Debate resumed from 2 June 2010.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.42 p.m.]: Earlier I was discussing issues surrounding wind power and mentioned submissions that raised doubts over the ability of wind power to minimise greenhouse gases during operation, believing that the overall savings to be made are substantially less than the claims being made. Concerns about whether wind farms actually help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were found by the committee to be totally without substance. Evidence presented to the committee by Epuron Energy and Dr Mark Diesendorf demonstrated that emissions associated with construction are offset within three to seven months of operation. Marubeni Australia also confirmed that wind turbines do not emit any greenhouse gases once they are operating. As Australia has one of the largest greenhouse gas emission footprints in the world, we cannot allow misinformation about greenhouse gas emissions from wind farms to derail an important part of the climate change solution.

In examining the location and siting of wind farms to optimise wind resource use and minimise residential and environmental impacts the committee was confronted with a number of vexing policy issues and general legislative inconsistency. Provisions of part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act do not require consideration of, or adherence to, local development control plans or other local planning assessment processes, leading to the perception that local community interests are not being evaluated adequately. There also are no comprehensive guidelines on the development of wind farms in New South Wales to plug these gaps. The existing fragmentation in the planning framework is especially prevalent in the management of noise impacts from wind farms. This situation results from wind farms being excluded as a scheduled activity under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. This means that there is not sufficient incentive to address potentially excessive operational noise impacts during the assessment process. As the submissions and site visits by the committee showed, some local communities are now experiencing unacceptable levels of noise impact.

A number of submissions reported frustration over the fact there is no mechanism for addressing noise complaints once a wind farm has been built. George McLaughlin told the committee that, despite assurances that noise would not be an issue, the noise impact from the Capital Wind Farm at Taralga has led to many sleepless nights. He told the committee that there has not even been an acknowledgement of this complaint by the Department of Planning. To ensure that potential noise impacts are managed proactively during the planning phase the committee stresses the need for wind energy generation to be included as a scheduled activity in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1977 and that environmental assessments of wind farms are required to include a full assessment of potential noise impacts.

To deal with noise complaints once a wind farm is up and running the committee has recommended that the New South Wales planning and assessment guidelines for wind farms include a complaints management mechanism. Another significant issue that has fallen through the regulatory cracks is that of buffer or setback zones between wind farms and neighbouring properties. The committee received a number of submissions on the setback issue, with suggested distances ranging from 750 metres, as currently practised by Wind Prospect CWP, to 12 kilometres. The committee's recommendation 7 has created significant debate in the industry, in the wind farm precinct communities and within the committee. The three Labor members of the committee wrote a dissenting report rejecting recommendation 7 about which I shall make a number of comments now and in reply.

The committee received a range of testimony and evidence with varying degrees of validity and integrity. The committee certainly did not ignore this information, which is contained in the South Australian guidelines and the draft national wind farm development guidelines, but went on a number of site visits. This firsthand experience of wind farm developments was more influential in the committee's deliberations. The committee heard from the Evans family, who have been members of the Furracabad Valley community for more than 10 years. They are now trying to come to terms with the changes to be brought about by the installation of wind turbines 800 metres from their house—an unacceptable situation for them due to the considerable noise impacts. Despite this, they support wind farms generally and want to help develop appropriate guidelines. The Evans family requested that the two-kilometre setback be mandated between the turbines and neighbouring residential dwellings, as specified in the local development control plan.

The crux of recommendation 7 calls for the New South Wales planning and assessment guidelines for wind farms to specify a minimum setback of two kilometres between wind turbines and residential dwellings on neighbouring properties, and for such a setback to be waived with the consent of neighbouring property owners. I ask the House, in evaluating this recommendation, to consider the situation whereby a medium- to large-scale wind farm host sites turbines five kilometres away from their own residential dwelling and 800 metres away from their neighbour's residential dwelling. The disproportionate impacts of wind turbine operation fall upon the neighbour, with the wind farm site host having minimised its loss of amenity. Host property owners limit the loss of their amenity by placing wind turbines at a greater distance from their dwelling than that of their neighbour. In this situation the wind farm host was receiving upwards of $860,000 a year, while the neighbour, who bears the majority of impacts, receives nothing. I am sure most members would agree that this strategic siting of wind farms is simply unfair.

As Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 I want greater provision for benefit and profit sharing. By ensuring that those who carry a disproportionate burden regarding amenity impact have a stake in profits, we may diffuse elements of community angst and opposition to wind farms. Benefit sharing will be essential to encouraging local community ownership of renewable energy infrastructure rather than corporate design and ownership of renewable energy. The intention behind recommendation 7 is to create a mechanism for benefit sharing and to ensure that the financial benefit of siting wind farms is consistent with the burden sharing of amenity impact. However, I accept that many stakeholders have interpreted this recommendation as either a ban on wind turbines being closer than two kilometres to a residential dwelling or as giving neighbours an active veto over wind farm development within two kilometres of a residential dwelling.

I will deal with the interpretation that recommendation 7 advocates a total outright ban on siting wind turbines closer than two kilometres to a neighbouring residential dwelling because this is the key misrepresentation contained in the dissenting report of the three Labor members. Nowhere does the committee recommend a ban on wind turbines within two kilometres of residential development. The majority of the criticisms made in the dissenting report are predicated on the concept of a ban and, as such, render many elements of the dissenting report critique irrelevant. For example, the argument that a two-kilometre setback will sterilise significant areas of the State from wind farm development simply is not true as wind farm hosts will be able to place wind turbines closer than two kilometres from residential dwellings when a negotiated benefit-sharing agreement is entered into.

The second, and more reasonable, interpretation of recommendation 7 is that it gives neighbouring landowners a veto over whether a wind turbine is sited closer than two kilometres to a neighbouring residential dwelling. My intention in supporting recommendation 7 was to ensure that neighbours of wind farms who bear the larger impact of wind farm siting will be able to seek access to the income received by the turbine host. The object of the recommendation, or at least my understanding of the recommendation, is to provide a mechanism for benefit sharing through reasonable, good faith negotiations and mediation between wind farm hosts and neighbours.

In instances in which agreement cannot be reached and the wind turbine host wants the wind turbine to be situated closer than the minimum setback the Land and Environment Court could arbitrate to achieve a fair and adequate benefit-sharing package. I do not think the intention was to create a right for neighbouring properties to stop wind farm developments in their tracks. Community consultation was mentioned by a number of participants in the inquiry as a key issue. The committee heard about a significant level of community concern about the consultation process during the strategic and detailed planning, assessment and operational phases of wind farm developments. It is well known that the more effectively a community can be engaged during planning the greater is the likelihood that a proposal will be accepted and supported.

Renewable energy precincts have been established throughout the State as part of a broad-scale approach to achieving renewable energy targets, and this includes the use of precinct advisory committees. However, the way in which this initiative has been explained to the community has done more harm than good. There is a high level of uncertainty over what a precinct is, how it is established, the local community's role in deciding where wind farms will go, how they will be managed, and their overall purpose. Communities feel they do not have any say in whether a precinct is established in their area, let alone a say on what happens when a wind farm is proposed. Given that the intent is to facilitate early community engagement, this must be addressed through better information being provided to the public about renewable energy precincts.

Other ways in which community support for, and engagement in, wind farms could be facilitated is by the Government encouraging local ownership of wind farms. Local cooperative ownership of small-scale wind farms has been very successful internationally in countries such as Denmark and Germany. Those countries now draw a majority of their wind power from cooperatively owned wind farms. While the committee recognises recent initiatives by the Government to provide subsidies to homeowners who install wind turbines and development of guidelines on cooperatives as positive steps towards encouraging local ownership, that can be strengthened by the Government commissioning a study to look more closely at this issue. Particular attention should be paid to international examples and how the New South Wales legislative framework would need to be amended to reflect that type of wind farm ownership. Currently only wind farm developers and host landowners share financial benefits from wind farms, but that matter could be addressed by the establishment of community funds to spread the profits. [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [2.52 p.m.]: On 24 June 2009, following a request by the member for Burrinjuck, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 received a reference to undertake an inquiry into, and report on, the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of rural wind farms. The constituents of Burrinjuck had made many representations to the hardworking and very capable member for Burrinjuck, Katrina Hodgkinson, MP. More than 120 submissions were received following advertisements having been placed in regional and metropolitan newspapers on 8 July 2009. The first hearing was held on 11 September 2009 and the final hearing was held on 9 November 2009. A site visit was conducted on 30 September 2009 at the Cullerin Range wind farm, south of Goulburn, at the sites of proposed wind farms at Crookwell, and at the Capital Wind Farm on the shores of Lake George.

Many of the submissions received were from individuals whose properties were adjacent to existing or proposed wind farms. They expressed concern over issues surrounding the construction of large industrial structures in an area zoned agricultural. Other submissions were received from supporters of wind energy, including environmentalists, wind energy development companies, landholders contracted to sponsor wind farms and New South Wales government agencies. While the genesis of this inquiry was specific concerns about wind farms in rural farmland, the inquiry provided a forum for the community, industry and Government agencies in which to debate the wider issues surrounding the introduction of wind energy infrastructure.

The first three chapters of the report basically consist of background material while the substantive component of the report is in chapters 4 to 9. Before I discuss some of the technical issues surrounding the wind farm issue I must point out the political folly that the Government has embarked upon to justify its single-minded approval of wind farms. Several Premiers ago Bob Carr made a knee-jerk decision and announced that New South Wales would have a desalination plant that would be triggered when Sydney's water supply dropped to 30 per cent. That decision drew the environmentalists, who were all Bob Carr supporters, out of their caves to criticise the Government because desalination plants use massive amounts of electrical energy in the reverse osmosis process. Of course, extra electrical energy means burning more coal, more coalmines, and more emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Bob, who was ever vigilant regarding the need to secure Green preferences to ensure Labor's electoral success, made yet another knee-jerk decision and announced New South Wales would have wind farms to power the desalination plant—no consultation, no discussion, no leadership, just the start of the process.

The next Labor Premier, Morris Iemma, had to try to lift his ailing profile so he announced that the desalination plant would commence immediately, despite water storage volumes not being anywhere near the trigger level. These decisions were all about securing Greens preferences—exactly the same process as the Brigalow Belt lockup—and now the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Frank Sartor, has admitted to the people of the Riverina that that is also the reason Labor is now locking up the magnificent red gum forests along the Murray River. It is all about Labor securing the Greens preferences for the 2011 election. It has nothing to do with good forest management or regional development.

Regional communities had wind farm developments imposed on their doorsteps, whether they liked them or not. The proponents and supporters of wind farms pointed to the first wind farm in New South Wales, Crookwell 1, with six turbines, as a successful example of an operating wind farm in New South Wales. The Crookwell 1 development has its own detractors, particularly the adjoining landholders who have to suffer the noise, shadow flickering and visual pollution of the towers. In addition, the towers are just 60 metres to the hub with 20 metres blades, making a total tower height of 80 metres. A more recent development on the Cullerin Range south of Goulburn has towers 80 metres high to the hub with 40 metres blades, with a total height of 120 metres. The new development proposals allow for towers 100 metres to the hub, with blades 55 metres long, making a total height of 155 metres, and with a generating capacity of 3 megawatts.

The most recent turbine development in Germany, which was not discussed during the inquiry, exhibits a tower 135 metres to the hub with blades 63 metres long, making a total height of 198 metres, and with a generating capacity of 7 megawatts. Let us consider the blade tip speeds for each of these dimensions. A 60-metre tower with blades 20 metres long spinning at 20 revolutions per minute will have a blade tip speed of 150.7 kilometres per hour. An 80-metre tower with blades 40 metres long spinning at 20 revolutions per minute will have a blade tip speed of 301.4 kilometres per hour. A 100-metre tower with blades 55 metres long spinning at 20 revolutions per minute will have a blade tip speed of 414 kilometres per hour. A 135-metre tower with blades 63 metres long spinning at 20 revolutions per minute will have a blade tip speed of 475 kilometres per hour.

The hubs have a governing system to prevent the blades from exceeding approximately 20 revolutions per minute, so even at a blade length of 63 metres the turbine's speed itself should not be a problem—although the turbine will be considerably noisier than turbines with shorter blade lengths—unless something malfunctions. There have been reports from both the United States of America and Denmark about the governors malfunctioning. In those cases, the blades spun out of control and reached a velocity that was well in excess of the limit of 20 revolutions per minute.

The consequences were disastrous, with one of the blades initially shattering, putting the whole turbine out of balance. The turbine completely destroyed itself as a result. Very large pieces of debris were flung hundreds of metres from the turbine. In the United States example a major highway was closed for hours because the turbine was spinning out of control for a period before it finally self-destructed. Should that scenario materialise on the Cullerin Range, it would close the Hume Highway. Several of the turbines on that wind farm are high above the highway and only a few hundred metres from it. That information was not put before the committee. I invite the wind farm companies to address the failures and identify measures that have been put in place to prevent such disasters from occurring in New South Wales wind farms.

A second issue not fully explored during the inquiry was ice thrown from the blades. As any pilot or regular traveller in light aircraft would know, ice being thrown from propeller blades is very common in colder climates and during the colder months. The same phenomenon can occur with wind farm blades. That has been documented in the United States of America. Wind companies say that the electronics will detect ice build-up on the blades and automatically shut down the turbine, but documented cases in the United States of America have seen ice the size of a single bed thrown up to 300 metres off a wind turbine blade. As ice has a specific gravity of 0.92, one cubic metre of ice weighs 920 kilograms. A lump of ice the size of a single bed could conceivably be between one and two cubic metres and as such weigh between one and two tonnes. A one tonne-plus lump of ice launching at hundreds of kilometres per hour has the potential to be a lethal missile as it comes into contact with the natural and/or built environment.

The report contains 21 recommendations. While I do not intend to go through each one in detail, I will make a few comments about some of the key recommendations and the dissenting report submitted by Government members. Recommendation 3 calls for wind farm developers to consider local government development control plans [DCPs], and the development application, when submitted to the Department of Planning, must contain information confirming that the plan has been complied with. This is a fundamental issue that should apply to all developments considered under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The current situation means that the Minister for Planning does not need to consider the impacts on local communities when granting approvals of this nature.

Local government is often cited as the level of government that is closest to the people. However, there is no point in local councils going to the trouble, time and expense of undertaking community consultation to prepare a development control plan when the Minister can simply disregard it. Recommendation 7 raises the issue of minimum setback distances of turbines from residences, and recommends that a minimum distance of two kilometres should be included in the New South Wales planning and assessment guidelines for wind farms. The second part of this recommendation is also important as it allows for the minimum distance to be waived with the consent of the affected owner. Recommendation 9 addresses the decommissioning of expired turbines: developers should pay a security bond to cover the cost of rehabilitation of the site, in much the same way as a mining development is required to pay a security bond to cover the cost of rehabilitation should the mine fail financially during the mining phase.

Recommendation 11 calls for research into compensation options for adversely affected residents, including the purchase of affected property. The general tenet of the Government members' dissent was that the setback distances of two kilometres between a turbine and a non-associated residential dwelling was to address the issue of noise impacts. Noise is not the only issue. Government members appear to have little or no understanding of the beauty of high regional areas, the aesthetic values property owners in these areas place on their vistas, the peace and quiet of where they live, and the serenity and the intrinsic values of living and working on the land. Finally, I congratulate the staff on the management of the inquiry and preparation of the report. As usual, their performance was outstanding and I thank them for their untiring efforts. I commend the report to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.02 p.m.]: As the Greens energy spokesperson I respond to the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 entitled "Rural Wind Farms". In doing so I make the observation that wind is an extremely important source of energy. If we are to take seriously the challenge of decarbonising our electricity industry, moving away from an industry which currently produces something like 40 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions in New South Wales and about 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, wind will play a crucial role, at least as a transition source of energy if not as a long-run player in the low-carbon energy future. As it stands today, wind is the cheapest and most cost-effective competitor to coal, and any reasonable carbon price would start seeing much greater economic viability for wind energy. Wind also offers a huge jobs benefit, particularly in rural and regional areas, not only in terms of the manufacture of some key components—it is possible to manufacture about 80 per cent of the components of wind turbines in Australia—but also in terms of maintenance and installation. For many depressed rural communities wind energy offers a way of gaining some of the 73,800 jobs that a clean energy future would bring to New South Wales.

There are huge economic benefits to be gained from wind energy if it is done in the right way. A number of arguments against wind energy have been intelligently canvassed in the report. Some of the arguments were just plain silly. The energy payback argument is based on non-science and misleading data, and should be rejected, as indeed it was in the report. Some arguments sound good but, when examined more closely, are not sound at all. One of those arguments relates to base load power. It has been argued that wind does not provide base load power and therefore cannot contribute to the reduction of coal burning. This is complete nonsense. In the diversified low-carbon energy future there is no question that we need to move away from the old definition of base load.

Base load was a concept that was developed to build patterns of demand that would support fossil fuel powered boiler generators. As we move away from that technology we need to look more carefully at what we mean by some of these terms. One term which will inevitably disappear is the concept of base load. Another issue that is often raised is that the existing transmission grid will not support wind energy. Recommendation 1 in the report, which relates to alternative funding options for transmission development that would allow wind power to be sited at locations which not only have a lower impact on surrounding neighbours but also have a better wind resource, makes eminent sense and is entirely supported.

One issue that definitely needs resolution is that of the relationship between wind farms and their surrounding neighbours. The report proposed a study of community ownership as an important ingredient for resolving the conflicts that seem to be arising. There is no question that in Europe, especially in Denmark and Germany, community ownership of wind farms, both local shareholding ownership and ownership by local public authorities—the equivalent of our local government—has been enormously successful not only in developing wind farms with a lower degree of opposition but also in terms of securing the economic benefits back to the region in which the generators are sited. Indeed, a comparison between Denmark and the United Kingdom showed the utility of community-owned wind farms and the consequences of better decision making from them.

Unfortunately, community ownership, which is a sensible idea, cannot be relied on as a sole vehicle for development. There simply is not enough cash in rural communities and the timetables that would be required are too long given the urgency of reducing our carbon pollution. It is inevitable that the future of wind energy will rely on both utility and private investor driven projects for some time to come. The committee also identified a lack of clarity about noise monitoring and regulation. We agree with the concept that the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water should be the appropriate body with the appropriate expertise, as outlined in recommendation 5.

The report also identified problems with the development of renewably energy precincts and made some sensible recommendations in recommendation 8. It is clear that the way the renewable energy precincts have been handled has created unnecessary consternation that could have been avoided. While the precinct is a good idea for orderly development, the community needs to understand where the recommendations are coming from. The issue of setbacks in recommendation 7 has been the most controversial aspect of this report. Recommendation 7 proposes a two-kilometre setback between a neighbouring residential building and the wind farm, but that can be waived with the consent of the affected parties. I strongly welcome the interpretation offered by the committee chair, Ian Cohen, where he cast this recommendation into the important issue of benefit sharing, with the Land and Environment Court as the final arbiter.

I am pleased to hear that this recommendation was not intended to mean a simple two-kilometre setback; nor was it intended to create a veto right for neighbours. That would have sterilised a massive area of New South Wales for important wind resources. Giving a simple veto right to the neighbours would impede the progress of renewable energy in this State.

Mr Ian Cohen identified that it was not the intent to stop wind farms in the State. While the wording of recommendation 7 is perhaps a little bit confusing, the intent behind it, as now clarified, seems to be consistent with the desire to have an orderly development for green energy in New South Wales. The Greens simply could not support a two-kilometre setback, or the right of simple veto. We agree with Mr Ian Cohen that it is important to explore the benefits of sharing between neighbours that could reduce opposition to the orderly development of wind farms. There needs to be a more detailed debate on this issue. Some commentators have proposed a setback of 10 times the blade diameter, and for a typical 2.5 megawatt generator in New South Wales that would be about 800 metres. That is a sensible setback for a plant of that size. Larger plants would clearly need larger setbacks and smaller plants would need smaller setbacks.

The debate on the future of wind, no doubt, will continue as it should, and this report will become a key component in that debate, but it is important that it be driven by quality information. Too many groups that are hostile to wind farms are feeding into the debate information that is simply wrong—groups like the North American Platform Against Windpower, the European Platform Against Windfarms and the National Wind Watch in the United Kingdom are exaggerating the noise and amenity impacts. They provide malicious understatements of the energy contribution from wind farms and the roles that they can play in the future of energy, and they totally overstate the impacts on birds. They seek to exploit the ignorance of the community about energy issues and to stir up fear wherever they go.

The future for New South Wales is dependent on an orderly development of wind energy. It is extremely important that misinformation peddled by such groups and others is rejected and that it does not become part of the debate. This needs to be a debate about the future of rural communities, the planet and Australia's energy industry; it should not be a debate that is misinformed by malicious lies and misleading statements.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.12 p.m.]: I do not know where to start; I am flabbergasted. I often hear the Government accused of spin, but what has been said about recommendation 7 in this debate thus far is the biggest load of spin I have ever heard. The recommendation is clear. It calls for the Minister for Planning to include a minimum setback distance of two kilometres between wind turbines and residences on neighbouring properties in the New South Wales Planning and Assessment Guidelines for Wind Farms.

Mr Ian Cohen: Let's hear the rest of the recommendation.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The guidelines should also identify that the minimum setback of two kilometres can be waived with the consent of the affected property owners. It is asking that there be a minimum setback of two kilometres, which can be waived only with the consent of a neighbour. It is clear: The neighbour has the power of veto. This is the biggest load of spin I have ever heard. Members who accuse the Government of putting spin on its messages are guilty of presenting the biggest load of spin I have ever heard.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Would you like one near your place? We will start putting them in inner Sydney.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interjecting, but I would be interested to hear from him about recommendation 1, which relates to investing in transmission lines—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I didn't say anything about transmission lines. I said that we will put them near your in house.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: This morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Energy a question about electricity prices that related directly to investment in transmission lines. How much does the Opposition intend to invest in transmission lines, and how much will the people in New South Wales have to pay for that through their electricity bills? It is a complete fraud for the Opposition to criticise this Government's investment in transmission lines without justifying its own statements in this regard.

This was an amazing inquiry. Prior to the inquiry the most I had heard about wind farms was that which came from Michael Costa, and I am sure all members will recall his views. Until I became a member of this inquiry I had only ever heard Michael Costa's views on the subject. Interestingly, the views previously espoused and canvassed by Michael Costa were suddenly taken as the Gospel truth in this inquiry. I felt like Pancho Sanchez to the Hon. Rick Colless's Don Quixote, as he donned his armour and we went riding off into the darkness of the rural countryside tilting at windmills as if they were giant beasts.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is interesting how brave you have become about Michael Costa since he has left the Chamber. You didn't say anything about Michael Costa when he was in the Chamber. Great bravery after he has gone.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I note that comment. I invite the Hon. Trevor Khan to read Hansard because I certainly said plenty about Michael Costa. Inquiries such as this are very important in order for people to express their views, but quite often those views are the views of people on one side of the argument rather than the views of people from all sides of the argument. A couple of incidents that occurred during the conduct of the inquiry say a lot about this matter. I recall one occasion when committee members went to inspect a wind farm site, and we were driving through the night, for hour after hour. I am sure we were lost at one stage. We were travelling along in our bus. We would probably have been better of on horseback because we were certainly on a dirt track and our bus driver was looking very concerned.

Eventually we pulled over because we saw a car approaching us in the distance. I said "That will be it. That car is coming down to pick us up. This is the farm we have come to inspect." When the car stopped its driver, "Ah, what do you guys want?" And someone among us—someone very brave because we had not checked to see whether this bloke had a weapon—put his head out the window and said, "We are a busload of politicians out here conducting an inquiry into wind farms." After the guy stopped laughing he said, "Oh, you'll want that mob that squeak up the hill a bit. Off you go up there." And we did go. It proved to be important to speak to these people. I was asked whether I could hear anything. Well, I am afraid that apart from hearing the dog barking next door and a bloke playing Cold Chisel on the next farm, I could not actually hear anything from the wind farms.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So where were these armed farmers?

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: We were out the back of Lake George. It is important to visit these areas. If a wind farm were operating in Bardwell Park, where I live, I doubt that anyone living there would hear the wind turbines over other noises in the area. I certainly could not hear such a noise at that farm on that occasion. It may have been possible had I been closer, or things were quieter, or the bloke next door was not playing Cold Chisel—

[Interruption]

There is nothing wrong with Cold Chisel, that is quite right; they are quite good. An interesting comment made by someone at another site we inspected was, "Why should we put up wind farms so you people"—and I love this type of comment—"in the city can have clothes dryers?" I pointed out that I did not have a clothes dryer and I was shocked to learn that people in the country do not use electricity or clothes dryers. But the important message to relay here is that electricity, and its provision across the State, is a benefit not only to city people but also to country people and the growth of New South Wales. And that is where the difficulty arises in all of this. The arguments expressed about Scone were quite interesting. It was argued that windmills would scare the skittish horses in the area and therefore they could not conduct sales in Scone. I know that the breeders at Scone have had problems with Bickham Coal Company, and am surprised that jockeys are allowed to ride this precious breed of horse from Scone.

Mr Ian Cohen: They are missing Ian Macdonald!

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: They are probably missing Ian Macdonald. Obviously the coalmines and the wind farms are out, so where is the balance in the energy debate? The reality is that there needs to be a mix of energy needs. If we are talking renewable energy, as Dr John Kaye said, wind farms and the development of the wind farm industry are an important part of the mix. Nowhere in the world, particularly in Europe, is there a setback of two kilometres. In fact I understand that the widest setback in Europe is one kilometre. Mr Ian Cohen may want to check that. I would like to know, however, where is the mix that works and that has no spin.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.20 p.m.]: Madam Deputy-President—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Are you about to endorse what the Hon. Lynda Voltz just said?

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: Does the member wish to speak in the debate? If she does, she will have to seek the call from the Deputy-President.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Are you about to endorse what the Hon. Lynda Voltz just said or are you issuing a dissenting report?

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: Is the member speaking to me?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is difficult to hear the member because of the noise in the Chamber.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale); Order! I ask the member to address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I am pleased to speak to report No. 31 of the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on its inquiry into rural wind farms. I am happy to say that I am in broad agreement with 20 of the recommendations of the report, dissenting to only one recommendation, about which I will speak shortly. Wind farms are an important addition to our energy infrastructure and over time will assume an important place in the energy security of Australia. As a farmer in rural New South Wales, I can see that leasing land for wind farms will be an attractive way for farmers to generate additional farm income, and I strongly support the recommendations in the report regarding decommissioning of generators.

Farmers and other landowners who allow their land to be utilised, however, must have the peace of mind that, should something go wrong, they will not be left with the costs associated with removing such large pieces of infrastructure. Decommissioning costs are now commonplace with other power systems. This is especially the case with regard to nuclear power since overseas experience has shown that governments have had to foot the bill in some instances. Recommendation 7 states:

That the Minister for Planning include a minimum setback distance of two kilometres between wind turbines and residences on neighbouring properties in the NSW Planning and Assessment Guidelines for Wind Farms. The guidelines should also identify that the minimum setback of two kilometres can be waived with the consent of the affected neighbouring property owner.

With regard to my dissenting opinion to recommendation 7, I believe that responsible setback parameters are required. However, I believe that a blanket ban such as that provided by recommendation 7, which sets a minimum two-kilometre setback, is unworkable and unreasonable. In my view the noise generated by wind turbines is fairly negligible when compared with noise generated by frost fans. My concern would be with the constant shadows that turbines can cast. I can fully understand the annoyance that people have with regard to strobing shadows. Poorly placed turbines, especially a bank of them, could see individual property owners suffering as a result of this effect, not just during one part of the day from one turbine but for a considerable length of the day from numerous turbines as the sun crosses the sky. While I agree with the committee that this effect has not been scientifically proven to cause ill effect, I personally would not appreciate it and I understand why others who have experienced it do not.

In many respects I disagree with recommendation 7 for the same reasons that I disagree with the recommendation that new houses should not be built within two kilometres of existing wind farms. While people should have the right to complain about wind farms, existing and proposed, others should also be allowed to build within whatever envelope they decide is appropriate, should they wish to, except when there is potential for danger to them should they do so. The merit-based noise assessments under the South Australian guidelines are a good and proper process and will provide acceptable safeguards. I would like to recognise the efforts of the committee secretariat once again, who provide us with support and assistance when we undertake important inquiries such as this.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.24 p.m.]: I would like to speak to a number of the recommendations, but I certainly will not be covering them all. The detailed substance of the report has been adequately covered by other members today. However, I think it is worthwhile talking about the origins of the inquiry. The terms of reference and the request for the inquiry came about because of opposition in one part of the State to the development and construction of wind farms. The inquiry was referred following representations by a local member. The submissions and evidence we received at the various hearings were very much from the perspective of community members who were opposed to the development and construction of wind farms in their local area. As someone who has a history in local government I understand the concerns of local residents when changes are made, buildings are erected or industry developments take place in their local community or neighbourhood that they feel affect their lifestyle.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I tried to get some positive people from Crookwell.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I acknowledge the interjection because my partner's family is from the Goulburn area and had a property at Tarago, which has been sold. I know there is a divergence of views in the area. Not everyone is opposed to wind turbines and not everyone considers the towers ugly and unattractive. I accept that there are plenty who do, but I also know there are many who do not.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But there were people in the local community who were positive, and we got those to go to your committee.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Most of the residents we heard from—contrary to the interjection—were people who were opposed to the proposal, mostly on aesthetic grounds. There were some concerns about noise pollution and concerns about the impact on the health of people who lived within a certain distance of the towers. I was not convinced that there would be significant detrimental impacts on people's health. I accept that this is a subjective view: if you feel that you are impacted by noise or a development, then that is your experience and you will report it.

The difficulty for us, as public policymakers and legislators, is to address the issues we face as a community and society in a way that has minimal detrimental impact on people's lives. I think this is one of those vexed areas. If we are serious about seeking alternatives to coal-fired power generation or energy generation that produces pollution and emissions, we really have to look at alternatives such as wind power, and that means wind farms have to be constructed and they have to be located somewhere. Clearly, people who live near such structures and do not like the look of them and are concerned about them will object. That is basically what we saw in most of the submissions and heard in most of what was said by witnesses to the inquiry.

However, witnesses raised some legitimate matters and these were addressed in some of the recommendations. We heard evidence about the financial arrangements. The thing that struck me was that some communities were divided by these developments. Those who received financial benefits and saw it as a way of continuing to farm and to have farming and industry co-exist on their property, and received quite a good financial return for it, were very pleased. Those who live near the wind farms and thought they were affected by them and received no financial return or compensation for what they saw as a detrimental impact on them were very angry and really resented the development. It was very clear from what a number of witnesses said that this issue has divided communities.

It is worth our while as a Government and as legislators spending some time to find an alternative system or model of compensation. One of the committee's recommendations looks at that aspect. There are some models in other jurisdictions, mostly in other parts of the world, that seem to go some way towards ensuring that neighbours could get fairer compensation or receive some payment. That is certainly worth exploring and I support the committee's recommendation in that regard. I do not think the problem is very difficult to overcome. I also accept that consideration should be given to purchasing affected properties and then if buyers choose to purchase those properties knowing that a wind farm has been approved for the site, that is a very fair and reasonable approach to the issue. They are the areas that I found very useful in the inquiry process.

Recommendations 7 and 10 in particular—members have already referred to recommendation 7—were about creating barriers and preventing the development of wind farms. With regard to recommendation 7, in my view the distance of two kilometres for the setback was an arbitrary distance that was plucked out of the air. When we asked where the figure came from the response was that as some council in South Australia had that distance in its guidelines it had been decided to adopt it. There was never any science behind the two-kilometre distance proposal. I was very pleased to hear Dr John Kaye's contribution in this regard because until I heard him speak I thought the Greens supported the two-kilometre recommendation. That surprised me because I saw that distance requirement as something that would prohibit the appropriate development of wind farms, which would seriously address the need for green power generation in this State. I was pleased to have that clarified by Dr John Kaye.

I was the only committee member who did not support recommendation 10, which is that the Minister for Planning increase the public exhibition period for environmental assessments of wind farms from 30 days to 90 days. That is three months! What other sorts of development applications require an exhibition period of that length? I was astounded that I was the only member who opposed that proposal. All it will do, I think, is prohibit the appropriate development of wind farms. There is no need for a period of 90 days. For goodness sake, 30 days is more than adequate. Perhaps it could be 60 days, but 90 days puts just another barrier in the way of the design and construction of wind farms, which are so important to our environment. I must say I found the experience of this inquiry quite useful and I learnt quite a bit from it.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: That is good.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I acknowledge the interjection. I am a person who can always learn something, unlike the Hon. Trevor Khan. Overall I think the committee's recommendations are worthy of support and the inquiry was very worthwhile. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.34 p.m.]: I had not intended to speak on this matter when I entered the Chamber this afternoon but some of the comments that have been made today have prompted me to say a few words. Firstly, I congratulate all the members of the committee on their diligence and on visiting areas affected by wind farms. I know that it was appreciated by the people who live in those areas. I live in Crookwell, one of the affected areas. Many members in this House know that I live in Crookwell, but people reading Hansard will not know unless I tell them. Our community is very much divided on this issue, as I am sure committee members found out on their visit. I would be hard pressed to say whether there is a majority one way or the other in my community. I think it is pretty close to 50:50. Because I have a problem with the process and the way it has been administered I think probably more people against the developments talk to me than those who are in favour of them. It was implied that the hearings were deliberately structured so that the people who gave evidence were against the proposals. I know of someone who is against them, but I went to a lot of trouble to get people who were in favour of wind farms to address the committee.

[Interruption]

If members opposite listen they might learn something and they will not repeat such stupid statements as they have already made.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: They are the chattering classes over there.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale); Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will resume his remarks.

[Interruption]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Can we stop the clock if members opposite do not stop interjecting?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale); Order! I would certainly give consideration to that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Do you want to make yourself look more stupid than you already have?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: No, I am just asking for clarification on the ruling that the clock be stopped when members interject. I hope the Chair will be consistent.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale); Order! It is appropriate that the clock be stopped if the debate appears to be being derailed by unnecessary interjections. I have no intention of doing so at the moment. However, I advise members that I will if I believe it is appropriate to do so.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The obvious advantage of wind power is that it is the renewable part of electricity generation. The problems that arise in a community are particularly to do with the planning process. When part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is introduced and local consultation is removed from the issue, problems arise. We appreciate how good it is for some farmers to have a stable form of income that underwrites their farming enterprise. That is just terrific. In particular instances I have noticed groups of farmers in a region are getting together and saying, "We would like to generate wind power in this region in a particular area in this locality." In fact, some friends of mine in the Golspie area between Crookwell and Taralga are doing exactly that. All the people in that community have got together and want the development to go ahead. That is different from the areas where the real concern exists. In areas where developments are going ahead, people are looking after their neighbours and their mates, as true farmers do. They are all sharing in the return and they acknowledge that there are some houses that wind farms should not be near.

The inner city chattering class was telling us it is fabulous to have wind farms in the country but I bet if you asked them whether they wanted them in their area, there would be a real NIMBY response—not in my backyard. Government members would not want a wind farm on their streets or located within two kilometres of their inner-city properties. They would not want to worry about power outages or the loss of power along their transmission lines. I have spoken in this House on numerous occasions about the Dooley family, which lives in Crookwell. The Dooley family, which has farmed on its property since the 1820s, has right beside its farm the Crookwell 1 wind farm. The new wind farm is to be located on the Prelle's property, which is located on the other side of the Dooley's farm. The first wind farm is located on the Seaman's property and the second wind farm is to be located on the Prelle's property—both fine families are original settlers in that area. Those farmers would not do anything deliberately to jeopardise their neighbours; however, there is a problem with neighbour on neighbour. As I said earlier, the Dooley family, whose property will be surrounded by wind farms, will get nothing other than the destruction of their heritage and the noise from the wind farms located on three sides of their property.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: They don't want compensation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Lynda Voltz said that the Dooley family, which does not want compensation, should contend with the noise that is emanating from these wind farms. The member is tolerant of many things, but if someone in rural New South Wales says something that goes against her ideologies she does not give consideration to anyone. Her family operation might organise part of the Labor Party, but that will not work on people in regional New South Wales. I found the earlier argument of the Hon. Lynda Voltz relating to no additional transmission lines facetious. Only a week ago I met with representatives from the Upper Lachlan Shire Council, who told me that they would have to link all these farms through a new 132-kilowatt transmission line.

That line would have to run from Paling Yards near Taralga—which is a good and supportable proposition—through to Golspie, with perhaps a new one at Roslyn and others at Crookwell 1, Crookwell 2, Crookwell 3 and Crookwell 4. Are members getting the picture? That will have a cumulative effect on our community. Government members have referred to the cumulative effect from coalmining and coal dust, but my community would have a cumulative effect from wall-to-wall wind generation. When some members of the community benefit from such proposals and others do not it impacts on land values in the area and on the quality of life and harmony in the community. That is why we are angry.

We become even angrier when we hear stupid comments such as those made earlier by the Hon. Lynda Voltz, who implied that people in regional areas were akin to the people portrayed in Deliverance. People are concerned, but their greatest concern relates to the part 3A process, which means that the community will have no say. The community will not have a say about issues that affect Colin Dooley and his family. Those decisions, which will now be made in Sydney, will have no local input. The council, which knows those local people, should at the very least have adhered to the recommendations of the community.

The future generation of energy in New South Wales relies on a good mix of renewable energy. Wind generation forms only part of that renewable energy mix. If we are to do this we require community support. However, if people are divided in the way in which my community has been divided and their rights are overridden, we will not get community respect or support, and New South Wales will be the loser. I congratulate the committee and all the members of that committee. The people to whom I spoke said that they were heartened by their approach, their concern and their humility when they visited their properties.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.44 p.m.], in reply: This interesting and stimulating debate covered a number of issues concerning wind farms: the rights of local communities, the need for better and cleaner energy generation strategies, and the need to move away from a coal-addicted economy. Wind power is a wise direction for us to go. In my role as chair of the committee that conducted this inquiry I learned a lot from visiting those regional communities. I acknowledge the statement made earlier by the Hon. Duncan Gay: There is concern and that concern should be taken into account. These communities should count, whether they are minority communities located a long way away, or whether they are of a different political genre. All communities have rights. In our deliberations we took into account the rights of minority communities.

I found some of the issues that were raised in debate interesting. Much of the debate relating to this inquiry is reactionary scaremongering. The Hon. Rick Colless was angry about a number of issues that were put forward, wisely, by the State Government, but they created a barrier to us working together. In his contribution he referred to serenity and to intrinsic values. The way in which people choose to live is extremely important. They are not living in the inner city beside railway lines or where they have the benefit of cultural inner-city activities, work, and so forth. That is their choice, in the same way as the Hon. Lynda Voltz chooses to live at Bardwell Park. When I was a kid I lived at Bardwell Park close to a train line and that noise disturbed me a great deal. That is something that people deal with when they choose to live in an area.

People who are living in relatively remote areas specifically choose to live in a quiet environment. It is a fair call that we should take note of their concerns, even though the ambient noise levels may be far lower than the ambient noise levels suffered by many others. Unfortunately we are divided on this debate. We are not looking at all the people in our communities and their different needs. I appreciated the earlier input of Dr John Kaye. One of the things to which he did not refer was the two-kilometre setback. There are levels of interaction or opportunity, and I believe that neighbours living within that two-kilometre area should have a say. If it is not acceptable, that is a debate that we should have.

Another thing that is not acceptable to the New South Wales Greens relates to part 3A and the way in which the Government jackbooted many developments onto communities that have suffered greatly. We have two important themes: the rights of individuals and small communities as opposed to what might be termed good government projects in many instances. As an individual and as a member of this inquiry I have consistently said—this is my opinion that may be tested internally in my organisation—that part 3A ignores the rights of people in small communities. There must be another way. The Hon. Duncan Gay said earlier that local councils should have an input. Many strategies have been implemented as a result of inquiries and recommendations have been made about communities getting together. I do not believe that committee members visited Deliverance country; I believe that we visited an area of great hospitality. It was an area in which people, rightly or wrongly—I do not even say justifiably—were understandably upset by the imposition of these developments in their particular environment.

We need to take a step back, stop being so partisan and try to look at this clearly. I believe passionately in alternative energy, and wind farm development has a major role to play. I agree with the Government and John Kaye on that issue. Duncan Gay acknowledged the importance of this industry and its contribution to the regular inflow of capital and work opportunities for many farming people. We need to have this discussion. The community discussion in which the committee engaged was valuable in filling in some of the gaps. It is extremely important to remember that even with the best will and intentions in the world people get their backs up and get upset if we override local communities and people's rights. To one person, the flickering of a blade on a wind turbine generator may be nothing, but to others it may cause great distress.

I say quite blatantly: I understand that stress will be greater if someone knows their neighbour is receiving $860,000 a year for having a wind farm on their property while they receive nothing and are less than a kilometre away from it. We must have some sharing. I spoke to one of the wind farm proponents who had not factored that into the economic balance of the development. Developers and the Government must factor in the human element: It is an important one that must be acknowledged. In no way does that remove the importance of wind farms and the comparative lesser impacts on neighbours of wind farms compared with coalmines and other forms of energy generation that involve a litany of major problems.

Does the end justify the means? How do we find an acceptable balance? We live in a series of communities and we should take note of how to find that balance. It is extremely important to be adaptable and have sympathy for those who are affected. This issue goes way beyond wind farms or any other development. We are talking about all sorts of developments. One minute everything can be fine and the next minute people find that the construction of high-rise buildings next door to them is being mooted. These situations have a massive impact on people; it has happened to me. I know what it is like. I am sure many other members have suffered similarly when massive developments that impact on people's lifestyles have occurred under part 3A. These problems are not necessarily that easy to quantify. The issue might be noise or coal dust, but it might also be an aesthetic value knocked out by bulldozers in one go because the Government declares a need for more building or community infrastructure in a particular place.

I am not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. I am constantly concerned about the lack of humanity of big governance that does not recognise that these types of developments impact deeply on many so-called little people. Again I sheet that blame home to part 3A. If we have more community consultation and local government can have more say, at least people might feel they are being heard. Currently, people are not being heard. This is an indictment of the Labor Government. As I have said, and will say time and again, this is a worthwhile project. We need to go the extra mile to facilitate better community relations. I am not concerned about the suggestion that a two-kilometre setback does not exist anywhere else in the world. Australia is a special landscape.

Cleared hills are not necessarily aesthetically pleasing; nevertheless, the very nature of that landscape means that a massive wind farm two kilometres away has a huge impact. The ambient noise level was low in many of those areas. A relatively low-level noise has a much more significant impact on those living in rural areas than on someone living in the inner city. In conclusion, I thank the committee members. We worked well together on the inquiry. It was a difficult task at times. A number of submissions held vastly opposing views on particular matters. I specifically thank Rachel Callinan, Beverly Duffy, Emily Nagle, Kate Mihaljek and Rhia Victorino for their hard work in preparing a worthwhile report. I hope it starts the debate. [Time expired.]

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.