wind turbines, they are resilient enough and in large enough numbers not to be threatened by them.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not in Tasmania.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not in Tasmania, Senator Brown. Before you joined us, I was advising the Senate that three wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania have been killed in the last three months—one a month, when the predictions that were done showed that only one a year would die. The Victorian government’s report said to Mr Hulls—this is the secret report he refuses to release—that you should take a conservative approach to these critically threatened species. The report also looked at the white-bellied sea eagle. It said that, yes, white-bellied sea eagles will get killed by these blades but, again, the species is abundant enough for that not to threaten that species any further. It also looked at the swift parrot and said that although swift parrots will be killed by these blades—and the prediction is that over 100 birds a year will be killed—they were resilient enough and abundant enough not to be threatened. In relation to the orange-bellied parrot, there are only 50 breeding pairs left in the world. It is a species that is described by the Victorian government’s own department, on its website, as being in as precarious a state as the Siberian tiger and the polar bear. This report said that wind farms would hasten the extinction of that species.

We know that Labor have all sorts of problems on climate change policy. You have had a backflip from Mr Beazley in relation to climate change policy. We know that renewable energy can make a contribution to solving the issue of climate change. We know that wind power can make a contribution. My view, however, is that if you want to develop wind power successfully in Australia you ensure that local communities have a say in it. You do not do as Mr Hulls has done in Victoria and as Ms MacTiernan is doing in Western Australia: ride roughshod over the views of local communities. I think it is incredibly important that local communities have a say in this, particularly if, for every two wind turbines you see turning in Gippsland now you will see five under the Latham-Beazley policy of support for wind farms.

That is a fact. It is not politics; it is a fact. Under the Latham-Beazley model you will get five wind turbines for every two under the Liberals’ policy. That is the reality. If Senator Faulkner wants to call that politics, he can call it what he wants, but that is a reality. The people of Gippsland are very concerned about their landscape. They are very concerned about their unique Australian flora and fauna. The reality is that you can save threatened species and have a climate change policy that stops the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. You can actually do both if you take a constructive approach and do not play politics with it, as Labor has done on this.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that answer, Minister, can you confirm that in April this year you threatened to ‘unilaterally extend federal powers’ to allow you to veto wind farm proposals on the grounds of local opposition? Given the minister’s failure to get any state to agree to his national code, will the minister now carry out that threat? Minister, can you now explain to the Senate exactly what powers you will be unilaterally extending and what section of the Constitution you will be relying on?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made it quite clear to the states that if you want to build a climate change policy that has wind as part of the renewables response to it, you cannot have state Labor governments continuing to ride roughshod over the views of local communities. You need to engage them.

In Western Australia, the new Minister for the Environment, Mr McGowan, said at a recent meeting of environment ministers: ‘Sometimes you have got to roll over the local community’—as he sought to do in the town of Denmark in Western Australia, and as Mr Hulls has done in Gippsland. He said to local communities, ‘You cannot have a say.’ The approach is to build a set of guidelines to ensure that communities have a say in the future of their communities. We know that Labor is opposed to that. We know that, down in Gippsland, for every two wind turbines that will be built under this government, they will build five. And they will do it without any reference to the views of local communities.