PASSION was evident in the voices of local residents and councillors who spoke to the issue of proposed offshore wind farms at the Port Stephens Councils’ 24 October meeting.

While there was tension surrounding the conversation, and various Council members had some different ideas about how to make an official response, the message from all was abundantly clear: Port Stephens is not in favour.

Advertise with News of The Area today.
It’s worth it for your business.
Message us.
Phone us – (02) 4981 8882.
Email us – media@newsofthearea.com.au

It began with the Public Access portion of the meeting, when two members of the Port Stephens community appeared before Council to represent residents who have been engaging in protests and campaigning against the wind farm project.

The first of these speakers voiced their support for a motion being put forward that night by Cr. Chris Doohan, which would affirm Port Stephens Council’s opposition to the wind farms and outline a course of action by which they will communicate that position to relevant Members of Parliament.

This motion follows one that had already been unanimously supported at the previous Council meeting which had been brought as an urgency motion by Cr. Giacomo Arnott.

While that motion was the first to firmly establish a Council position on the matter – additionally calling for an independent environmental impact study to be conducted and made publicly available – Cr. Arnott drew some critisism from members of the community for comments made at that meeting which were seen as disparaging towards local groups which have been key to fostering the ‘No Wind Farms’ movement.

In presenting his motion on Tuesday 10 October Cr. Arnott expressed concern over the perceived spread of misinformation from community groups regarding the proposed wind farms.

While not calling out specific individuals or groups, Cr. Arnott suggested that a lack of reliable information was a significant problem.

As an example of this misinformation, he cited “one of the worst ones is the notion that these turbines will be visible from any of the beaches along our coast.

“The organised groups who are opposing this proposal need to stick to verified facts,” Mr Arnott said.

It was these comments which drew the ire of community groups such as the Newcaste Port Stephens Game Fish Club, whose president Troy Radford issued a statement following the meeting.

“We are pleased that Port Stephens Council has moved a motion to not back the offshore wind project until environmental studies are completed.

“But we are extremely disappointed in comments made by Cr. Arnott and Cr. Anderson stating that minority groups are spreading false information.

“This is not true.”

Seizing upon this exchange, the first of the public access speakers at the 24 October meeting similarly expressed disappointment in Cr. Anott’s comments, which had been received as a personal criticism by members of the Port Stephens community.

Much of this presentation went on to specifically refute Cr. Arnott’s comments about the visibility of the proposed wind farms.

Cr. Leah Anderson had also attracted criticism for her comments regarding her non-attendance at a community organised rally on 7 October, stating that she “did not feel it would be safe for her to attend”.

Cr. Arnott took exception to these statements, pointedly asking the speaker whether he would routinely “attack people who have already said they are supporting you?”.

He went on to reiterate that the position of Port Stephens Council had already been made clear by the previous meeting’s motion, which he had put forward and had been seconded by Cr. Anderson.

The second speaker during public access gave an impassioned presentation supporting the notion that wind farm development would critically damage the local tourism industry, and cause untold environmental devastation.

This speaker made clear that there was little faith in government systems to engage in a transparent and consultative process for such a project.

Cr. Arnott again led the Council’s clarifying question by asking whether the speaker or the local groups she represented had been informed of the resolution from the previous Council meeting.

She indicated that whatever had been decided at the meeting had not yet been fully disseminated amongst the community, and Councillors acknowledged that moving forward open and clear communication needed to be a priority in engaging with local residents.

Despite the potential miscommunication, all Councillor’s in attendance essentially voiced their support for the speakers and the community groups they represented.

Following public access, the Councillors present commenced discussion of Cr. Doohan’s motion, which more explicitly states a position of support for the local groups campaigning against the wind farm project, and called for correspondence to Chris Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change, as well as local MPs Meryl Swason and Kate Washington seeking support in halting this potential development.

What followed was an intense discussion amongst Council members which lasted nearly 45 minutes.

Again, in this discussion, it was clear that there was unanimous agreement about the present opposition to the project, but disagreements emerged as to the most appropriate way of presenting that opposition to the public.

Cr. Anott moved to amend the motion, essentially reducing Cr. Doohan’s five points to a single point reaffirming the council’s previous decision.
Cr. Arnott felt that this additional motion would only obfuscate what had already been agreed upon as an
appropriate council response.

Following this Cr. Peter Kafer moved a second amendment that Council resolve to send a delegation, led by Mayor Ryan Palmer, to Canberra as soon as practical in order to meet with Hon. Chris Bowen to discuss concerns in person.

He affirmed his own opposition to the project, drawing upon his proud heritage as a descendant of First Feet immigrants as well as a First Nations Australian.

In the following discussion, all members present agreed that Cr. Kafer’s amendment was a worthy inclusion.

The nuance of perspectives on the council came to light, with several Councillor’s echoing a sentiment of “not in my backyard” when referring to the potentially unsightly appearance of wind turbines off the coast.

Cr. Steve Tucker expressed doubt that the technology was sufficiently effective in replacing coal-fired power plants, claiming the project to be little more than an appeasement to members of the Greens political party.

Cr. Peter Francis clarified that Port Stephens Council has no authority to halt the project, nor does the NSW State Government, and called for people to temper expectations.

Mayer Palmer stated that he had never before experienced a situation where all Councillors were “singing from the same hymn book”, but were struggling to agree on the best way to express their collective opposition to the project.
“I’ve actually never seen the community come together like this in my time,” said the Mayor.

“The (members of) community here tonight… hopefully can take great heart that there is strong opposition to this.”

In seeking clarification over the potential for problems arising from multiple council resolutions addressing similar issues, General Manager Timothy Crosdale confirmed that in the absence of explicitly contradictory statements, multiple motions could be carried and would be equally binding on Council policy and conduct.

With this in mind the Council voted against Cr. Arnott’s amendment, which brought the conversation back to Cr. Doohan’s original motion.

In one final clarifying statement Cr. Doohan affirmed his commitment to the residents of Port Stephens to represent their interests in the matter and his personal desire to preserve the pristine coastline which the community so jealously guards.

Cr. Doohan punctuated his closing remarks by producing a pair of boxing gloves as a declaration of his passion regarding the issue and a promise that he is dedicated to the fight ahead.

The motion was carried with a strong majority, prompting a round of applause from Port Stephens residents in attendance at the meeting.

By Lindsay HALL