To the People of Victoria:

What we are witnessing in Victoria today is not a failure of governance, but a deliberate recalibration of state power away from public interest and toward concentrated authority. Under the pretext of “progress” and “urgency,” basic democratic norms are being subordinated to corporate and political expedience.

Let us be clear: the Western Renewables Link (WRL) is not merely a flawed infrastructure project. It is a case study in how state institutions, in collusion with private interests, systematically disempower citizens. Rights to property, participation, and transparency foundational principles in any functioning democracy are being hollowed out in broad daylight.

Communities that speak out are not met with dialogue but with intimidation. Landholders are coerced. Questions are dismissed. Impacts ecological, agricultural, psychological are minimized or ignored entirely. The public is being instructed to accept, not to engage.

This is not about renewable energy. The people of Western Victoria are not rejecting sustainability. They are rejecting authoritarianism cloaked in green rhetoric. They are rejecting a process that excludes them, exploits them, and erases their voices in favour of distant decisionmakers and opaque planning frameworks.

What is unfolding here is a litmus test. If a government can override the will of regional communities, impose vast transmission infrastructure through coercion and secrecy, and justify it all as “necessary,” what limits remain?

Silence in the face of this is not neutrality it is complicity. It is the abdication of civic responsibility.

There is nothing radical about opposing the abuse of power. What is radical is accepting it.

Now is the time to speak, while we still can.

The Western Renewables Link Environmental Effects Statement (EES):

The Environmental Effects Statement (EES), in theory, should serve as a mechanism for accountability , a framework through which the public can assess the consequences of state, sanctioned projects. In practice, it has become a bureaucratic tool designed more to manufacture consent than to seek it.

The government will claim that consultation occurred, that the science is settled, that risk was evaluated and mitigated. But these are predictable narratives , repeated not because they reflect reality, but because they reinforce institutional legitimacy. The assumption is simple: if the public believes the process was fair, then resistance loses moral standing.

What’s essential to understand is that the EES is not a neutral document. It is constructed , from assumptions, from models, and from data that is partial, outdated, or entirely speculative. The fact that less than 10% of affected land was physically surveyed is not a technical oversight. It is a strategic omission. When 90% of the terrain remains unexamined, claims about ecological or cultural impacts become little more than conjecture , presented with the appearance of scientific authority.

Meanwhile, those who live on and with the land, those with generational knowledge of watercourses, habitat, heritage trees, fire patterns, are sidelined, or at best, tokenised. Their insights are labelled “anecdotal,” while desktop models are treated as objective truth. This inversion of credibility is a hallmark of technocratic governance, where expertise is monopolised and lived experience is systematically devalued.

But here lies the central contradiction: without ground-truthing, that is, without the on-ground realities provided by landholders and communities, the EES lacks validity. And this is precisely where public submissions become not just helpful, but essential.

Each submission is a rupture in the narrative. It documents what the consultants missed or chose not to see. It exposes the limits of the official record. And, perhaps most importantly, it challenges the pretence that silence equals agreement.

The machinery of state relies on disengagement. It depends on confusion, exhaustion, and the perception that participation is futile. That’s how power consolidates, not through grand conspiracies, but through institutional inertia and public apathy.

But when people speak, clearly, collectively, and persistently, those mechanisms begin to falter.

You do not need to be a lawyer or a scientist. You simply need to testify to what you know, and to reject the manufactured story being imposed on your community.

This is not an environmental review. It is a struggle over who holds the authority to define reality. And in that struggle, your voice matters.

Make your submission. Refuse the silence they depend on.

Here’s a link to our EES Expanded Response Starter Guide (LINK HERE)

Don’t step aside. Stand up. Submit.

Attached for your reference are six more high, level reports containing a sample of our assessment of the EES.

Purpose: These reports highlight significant flaws in the EES and are provided to empower you to prepare and submit your own response.

Analysis: Our analysis is following a chapter by chapter basis and should assist in navigating and responding to the EES in detail.

Customisation: Please tailor these and the other reports to your own circumstances, or simply use them as inspiration. Our analysis takes a broad approach, your specific impacts may differ and provide powerful inputs.

We encourage you to review these reports, adapt them as needed, and use them to build your own informed submissions.

Chapter 8: Biodiversity and Habitat (LINK TO FILE)

1. The biodiversity impact assessment is fundamentally flawed, with much of the Project Area left unsurveyed due to so-called ‘land access constraints.’ This systemic failure renders the ecological impact analysis speculative and unreliable, exposing significant risks to critically endangered ecological communities and protected habitats.
2. Deferring essential ecological surveys to a post-approval phase subverts the core purpose of the EES process and denies decision-makers and the public the critical data needed to assess the project’s environmental consequences. The proposed clearance of over 238 hectares of native vegetation, including critically endangered ecological communities, represents a stark failure to adhere to environmental standards.

Chapter 14: Economic impacts (LINK TO FILE)

1. The economic assessment systematically understates significant long-term negative impacts on local businesses and communities, relying on superficial qualitative ratings that fail to capture the true scale of economic distress. This flawed approach risks undermining public trust and misinforming planning decisions, leaving vulnerable sectors like tourism and hospitality inadequately addressed.
2. By dismissing cumulative impacts and omitting key considerations like property value depreciation and adequate compensation, the economic analysis presents a dangerously incomplete picture. The lack of independent peer review and transparency in modelling further compromises the credibility of its findings, leaving local communities exposed to unmitigated financial losses.

Chapter 16 Aviation Impacts (LINK TO FILE)

1. Permanent Degradation of Melton Aerodrome Safety. The assessment downplays permanent, significant safety impacts on Melton Aerodrome, unjustifiably characterising them as ‘minor.’ Forcing steeper non-standard approaches and shortened landing thresholds endangers pilots and degrades the aerodrome’s functionality, blatantly transferring risks to operators and violating statutory obligations. This mischaracterisation compromises aviation safety and undermines basic regulatory compliance.
2. Critical Failures in Risk Management for Low-Flying Aircraft. AusNet’s proposed mitigation for increased risks to aerial agriculture and firefighting relies on mere administrative notifications, leaving a permanent hazard in place. This lack of tangible safety measures, such as high-visibility markers for transmission lines, disregards mandatory safety standards and endangers critical, life-saving operations. Relying on a map warning instead of addressing physical hazards is a profound safety failure.
3. Deficient and Flawed Cumulative Impact Assessment. The claim that existing obstacles ‘shield’ new transmission towers and wind turbines is a dangerous logical fallacy. Instead of reducing risks, the proliferation of infrastructure creates cluttered, hazardous airspace, increasing the potential for pilot errors and restricting safe emergency operations. This failure to address growing cumulative risks exposes western Victoria to severe long-term aviation safety threats.

Chapter 19 – Noise and Vibration (LINK TO FILE)

1. The noise and vibration assessment is critically deficient, with the complete omission of baseline vibration monitoring – a direct breach of EES Scoping Requirements. By relying on unsubstantiated assumptions and proxy data from unrelated projects, the report invalidates its own findings and exposes communities to unacceptable risks.
2. Deferring key noise and vibration assessments to post-approval stages subverts the statutory purpose of the EES process and undermines accountability. Combined with unenforceable performance standards and a lack of independent peer review, the report fails to provide any credible assurance of environmental protection or community welfare.

Chapter 21 – Social Impact (LINK TO FILE)

1. The Social Impact Assessment is fundamentally flawed, relying on a biased and invalid ‘landholder sentiment’ metric, gathered by project staff with a vested interest, to misrepresent community opposition as manageable. This ignores the profound and enduring social harm, including loss, powerlessness, and division, caused by imposing an unwanted project on unwilling communities. This contradicts AusNet’s own evidence of strong opposition to the proposed route and overhead design and consistent community demand for undergrounding.
2. Critical social impacts, such as ‘ongoing frustration and resentment’ and an ‘enduring sense of loss,’ are dismissed with superficial mitigation measures like visual screening and a community fund. Coupled with a lack of independent peer review, this report fails to meet statutory requirements and undermines both the credibility of the project and the trust of affected communities.

Chapter 29 – The Environmental Management Framework (LINK TO FILE)

1. Self-Regulation and Conflicts of Interest. AusNet’s Environmental Management Framework is fundamentally flawed, allowing the proponent to ‘approve’ its own environmental plans – a clear conflict of interest that bypasses independent regulatory scrutiny. This self-regulatory governance model privatises public oversight functions, putting commercial objectives ahead of environmental protection and violating the statutory intent of the Environment Effects Act 1978.
2. Compromised Independent Audits. The so-called ‘Independent Environmental Auditor’ is neither independent nor reliable, as it is appointed and paid by AusNet – the very entity being audited. This blatant conflict of interest reduces compliance to a procedural formality, eroding public trust and leaving environmental risks effectively unmonitored.
3. Unenforceable and Vague Requirements. AusNet’s Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs) are systematically vague, using loopholes like ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ and ‘if necessary’ to evade concrete commitments to environmental outcomes. This approach makes auditing impossible and offers no assurance that the project’s significant impacts will be managed, monitored, or mitigated effectively.
4. Collectively, the inadequacies in the EMF create an unacceptable risk that the WRL’s significant environmental impacts will not be adequately managed, monitored, or mitigated. The proposed EMF lacks the transparency, accountability, and enforceability required for a project of this scale and controversy.

Don’t wait. Start your submission today and stand up for Western Victoria.

Start here: Download the EES Expanded Submission Guide

More details and resources here via Moorabool Shire

Stand with our farmers, and unite to stand for ALL Victorians!

HANDS OFF OUR LAND

LAND ACCESS RIGHTS PROTEST

Hosted by Across Victoria Alliance

Spring Street, Melbourne

Wednesday 30 July 2025

Speakers will commence at 11.00am

FARMERS • FAMILIES • RURAL & METRO COMMUNITIES

SAY NO to forced entry onto private farmland and rising government overreach!

Stand with us against the new legislation, which allows government officers warrantless access to your property, and the Emergency Services Volunteer Tax — a new burden on those who give their time to protect our communities.

This is about more than just farmland. It’s about defending our rights, our privacy, and our freedom from all forms of overreaching government control.

SPEAKERS | SIGNS | SOLIDARITY

Bring your voice. Bring your signs. Bring your neighbours.

Together, we’ll send a clear message from across the bush and through the city.

ACROSS VICTORIA ALLIANCE

Farming strong. Standing united

Western Victorian Community Alliance & Moorabool Shire EES Drop-In Sessions

The Western Victorian Community Alliance, in partnership with Moorabool Shire, will be hosting three community drop-in sessions to support landholders in preparing their submissions on the Western Renewables Link Environmental Effects Statement (WRL-EES).

These sessions will not be attended by AusNet and are intended to offer genuine, practical guidance to help you complete your submission.

Please begin working on your submission beforehand using the guidelines above. Arriving with a draft will allow for deeper support and tailored advice.

Session Details:

• Myrniong – Myrniong Hall, 6 Short St
  Thursday 31 July, 4:00pm–7:30pm
• Ballan – Council Office, 15 Stead St
  Saturday 2 August, 10:00am–1:30pm

More details and resources here via Moorabool Shire

Aerial Mapping Support

With the assistance of Moorabool Shire, the Alliance has been granted access to Nearmap’s aerial imaging platform. This imagery may assist landowners in preparing visual materials, including aerial maps of your property, for use in their EES submissions.

If you would like a map, please provide:

• Your Name

• Your physical address, and

• Any specific zoom detail required (e.g. “a zoom, in of my house and 100 metres surrounding it”).

Requests can be submitted to info@stoplaborstowers.org with the subject line

“MAPPING REQUESTED”.