- Published on
By Neil Daly
IN MARCH 2021, when sinking the AGL gas import terminal proposal at Crib Point, the Andrews government said in defence of Western Port’s fragile tenure, “This project would cause unacceptable impacts on the Western Port environment and the Ramsar wetlands — it’s important that these areas are protected.”
Fast forward to September 2023 and once more Western Port’s environmental future is under threat thanks to the Andrews government announcement that the Port of Hastings has been selected as the most suitable port to assemble offshore wind infrastructure. “With the benefits of large areas of zoned land it is close to existing port precincts, has deep water channels and is close to the offshore wind projects off the coast of Gippsland.”
IN MARCH 2021, when sinking the AGL gas import terminal proposal at Crib Point, the Andrews government said in defence of Western Port’s fragile tenure, “This project would cause unacceptable impacts on the Western Port environment and the Ramsar wetlands — it’s important that these areas are protected.”
Fast forward to September 2023 and once more Western Port’s environmental future is under threat thanks to the Andrews government announcement that the Port of Hastings has been selected as the most suitable port to assemble offshore wind infrastructure. “With the benefits of large areas of zoned land it is close to existing port precincts, has deep water channels and is close to the offshore wind projects off the coast of Gippsland.”
The Minister for Planning later declared that an environment effects statement (EES) will be required for the project. Draft scoping requirements will be exhibited for public feedback before the EES.
The terminal is proposed to be built at the Old Tyabb Reclamation Area, located in the existing port and industrial zone. It will be equipped for the receival, assembly and installation of offshore wind foundations, towers and turbines as a multi-user facility, with new berths, heavy duty pavements and major supporting infrastructure.
The Port of Hastings Corporation is actively promoting the expansion of the port’s facilities to service this new venture.
In announcing the proposal, the government has shifted ground and drawn up a battle plan that is likely to challenge those seeking to protect Western Port’s biosphere and its critical carbon sequestration role and Ramsar wetland.
The charter of the Western Port Biosphere Foundation, for example, requires it to enhance and protect the reserve’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems while also considering the benefits and pitfalls arising from development activities within its UNESCO biosphere.
Responding to my article The battle for Western Port, Christine Grayden commented that this new proposal was a major threat and had “slipped under many people’s radar”. Fortunately the Save Westernport group and the Victorian National Parks Association are across the issue and made submissions to the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal Project. Public submissions closed on October 23.
Commenting on the proposal, the Save Westernport group said, “Although we welcome plans for Offshore Windfarms in Victoria, we are concerned about the project’s scale, life span, and potential to significantly impact Westernport’s marine and coastal ecology.”
On the other hand, the Committee for Frankston and Mornington Peninsula commended the Government for selecting the Port of Hastings. “Our region is uniquely positioned to become the centre of Australia's transmission to a clean energy future. The port is a deep-water port just an hour from Melbourne and is home to a large workforce in the southeast. We’re also suitably positioned close to the Government's offshore wind developments in Bass Strait.”
Apart from the Casey Council administrators, the other councils bordering Western Port say they are aware of the proposal and will formulate a position once the EES is publicly available. While the issue may directly concern these councils, it would be in the interest of all councils that make up the South East Climate Change Alliance (SECCA) to consider the implications of the proposal and assess if it will help or hinder SECCA’s regional goal to reduce emissions by 5.8 per cent every year until 2037.
The Victorian Liberal and Nationals still appear to be struggling when it comes to issues affecting Western Port and its region. They have not responded and, it would seem, have no policy on offshore wind infrastructure.
Victorian Greens Deputy Leader Ellen Sandell says the Victorian Greens support developing Victoria's offshore wind industry as it will be a vital part of getting to 100% renewable energy and ending coal and gas. “Any development though must be done sensitively, carefully considering the environmental impacts and impacts on local communities.”
So the question remains - has Western Port reached a critical turning point in its chequered history and what price will it have to pay to provide clean energy for all?
In weighing up the situation, please take a moment to reflect on Professor Maurice Shapiro’s closing remarks in his “Westernport Bay Environmental Study 1973-1974”. Forty-nine years ago he said, “To paraphrase Mr. Justice Holmes, who in a decision wrote, ‘A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure’. Westernport Bay is more than an amenity, it is a treasure to be cherished for many generations to come. It is in your hands.”
I wonder what Professor Shapiro would say now.
The terminal is proposed to be built at the Old Tyabb Reclamation Area, located in the existing port and industrial zone. It will be equipped for the receival, assembly and installation of offshore wind foundations, towers and turbines as a multi-user facility, with new berths, heavy duty pavements and major supporting infrastructure.
The Port of Hastings Corporation is actively promoting the expansion of the port’s facilities to service this new venture.
In announcing the proposal, the government has shifted ground and drawn up a battle plan that is likely to challenge those seeking to protect Western Port’s biosphere and its critical carbon sequestration role and Ramsar wetland.
The charter of the Western Port Biosphere Foundation, for example, requires it to enhance and protect the reserve’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems while also considering the benefits and pitfalls arising from development activities within its UNESCO biosphere.
Responding to my article The battle for Western Port, Christine Grayden commented that this new proposal was a major threat and had “slipped under many people’s radar”. Fortunately the Save Westernport group and the Victorian National Parks Association are across the issue and made submissions to the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal Project. Public submissions closed on October 23.
Commenting on the proposal, the Save Westernport group said, “Although we welcome plans for Offshore Windfarms in Victoria, we are concerned about the project’s scale, life span, and potential to significantly impact Westernport’s marine and coastal ecology.”
On the other hand, the Committee for Frankston and Mornington Peninsula commended the Government for selecting the Port of Hastings. “Our region is uniquely positioned to become the centre of Australia's transmission to a clean energy future. The port is a deep-water port just an hour from Melbourne and is home to a large workforce in the southeast. We’re also suitably positioned close to the Government's offshore wind developments in Bass Strait.”
Apart from the Casey Council administrators, the other councils bordering Western Port say they are aware of the proposal and will formulate a position once the EES is publicly available. While the issue may directly concern these councils, it would be in the interest of all councils that make up the South East Climate Change Alliance (SECCA) to consider the implications of the proposal and assess if it will help or hinder SECCA’s regional goal to reduce emissions by 5.8 per cent every year until 2037.
The Victorian Liberal and Nationals still appear to be struggling when it comes to issues affecting Western Port and its region. They have not responded and, it would seem, have no policy on offshore wind infrastructure.
Victorian Greens Deputy Leader Ellen Sandell says the Victorian Greens support developing Victoria's offshore wind industry as it will be a vital part of getting to 100% renewable energy and ending coal and gas. “Any development though must be done sensitively, carefully considering the environmental impacts and impacts on local communities.”
So the question remains - has Western Port reached a critical turning point in its chequered history and what price will it have to pay to provide clean energy for all?
In weighing up the situation, please take a moment to reflect on Professor Maurice Shapiro’s closing remarks in his “Westernport Bay Environmental Study 1973-1974”. Forty-nine years ago he said, “To paraphrase Mr. Justice Holmes, who in a decision wrote, ‘A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure’. Westernport Bay is more than an amenity, it is a treasure to be cherished for many generations to come. It is in your hands.”
I wonder what Professor Shapiro would say now.
A concept illustration of the proposed Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal at the Port of Hastings. Its construction is subject to necessary approvals.
Comments are closed.
Brian's suggestion is sensible - there are several ports along the coast, including Sale, which are closer to the windfarm sites. I'm sure people in the Valley would welcome new jobs.
Brian O’Farrell presents an interesting alternative which should be investigated.
As someone who loves nature and wilderness yet admires many of the achievements of engineers and some developers, I am loath to have so-called progress in front of me all the time. For renewal of spirit I go to nature and natural view that restores my spirit. Certainly, like many, I enjoy turning on my tap for instant hot water, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find a balance.
The balance of so-called development and progress has long been out of kilter with nature and sustainability. If humans want our race to continue, we must learn how to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. Simpler societies achieved this and their communities have existed over millennia.
For years now, unaware, greedy or ignorant or intentionally-ignorant people have eaten not just our generations’ share of the bounties of nature but exploited nature and have been increasingly eating into and threatening the lives of generations yet unborn.
If we want our great-grandchildren’s great-grandchildren to see animals in the wild and to live in a world worth living in, what we do now is most important. Our politicians need to have a 20 year, 50 year, 100 year, one thousand, a 20,000 year and a forever plan.
If we don’t get it right, we will wipe out humans, and nature will get on with making the most of what humans leave it with. This was what the late Dr Tim Ealey predicts but hopes will not happen. See https://www.basscoastpost.com/meryl-brown-tobin/thank-you-dr-mangrove and, in the last line, click on Dr Mangrove sung by Wendy Ealey. It takes you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZbgOG3E8FA.
We all need to speak up and loudly as we need to leave something behind for future generations.
I have much admiration and gratitude for Neil and Jason who are doing so much planting of mangroves. You are indeed warriors for our environment.
Under State and Commonwealth laws, the Minister for Planning (The Hon. Sonya Kilkenny) determined an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) is required because of the proposal’s potential significant environmental impact on: biodiversity values; habitat of threatened species and communities; the marine ecosystem; and the cultural and historic heritage values, including submerged Aboriginal cultural values.
Given the nature and extent of the technical assessment required for an EES of this scale, its preparation will be in accordance with the scoping requirements set by the minister. Draft scoping requirements are prepared following input from the proponent and other agencies. These are released for public comment for at least 15 business days before the final scoping requirements are published.
Once this process is completed and authorised by the minister, the EES will be released for public comment for between 20 to 30 business days. During this time, the public can make written submissions.
When this period expires, the minister may appoint an Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) to hold a public hearing. If held, the proponents and those who made submissions to the EES can speak and present expert witnesses. From this, the IAC prepares a report with recommendations for the minister to consider. Ultimately, the minister has the power to approve or reject the project with or without conditions.
Further information about the EES process is available at:
https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environmental-assessments/environmental-assessment-guides/environment-effects-statements-in-victoria
P.S. My response to Gidja Walker regarding the Barry Breach proposal may also be helpful.
Thank you,
Paul& Maureen
I can report that the Financial Review (January 8, 2024) has published an article stating that Tanya Plibersek, Minister for Environment and Water, has ruled out the Port of Hastings wind terminal assembly project. The minister added, “The Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal Proposal project would have had unacceptable impacts on the internationally protected Western Port Ramsar Wetland.”
It would seem Minister Plibersek appreciates Professor Shapiro’s concept that “Westernport Bay is more than an amenity, it is a treasure to be cherished for many generations to come.” All that remains is for the Allan government to decide if it wants to bequeath an amenity or a treasure to those like yourselves who have struggled to protect the Western Port’s flora and fauna.
Then it became clear that the Department had invited the State government to RESUBMIT the proposal with appropriate remediations! It is impossible to remediate the proposal.
Then the State government declared it would continue with the proposal and lashed the Feds for not assisting the States in their efforts to meet emission reductions. That may be true, but persisting with this dangerous scheme is absolute madness and environmental vandalism. When does this end?