
Wind farm near Rockhampton scrapped in landmark community win
The project, which included up to 88 giant turbines spread across 1269 hectares, was set to be built about 40km northwest of Rockhampton.
Despite receiving planning approval in late 2024, Planning Minister Jarrod Bleijie scrapped the project, citing new LNP government laws that prioritise community consultation and give local councils more say on major developments.
The new rules mean renewable energy proposals will be subject to the same level of scrutiny as mining and agriculture projects.
In January, Bleijie issued a 'call-in notice' to pause the wind farm — along with three others — pending public feedback.
He formally announced the cancellation on Monday following the government-led review.
'For too long, Queensland communities were ignored by Labor's failed laws, which shut them out of the approvals process for renewable energy projects proposed to be built in their backyard,' said Bleijie.
'Queenslanders deserve to have a say on any major development in their local community, which is why our government introduced new nation-leading laws to give them a voice on issues that impact the future of their towns.
'Today's announcement highlights how these laws are already helping to level the playing field by ensuring councils and communities have a seat at the decision-making table.'
The project, proposed by Greenleaf Renewables, included not only wind turbines but also a large-scale battery storage system.
While giant wind turbines produce emission-free electricity when the wind blows, their visual impact and large land usage raise valid community and environmental concerns.
'If communities support these projects, they will proceed,' Bleijie said.
During the government-led, 40-day public consultation period, more than 550 submissions were received and found that 85 per cent of the community submissions opposed the wind farm.
Member for Mirani Glen Kelly, who has been vocal in opposing the project, welcomed the decision as a win for regional Queenslanders.
'Today is a great day for the Mirani electorate!' Kelly said.
'The Moonlight Range project would have cleared 741 hectares of remnant and critical habitat vegetation and involved blasting the tops off ranges to install turbines.'
He credited the LNP government with restoring power to regional voices, adding that the previous Labor government's planning rules had sidelined communities.
However, major renewable projects in Queensland have now been scrapped and past initiatives, such as the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro projec t, have been cancelled, leaving a growing gap in the state's energy grid.
'Every Queenslander will pay a price through higher power bills,' Opposition Leader Steven Miles said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

9 News
2 hours ago
- 9 News
'Our own way': PM's subtle message about Australia's reliance on US
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Anthony Albanese seemingly made a subtle attempt to distance Australia's reliance on the United States during a keynote speech made in Sydney overnight. Albanese used his speech to lionise Curtin and his legacy forming an alliance with the US, before emphasising that Australia is in control of its own future. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's keynote speech at the John Curtin Research Centre. (9News) "Curtin's famous statement that Australia 'looked to America' was much more than the idea of trading one strategic guarantor for another," Albanese said. "Or swapping an alliance with the old world for one with the new. "It was a recognition that Australia's fate would be decided in our region." Albanese said Curtin ensured that Australians "spoke for ourselves, as a sovereign nation". He also praised the former PM for championing Australia's interests on the global stage while also maintaining our independence. "So we remember Curtin not just because he looked to America. We honour him because he spoke for Australia," he added. "For Australia and for Labor, that independence has never meant isolationism. Choosing our own way, doesn't mean going it alone." Former prime minister John Curtin died of a heart attack on July 5, 1945. (Nine Archives) The PM reminded listeners that Australia was not "shackled" by its history. Instead, he said the nation should learn from and build on its political past. He ended by echoing Curtin's policy of independently deciding how Australia deals with overseas threats and global issues. "We can choose the way we engage with our region and deal with the world," the PM said. "The stability and prosperity we build and defend with our partners, the peace and security we seek for ourselves." Australia has seen eight decades of an enduring US friendship and strategic partnership. However experts believe yesterday's speech could be a bold move from the PM to change how that partnership plays out. Albanese is yet to secure a face-to-face meeting with President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) "Undoubtedly, Albanese is sending a message to Washington and the Trump administration that Australia is ultimately in control of its own destiny," Professor James Curran of University of Sydney told 9News. Several months after Donald Trump's inauguration, Anthony Albanese is yet to book a face-to-face with the president. "I don't believe Mr Albanese has done all he can here to strengthen Australia's position in relation to the United States," Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser said. Curtin re-wrote Australia's foreign policy playbook and is honoured as the founding father of Australia's alliance with the US. "Here we are talking about the opportunity to run a more independent course from Washington," Curran added. "I'd say this will ruffle feathers of Uncle Sam." Anthony Albanese Australia washington USA national federal politics CONTACT US Property News: Sixteen-person rental sparks outrage in US.

Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?

Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Calls for more childcare regulation miss the obvious point
The cliche used to be that a predictable response would come 'like clockwork'. Surely it's time to update that in the age of artificial intelligence 'large language' models. Calls for more regulation in the childcare sector following the horrific allegations against alleged childcare rapist Joshua Dale Brown, who has caused 1200 tiny children to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, are as predictable as ChatGPT. AI rows up everything that has been before and confidently asserts more of the same to be ideal. Similarly, childcare advocates, who too often seem to advocate for childcare rather than children or care, are suggesting that the best response to these distressing revelations is to do even more of the same, but samier. Will there ever come a point at which these advocates admit that it is not regulation which is the problem, but the system itself? Apparently not. You see, centre-based childcare is, as many of these advocates and numerous commentators have noted, at the heart of society as we have structured it. Women depend on it to be able to return to work after having babies. Families depend on it to be able to afford their mortgage or rent. Our economy depends on it because getting parents back to work increases the government's tax take. All fabulous outcomes, which have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the provision of the best possible care for young children. But say as much and the advocates will trot out another trope which is as predictable as AI: you're 'mother-shaming', blaming women for choosing to work, or making them feel bad if they can't or don't want to stop working after having children. This emotive rubbish is part of the reason we never have a proper discussion over whether the policy choices successive governments have made (centre-based childcare has been supported both financially and rhetorically by both Coalition and Labor governments) are the best for anyone forced into the system. Loading It is the reason why reports tend to find pleasing benefits from childcare, usually by rolling together studies of children from the ages of zero to five years old, so the benefits of preschool socialisation conceal concerning findings about the negative effects of rotating care by unfamiliar strangers on younger babies. That, or they roll together the benefits of a childcare environment for children from 'disadvantaged' home environments, with the effects on children without disadvantaged backgrounds, to create a homogenised result. Which inevitably fails to reflect reality. They have to be separated and they should be separated by policy. It's worth bringing in a longish quote from a literature review conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2015 to make this point.