Chapter 1Introduction

1.1On 3 July 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into the offshore wind industry consultation process (the inquiry) to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 13 February 2025, with the following terms of reference:

The consultation process undertaken on behalf of the Australian Government into the offshore wind industry, with particular reference to:

(a)the efficacy of community engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating the offshore wind industry;

(b)community engagement within the existing Australian Government offshore wind industry regulatory and legislative frameworks;

(c)the adherence to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Traditional Owners of the affected Sea Country by the Australian Government and offshore wind industry;

(d)the impact of the offshore wind industry on marine life and marine environments in Australian waters, including strategies for impact minimisation and management; and

(e)any other related matters.[1]

1.2The committee was granted extensions of time to report to 13 March 2025, 24April 2025 and 5 June 2025.[2]

Structure of the report

1.3This report focuses on the steps taken by the Australian Government to consult on the first stage of the development of an offshore wind industry and the key issues raised by stakeholders throughout the government’s consultation process.

1.4This report comprises six chapters:

Chapter 1 provides details of the inquiry and background information on a potential offshore wind industry in Australia, and a summary of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner’s (AEIC) 2023 review of public and private sector community engagement in planning, developing and operating renewable energy infrastructure;

Chapter 2 outlines the Australian Government's consultation process underway in the six priority areas for offshore wind, including the legislative framework, and an overview of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) within the consultation process;

Chapter 3 contains submitter views on community engagement in the offshore wind consultation process, including the process and timeframes for community engagement;

Chapter 4 sets out views on the consultation process relating to the impacts of offshore wind projects on the marine environment and the fishing and tourism industries, as well as issues relating to noise and light pollution;

Chapter 5 examines the recognition of FPIC within the consultation process, and views of First Nations and other submitters on whether this was adhered to; and

Chapter 6 contains the committee's view and recommendations.

Conduct of the inquiry

1.5Details of the inquiry were advertised on the committee's website, including a call for submissions by 30 August 2024. The committee wrote directly to various stakeholders to invite them to make submissions.

1.6The committee received 315 submissions, which are listed in Appendix 1 and are available on the inquiry's webpage. In addition, the committee received around 94 proforma emails from individuals through a campaign calling for a public hearing in Busselton. This campaign was noted on the inquiry webpage, and the correspondence was not published.

1.7The committee has carefully considered all contributions and is grateful to those that took the time to participate and make submissions to this inquiry in good faith.

1.8Unfortunately, the politicisation of this inquiry by certain senators has impeded the committee's ability to undertake genuine inquiry. The use of this inquiry to platform misinformation and disinformation has been inflammatory and has entirely overpowered local community voices, detracting from the intent of the inquiry to understand and improve community consultation. Genuine concerns have been sidelined to prioritise a political campaign.

1.9The committee was unable to find a time to meet for a hearing. This was deliberately misconstrued for political purposes by some members of the committee, and members of the public were misled. As a result, the committee agreed to conduct the inquiry on the large amount of written evidence and did not hold a public hearing.

Background information

Australia's changing energy needs

1.10Australia's energy needs are set to increase, with the source of that energy changing. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) stated that Australia is moving away from coal fired power stations, with most retiring over the next decade.[3] The Australian Government has announced measures to address this generation gap and put in place steps to replace coal fired power with 'reliable, secure, clean and affordable sources of energy'.[4]

1.11In July 2023, the Australian Government announced the Net Zero 2050 Plan to transform the energy system to deliver clean and reliable energy in line with legislative requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.[5] As a key component of achieving the 43 per cent reduction by 2030, the Australian Government has committed to an 82 per cent renewable electricity target by 2030. In 2023, renewables contributed nearly 40 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply, so significant additional renewable generation capacity will be required to achieve the 82 per cent target.[6]

1.12The Net Zero Plan will consider key enabling technologies, including renewable electricity such as offshore wind.[7]

1.13Stage 1 of the development of an offshore wind industry in Australia (zoning) is being undertaken by the Australian Government in consultation with communities who may be affected or impacted by offshore wind projects.[8]After the declaration of an area for future offshore wind development, developers that receive feasibility licences will conduct further consultation on their proposed projects in Stage 2 of the offshore wind process.[9] The process is outlined in Chapter 2.

The potential for the Australian offshore wind industry

1.14DCCEEW stated that offshore wind 'is a proven energy generation source' and noted the 'significant ambition' internationally to deploy more offshore wind to decarbonise energy systems and provide energy security. In 2023, globally, there was over 75 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind generating electricity, with an annual growth of around 15 per cent since 2019.[10]

1.15According to the International Energy Agency, the world's offshore wind energy potential is more than 11 times global electricity demand for 2040.[11]

1.16In late 2021, the Australian Parliament passed the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 (OEI Act), which regulates the development of offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth waters. The OEI Act came into effect in mid-2022.

1.17The location of an Australian offshore wind industry is currently under development by the Australian Government, with no currently operating offshore windfarms. DCCEEW stated that it is 'enabling this potential new industry by developing a regulatory framework and industry development plan'.[12]

1.18According to DCCEEW, Australia has 'some of the best wind resources in the world', with a single offshore wind project capable of producing '1.5 to 2gigawatts of energy' at maximum capacity.[13] The potential capacity of an established offshore wind industry in the six declared areas (discussed below) is 67.4 GW.[14] This compares to Australia’s current coal generation assets of approximately 21 GW.[15]

1.19Offshore wind is a prominent industry in countries including China, Germany, Denmark, Norway, United Kingdom and the United States. In Australia, however, the offshore wind industry is in its formative years.[16]

1.20DCCEEW stated that offshore wind projects generate more energy than those on land, and require fewer installations as the turbines are larger and wind speeds are higher and more reliable offshore. Offshore winds are advantageous as they are often highest during the afternoon when consumer demand peaks and other forms of renewable energy (such as solar power) begin to decrease.[17]

1.21The potential new Australian offshore wind industry is developing, with a regulatory framework and industry development plan set to ensure that the industry is created in a coordinated way.[18]

1.22It is estimated the deployment of offshore wind will create 8000 new jobs annually for Australian workers from 2031.[19]

1.23Geoscience Australia explained that offshore wind turbines are either fixed bottom support structures (in shallow waters of up to 70 metres deep) or floating turbines (in deeper water areas). Fixed bottom wind turbines will be anchored into the seabed.[20]

Offshore wind priority areas

1.24In August 2022, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy (the minister), identified six priority regions with the potential to support an offshore wind industry and which would be considered through a declaration process under the OEI Act. The following regions have been declared suitable for development:

off Gippsland, Victoria (Vic);

Pacific Ocean off Hunter, New South Wales (NSW);

Southern Ocean off west coast Vic;

Pacific Ocean off Illawarra, NSW;

Bass Strait off northern Tasmania (Tas); and

Indian Ocean off Bunbury, Western Australia (WA).[21]

1.25Chapter 2 discusses the community consultations undertaken in each of these regions by DCCEEW to inform the declaration process.

1.26The priority regions have been identified due to their strong consistent winds, proximity to existing grid infrastructure, electricity demand, and proximity to port facilities. These areas have also been identified to have industry interest and state government support.[22]

1.27According to DCCEEW, these projects 'represent around $100 billion of potential investment and thousands of jobs'.[23]

1.28The declaration process for each of the regions has been undertaken consecutively, and each zone is at varying stages of the process from area identification to licence awarding.

1.29DCCEEW explained that the declaration of an area is the first step in the regulatory process, and informs where individual projects may be considered in future. Details about the merits of different types of offshore wind projects would not be known at the declaration stage of the process.[24]

1.30Community consultation occurs at multiple stages of the project process, including consultation initially undertaken by the Australian Government in Stage 1 when an area is proposed to be declared suitable for offshore renewable energy, then by developers in Stages 2 and 3 when developing management plans for feasibility licences and commercial licences and subsequently when implementing stakeholder engagement strategies described in approved management plans. Management plans are to be approved by the Offshore Infrastructure Regulator before an activity can commence.[25]

1.31The AEIC has prepared and published guidance for the offshore wind industry to assist with community engagement for the post-declaration period.[26]

1.32Further detail on the process, and the consultation process undertaken for the six identified priority areas, is contained in the following chapter.

1.33Table 1.1 provides an overview of key statistics regarding the six priority areas.[27]

Table 1.1 Key statistics about the six priority areas

2023 review of community engagement with renewable energy projects

1.34In July 2023, the minister commissioned the AEIC to conduct a review of community engagement with the planning, development and operation of renewable energy infrastructure.[28] The review was led by then-Commissioner Mr Andrew Dyer, with the report provided to the Australian Government in December 2023 and published in February 2024.[29]

1.35The review noted that the renewable energy transition for Australia to achieve its emissions targets would require 'a highly decentralised portfolio of generation assets and accompanying transmission lines, compared to our centralised coal generation portfolio'. This would mean that more communities would be impacted by prospecting and development of new renewable energy generation projects. The review further stated that many communities would also benefit from being part of the energy transition.[30]

1.36The review considered community attitudes toward:

renewable energy infrastructure;

community experiences of engagement with private developers on renewable energy projects; and

community views on the role of governments at the Commonwealth, state and territory and local levels in improving community engagement.[31]

1.37The review also considered perceived or actual environmental impacts of renewable energy infrastructure across agricultural land, and Indigenous heritage and land rights.[32]

1.38The review received over 500 submissions and over 250 survey responses and conducted over 75 meetings with over 700 attendees, in which landholders and community members living near proposed sites for renewable energy and new transmission infrastructure participated.[33]

1.39The report provided advice on maximising community engagement and benefit in the lifecycle of renewable energy infrastructure. While the report addressed renewable energy infrastructure broadly, in relation to offshore wind farm developments it mentioned that the review observed ‘strong support…for programs that have controls to select developers to prospect and develop specified projects in a specific area’.[34]

Themes and trends identified through the review

1.40The review identified six key themes:

achieving best practice and selecting reputable developers;

reducing unnecessary community engagement, avoiding the selection of poor and inappropriate sites;

re-engineering planning and environmental assessments and approvals to reduce consultation fatigue;

ensuring best practice complaint handling;

community education to enhance understanding of the need for the transition to renewable energy; and

engaging communities to identify opportunities and enable sustainable benefit sharing.[35]

1.41Community groups highlighted the risk of consultation fatigue, which can arise as multiple developers investigate projects within the same area.[36] The review found that:

'poor engagement practices [by proponents] experienced by landholders and community members have led to a material distrust of project developers' and in particular, the developers of 'new, long-distance transmission projects and prospective electricity generation projects along the proposed routes'; and

noted a lack of a formal scheme to rate or assess the 'track record and capability in community engagement' of developers.[37]

1.42The review also stated that many developers' engagement personnel and management lack the skills, experience and knowledge to meet community expectations of engagement.[38]

1.43First Nations people emphasised the need for cultural change within the sector, early and constructive engagement, and appropriate cultural awareness training.[39]

1.44Further, the First Nations Clean Energy and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee sought 'collaborative, transparent top-down planning processes' with greater appreciation for First Nations peoples' tangible and intangible connection to land. The advisory committee stated that land rights can be perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity.[40]

1.45During the review, frustrations were expressed at the time taken for a proposed project to progress through the planning process, often leading to uncertainty about whether a project would proceed.[41] Community members expressed frustration about short consultation timeframes when compared to the extended timeframes provided for developer responses.[42]

1.46Participants expressed the need for an overarching national narrative on the need for the energy transition, which would allow for active engagement from communities in shaping and benefiting from the energy transition. Emphasis was placed on the lack of clarity around the plan to transition, and concern for communities set to host large numbers of projects and their cumulative impacts.[43]

1.47Participants outlined a lack of belief in large-scale renewable energy projects generating benefits to local communities, with many expressing concerns that their communities would be worse off after the development activity concluded.[44]

Recommendations contained in the review

1.48The review made nine recommendations, which the Australian Government ultimately accepted in full or in principle.[45]

1.49The review acknowledged that most of the recommendations would require collaboration with state and territory governments to implement.[46]

1.50The review recommended:

(1)an independent body or person to design and operate a developer rating scheme which provides transparent ratings for developers' engagement performance and capability;[47]

(2)improved, coordinated Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdiction planning for the development of new generation and transmission projects, whereby a developer is required to bid or apply to prospect and develop a project at a particular site or location;[48]

(3)states and territories to support and expedite sourcing information necessary for contemporary land use planning in order to improve community engagement through land use planning, site selection and transparency;[49]

(4)to progress, complete and expedite the deployment of process reforms contemplated by the jurisdictions, to improve processes and reduce the time involved in the project process;[50]

(5)state governments to establish a new ombudsman to handle complaints relating to renewable energy generation, large-scale storage and new transmission infrastructure;[51]

(6)improved communication with local communities, which provides a clear narrative about the pragmatic reasons for the energy transition;[52]

(7)the Commonwealth to work with state and territory governments to review and/or implement oversight governance arrangements for transition projects of national significance;[53]

(8)improved coordination of opportunities for local benefits and economic development, including for First Nations peoples and their enterprises;[54] and

(9)state, territory and local governments to proactively identify opportunities for the local community.[55]

Australian Government response to the review

1.51The Australian Government's initial response, in February 2024, accepted in principle the review's recommendations, and noted that the implementation of the recommendations would be shared across governments.[56]

1.52The Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council (ECMC) released the full response to the review in July 2024, and agreed to four recommendations (Recommendations 4, 6, 8 and 9) and agreed in principle to the remaining recommendations (Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7) which would require further consideration.[57]

1.53In principle agreement was provided for the recommendation relating to the establishment of a developer rating scheme (Recommendation 1), and the ECMC noted that the 2024–25 Commonwealth Budget had allocated funding over two years for this. The Commonwealth will lead the design and development of this rating system.[58] DCCEEW stated in November 2024 that it was working on the developer rating scheme through a consultative body which includes members of the clean energy sector and involves employee and business representatives to design the benchmarks to be used. Work is also being undertaken to develop the governance models relating to consultation practices within communities and 'around the bona fides of the organisation', including how well equipped an organisation might be to deliver on their projects.[59]

1.54The recommendation relating to coordination of planning of new generation and transmission projects (Recommendation 2) was also given in principle agreement. Ministers noted significant ongoing work already underway across Australia to support efficient planning and delivery, and also noted that jurisdictions have adopted planning approaches tailored for their particular requirements.[60]

1.55Recommendation 3, relating to improvement to community engagement through land use planning, site selection and transparency, was agreed in principle, with the ministers noting the work undertaken by the jurisdictions.[61]

1.56Recommendation 5, relating to the establishment of an ombudsman, was supported in principle. Ministers agreed with the intent of the recommendation, but stated that this would 'be addressed through enhancing the capabilities of existing structures, rather than the establishment of new regulatory bodies'. It was noted that state and territory governments were adopting or exploring options for complaint resolution mechanisms focused on the energy sector.[62]

1.57In principle agreement was also provided for the recommendation relating to the implementation of oversight governance arrangements for transition projects of national significance (Recommendation 7). Current initiatives to strengthen governance and oversight across jurisdictions were noted, as was the continuing work on the draft Nationally Significant Transmission Project (NSTP) framework. The NSTP is intended to 'provide a basis for Commonwealth and state and territory governments to make joint decisions on priority transmission projects, and to establish mechanisms for co-ordination and collaboration to address challenges affecting delivery of these projects'.[63]

1.58The ECMC response acknowledged that the impact of energy transformation would vary across communities, and stated that the review’s recommendations should be 'adapted to fit the unique contexts of each region'.[64] The response further stated that 'reforming the energy system is a long-term challenge', and that 'Ministers are committed to continuously identifying and addressing new challenges as they arise'. Working Groups of the National Energy Transformation Partnership (NETP), which reports to the ECMC, were highlighted, demonstrating continuous commitment to the matters raised in the review.[65]

1.59The ECMC response noted the development of national guidelines for community engagement and benefits for electricity transmission projects, which are in train in collaboration with state and territory jurisdictions through the Transmission Working Group under the NETP.[66]

CSIRO research into low-conflict pathways for renewable energy development

1.60In July 2024, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) Responsible Innovation Future Science Platform released research into low conflict pathways to enable the development of renewable energy, including offshore renewable energy, using the Bass Strait proposed area consultation as a case study.[67]

1.61The first stage of the study included a stakeholder survey of the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind area to identify the level of awareness and interest, and the strength of opinions and attitudes as well as information gaps.[68]

Stakeholder survey results

1.62The study's stakeholder survey found that there is a 'relatively low level of conflict around the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind farm zone', with the exception of commercial fishers who reported 'strong negative attitudes with concerns centred around the perceived impact of offshore wind farms on livelihoods'.[69]

1.63Members of the public were concerned over visual amenity, reduced access, and impacts on migratory species. Environmental groups supported the benefits of renewable energy, but were concerned over personal, cultural, environmental and place-based impacts.[70]

1.64A significant communication gap was identified, with limited access to relevant information and a low level of community engagement. A lack of transparency in decision making was also identified. CSIRO stated that the lack of awareness of the proposal and lack of clarity had created a perception gap:

The general lack of reliable information has also contributed to a perception gap between what an individual thinks is happening and what is actually happening. Given the relatively low levels of stakeholder certainty and the current reliance on social media and personal information networks, it is anticipated that without a targeted information campaign, this gap will continue to widen.[71]

1.65The study reported that all stakeholder groups recommended the need for marine spatial planning, and more integrated planning which considers the combined impact of onshore and offshore wind farm development.[72]

1.66The next stages of the study will include an analysis of broadcast and online media and other internet data. Finally, the study will include the development of a social network model to simulate community and stakeholder attitudes including the role of the media and 'key tipping points'.[73] The remaining stages of the study are in train, with the project set to conclude by June 2025.[74]

Next chapter

1.67The next chapter provides an overview of the consultation process, and the status of the consultation process underway in the six priority areas. Chapter2 also provides an overview of the legislative framework for offshore wind.

Footnotes

[1]Journals of the Senate, No. 118, 3 July 2024, pp. 3617–3619.

[2]Journals of the Senate, No. 150, 10 February 2025, p. 4759; Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, Progress Report, 5 March 2025; Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, Progress Report, 24 April 2025.

[3]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Building an offshore wind industry (accessed 31 October 2024).

[4]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3.

[5]The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, 'Address to Clean Energy Council', Speech, 18 July 2023; Austrade, Go green with Australia(accessed 24 October 2024).

[6]Clean Energy Council, Clean Energy Australia 2024, March 2024, p. 2.

[7]DCCEEW, Net Zero(accessed 24 October 2024). Other Australian Government policies to reduce emissions include the Safeguard Mechanism, the Capacity Investment Scheme and New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

[8]DCCEEW, Building an offshore wind industry(accessed 31 October 2024).

[9]DCCEEW, Building an offshore wind industry(accessed 31 October 2024).

[10]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3.

[11]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3.

[12]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3.

[13]DCCEEW, Building an offshore wind industry(accessed 31 October 2024).

[14]DCCEEW, Australia's offshore wind areas (accessed 13 January 2025).

[15]Australian Energy Regulator, Registered capacity by fuel source – regions (accessed 30 January 2025).

[16]World Economic Forum, These are the countries bidding to become wind power superpowers, 29March2022 (accessed 31 October 2024).

[17]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3. Australia is home to 13.5 GW of installed onshore wind farms, though it is estimated that twice the amount of current wind capacity will be required by 2030 to meet electricity demand.

[18]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 3.

[19]Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Report 2024, 16 April 2024, p. 104.

[20]Geoscience Australia, Submission 16, p. 5.

[21]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 4.

[22]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 4.

[23]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 4.

[24]DCCEEW, Submission 61, pp. 4–5.

[25]DCCEEW, Submission 61, p. 16.

[26]Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner (AEIC), Considerations for Offshore Wind Industry on Community Engagement (accessed 31 October 2024).

[27]DCCEEW, Australia's offshore wind areas (accessed 13 January 2025).

[28]DCCEEW, Community Engagement Review (accessed 23 October 2024).

[29]DCCEEW, Community Engagement Review (accessed 24 January 2025).

[30]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, pp. 1–2.

[31]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023.

[32]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, pp. 63–64.

[33]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 8.

[34]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 15.

[35]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 5.

[36]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 12.

[37]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 8.

[38]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 8.

[39]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 11.

[40]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 22.

[41]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 27.

[42]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 28.

[43]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, pp. 38–39.

[44]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, pp. 47–48.

[45]The Australian Government's initial response to the review was published in February 2024, and the final response from the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council (ECMC) was published in July 2024.

[46]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. i.

[47]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 7.

[48]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 7.

[49]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 21.

[50]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 27.

[51]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 31.

[52]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 37.

[53]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 37.

[54]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 47.

[55]Mr Andrew Dyer, AEIC, Community Engagement Review Report, December 2023, p. 47.

[56]DCCEEW, Initial Australian Government Response to the Community Engagement Review, February 2024, p. 1.

[57]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 3.

[58]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 8.

[59]Mr Simon Duggan, Deputy Secretary, DCCEEW, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Proof Hansard, 4 November 2024, p. 88.

[60]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 10.

[61]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 11.

[62]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 15.

[63]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 19.

[64]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 7.

[65]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 7.

[66]ECMC, ECMC response to the Community Engagement Review, July 2024, p. 15.

[67]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024.

[68]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 6.

[69]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 54.

[70]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 54.

[71]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 54.

[72]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 54.

[73]Corrine Condie, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Scott Spillias, Matthew Andreotta and Scott Condie, CSIRO, Low Conflict Pathways to Renewable Energy: Stakeholder attitudes to the proposed Bass Strait offshore wind energy zone, 1 July 2024, p. 6.

[74]CSIRO, Low conflict pathways to renewable energy: using predictive models to reduce social risk, 20December 2023 (accessed 22 January 2025).