the bruising of the ‘fair go’ ethic in the rush for renewables)
PREFACE
In January 2026 Land and Environment Commissioner (Ms S O’Neill) rejected objections to a solar farm (Wallaroo, 2024) on the basis the development WAS IN THE BROADER COMMUNITY INTEREST
.
She found the 165-hectare solar farm,
• would not impact on farming (do Commissioners think farmers only graze sheep?) Someone should send them a photo that shows cows are much taller than sheep. Yes, you can use taller mounted panels, but these are three to four times the cost of the type proposed at Wallaces GapRoad).
• that solar farms are not inconsistent with rural landscapes (why then do land values drop when a solar farm appears next door and nearby property owners bemoan the loss of their views?)
and,
• that local employment and investment opportunities would expand because of the solar farm (once built these farms employ very, very few-usually part time – people).
All these Commissioner’s arguments are parroted in BCE’s written support of EDPR’s Wallaces Gap Road DA .Except for the back-up power benefit, this farm’s DA has little to commend it. That the landowner might now be able to carry 60 sheep instead of 50 is not of much benefit to a community of around 4500 people. Nor is less than one full-time job. These secondary benefits are piddling in comparison with the losses/costs the solar farm’s neighbours will suffer.
Commissioner O’Neill has five degrees, practised as an architect, heritage conservation adviser, environment and town planner and long-time Commissioner on the LEC. It is hard to imagine a more qualified person to adjudicate on such matters.
Yet she rolled out, the ‘in the interest of the broader community’ argument as if it were an objective and unambiguous concept. It’s neither. Debate about how this principle translates into real world decision making has been debated by the ancient Greeks and Romans, through to the Utilitarians of the nineteenth century right up to now, mainly because no Court can quantify benefits and detriments to work out which is the greater. Bentham (died 1832) suggested a seven-variable formula of great, and unusable, complexity. In practice it’s a judge’s subjective opinion that carries the day.
When the general principle of ‘in the broader community interest’ is used by those less familiar with its complexities, it can easily become a bludgeon to beat down and silence minorities. Below is what I wrote over a month ago. I refrained from posting it for fear of stoking an already hot fire until I read of the Wallaroo case. What happened there emboldened me to put it on Beyond the Spin this month. As always, your feedback is welcome.
“We’re alright Jack”
An amazing thing was said on local radio several weeks ago during an interview with a supporter of the solar farm at Wallaces Gap Road Ballalaba …. Sometimes (the supporter said) the rights, interest and livelihoods of a few unlucky people have, justifiably, been sacrificed in the interest of doing good for the many. What sort of warped morality is that?
Most democratic ethicists would argue that if something is of advantage to most it shouldn’t be implemented without compensation to the few it damages. Isn’t that what we Australians call a fair go? Isn’t that one of the much-touted core National values? Isn’t ‘do unto others what you would have them do unto you’ (what Christians preach from the pulpit?) Our current Labor Government expresses the same sentiment in its oft heard promise ‘we’ll do that’….. (with the proviso )… ‘that nobody will be left worse off than before’. Isn’t that the right thing to do?
The person making the comment on radio was explaining why the Braidwood community shouldn’t listen to those who argue the Wallaces Gap Solar Farm DA is a flawed one that oversells the community benefit story. Their logic was the benefit of having a backup supply of solar power (for around 2% of the time) for Braidwoodians justifies a few people (those living 25 kms away in what was described as a “remote” area, in a near pristine rural area) suffering decreased land values, increased fire risk and the risk of forever chemicals leaching into surrounding waterways; impacts that could well render their properties and farms unviable. These aren’t frivolous concerns.
Why shouldn’t people in the district where the solar farm is to be sited expect indemnity/compensation if an accident caused by this inappropriately sited solar plant ruins their lives? Don’t they pay taxes that, in part, gives subsidies and grants to EDPR? Don’t they have the same rights as other community members? Or are they just dismissible as collateral damage?
We used to describe the logic of those who won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t see things their way as …‘We’re all right Jack…bugger you’ ….thinking. Still is.