The Western Renewables Link (WRL) is not just a flawed infrastructure project – it is the most visible symbol of a deeper, more dangerous shift in governance.

What we are witnessing in regional Victoria is the systematic erosion of local rights, community voice, and democratic accountability, all under the guise of “renewable progress.”

This is not progress. This is coercion.

The Labor Government, emboldened by unchecked power and fragile urban majorities, has launched an authoritarian assault on the people and places of Western Victoria. Communities are being overridden. Landholders are being ignored. Sacred landscapes are being sacrificed. And all of it is being done without genuine consultation, transparent justification, or regard for the irreversible damage this project will cause.

This is not how democracy behaves.

This is how authoritarianism creeps in – slowly, then all at once.

The WRL is being forced upon regional Victorians through ministerial orders, undemocratic planning exemptions, and an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) process designed to confuse, not consult. Only 10% of the land affected has even been ground-truthed. Critical fire, environmental, agricultural and cultural risks have been whitewashed. Meanwhile, communities are left to battle a 10,000-page technical monster with little support and even less time.

This is not collaboration. This is imposition.

This is not climate justice. This is rural injustice.

Regional Victorians have always done their part – in food production, volunteer emergency service, and conservation. But now, we are being punished for our place on the map. The WRL slices through homes, farms, fire zones, and protected landscapes, not because it must, but because we are considered politically expendable.

This is a power grab. And it must be stopped.

We call on all Victorians – rural and urban alike – to reject this model of governance. To demand real accountability. To demand that infrastructure is built with communities, not on top of them. And to remind this government that democracy does not end where the city skyline fades.

Regional Victoria is not a sacrifice zone.

We are not collateral damage.

We are the frontline – and we will not be silenced.

The EES Is Not What It Seems — And Time Is Running Out

The Western Renewables Link Environmental Effects Statement (EES) is sold as a way to inform and protect the public. In reality, it is a carefully crafted tool to justify a decision that was made long before you were ever asked.

Less than 10% of the land has been physically surveyed. The rest? Guesswork and alleged computer modelling dressed up as fact. The deep, lived knowledge of landholders about water flow, fire risk, wildlife, and cultural history has been ignored or dismissed as “anecdotal.”

This is not science. This is spin.

They say consultation happened. They say the risks are managed. But this is not about consultation it’s about manufacturing consent, making you believe the process was fair so that your opposition seems unreasonable.

Here’s the truth: without genuine on-ground evidence, the EES has no credibility.

That’s why your voice matters. That’s why your submission matters.

Every single submission is a blow to the official story. It forces the record to include what they would rather ignore. It proves that people are watching and that we will not be silenced.

You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to speak the truth about your land, your community, and your future because if you don’t, they will write that truth for you.

Do not leave this to someone else. Do not hide under a rock and hope someone else will fight for you. This is your land, your rights, your voice.

This is not just about one project. This is about who gets to define reality in your community.

Make your submission. Make it count. And 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.

SEE BELOW High Level Community produced 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.

Chapter 7 Community and Stakeholder Engagement (LINK TO FILE)

Extract: The evaluation of Chapter 7, “Community and Stakeholder Engagement,” reveals significant deficiencies and compliance risks that undermine the credibility and robustness of the project’s social impact assessment. Persistent “Community distrust” indicate a profound failure to achieve the substantive transparency and genuine public involvement objectives inherent in the Act.

Chapter 11 Landscape and Visual (LINK TO FILE)

Extract: The analysis reveals significant deficiencies and inconsistencies within the EES’s LV assessment. While the EES outlines a methodology, its application frequently lacks the rigor, transparency, and evidence-based justification required for such a major infrastructure project. Key flaws include subjective impact rating justifications, inadequate consideration of heritage landscape impacts, and an over reliance on design mitigation without robust evidence of effectiveness.

Chapter 12 Land Use and Planning (LINK TO FILE)

Extract: This examination concludes non-compliance with key EES Scoping Requirements and Victorian planning principles. These flaws pose substantial risks, including a significant underestimation of project impacts, potentially leading to inadequate planning and management of adverse effects on land use,agricultural enterprises, residential amenity, and cultural heritage. Such deficiencies risk eroding public trust due to perceived biases and the dismissal of community concerns. Potential legal and regulatory challenges may arise from non-compliance, leading to sub optimal environmental and social outcomes if mitigation measures are insufficient.

Chapter 13 – High Level Assessement of Bushfire

Extract: The WRL EES’s assessment of bushfire risk is fundamentally flawed. It underestimates ignition potential, misrepresents emergency service limitations, and fails to uphold the legal and ethical primacy of human life. Without a rigorous, site-specific, and transparent reassessment – grounded in best practice and local realities – the project should not be allowed to proceed in high-risk areas. The current EES is insufficient, misleading, and places lives and property at unacceptable risk.

Chapter 15 – High Level Assessment of Agriculture

Extract: The WRL EES fundamentally underestimates and misrepresents the severe, multifaceted impacts of high-voltage transmission infrastructure on agricultural operations. The EES’s optimistic framing of residual impacts as “minor” or “negligible” is contradicted by independent research, industry guidelines, and the lived experience of farming communities.This analysis identifies major shortcomings in the EES’s approach, demonstrate these flaws undermine agricultural viability…

See the full EES here

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

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”.