The NSW and Queensland Government have a plan. If they sell off the assets they will be no longer responsible if things go wrong. This does leave a fundamental problem in terms of legacy – A number of problems actually.
Starting with: Will corporate simply view governments as irrelevant in the near future. They already do think that, and as an example when the Queensland Transport Department set traps to catch UBER drivers employed by Google and Goldman Sacks. The corporate told the drivers to continue business as usual and ignore the Department. Google even then disabled the Government ‘s capability to track the drivers. How could they do that – they are quoted nationally as saying the conglomerate has deeper pockets than the government.
Both NSW and Queensland seem to have suitors for the Energy Networks Companies they have on offer. Even the relevant Ministers’ seem confused as to what and how much is for sale. What the public know is that it is very likely two Asian based corporations will be in the front seat for the assets purchase. Both with deep pockets, and both with a high probability on controlling the total business in both states.
Can we have confidence wise decisions will be made? Maybe time will tell. But in NSW at least a very worrying case indicates the Government is more interesting in avoiding responsibility for its choices.
If you follow this story you may feel as apprehensive as we do: Wind farm at Gullen Range a ‘mess’ as matter heads back to court , January 26, 2015. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/wind-farm-at-gullen-range-a-mess-as-matter-heads-back-to-court-20150126-12ygnn.html
“”The scene is set for a right royal mess with no one happy. It follows the protestors, the complainants, the Developers, are all challenging the Minister over who is responsible for a litany of ‘mistakes’. s clueless, naive and dangerous in its understanding of national security. Suggesting the department is clueless, naive and dangerous in its understanding of its responsibility. To quote directly from the story: the Department – and therefore Ms Goward – had taken three different positions on the wind farm, which would be difficult to defend.
Firstly, the Department recommended conditional approval of the turbine changes to the PAC. In turn, this body refused the DA but along the way, the Department had recommended that just nine turbines be moved.
“So if it all goes to court, which position will she defend?” Mr Brooks asked.
“The whole thing is a colossal mess.”
Complicating matters is the Department’s oversight role earlier in the development. The company appointed an independent environmental monitor to oversee turbine placement and report to government planners. However, the Landscape Guardians alleged he had a conflict of interest as director of a consultancy firm that worked on the wind farm.
A Department spokesman told the Goulburn Post that this person was employed by a consultant and not by the government.
“[He] was not involved with the design, construction or operation of the project, having worked as a consultant preparing the environmental assessment for the application.
“Appointing [him] as the project’s environmental representative is in line with the project’s approval conditions and the Department’s procedures at the time.
“The Department has since improved requirements further to require wind farm consultants have an even greater level of independence.”
Adding to an “invidious” position, the Department allowed turbine construction to continue for a year after residents alerted it to their “incorrect” placement, Mr Brooks said.
“My [legal] advice is that the Minister will be obliged to defend the [Land and Environment Court] action seriously because her authority is at stake,” he told the Post.
“I hope the court throws it out, but that would throw up the situation where the PAC has rejected it, and we still have a wind farm of 69 turbines that are not in their approved locations. What happens next?”
A Department spokesman said the appeal was not about the merits of the modification, such as whether any turbines should be moved, but the process the PAC followed to make its decision.
“If the appeal is successful, then the modification application will need to be re-determined: at this stage the merits will be considered again,” he said.
“It would be highly unusual for a court to require new evidence from any party regarding an appeal of this nature,” he said.
Late last year, Mr Brooks lodged a complaint with the NSW Ombudsman about the Department’s handling of the project.
The Ombudsman was currently investigating, he said.
He’s not stopping there. Mr Brooks is also writing a submission for a Senate select committee’s inquiry into governance and the economic impact of wind turbines. He is not only highlighting the Gullen Range wind farm and the Department’s “incompetence” but the fact the developer collected renewable energy certificates, despite alleged “noncompliance” with state and federal regulations, as required.””
Co2Land org therefore must conclude a captains call will be required – then confuse you even more. But in all seriousness – you will note someone will have to pay. Guess who! Hint – you because no one else will be responsible.