John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. The excessive noise from wind farms bill is important and necessary. The issues at stake are of vital importance to all Australians. There are matters of health, matters of proper regulation and matters of substantial increases in taxpayer funding. The excessive noise legislation is not an attack on the wind industry; it is not an attack on renewable energies. This bill is designed to provide appropriate regulation of wind farm noise, delivering some comfort to residents near wind farms. It will help deliver regulatory certainty to the wind industry. It will sort out the dog's breakfast that currently characterises wind farm noise regulation at state and territory levels. It will help ensure that the Commonwealth's renewable energy certificates scheme is supporting wind farm operators who do the right thing by the Australian public and filtering out those who do the wrong thing.

There are some who have stated that this bill has only come into existence because apparently Senator Xenophon and I are obsessed with wind farms. That accusation is half right. I will not speak for Senator Xenophon—I know he is more capable than I am to do that—but I will speak for myself. Am I obsessed? Yes. I am obsessed with the health and wellbeing of ordinary Australians. I am obsessed with good regulation and accountability. I am obsessed with full transparency and with exposing cover-ups. And I am obsessed with the protection of taxpayers' money. This bill is, in essence, about all of these things, but more directly it is about proper regulation and the necessity for compliance.

The following from Senator Rhiannon regarding the need for independent studies into the effects of coal seam gas could have been written for the wind industry. Senator Rhiannon stated:

The government should not take the industry's word for it because at the moment the studies that have been trotted out are from industry.

In her call for a moratorium on coal seam gas, Senator Waters declared that a moratorium must be done:

… until we understand better those risks that we are taking and those long-term impacts that we may have—potentially irreversible long-term impacts.

In the supertrawler debate Senator Waters was determined in her call that the onus of proof must be on the industry and saying that the supertrawlers:

… must be banned until the best possible science has proven that they are not causing the untold damage the community is so concerned about.

There is no call for a moratorium in this bill. There is no call to ban an industry here. What there is is a bill that fulfils the calls by the Greens senators for full accountability by industry—for thorough examination of the risks, and for community concerns and dangers to health to be put ahead of economics. This bill seeks to ensure that an industry that enjoys substantial taxpayer subsidies is properly regulated, transparent and is held just as accountable for its actions as any other industry in this country.

Through the Senate committee inquiry over the last few weeks we have substantiated that this legislation is not onerous on the wind industry relative to noise legislation regulating other Australian industries. In fact, wind farm operators would only be required to meet half the noise limit currently demanded of other industries. The excessive noise limit of other industries is set at a noise above background plus 5dBA compared to the proposed legislation before the wind industry, which is background noise plus10dBA. Ironically, the industries that manufacture wind farm components in Australia, few though they are, are compelled to comply with these noise levels that are lower than for the wind industry itself.

I can guarantee that there are few industries in this country that would not love to operate under a noise standard of background plus 10dBA. In fact, those who suggest the industry noise standards should be fair and even to all should consider that to do so would mean either increasing other industry levels to background plus 10dB(A) or reducing the wind industry's level to background plus 5dBA. But to insist that the wind industry follow the same noise levels as other industry is too much like attacking a sacred cow to many here. While regulating excessive noise, this legislation is not excessive overregulation.

Through the Senate committee of inquiry we have substantiated that other industries, such as the aviation sector, must provide real-time noise information to the Australian public. In the case of airports, anyone can at any time access real-time live-feed information readily from the internet. If you are interested, I would be happy to send you a link so you can check it out for yourself. This ensures transparency and accountability.

During the recent public hearing, Professor Simon Chapman, who, while not an a medical expert and cannot be expected to provide an expert opinion on matters of health relating to excessive noise, made a valuable contribution regarding transparency. When asked:

… do you have an issue with that level of transparency in terms of the proponents of wind farms providing that information publicly?

Professor Chapman stated:

No, transparency is always a good thing—the right to information is a cardinal principle of a democracy, which good decision-making needs in order to take place.

Publicly available data helps displace worries and fears, eradicates the veracity of noise data being contested and supports independent checking and verification of noise data by the public. Unfortunately, despite statements by virtually every witness at the inquiry stating transparency is a good thing and that the provision of data is necessary, the wind industry sees it differently. In fact, the wind industry refuses to release information but then claims noise is not a problem, that it is all in the minds of local residents. They try to dignify this brush-off by calling it 'psychosocial' or a 'placebo effect'.

The best way the wind industry can prove that wind turbine noise is not a problem is by making public their noise reports and making publicly available real-time noise data. Just as Senator Waters suggested in the debate on the supertrawler, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the wind industry and not on the local residents or even on the regulator. Complaints means just that. All industry must comply with regulation whether they be the lepers of Australian industries, such as coal and uranium, or the sacred cows of the renewable industry—wind farms.

The industry must prove they are complying. It is not up to the local community and the taxpayers to prove they are not. The industry's refusal to release noise data does not support their case; it works against it. Why are they hiding the noise data? 'Commercial-in-confidence' is the most common excuse. 'Commercial-in-confidence', 'sovereign risk' and 'peer-reviewed' are expressions that seem to be used more and more—unfortunately, not for transparency but usually to keep something hidden or untouchable.

When I was young the expression 'scientific studies show' ended all debate. The wind industry's reply to requests for data generally ends the same way. 'We are compliant', they say, 'so why do we need the data?' In answer to their stoicism I will say the same thing that I have said since I was given this reply several years ago. If you are compliant you have nothing to fear by supplying the data. If you are compliant then all the more reason for it to be provided.

This industry, the wind industry, is in business for pretty much the same reason as any other business: profit. That is fine. All businesses are encouraged to make profits, to develop and to add to the local community and to the economy. But, while most industries in this country go about making their profits, they do so under regulations which they are required to comply with and which prohibit them from causing harm to the health of the community or the environment. Almost all of these industries are compliant with these regulations, and those that are not are penalised and expected to become compliant or close. But here we have an industry that does not believe it needs to prove its compliance. When asked repeatedly at the hearing whether they would make their data publicly available, the industry representatives could only respond that it would depend on what it was wanted for. When asked why they objected to the excessive noise level of background plus 10dBA, as stated in the bill, their response was that the state noise guidelines were regulation enough. In reply to Senator Xenophon's question on what constitutes excessive noise, Mr Upson from Infigen stated:

Excessive noise, by definition, is a noise above what the state noise limits are. If you are over that limit, then it is excessive. It is simple enough.

I agree that it is simple enough. If you operate below the noise level limits you are compliant; if you do not, you are not. But the problem here is: how do we know if you are compliant if you will not supply the data?

The wind industry, like all industries, protects its interests wherever possible. In order to continue getting substantial public subsidies and to enjoy the rewards of the renewable energy certificate scheme, they need to comply. If they do not comply, their profits and their RECs are in danger. But to allow any industry complete self-regulation is disastrous—and we all know it. Yet here we have one of the most heavily subsidised industries in the country and we cannot get them to agree that verifying their compliance is a necessary thing. We constantly hear criticism of the subsidies given to the vehicle-manufacturing industry, but not a word about subsidies of an industry that are so defensive about complying with a basic noise level. If there is no public scrutiny, there should be no public money. I ask again: what do they have to fear?

Surely the best defence for a multibillion-dollar industry wanting to protect their business is compliance. If the data is compliant, their case is won. Releasing the data will either verify their compliance or show their noncompliance. If it turns out that the wind industry are noncompliant then it is best we find out now and ensure the problem is fixed so that any and all future wind energy facilities are constructed to meet compliance. The data collection methodology could be checked, the data outcomes could be checked and an independent verdict could be achieved. This level of obstruction will inevitably lead to the idea that the wind energy industry are hiding something.

The Senate committee majority report recommends a peace offering that was initiated by Pacific Hydro. It recommends that noise information may be provided to an independent authority. This is the only offering from the majority report. It opposes all of the noise aspects of the bill. While the smallest gesture from the committee's majority goes a little way towards what is needed, it is not enough. It is a gesture in the right direction, but it is still only a gesture. The wind industry needs a regulatory environment that can and will protect members of the public and the environment from noise emissions. That will support and encourage good industry practice and, in doing so, help protect the reputation and investment prospects of this industry.

If the Senate Environment and Communication Legislation Committee were sincere in analysing this bill, committee members would have showed up to the public hearing. If the committee were sincere in wanting to protect an important plank of the federal government's emissions reduction policy, they would welcome the regulatory environment of the wind energy industry being put on a scientific, accountable, and open footing. Emissions reduction should be across the board—reducing greenhouse gas emissions and noise emissions from energy technologies.

During the day of the inquiry, we heard the mantra of the wind turbine manufacturers and wind turbine operators: 'This is a states rights issue. The states are doing a great job. Leave the current arrangements alone.' The reality is that wind does not discriminate on state lines. No two states or territories have the same standard or regulatory compliance and enforcement approach.

The inquiry heard from the Pyrenees local council, which has the Waubra wind farm in its municipality. Despite receiving numerous complaints about noise, the council cannot access noise reports submitted by the wind farm to the state regulator. The state-based regulator will not provide them to the local council or to the public. I understand that the Victorian regulator does not have the internal capacity or technical expertise to scrutinise noise related reports it receives from wind farm operators and to arrive internally at an expert conclusion about their contents. Instead, it is happy to receive affidavits attesting to the reports being true and compliance being achieved.

That is how Victoria's statutory regulator for wind farms, the Department of Planning and Community Development, is dealing with the complex noise and environmental issues arising from the wind energy industry—by affidavit. It gets sent an affidavit from a wind farm operator or one of their consultants that says they are complying, and on that basis the regulator believes them. There is no capacity or willingness to engage, for example, the Environment Protection Authority or any other regulatory government authorities, scientists or health experts. The industry says it is telling the truth and, therefore, the state believes it is telling the truth. Because the regulator will not make the reports public, there is no external checking. During the inquiry, Mr Chris Hall of the Pyrenees Shire Council said:

It was only when Waubra started becoming an issue—with the number of complaints that were received—that the department's attitude towards being willing to take on enforcement responsibility seemed to change quite suddenly. They then wrote to us and other councils and indicated that basically they believed—without providing any legal advice, mind you—that they believed that the shires were the responsible authority for administration enforcement, overriding what they have done on the planning permit. It does not override the enabling legislation—that is legally unenforceable.

This is not regulation. This is not regulatory enforcement and compliance. This is systemic regulatory failure.

When the system that lets the industry do whatever it likes, when it fails to cover up the lack of regulatory enforcement and when the problems become manifest, the response of the regulator is to duck and shove responsibility elsewhere. No wonder the industry likes state based arrangements so much and is repudiating Commonwealth involvement. I encourage all senators to support this bill.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard Senator Madigan's 'stop the planet; I want to get off'' bill. That is what this is. We have around the world wind power being installed at an unheard-of level. I used to work at Liddell Power Station, which is a 2,000-megawatt coal fired power station and one of the biggest in Australia. To try to get some understanding of what is happening with wind power: in 2012 alone there is around the world 238 gigawatts of wind power installed. That is about 119 Liddell Power Stations—a huge investment in wind power all around the world. If you look at the International Energy Agency website and you go to what is targeted for wind power around the world, you see that it is targeted to pick up 12 per cent of energy needs by 2050. That requires 47 gigawatts of installation of wind power every year for the next 40 years. It is $81 billion a year in investment.

Senator Madigan said that this was a billion-dollar industry. Senator Madigan, it is not a billion-dollar industry; it is a trillion-dollar industry. The industry will have to invest $3.2 trillion through to 2050 to meet that 12 per cent with wind energy. Senator Madigan throws these words around—'The wind energy industry can do whatever it likes' and 'The system allows it to do whatever it likes'—but I did not see Senator Madigan sleeping through any of the evidence, so he has obviously ignored much of it. He obviously has not read the evidence from the Queensland conservative government, who say that they have stringent regulation in place, that they do not want an industry to operate without any regulation and that the regulations that are in place with the state governments around this country are amongst the most stringent regulations anywhere in the world.

I have a little bit of an issue with Senator Madigan's approach on this. I would like to remind the Senate why we need renewable energy. The climate science is in, Senator Madigan. You cannot continue to believe that the climate science is not there and that this is some kind of conspiracy by the wind power industry or some group of bankers in Zurich or somewhere. This is a real problem. It is a problem the world is struggling to deal with, and wind energy is one of the key components to try to deal with the issue of global warming and climate change. I know many senators in this place are sceptics, deniers, conspiracy theorists or just political opportunists on this.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about realists?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection by Senator Williams, who said, 'No, we're just realists.' Senator Williams, the realists around the world are people like the World Bank, not some left-wing conspirators trying to create a world government. They are saying that there are significant problems. Let me remind you of the Australian Academy of Science 2010 report. They are being realists. They are the realists on this issue. They put out a report: The science of climate change: questions and answers. Go have a look at it. Have a look at what it says. They try to address the confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain. Obviously, Senator Williams, you have not read it.

I remind senators of the 2011 CSIRO report Climate change: science and solutions for Australia. That report draws on the latest peer reviewed literature contributed by thousands of researchers in Australia and internationally. It provides a synthesis of CSIRO's long history of public funded research over several decades. Obviously, Senator Williams, you have not read that either. It highlights the importance of climate change as a matter of significant environmental concern in Australia and provides the latest information on international climate change science and the responses.

If you want to be a denier, if you want to be a sceptic, if you want to listen to Alan Jones, you will not believe it, you will say the scientists are wrong—the CSIRO has it wrong; the Academy of Science has it wrong. But let me tell you: I would take those bodies before I would listen to Alan Jones any day, because I am concerned about the future for my grandkids and the kids that are being born in Australia today.

They have to have a future, and part of that future is wind farms. Part of that future is renewable energy. It is absolutely important that we deal with this issue on the basis of science and not on what is said by groups that are running around trying to instil fear in local communities. These groups are creating the problems that local communities are feeling because they are out there fearmongering about wind farms.

It is not just the scientists who are worried. The Catholic Church is worried, Senator Madigan. I would ask you to go and have a look at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences report in 2011. I notice that you are smiling. I am not sure if you have read the report, Senator Madigan, but I am sure it would certainly educate you a little bit about what the scientific issues are. The Vatican brought together a number of the world's most eminent scientists on climate change, and their report said that global warming and climate change is a real problem. Icebergs are falling into the sea. Glaciers are retreating. The sea level is rising. You can sigh all you want, Senator Madigan, but I can tell you that I would listen to these bodies before I would listen to the Waubra Foundation, who probably wrote your speech for you.

The report from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences calls on all people and all nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses. Senator Madigan, go down and see your local representative of the Vatican in Australia, talk to them, get a copy of the report. I will send it to you, if you like. But I can tell you that they are equally concerned about this, as are the scientists in Australia.

I remind senators of the Bureau of Meteorology's State of the Climate 2012 report, which provides an updated summary of long-term climate trends. It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade being warmer than previous decade since the 1950s—and it goes on and on. Last week, the World Bank released its contribution to this issue in a report called Turn down the heat. The report provides a snapshot of recent scientific literature and a new analysis on the impacts and risks that could be associated with a four-degree Celsius warming this century. It outlines a range of risks, focusing on developing countries and especially the poor. The report describes a number of meteorological record-breaking events. It goes to England and Wales: wettest autumn on record since 1766; Europe, hottest summer in the last 500 years; England and Wales, May to July, wettest since records began in 1766; Victoria, Australia, heatwaves—many station temperature records; Western Russia, the hottest summer since 1500; Pakistan, rainfall records; the western Amazon, drought and record low levels of rainfall in Rio Negro. I can go on and on, yet we still have people who say that global warming and climate change is not real. I go to those points because, Senator Madigan, I do not believe the issue of wind turbines is the issue with you.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I will remind you to address your comments through the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Chair. My view is that Senator Madigan's position is not about wind turbines; it is not a concern about the people who have got a problem. Underlying his position is his fundamental denial that there is a problem with changing climate around the world; I am convinced of that.

This week the International Energy Association in an article for PlanetB magazine discussed how energy efficiency and renewable energy technology will play a vital role in the transition to a secure and sustainable future. Even some of the sceptics' views are changing. Ben Cubby wrote a most interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 July 2012, where he outlined that prominent sceptic scientist, Richard Muller, had changed his position. So things are changing. Surely scientists are starting to deal with the issues and we will hopefully get to a position where most of the senators in this place can believe that there is a problem, that it has to be dealt with and that wind power is an important part of dealing with it.

The bill before us today, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012, which I have described as the 'Stop the planet I want to get off bill', aims to give powers to the regulator to ensure that accredited power stations that are wind farms either in whole or in part do not create excessive noise. I do not have a problem with that position. All I say to you is that we have some of the most strict environmental controls on wind farms anywhere in the world—that is a fact—and the controls are subject to state environmental laws.

In Australia, we currently have 59 wind farms, consisting of 1,345 turbines with 2,480 megawatts of capacity. The evidence given to the committee was that right around the world—I have described how much wind power is installed around the world—it is only in English-speaking countries where there is this so-called wind turbine syndrome and these problems starting to appear. So I do not think that the Waubra Foundation have actually got enough translators to get their message out to the rest of the world—hopefully, they do not, because around the world there is not an issue with wind turbines. There is not a problem of this so-called wind farm syndrome anywhere else in the world, but there is in some areas in Australia—not everywhere where there are wind turbines—and in some areas in Canada and also in some areas in the UK. If you draw the link between the groups that are agitating against wind turbines that link eventually goes back to the climate change sceptics and the climate change deniers.

There are issues there. I do not for a minute deny that there are people who feel genuine concern about wind turbines appearing in their backyards, especially if their neighbour is getting a financial gain from it and they are getting no gain. I do not for a minute underestimate the problems that individuals feel, that they genuinely feel that the wind turbines are making them sick, but there was absolutely no evidence to link either infrasound or the sound of the wind turbines to the various complaints and illnesses that were brought before the committee.

Our conclusion is consistent with every analysis that has been made on this around the world—that we should not simply accept the arguments; that there are problems there. We should take a precautionary approach, which the committee has said we should do. We should continue to do the scientific evaluation that Senator Madigan wants. I think that is appropriate and that is being done. We should continue to ensure that we can make a contribution to renewable energy through more wind turbines.

Senator Madigan spoke about the nocebo effect. We had evidence that the nocebo effect is a well-documented part of medical and scientific literature around the world. The National Health and Medical Research Centre have reviewed some of the literature available and they said that no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly correlated with noise from wind turbines. There is limited and contested published evidence that wind farm noise may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but the causes are not clear and that has been considered by the NHMRC.

The committee was provided with recent research that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the leading health journal Health psychology. That research has not yet been publicly released. The research comprises a controlled double-blind study in which subjects were exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound. Healthy volunteers, when given information about expected physiological effects of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during both exposure to infrasound and sham infrasound. This is a scientific study that is basically saying that if you tell people this is what will happen to you through this infrasound which you cannot hear and you cannot see and you can expect that this might happen to you, people will say, 'Yes, I have now got the symptoms.' People in the scientific study had sham infrasound—there was no infrasound—and they reported the same conditions that they were told to expect. That is called the nocebo effect and it is well known.

I am not saying that, if you are suffering the nocebo effect, you should be ignored, that we should simply walk away and say, 'Well, that is bad luck; it is psychological and not physiological.' The view is that the wind industry have a responsibility to deal with this issue, and so they should. But dealing with it is not stopping the world and getting off, as Senator Madigan would want. It is about understanding the importance of the wind industry and of individuals who feel that they have been affected by the wind industry, ensuring that we continue to have strong state based environmental protections in place and that we continue to research and put regulation on the industry as far as practical, and ensuring that monitoring continues to go on.

After listening to all the evidence, I just feel that, when you weigh up the scientific evidence against the anecdotal evidence that we got, we must go with the scientific evidence but we must also have care and consideration for people who are suffering because of wind turbines. There should be more transparency in the industry, but that should be through an independent auditor because you cannot provide what is being asked without having a real influence on the cost of power. So I recommend and support the recommendations in the report. I think it is the sensible way to go. I reject and do not support the Madigan-Xenophon bill.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also contribute to this debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate for us to make some comments on what is a genuine area of concern in parts of the community and for us to ensure that those concerns are appropriately reflected in this place and to make clear the inadequacy to date of government responses to those concerns.

All businesses require not just a legal permit to operate but also a social permit. What has occurred over recent years in the wind sector is that aspects of that social permit and social licence to operate have come under threat. They have come under threat because of genuine concerns that many people have about the impact that wind farms are having in their communities, on their lifestyles and on their health.

Those concerns should not be easily dismissed. Those concerns should be dealt with seriously. That is not to say that we should be shutting down the wind industry and not to say that we should not recognise the very important role that wind power has played in helping Australia to grow its renewable energy sector, because there is an important role being played there by the wind power sector within the renewable energy industry. And we want to see continued growth of renewable energy; that is an important part of Australia's energy mix for the future and important especially for how we deal with the issues of tackling climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But that does not mean that we just ignore or sweep under the carpet community concerns that exist.

In Senator Madigan's well-thought-out remarks—many of them were—he drew some very good comparisons and quoted from some of the Greens senators in this place in those comparisons. They were comparisons in the debates we have had in here—and there have been plenty—around coal seam gas. Or there were more recent debates around the so-called supertrawler. In all of those areas there were emphatic arguments to let science speak, to ensure that we have the best available science undertaken, that we rely on that research and that we act on what that research says. That is what the coalition believes should be the case here as well. We think that it is important to make sure that beyond any doubt the community, the wind industry and the regulators—at a state level in particular, who provide the planning approvals for these developments—all have sound evidence on which to base their decisions.

Indeed, submitters to the inquiry into this legislation made similar views known. Mrs Maria Linke wrote in her submission:

I feel there needs to be independent health studies into rural wind farms, focusing on excessive noise.

…   …   …

However until that happens, I fully support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012.

Let us reflect on what Mrs Linke is saying there. She supports this bill because of the absence of other action, and it is the absence of other action that I condemn this government for.

There should have been underway by now very thorough and comprehensive reviews into the health effects of wind farms. Why should there have been such views? Because no less than a previous Senate inquiry had asked for them and made it clear that this was the best way forward to deal with the community concerns that exist.

On 23 June 2011 the Senate Community Affairs References Committee presented the Report into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms. Among several recommendations made by this committee—and can I emphasise, by the whole committee, including the Labor senators on that committee; the government senators—was one that says:

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.

It is very clear from this recommendation what the committee sought—very, very clear. But far from treating the Senate committee's recommendation as a matter of priority, the Gillard Labor government took more than 14 months to respond to that inquiry—just to respond to it! It even took more than seven months after this Senate called on the government to act immediately on the Senate committee's recommendations.

The government finally responded on 13 September 2012 to the committee's report of 23 June 2011. The government should surely appreciate that such delays and tardiness in responding only add to the angst and concerns that do exist in parts of the community about the operation and impact of wind farms.

When it did come, the government response was manifestly inadequate. The government claimed to accept the recommendations in principle. However, what we got instead was effectively an NHMRC literature review. I have complete faith that the NHMRC review will be thorough. I am sure they will do a good job of it. But it is not what the Senate had recommended, and it is unlikely that the nature of this review—in fact, it is clear from the evidence already received—will satisfy the concerns of those in the community. It will not provide the Australian based type of research, with the thorough epidemiological and laboratory studies, that is necessary to provide the robust scientific evidence needed to manage this issue well into the future.

Just as senators frequently come into this place and call for us to act on the science, on this we should also act on the science. But we should acknowledge that wind farms have not been in existence in Australia for a century and so there is not a deep reservoir of well-established epidemiological and laboratory research about them. However, the industry has now been about for long enough to ensure that that research is undertaken, and we should commit to making sure that that research is undertaken. It is to the shame of the government that they did not grasp the opportunity more than a year ago to get that research underway about the concerns of the people who have come to see me and those I have gone to see, the people Senators Madigan and Xenophon have heard from and the people like Mrs Linke who made submissions to the Senate inquiry. These people have concerns and have a right to expect that those concerns will be listened to and acted upon.

There is some good research happening in places. There is some progress occurring. As recently as yesterday there was a news story from my home state about a University of Adelaide team that is trying to investigate precisely how turbines produce noise, especially in the low-frequency range. Universities do not start undertaking research in these areas if they do not think there is something to look into. Adelaide university and, in particular, Associate Professor Con Doolan obviously think there is something that needs to be looked at. Professor Doolan commented in the news story:

"We have a fair amount of knowledge around the noise generation mechanisms but, particularly in the low-frequency ranges, we don't know a lot about how they combine together," he said.

"This project is aimed at getting to the bottom of what is creating the noise that can cause disturbance."

The story went on to say that the Adelaide university team:

… will build a small wind turbine in the University's wind tunnel in Adelaide and use advanced techniques to measure aerodynamics and best practice.

"If we can understand what's creating these sounds then we can advise governments about wind farm regulation and policy and make recommendations about the design of wind farms or the turbine blades and industry," Professor Doolan said.

That is exceptionally welcome work from the University of Adelaide, Professor Doolan and his team. We welcome that type of progress because it will only be by providing the robust and sound scientific evidence that we will ensure the social licence to operate for the wind farm industry remains strong and well supported within the communities in which they operate.

The coalition believe that, after all the waiting for the government to act on last year's Senate inquiry, it is now time for the parliament to try to force the government's hand. So it will be our intention during the committee stages of debate on this bill—which I acknowledge are unlikely to be today—to move amendments to cause to have undertaken the type of NHMRC study that we have spoken off and that was recommended by the Community Affairs References Committee last year. There should be a study and a body of research that includes full spectrum acoustic monitoring with epidemiological and laboratory studies. It should be research that ensures the views of industry and the community are heard during its process so that it can seek to address and study the areas of concern. It should look at audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound, electromagnetic radiation and vibration arising from or associated with wind farms including wind turbines, transmission lines, substations, telecommunications towers and any other structures associated with industrial wind electricity generation. Importantly, it should ideally be undertaken in a way that has buy-in from both sides of this debate, from the Clean Energy Council and from the Waubra Foundation, so that at the outset there is some acceptance of who is undertaking the research, how it will be undertaken and what it will cover and there is some confidence that the outcomes we get can be used in a sound way to inform future regulation of this sector.

I said before in relation to the need for science and to act on science that we hear this pointed out about coal seam gas or CSG. We have seen actions taken by the Labor government to have thorough research undertaken into the impacts of the coal seam gas industry. We have seen the government set up an independent panel to oversee that research and to provide some certainty around its impacts, especially the impacts on groundwater systems. So there is no reason why the government should not embrace the type of action the coalition is proposing in relation to wind farms.

There is another area in this debate that is analogous to the position of coal seam gas, and that is that the Commonwealth with its research funds, expertise and expert bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council takes a lead role in helping to establish the evidence base. However, we should also acknowledge the Constitution under which we operate and the Federation that we have and respect the fact that state and territory governments are ultimately responsible for the type of planning decisions that relate to projects, be they coal seam gas projects on the one hand or wind farm projects on the other. That is why, whilst we have an understanding of the concerns that Senators Madigan and Xenophon are pursuing in this legislation, we equally think that the types of legislative reforms they are proposing are not the types that this parliament should be legislating for, because they do intrude on the rights of the states to regulate for their communities as they see appropriate.

We think that if you could get the ideal outcome, if you could get the comprehensive evidence base that informed what would be sensible exclusion zones, sensible noise limits, the types of regulations necessary for the wind farm industry, an evidence base that had the confidence of both sides of the debate in this argument, then the pressure and the expectation could be applied to those states to ensure that they enact the types of planning laws that operate on the best available scientific evidence.

We want it done in a way that provides some confidence and certainty for the future for the wind farm industry just as much as it does for the communities in which that industry operates. The wind farm industry has come a long way. Senator Cameron cited some of the statistics in his contribution about the global science of the wind farm sector as well as the number of wind farms operating in Australia—many of which are of course in my home state of South Australia.

Wind-farm and wind-power generation is critical to achieving the 20 per cent renewable energy target set by the Commonwealth. I have expressed in this place previously some concerns that we have not banded or set aside some of that target to ensure that other technologies, the emerging technologies, can definitely benefit from it. I think that is a genuine concern that we need to keep in mind for the future. Nonetheless, the wind farm industry deserves, just as much as the communities in which these concerns have emanated from, to have certainty for the future. There should be certainty for both sectors, certainty that everyone has confidence in the evidence base on which decisions are made and on which regulations are put in place. Everyone should have confidence that no harm is occurring or, if harm is occurring, it is being prevented by the actions taken by industry and government working together.

As I said, noting that we probably will not get to the committee stage today and that this is the last sitting day for the year, I invite the government over the next couple of months before the parliament returns to think long and hard about the type of inquiry this Senate called for more than a year ago and the type of inquiry that we have urged be undertaken—and, if necessary, the coalition will move through the parliament—to provide the type of sensible, sound evidence base for the future that the communities where wind farms are based deserve and the wind farm industry itself deserves as well.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is not about sensible, sound evidence based policy. This debate is not about noise from wind farms. This debate is about an organised campaign by the fossil fuel sector using astroturf organisations running around being anti wind farms and anti renewables. They have added solar to it now, you will be pleased to know, so next year we will probably have the blinding impacts of solar farms out here talked about as a major impact. This debate is about a group of fossil fuel interests around the world organising an anti-renewables campaign and focusing in particular on being anti wind farms.

Just this week, for example, the fake grassroots campaign against wind has been exposed in the United States. It has been funded of course by the Koch brothers, as you would expect, because they always do provide funds for the oil industry, for the coal industry, for the gas industry. The whole tactic has been exposed of what you do to get stuck into renewable energy because the fossil fuel sector knows that renewables are coming on at scale and are challenging the base of the fossil fuel sector. That is what this debate is about. It has got nothing to do with noise from wind farms.

Let me tell you some of the activities that have been revealed with this leaked strategy from the fake grassroots campaign. It is associated of course with the Heartland Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council—and our very own Senator Bernardi is the Australian representative of the American Legislative Exchange Council—whose job it is to bring up template legislation to put into state legislatures around the world to do away with anything that the fossil fuel industry does not want. They are bringing in template legislation around the United States to do away with renewable energy. So no doubt Senator Bernardi will be right across this fake grassroots campaign against wind because the organisation for which he is the Australian representative and spokesperson will be providing him with all that information. Previously, we had here Family First, Senator Fielding, who went off to the Heartland Foundation. They are one of the leading think-tanks of global climate sceptics. This is organised by people who want to delay and not address climate change, and it is the most bogus and disgraceful campaign running around the world.

But they are having extraordinary success. The Baillieu government's decision in Victoria to do in wind in Victoria is completely and utterly a result of this bogus campaign being run by the fossil fuel sector. I am terrified when I hear Senator Birmingham giving the Waubra Foundation equal status with the scientists. Can you believe it—in this place the coalition actually standing there saying that a balanced debate with the Waubra Foundation on one hand and others on the other! It is not a balanced debate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. In that regard, if she looks back to the comments, she will see that I mentioned the Waubra Foundation and the Clean Energy Council in the same sentence. I never suggested equal billing for either organisation with the scientists who should undertake the research.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, as you know, there is no point of order.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you about the Waubra Foundation. Back in 2009 Waubra hit the news when powerful forces linked to mining interests and Australia's climate sceptic factory, the Institute of Public Affairs, which is in turn linked to the Liberal Party, used what was then the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere as an easy target for their antiwind scare campaign and they established the Waubra Foundation. That Waubra Foundation was set up by Mr Mitchell. He is part of the Landscape Guardians. He also has the investment company Lowell Resources Funds Management Ltd, which lists coal in various forms as the standout investment performer and shares the same PO box in South Melbourne with the Waubra Foundation. It is obvious. If you go to astroturfing and look at the connections, you can see where they come together. You get exactly what you have here—and that is a campaign to do in renewable energy, in particular wind.

Let us get to some of the so-called health impacts. Let us go to the spokespeople for wind turbine syndrome. The qualifications of the spokespeople were exaggerated and were forced to be corrected because there is no serious background research science behind Dr Laurie, the spokesperson for the Waubra Foundation, in terms of acoustics and so on. There are all these allegations about wind turbine sickness and syndrome. There are meant to be 222 separate health diseases and symptoms as a result of wind farms. I will tell you what some of them are. These are the diseases and symptoms experienced by people and animals as a result of wind farms: dental infections, feet sores that would not heal until they moved out of the house, kidney damage, leukaemia, skin and lung cancer, nausea, children losing interest in school and refusing to go to school, spontaneous abortions by horses, chickens laying yokeless eggs, Peacock-mating problems, earthworms abandoning the properties and the sudden death of 400 goats. Now come on!

We have just heard Senator Birmingham telling us that we should be taking this seriously and we should equally weigh up the claims of the Waubra Foundation and so on. The science community is out there saying that this is ridiculous. The scientists concerned have said that wind farm syndrome is actually a psychogenic condition. People are told they are going to be sick and if they do not have a financial interest in the wind farm then suddenly they get sick. Isn't it interesting that where people have a financial interest in the wind farm, whether it is a lease arrangement or a joint venture, those people do not get sick? I find that extraordinary. If you have a financial interest, you do not get sick. If you just do not like looking at it and you have not got any money in it and you might have in the fossil fuel industry then it is a different thing.

We hear Senator Birmingham say he is terribly worried about setbacks for wind farms, but what about coal seam gas? I am going to come to that because he was suggesting that there is some equivalence between wind farms and coal seam gas. Let me tell Senator Birmingham that coal seam gas actually requires a physical intervention which results in gas coming up and fugitive emissions that are going into the atmosphere. Those are methane emissions that are driving climate change. Those are scientific facts; those are evidence based facts. There is no equivalence whatsoever. You cannot look at these two things as if they are somehow equivalent. That is a load of nonsense.

There are thousands of wind turbines in Germany, Denmark and Spain but those people have not got wind turbine syndrome. How is it possible that the Germans, the Danes and the Spaniards do not get sick, but people in North America and Australia get sick? How is that possible? There is a lot to suggest that actually these illnesses are psychosomatic, because a whole lot of the bogus literature that is not peer reviewed is overwhelmingly written in English. It is not until you read about it in English apparently that you get sick, so the Spanish, the Germans and the Danes do not get sick at all.

Where is the concern for the coal dust and particulate matter from coalmines that is causing illnesses? That is evidence based and documented. It seems nobody in the coalition is the least bit concerned about the real health impacts that are already occurring as a result of expanded coalmining, coal seam gas and the like. So what we have here is a carefully constructed and orchestrated campaign by astroturf organisations and brought to Australia via the Institute of Public Affairs and the Waubra Foundation. It is obvious to me that this is now a strategy put together by the Landscape Guardians and the IPA. It is all about trying to do over renewable energy.

As I said before, Peter Mitchell has 25 years of history in the fossil fuel industry. He was the founding Chairman of the Moonie Oil Company and a chairman or a director of related companies, including Clyde Petroleum, Avalon Energy, North Flinders Mines, Paringa Mining and Exploration, and so on. So there you go. You have absolute evidence that the person running the campaign against wind is totally associated with the fossil fuel industry.

Like the Landscape Guardians, the Waubra Foundation is highly secretive. There is no information about its funding or its sponsorship. The audited financial statements of the Landscape Guardians contain no expenditure but money seems to be no object to them. They have full-time campaigners, an advertising budget, travelling expenses and a media monitoring service and yet they have no expenditure in terms of their audited financial statements. How is it so?

Professor Simon Chapman notes:

Most wind farms around the world and in Australia have no history of complaints, and most of those which do, have seen the local area targeted by external anti-wind farm activists who spread panic and tell frightened locals to report anything they might experience to their doctor. The activist groups even provide symptom menus to assist residents—

in case they had not actually identified the symptoms for themselves. This is an absolutely appalling situation and at the Senate inquiry we had Mr Holmes a Court, who is chairman of the Hepburn wind farm and submitted a leaked running sheet from the Australian Environment Foundation. It was addressed to the guardians detailing the strategy for a protest at Leonards Hill, including the signage to be held up by the crowd of predominantly outsiders. We also know that the Australian Environment Foundation is an astroturf organisation. Again, it is funded by vested interests. It is designed to look like, of course, the Australian Conservation Foundation and that has been a long-term subject of concern. The Environment Foundation's Executive Director, Max Rheese, is the executive director of another anti-renewables group, the Australian Climate Science Coalition, one of over 100 climate sceptic astroturfers. Who funds them? There is some evidence to suggest it could be Exxon. I would be very interested to know if in fact they come clean about whether it is Exxon.

As to the actual particulars of the legislation, one of the most ridiculous parts of this legislation is—and listen to this—the bill would empower the Clean Energy Regulator to suspend accreditation of a power station if they believe the power station is being operated in contravention of 'a law written or unwritten'. The Australian Energy Regulator shutting down a power station on the basis of an 'unwritten' law—what does that mean? The law of whom or of what? This is a silly idea and it is a nonsense.

As to the suggestion in terms of the decibel standards, actually the Australian states already regulate wind farms to a tougher standard than is being proposed by Senator Madigan in this bill. Whether Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon are aware of the extent of astroturfing, the links of all these organisations to the fossil fuel sector and the broader campaign against renewables that is being run and is showing up as an anti-wind farm campaign, I have no idea of the extent to which they know that, understand that or whatever. But there is absolutely no science base to the allegations that are being made. As Professor Simon Chapman has noted, what we have now is a psychogenic condition—and if a condition needs to be treated it is that. I have said to the wind farm operators that if they want to end wind farm syndrome in Australia all they have to do is develop a business model that enables communities to financially benefit from wind farms. Then they will find that even these astroturfers cannot stir up a level of concern because people have actually got a financial interest in the wind farms and will look at them in a far more balanced way.

We have got a serious crisis here. We have the world meeting in Doha right now with the globe on track for three to four degrees of warming. Today in Victoria we have a heatwave expected and in Western Australia storms are expected. Look all around the world. The World Meteorological Organization released overnight the latest impacts of global warming—and make no mistake: the people running the anti-wind farm campaign and anti-renewables renewables campaign do not want the world to act on climate change and they want to derail renewable energy. This leaked memo out of the United States shows that this is a fake campaign being run by those vested interests. The tactics they are suggesting are to partner with think tanks across the political spectrum such as the Brookings Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute and, as I said, no doubt the IPA are up to their necks in it as well; to encourage critical thinking for members and the public about renewables; to recruit volunteers without establishing a formal national organisation and using them as people to lobby lawmakers; to get out strong public relations; and to collaborate with like-minded groups such as Tea Party activists and the like—and, of course, that is exactly what is happening here in Australia.

So I think the Senate needs to recognise (a) this bill has no merit—and I would be interested to know whether the coalition thinks the Energy Regulator should be able to shut down a power generator on the basis of laws 'written or unwritten'—and (b) we have a bill which the committee found comprehensively ought not to be passed. Obviously, the committee rejected the voodoo science that has been put forward in many of these cases, with 222 separate health diseases and symptoms, supposedly experienced by people as a result of wind farms, for which there is no substance. But the bigger issue here is this. If we are to actually try to constrain global warming to less than two degrees, we have to get to 100 per cent renewables as quickly as possible. We need appropriate planning laws, and there is no doubt about that, and what we do not need is astroturf organisations which are driving fear into communities and actually bringing in people from outside in order to frighten communities as they try to knock over wind farms because they interfere with the vested interests of the fossil fuel sector. That is what we are getting into here and I am not surprised. When you have got the IPA linked to Heartland and other organisations in the US, Senator Bernardi as spokesperson for the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Liberal Party's connections to the Institute of Public Affairs, no wonder we have got all of this happening in Australia.

It is part of climate scepticism, climate denial or reality of climate change and a deliberate strategy to do over renewable energy. I do not think the Senate should have any part of it. Before the Waubra Foundation expects anyone to take them seriously, they should come out with their financial statements and make it plain as to where they get their funding. Until we get an idea of where they get their funding, I am going to stand by the claim that I am making that they are an astroturf organisation for the fossil fuel sector who are meddling in public debate in Australia.

I do credit them with success with the Baillieu government in Victoria. The sooner that the Baillieu government gets over it and recognises that they are doing in the prospect of wind energy in Victoria, which is being picked up elsewhere in the country—I think that Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan are part of a campaign against wind energy and renewables in Australia. That is a very bad thing in terms of responding to the climate crisis and responding to the very real health impacts. If you want to get to health impacts, let us deal with the health impacts of particulate matter and coals, for example, and of methane from coal seam gas emissions rather than these astroturf organisations' claims, which I believe are voodoo science.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's 55 times you've mentioned astroturf.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing for me to hear in this place from Senator Milne, the leader of a party which is part of government, a disappointing, insulting and dismissive presentation. I am deeply disappointed by it, but at least I have learnt now just from the last few seconds what astroturfing is all about. I had absolutely no idea and I am sure that, in his contribution, Senator Macdonald is going to tell us more about it.

I do congratulate Senators Madigan and Xenophon for the work they are doing. I cannot understand why Senator Milne would be attacking particularly Senator Xenophon, who seems to support her in so many areas, but I am sure he will speak to that. I want to recognise the late senator Judith Adams, who was very passionate in this area, and now past senator Steve Fielding, who were both participants in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry chaired competently by Senator Siewert, from the Greens.

For somebody who, in Senator Milne's case, speaks of the fact that she has such an interest in rural Australia, it is so disappointing that she would be so derisory and so dismissive of people in rural Australia who themselves believe there are health effects. What is equally disappointing is that the collegiality of this Senate is in the fact that we participate in Senate hearings, where we listen and learn and ask and form views, but at the hearing that was held only last Wednesday week Senator Milne was not a participant, and much of the nonsense that we have just heard from her would in fact have been answered had she been a participant—comments like, 'Those who earn an income from wind farms don't get sick whereas those who don't earn one do.' I point Senator Milne to the evidence of a Mr David Mortimer, himself a retired naval engineer, whose area of specialty, strangely enough, was the movement of sound and electromagnetic waves through different media, including air, ground and water. He and his family are recipients, are hosts and do earn an income, and he, for one, has come out and said recently, 'Yes, we are suffering ill effects.'

That is the disappointment of Senator Milne, because she is an intelligent person. Why she would expose herself to ridicule with a statement like that is beyond me. I am very pleased that she did not link me to any of these astroturf and other organisations, because I have no links to any of them. What I can say is that in my time as Chief Executive Officer of the Rottnest Island Authority, off the coast from Fremantle, we were the hosts of the first wind turbines in Western Australia, and it was from that work that the Albany and the Esperance wind farms were developed. When it comes to solar energy, Senator Milne, in case you are listening, I am proud to say that my organisation was in fact the developer of no less than six applications of solar energy, including solar hot water systems, solar based remote lighting, solar based navigation markers and, interestingly, solar based electric fencing for the small marsupials such as the quokka, from which the island derives its name, and I believe the world's first ever solar powered remote composting toilet.

So I will not stand in this place and listen to ridicule from Senator Milne or anybody else about my interest in renewables. We all know that in Western Australia, in Cockburn Sound, there is some tremendous work going on with the use of wave energy for generating power. I, for one, am very interested in it. Our former colleague in the other place Wilson Tuckey was always a great advocate for the value of tidal power from the north of our state, where we have 10-metre tides twice daily. So do not come in here, through you, Mr Deputy President, Senator Milne and start criticising me for the concern I have.

There are two elements that are of concern to me in this issue. First of all, I want to be satisfied that there are no adverse health impacts from any technology that is introduced into this country. Second, I want to see technology that is commercially viable and realistic, or has the capacity to be. I make the point as an arch federalist and of course as a Western Australian that I have no interest at all in the federal government removing from the states and territories their inherent constitutional right to govern whatever it is they do under the Constitution. But, equally, I say to you that as a senator of this Australian parliament I do have an obligation to ensure that there are not adverse health effects over which we can have some control. I do not want to see the expenditure of vast sums of taxpayers' money on development of any sort, including wind turbines or wind farms, if indeed they are not shown to be commercially viable. That has been the motive that has caused me to pick up the work of the late Senator Adams and in fact to participate with Senators Xenophon and Madigan, by telephone with Senator Birmingham and with the chairman of the committee, Senator Cameron, in the hearings recently.

If there are such concerns from the wind farm developers about noise, why do they not do two things? Firstly, why do they not make publicly available the information that they receive on audible noise? Secondly, why do they continually refuse to evaluate low-frequency infrasound and other effects that may be having an adverse health effect.

As we know, and as I brought out recently in the hearing in Canberra, we have real-time aircraft noise monitors over all of the major airports in Australia and by going on to a website called WebTrak anybody listening, anybody in this chamber, can watch it now—as indeed the chairman, Senator Cameron, did while I was asking my questions the other day. He and the secretary went on to the WebTrak site for Sydney airport. He interrupted me to say: 'Yes, what he says is right. I am watching in real time noise over Sydney airport.' I say if we can do that for every airport in Australia, why can we not do it for the wind farms or those in the vicinity of them?

I also asked the question, and I have not yet had adequate answers: why is it that the contracts that the wind farm developers demand of the hosts have these particular clauses? One of them is:

The operator will generate sound pressure levels of a maximum of 50 decibels auditory and the operator consents to the proposed operation of a wind farm—

listen to this, Mr Deputy President—

despite its non-compliance with noise guidelines sound pressure levels set out in a clause of the deed.

I am reading from a contract that wind farm developers require land owners to sign. Furthermore, the organisation uses a contract to include a clause that shifts liability for health effects due to noise from the developer to the landholder. It says:

The landholder releases the developer from any liability for loss, damage or injury occurring in the premises or on the land arising from the tenant's breach of the Environment Protection Act 1970 due to noise emitted from wind turbine generators.

Well, if Senator Milne does not have any concern about those clauses in those contracts, I certainly do. Remember these contracts tie people up for 50 years. Neighbours are being asked to sign them to say that for a 50-year or more period they will not complain. I asked the question, and I have asked it of the developers themselves: what are you trying to hide?

We had evidence on the day—and it was a shame Senator Milne was not there because she would have heard it—from Professor Hansen, who has received Australian Research Council funding to have a look at some of these aspects of ill health. The wind farm developers will not release their data to him to undertake independent research. I ask: why not? If I had confidence in my technology, firstly, I would be out there very proudly saying it; secondly, I would not be tying people up to confidentiality agreements that prevent them from actually stating if they do believe they have adverse health effects; and, thirdly, I certainly would not be denying scientists access to review these circumstances.

It is this that brings me to the conclusion that for the first time ever—whether it is in English or Dutch or Danish or Norwegian or Swahili, I do not care—I want to seek independent research undertaken into issues associated with the question of adverse health effects of people affected by wind turbines. Senator Milne, I am not paid by anybody, I am not in anybody's pocket and I do not know what or who astroturf organisations are. What I want to see is a proper literature review, and I have questions and I have raised concerns over the independence of those who undertook the so-called rapid review by NHMRC. I asked questions recently in the hearing about that. The very term 'rapid review' of itself was a most unfortunate term. I urge yet again NHMRC to remove from their website the outcome of that rapid review, because simply there is a question as to its adequacy and its validity.

What the coalition wants to see, as I heard my colleague Senator Birmingham spell out, is an independent undertaking by credible scientists who can have full access to all noise data, who can undertake epidemiological studies, who undertake adequate funding to do the research and the laboratory studies, who can actually go to industry and go to the communities totally independent of bias—be it my side, be it Senator Xenophon's and Senator Madigan's side, or indeed Senator Milne's side—and undertake this work. I want to see studies undertaken of audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound, electromagnetic radiation and vibrations associated with all aspects of the technology.

This is the effect that is happening in rural communities around Australia and Western Australia at the moment. This is what amazes me. Perhaps Senator Milne does not get out into rural Australia; I know Senator Siewert does. We have communities in Western Australia, and the absolute cornerstones of communities in Western Australia and around rural Australia are the Country Women's Association and bush fire brigades. Those two are the absolute foundations. We have circumstances in our rural communities now—I am sorry I am keeping Senator Collins awake—where there are people who are not attending CWA meetings because of anger and discord. There are people who are not turning out at rural fires because of their concerns and because of the community discord.

I certainly am interested in the legislation that has come forward. At this stage there are deficiencies in it, but I am very, very hopeful that the coalition may in fact be able to contribute actively and sensibly to resolving this question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Time for the debate has lapsed.