Moyne councillor Jim Doukas critical of Macarthur wind farm report
The Standard
Anthony Brady
30 October 2014

A DEFIANT Moyne Shire councillor angered his fellow councillors but delighted the wind farm critics during a heated exchange in the council chambers this week.

A large gallery of wind farm critics cheered on Jim Doukas when he criticised the council’s response to complaints about noise issues relating to the giant Macarthur wind farm.

Cr Doukas was the only councillor to oppose the passing of a report approving the council’s handling of the complaints.

Cr Doukas claimed the report was biased and weak and brought into question the council’s relationship with wind farm owner AGL.

“The report is so light on information and facts it seems like it is bias. Is AGL doing something for us we don’t know about, because it looks that way.”

This comment brought an indignant response from mayor James Purcell.

“I may have misheard your representation, it appeared you were insinuating that this council, the integrity of councillors, was at risk here,” Cr Purcell said.

“This council has the highest integrity of any council any where in the world,” the mayor said.

Cr Doukas denied he had questioned the integrity of his fellow councillors but remained strong in his attack of the report.

He said council should do the right thing by the community and revisit this issue by conducting another investigation to come up with an “unbiased” outcome.

“It is not treating the people being affected fairly and not treating the other residents of the Moyne Shire fairly, because it’s the rate money we are going to have to spend when it goes to court.

“It’s all very well for us to sit here and act tough because we have ratepayers’ money, but if we had to defend ourselves with our own money maybe we’d have a different outlook.”

Earlier in the meeting Macarthur resident Jan Hetherington addressed the councillors, warning them of dire consequences should they approve the report.

“It is the opinion of the residents you may put yourselves in a position where you may be held accountable under the Australian Criminal Code Act,” Ms Hetherington said.

“Of which you have been made fully aware and in which case you most probably will not be covered by Moyne Shire’s insurance policies.”

She labelled information from the council’s solicitors that noise from the wind farm is not substantial and unreasonable as “utter rubbish” and said council should be ashamed of itself if it accepts such a poorly presented report.

“Should you approve of this report and its totally wrong conclusion you, through your continual ignorance and seeming willingness to hide and ignore all the evidence of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, will be knowingly allowing ongoing torture in the form of sleep deprivation.”

Cr Ralph Leutton caused a stir in his address supporting the report when he put forward his own scenario to Cr Doukas’ suggestion that wind farms should be turned off at night time.

He asked Moyne CEO David Madden if he could turn off the waves crashing on the beach in Port Fairy at night if that noise was causing a lack of sleep for residents.

A member of the gallery injected loudly that she had not chosen to live next to wind farms and that councillors had no idea of what residents are going through.
The Standard

Ralph Leutton’s attitude towards the suffering of his constituents tends to undermine James Purcell’s wild claim about the Moyne Shire Council having the “highest integrity any where in the world”.

That would be a mighty big claim at the best of times, but with this council thumbing its nose at its statutory duty “to achieve the highest attainable standard of public health and wellbeing by protecting public health and promoting conditions in which persons can be healthy” (set by s4 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008) – Purcell’s claim that it has world beating “integrity” falls just a little flat.

When it comes to “noise or other emissions” the Council (under s60 of that Act) comes under an express “duty to remedy as far as is reasonably possible all nuisances existing in its municipal district”. That duty applies to “nuisances which are, or are liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive”.  Where “offensive” means noxious or injurious to personal comfort”.

The decision of the majority simply cocks a snook at the Council’s absolute duty under the Act, which is clearly designed to protect and promote the health of ALL Victorian citizens. ALL citizens, that is, except those with the misfortune of being stuck next to 140 giant 3MW, Vestas V112s – according to the Moyne Shire Council.

Jim Doukas’ comment that the Council’s report is “biased” in favour of the operator, AGL is mastery in understatement.

In dismissing the residents’ well-documented complaints out of hand, the Council’s whitewash asserts that: “The social utility of the Macarthur WEF is significant, in that it is a source of renewable energy that does not cause greenhouse gases or other pollutants”.

So, let’s get this straight: if the Macarthur Wind Energy Facility was being run on coal or gas instead, the residents’ complaints would have been treated seriously; the Council would have acted consistently with its duty under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act; and ordered that the Facility be shut down at night?

But because we’re talking about “wonderful” wind power, the Council gets to ignore their suffering; abdicate its statutory duty to its residents (and ratepayers); treat them as “road-kill” and leave them to rot in what have become sonic torture traps (see our post here).

As we said in this post: “When those that govern us become indifferent to the reasonable demands of those they’re paid handsomely to represent, the very integrity of the institution of government suffers. When that indifference turns to open contempt (as it has), it isn’t long before ordinary people become fed-up, grab their pitchforks and revolt.”

Using the tag “renewable energy” in a cynical effort to “justify” the suffering caused to the health and well-being of hard-working, tax-paying citizens by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound is nothing short of monstrous (see our post here).

The Council’s report concedes that the noise generated by AGL’s turbines causes “sleep disturbance” and yet says that suffering from “sleep deprivation” is not “dangerous to health”.

That “finding” will come as news to the World Health Organization which – in its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII covers the point – says:

NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH

There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.

Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions.

The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.

• Sleep is a biological necessity and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of adverse impacts on health.
• There is sufficient evidence for biological effects of noise during sleep: increase in heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakening.
• There is sufficient evidence that night noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.
• While noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being.
• There is limited evidence that disturbed sleep causes fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.
• There is limited evidence that noise at night causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as cardiovascular illness, depression and other mental illness. It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain.

But what would the World Health Organization know about night-time noise, sleep and health, hey? Apparently, half-a-dozen country bumpkins wedded to defending the wind industry at all costs know better than the world’s top public health experts.

Maybe it’s that level of “expertise” that’s led to the Moyne Shire Council having the “highest integrity any where in the world”? This is one group of councillors who will never be accused of modesty.

STT loves Ralph Leutton’s specious comparison between noise from turbines and waves lapping on a moonlit beach –  a line that comes straight from the wind industry play book.

The wind industry wrote the noise standards that councils (see our post here), planning departments (see our post here) and EPAs (see our post here) use to cover up the noise problem (see our post here); invented lies about wind turbines sounding like a refrigerator 500m away; or like waves lapping on a moonlit beach (see our post here); and invented a nonsense theory that the only people suffering from turbine noise impacts are red-necked climate change DENIERS who refuse to fall in love with the “majestic” look of giant fans – a class of people that one advocate of the “nocebo” story calls “wind farm wing nuts” (see our post here).

For Ralph Leutton’s benefit here’s a video of what his beloved turbines really sound like – the first sequence is from Macarthur. STT finds it hard to believe that anyone in touch with their earthly senses could compare wind turbine noise to waves lapping on a beach:

****

 ****