Against the wind

www.theage.com.au
31 Mar 2012

THE rocky hills of the great divide south-west of Heathcote in central Victoria are picturesque and, for the most part, unnoticed. The McHarg Ranges have no heritage listing, house no threatened species and rate not a mention on the Tourism Victoria website. As far as officialdom is concerned, they barely exist at all.

But what they do have is wind. And it is this rapidly moving air that has created friction between clean energy developers and a small but well-connected group of locals. These include Lady Marigold Southey, a one time lieutenant governor of Victoria, stalwart of the Baillieu/Myer family and owner of an 800 hectare farm and vineyard near the one-store hamlet of Tooborac. Lady Southey is also Premier Ted Baillieu's second cousin and an active opponent of a proposal for an 80 turbine wind farm in the area.

In 2010, she embarked on a letter writing campaign to the management and board members of Transfield Holdings, the construction company behind the proposal. Her confidential letters, seen by The Saturday Age, were polite, but warned of a possible ''drawn out and acrimonious conflict'' if her concerns were not addressed.

The following November, the Coalition returned from the political wilderness with a promise of strict new wind farm regulations, Australia's toughest. They included an effective right of veto for individuals living within two km of proposed turbines, a ban on turbines within 5 km of 21 regional centres, and ''no-go'' zones including the Great Ocean Rd, Mornington Peninsula, Wilsons Promontory, the entire Macedon Ranges shire and the McHarg Ranges.

Its inclusion had industry leaders and government officials scratching their heads, largely because no one had heard of them. The designation of McHarg Ranges as a ''no-go'' zone for turbines lies at the heart of a bigger question: what motivated the government to introduce Australia's toughest wind farm laws, and how did they choose which areas would be excluded?

The Saturday Age does not suggest that Lady Southey has done any more than exercise her right to oppose a development, or that her lobbying was the deciding factor in the ban on turbines neighbouring her property. But the Coalition has been criticised for offering little in the way of explanation for the new rules. It has previously said that while it supports wind power, it was committed to returning certainty and fairness after the previous Labor government had imposed wind farms on reluctant local communities.

While Planning Minister Matthew Guy delivered it publicly, it is understood in business circles that it is the Premier who has driven both the policy and its implementation. The Coalition's approach to wind development has raised concerns across business, planning and local government circles. The Australian Industry Group, which represents more than 60,000 businesses across the country, says it is costing the state billions in investment. Victorian group chief Tim Piper says he raised his concerns, primarily about a lack of flexibility, with the government but was told the laws would not be changed.

''We know investment has been lost, and we know there have also been unintended consequences,'' he says. ''We have companies that have wanted to put up small turbines on industrial plants well away from homes and they have been prevented because of these regulations.'' Michelle Quigley, SC, one of Victoria's most senior planning lawyers who has represented several energy companies, says the idea of individual householders having veto over development would have once been anathema to the party of the free market.

''From a political or policy point of view, this amendment seems totally inconsistent with Liberal philosophy,'' she says. ''It is an arbitrary and prescriptive approach which does not apply to any other use or development of land in Victoria.'' At a council level, the Mount Alexander Shire has passed a resolution opposing the blanket ban on turbines in its shire, while the Greater Bendigo council has written to the government asking for it to explain its reasoning.

Bendigo Cr Keith Reynard says it sets a dangerous precedent. ''Imagine if the government had to get 100% approval in Parliament for everything it wants to do, the state would be at a standstill,'' he says.

More…


This article clearly proves that Ted Baillieu is not governing for Victorians but only for a few close mates and some vested interests who are more interested in short-term gain.