Thursday, 8 February 2024

Electricity infrastructure

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:49): (696) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Government Services and concerns the current Engage Victoria consultation entitled ‘Mapping the first Victorian Transmission Plan’. The action I seek from the minister is a review of Engage Victoria’s consultation and a commitment to contributors that all existing and future submissions will be published in full and in a timely manner.

Firstly, I should say how shocking it is that this consultation is being run only now. I cannot begin to imagine the anger and despair this will be causing my constituents who have been fighting the blight of the Western Renewables Link for nearly four years now and for their friends whose battle against the VNI West interconnector route is also ongoing. Where was this plan before the route was imposed upon them? Is this government really going back to the drawing board? No, of course not. Typically, though, shamefully enough they are designing the first plan after significant parts of it have already been decreed. Labor’s failure to manage the transmission element of the energy transmission-blighted communities, not to mention undermining investment in new renewables technology, is there for all to see. As every new project comes online the problem worsens. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s recent modelling shows 29 per cent of wind generation and 25 per cent of all large-scale solar generation in the Western Victoria and Murray River renewable energy zones, respectively, was wasted last year due to inadequate transmission capacity. This was predictable years ago. Labor’s response is just too late. It is like trying to fix the plane when you are already flying.

Now, this sorry tale is not the fault – directly, at least – of the Minister for Government Services, but she is responsible for Engage Victoria’s consultation, which threatens to further undermine the trust of those threatened by transmission line construction. Residents have been invited to submit pins on the map marking areas of important habitat, flood zones, biodiversity, agricultural land and other important considerations, but pins submitted do not show up on the map, and when anonymised complaints are made, the generic responses claim – impossibly – that their submission has been received. Others have been told, ‘Your pins have now been published; you can view them on the map.’ Yet, surprise, surprise, they are not there. This naturally undermines trust. Personally, I do not immediately assume conspiracy is involved, but some do suspect the government would be happy to lose dissenting voices. Even if this is unfair, the failure to publish pins is wasting the time of the original submitters and significant delays in exhibiting markings – (Time expired)