Chapter 3Community engagement with the consultation process
3.1The public consultation process undertaken by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) as part of the development of the potential offshore wind industry generated substantial comment from community members.
3.2As noted in the previous chapters, the process for offshore wind development includes opportunities for public feedback, to inform the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's (the minister) decisions to declare an area suitable. For each of the six priority areas announced in 2022, public consultation has been undertaken (and is ongoing) and has led to reasonably significant changes to the size and boundaries of the declared areas.
3.3Significant public engagement occurred in the six priority regions, as outlined in Chapter 2. However, submitters to the inquiry set out a range of concerns with the consultation process undertaken by DCCEEW.
3.4Submitters to the inquiry indicated that while they were supportive of renewable energy, they held concerns not only about the potential impact of offshore wind energy on the marine environment, but also about the public consultation process undertaken by the Australian Government in relation to the industry's development.
3.5This chapter outlines concerns raised in relation to the consultation process itself, including the timeframes and engagement opportunities available to community members. This chapter also addresses concerns about misinformation and future consultation processes around the ongoing development of the offshore wind industry.
3.6The next chapter sets out views raised through the Australian Government's consultation process relating to the impacts of offshore wind projects on the marine environment, fishing and tourism industries, and noise and light pollution.
Support for the consultation process led by DCCEEW
3.7Submitters noted that the consultation process undertaken by DCCEEW for offshore wind areas was similar to other Australian Government consultation processes, and that these processes contain a number of steps and take time. For example the Clean Energy Council (CEC) was supportive of the consultation process undertaken thus far and noted that the consultation process had led to changes, with 'all declared areas being adjusted to incorporate feedback'.
3.8BlueFloat Energy, an offshore wind project proponent, stated that the consultation process was clear and well structured, and highlighted DCCEEW's efforts to disseminate information through various means online.
3.9Friends of the Earth Australia considered the consultation process to be 'fairly designed and implemented in line with legislation'. Similarly, Sea Shepherd Australia stated that the consultation process, including timeframes, 'appeared to us to be similar to other consultation processes' and did not experience difficulties in participating, while noting that consultation can always be improved. Sea Shepherd Australia considered that the public meetings its representatives joined were well-attended by the public, and that 'there was plenty of information available in printed form' which explained the process and which addressed possible community concerns.
3.10The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales (NSW) submitted that 'there is evidence of adequate consultation opportunities provided in person and online' and noted in some cases the consultation periods were extended in response to community feedback.
3.11The Wollongong City Council was of the view that there were considerable opportunities for the community to engage in the Illawarra consultation, noting the three information sessions organised, and various events including sessions and webinars hosted by potential proponents.
3.12Some submissions from the Hunter region were supportive of the local process undertaken. For example Hunter Workers stated that the consultation was adequate, and in some regards exceeded expectations, noting the efforts undertaken by DCCEEW. The Committee for the Hunter stated that the number of submissions received through the DCCEEW public consultation process for the Hunter area was 'relatively high'. The Hunter Jobs Alliance (HJA) stated that DCCEEW had provided 'significant opportunities to engage with the process of offshore wind development', but noted 'there is always room for improvement'.
3.13Similarly, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union considered that the consultation process has been 'sufficient for this stage in the offshore wind process' and noted that future approvals processes would provide further opportunities for engagement.
3.14The Gippsland Climate Change Network expressed that the consultation process has been clear and transparent.
3.15The Australian Centre for Culture, Environment, Society and Space (ACCESS), a group of researchers at the University of Wollongong and Deakin University, highlighted the importance of using narratives in each proposed zone to better connect with each community and their needs. For example, in the Gippsland region a narrative centred on industrial job creation appeared to resonate with community members as the 'early and uncoordinated withdrawal of coal-fire power stations' had led to job losses. ACCESS noted that, in the Illawarra, this narrative did not have the same impact, which may have been due to lower regional unemployment rates, and a deep cultural attachment to the ocean.
Community concerns about the consultation process
3.16As outlined in the previous chapters, the development of Australia’s offshore wind industry allows for public engagement and feedback at each of the three main stages of the development process. The government has been engaging, and continues to engage, on Stage 1 of that process—the regional zoning process. Stage 2 (project proposal, feasibility studies and approvals) and Stage 3 (project delivery) will take place subsequently and will both involve further consultation processes, primarily involving project proponents.
3.17This section first sets out general concerns about the Stage 1 consultation process, before addressing submitters' concerns relating to:
the timeframes for and awareness of public engagement;
the need for clear information for community members;
the quality of information and engagement at the public information sessions led by DCCEEW;
navigation of the written and online consultation materials; and
the complexity around Commonwealth and state jurisdictions and processes.
3.18The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) described the consultation process as a 'failure', saying it 'was seen by many as a simple box ticking exercise for DCCEEW' and suggesting that engaging the community in future consultation may be challenging following negative experiences. Recfishwest also considered the consultation process to be a 'failure'.
3.19IOH Health submitted that the language used in the consultation process appeared to be a 'sales pitch' to discount risks. The sense of the offshore wind projects being inevitable was repeated in other submissions, including from the Hon Nola Marino MP (Federal Member for Forrest in southwest Western Australia (WA)) and others, and former councillor Mark Croxford from Kiama in NSW.
3.20Some submitters refuted DCCEEW's claims about the engagement processes it had undertaken. For example, Moonshadow—TQC Cruises, a tourism charter vessel company based in Port Stephens, stated that despite DCCEEW's claims regarding outreach, it was not aware of any newspaper, radio or social media advertising, nor did any of its 40–60 staff members receive the letterbox drop.
3.21The Gippsland Climate Change Network explained that the complexity of the proposed offshore wind industry made it difficult for community members to engage with. It suggested that the complexities of the 12 proposed wind farms in the Gippsland area—being presented by 10 different proponents—were exacerbating confusion amongst the community. It also noted that there can be 'community fatigue'.
3.22A series of policy reviews, ongoing policy and regulatory development, and overlapping consultation periods were raised as issues by stakeholders from the commercial and recreational fishing sector. For example the Commonwealth Fisheries Association stated that:
The regulatory environment for the offshore fishing industry was already crowded and complicated before the government started to enact its offshore renewable energy initiatives. The pace of respective legislative change has been rapid and confusing. Trying to respond to multiple consultation requests has become near impossible with the limited resources that the fishing industry has for a co-ordinated response.
3.23Recfishwest also referred to consultation fatigue and noted that offshore wind industry proponents were conducting public information sessions about their own projects (some of which were not located in the proposed area), leading to confusion about the relationship between government and industry.
3.24Information sessions held by proponents prior to declaration announcements were described as confusing and misleading by the Commercial Fishermen's Co-operative, which stated that these proponent presentations 'were given in a manner that indicated that the proposals were going forward with or without issues raised'.
3.25Some community members in the Illawarra area reported to ACCESS that they first learnt of plans for an offshore wind industry in their area when an offshore wind proponent began community engagement on a prospective project, prior to the zoning consultation conducted by DCCEEW. ACCESS stated that community members did not have 'a strong understanding of the offshore wind approvals and licensing process, or how it fitted into the government's broader industrial decarbonisation agenda'.
3.26ACCESS was of the view that concerns raised by community members during the Illawarra consultation process 'were not substantially the result of inadequate consultation conducted by DCCEEW. Rather, they were embedded in the architecture of the legislation'.
Timeframes for and awareness of public engagement
3.27Some submitters took issue with the time provided for the public consultation process. As noted in the previous chapter, as per the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 the public consultation period must be at least 60 days from the notice of the proposal to declare an area.
3.28It was suggested to the committee that this 60-day period was insufficient. Responsible Renewables called for the consultation period to be at least 100days, to allow communities time to consult and seek guidance on documenting relevant material.
3.29Hunter Wildlife Rescue submitted that as community consultation is only required from the first stage of the development process, industry and other stakeholders had been involved in discussions for years before community members and environmental groups were consulted. Hunter Wildlife Rescue recommended that community consultation begin earlier and involve frequent and early communication with engineers and designers. It suggested that the gap between consulting industry and community had led to an information vacuum and misinformation. This issue is discussed below.
3.30Warrnambool City Council stated that it faced similar challenges in engaging community members and trying to form a position in a limited timeframe:
Council has no authority or jurisdiction in relation to offshore marine management, however during the consultation process on the proposed offshore renewable energy areas, Council was faced with pressure to form a position on a proposal that we have limited resources to assess or understand from a technical perspective. In addition, the community grappled with understanding the proposal and any impacts on the environment, economy and visual impact.
3.31Similarly, the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) noted the complexity and size of the Bunbury proposed area, and stated that a 60-day consultation period was not sufficient for the commercial fishing industry and community. WAFIC advised that the public consultation period for the Bunbury proposed area coincided with the Australian Government's submission period for the draft regulations, and that consultation on the guidelines for transmission and infrastructure licences within the offshore electricity infrastructure framework commenced shortly after this. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association also noted the plethora of regulatory consultation requests placed on the fishing industry.
3.32The Responsible Renewables Committee Port Stephens Myall Coast summarised its views on the consultation process, suggesting it was 'rushed' and:
…underpinned by poor advertisement of wind zone announcements and consultation sessions, an absence of key information to frame the consultation process, uninformed staff at the consultation sessions, lack of genuine attention to issues raised during the consultation/submissions process, and a poor understanding of community culture, businesses and values.
3.33The resources required to participate in public consultation was raised by submitters as an issue. The Commercial Fishermen's Co-operative stated that it was 'overwhelmed by a sudden influx of time-demanding consultations, with no warning and no assistance provided', and also stated that there had been a lack of notice for public information sessions.
3.34In describing the consultation process as 'an unmitigated failure', the ARFF said there was low general awareness about the consultation, until community members promoted the consultation period.
3.35Some submitters stated that they were not aware of the public consultation process until very late, or, in some cases, too late to participate. Moonshadow—TQC Cruises told the committee that it was only made aware of the process by another operator in the area. Moonshadow—TQC Cruises considered it had insufficient time to research potential impacts of an offshore wind industry in the area.
Need for clear information
3.36Several submitters considered that the Australian Government should deepen community engagement and increase knowledge sharing on renewable energy.
3.37For instance, although Sea Shepherd Australia expressed support for the consultation process, it noted that the consultation process was in relation to the zoning of offshore wind areas, 'but for many, it was probably the first they had heard about the possibility of [offshore wind projects] and so the process inevitably raised a much wider range of issues'.
3.38The Australian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy also highlighted that the offshore wind industry is 'entirely new' to Australians:
It is incredibly challenging for a community to engage meaningfully, if they have no frame of reference or understanding of how the proposed developments are likely to impact them and their region—directly or indirectly—and over a sustained period of time.
3.39The centre considered that because the consultation process did not provide details on future renewable energy infrastructure (as they are determined by future applicants), it 'left some sections of the community feeling like they were being asked to comment on a proposal for which they only had partial details'. This led to an information vacuum which was at times 'filled through misinformation'. Misinformation is discussed below.
3.40ACCESS stated that, although it found DCCEEW staff to be respectful and able to clearly explain the sequencing of the approvals process, the consultation process design could cause issues due to missing key data:
Consistent with recent research on the shortcomings of planning processes that ‘breadcrumb’ information to affected publics, a lack of key data (such as the visual impacts, environmental impacts and clarity on the use of energy generated) also led to widespread concern.
3.41The sequencing of consultation was also acknowledged by Surfers for Climate, which noted that as public consultation was carried out prior to the identification of proponents, DCCEEW was not able to provide information regarding projects and the technology which may be used. According to Surfers for Climate, this made it difficult for community members to fully consider the impacts of offshore wind. Surfers for Climate noted that the consultation undertaken so far had been the initial stage, with others to come, but this 'has not always been of sufficient comfort to local communities'.
3.42Community Power Agency acknowledged that community members were unfamiliar with offshore wind in Australia and required information related to the need for the industry, the associated development processes, and the potential positive and negative impacts. Community Power Agency called for better communication from the Australian Government, including information on the rationale and the standards imposed on offshore wind proponents through legislative and regulatory frameworks.
3.43The high-level nature of the information provided by DCCEEW was raised by submitters, including IOH Health, which considered that community members were being asked to consider 'transforming a community space into a heavy industrial zone without thorough information or any consideration of alternatives'.
3.44The Australian Marine Conservation Society was concerned that no information was provided on the ecological values of the Indian Ocean proposed area, or discussion of biodiversity considerations. No Offshore Wind Farm Zone—Warrnambool and District submitted that a full environmental impact assessment should be undertaken prior to the declaration of an area, in order to build community confidence.
3.45In contrast, Climate Action Newcastle highlighted the resources provided by DCCEEW were useful for community groups and other stakeholders, and noted the visualisations of wind farms at various distances from the shore in order to demonstrate visibility of offshore wind farms in the Illawarra region.
3.46Good for the Gong also supported the use of visualisations, but considered that improvements could be made to the information available, and recommended further information be given on the benefits and standards for offshore wind development. Good for the Gong stated that the Australian Government should act sooner in communicating with the community.
Strong demand for localised, targeted information
3.47Business Hunter facilitated comprehensive local engagement with the consultation process undertaken in the Hunter region, including hosting business forums, providing a submission to the DCCEEW process on behalf of members, sharing information on key milestones, and other activities. Business Hunter stated that as a result of these activities, it had 'observed some confusion over the sequencing and key phases of the project, including opportunities for consultation, and how and when key decisions would be made'.
3.48Several submitters noted the need for community-centric information hubs, fostering further trust and credibility through community education informed by evidence, expert advice and economics. HJA expressed that the need stemmed from low levels of trust for the government within the community.
3.49ACCESS recommended that due to the significant differences in geographies, economics and social dynamics in the six priority areas for offshore wind, a geographical approach to community consultation should be delivered.
3.50There was a high demand for clear information, particularly for the fishing industry and recreational fishers, and a number of fishing industry stakeholders submitted that they held concerns for the future of their business or recreational fishing. Albatross Fisheries Pty Ltd, for example, submitted that uncertainty over access to the declared area for fishing vessels was concerning, as the declared area could result in a loss of business revenue:
We have no knowledge of whether there is any proposal for compensation for the financial losses that we will suffer should this wind farm proceed not only impacting our business but impacting the value of our fishing licences.
3.51Fishing industry stakeholders including the ARFF and Game Fishing Association of Australia expressed concerns at the manner of the public forums and considered that slow, poor-quality communication was received from the minister's office:
For example, the Minister’s 20 February announcement about the proposed WA Offshore wind zone states: “Fishing and offshore wind can co-exist, but it’s not automatic that it can”. It is unclear if those comments were in reference to all fishing or only certain types of commercial fishing such as trawling. This statement has created an urgent need for clarity on what coexistence looks like for game fishing.
3.52The issue of practical co-existence between offshore wind and the fishing industry was also raised by the WAFIC.
3.53WAFIC raised concerns that, during the consultation on the Bunbury area, there was no information provided to the community or to fishing stakeholders with research or analysis or ocean floor mapping. WAFIC stated that the consultation process 'did not provide constructive information or reassurance' which resulted in uncertainty and conflict.
3.54Western Rock Lobster Council called for a significant improvement in the quality and type of information provided during the public consultation process, and stated that insufficient impact assessments and collaboration with marine industries had occurred:
…[the process] lacked transparency and neglected to demonstrate evidence-based justification. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) failed to provide adequate research, criteria analysis, or ocean floor mapping to substantiate the suitability of the selected area for offshore wind farming and failed to satisfy the need to first assess and exclude alternative sites.
3.55The Commercial Fishermen's Co-operative, among other fishing industry representatives, stated that they had not been engaged by DCCEEW in the consultation process. The co-operative stated that early engagement was crucial for the development process:
Understanding the information needs, concerns, and aspirations of our fishers affected by these proposals is an important component of early and effective community engagement in this process.
Public forums
3.56As outlined in the previous chapter, DCCEEW held multiple public forums for each of the six priority areas. Some submitters claimed that the public forums were not adequate or serious in trying to engage in meaningful consultation with the public. For example, the NSW Game Fishing Association stated that:
The community information sessions for both the Hunter and the Illawarra Offshore wind zones were only held during week days and at times when nearly all interested people were at work and could not attend.
3.57The Port Stephens Greens stated that a public information session in Nelson Bay to discuss the Hunter proposed offshore wind area had more people attend than may have been expected, and community attendees insisted on a change to the format to accommodate more people, which was 'only reluctantly agreed to'. The Port Stephens Greens stated that:
Local community confidence has never recovered from this poor start—many left the session feeling that the Government had already decided to proceed with offshore wind and was just going through the motions with token ‘consultation’ with very limited information about the issues of concern.
3.58The ARFF was similarly critical of the public forums, and stated that:
During the consultation process DCCEEW has cancelled public consultation sessions at late notice, restricted public access to other consultation sessions, refused to accept handwritten or emailed petitions, and left people queuing up in the hot sun after underestimating the level of public interest.
3.59Recfishwest stated that DCCEEW cancelled at late notice information sessions which were specifically focussed on recreational fishers. Recfishwest stated that an information session to be held in Busselton was cancelled after an information session held in Binningup became heated. Information sessions which were held were stated to be full to capacity, with community members required to queue outside.
3.60The ARFF described the outcome of the public sessions as generating 'vague promises' about community concerns being addressed once the area has been declared as suitable.
3.61Responsible Future (Illawarra Chapter) stated that the public consultation process was insufficient:
The government's engagement with the community has been minimal and inadequate, relying on five face-to-face meetings hosted by DCCEEW and two Town Hall meetings, which saw less than 1 [per cent] of the adults across the lllawarra attend. Can this be considered an adequate consultation with our community, given that it failed to access a representative sample and truly hear concerns and questions? These DCCEEW sessions lacked a formal presentation, delivered poor information, and provided superficial or dismissive responses to questions.
3.62The Australian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy considered that the public forum model contained flaws, as it provided 'somewhat limited' information 'to an interested and occasionally hostile public'. In the centre's view, these forums provided 'little, if any, meaningful opportunity for the two-way exchange of knowledge or for deliberation or discussion'. The centre stated that the use of public forums and written submissions led to information wars, in which science was weaponised in debates over which facts were right and which were wrong. The centre was critical of these models being used in this context:
These models of engagement make it difficult to meaningfully consider and include community values, connections and perspectives and they actively discourage negotiation and deliberation. They do little to constructively build understanding of diverse opinions and values and they often fan division rather than build recognition of the many ways in which the ocean is important to people…
3.63TasRex submitted that DCCEEW had requested that it not participate in public information sessions as it was a potential developer in the Bass Strait area. TasRex was of the view that 'this approach may have been detrimental to TasRex and other proponents' as they were not able to demonstrate their willingness to engage with stakeholder groups and gather community feedback. TasRex stated that this could build 'a mistrust of industry' and recommended that future Commonwealth consultations include proponents.
3.64On the other hand, HunterNet, a network of 160 manufacturing, engineering and specialist services in the Hunter and Central Coast regions, submitted that it was sensible to exclude developers from the DCCEEW zoning consultations, and highlighted the future opportunities for public engagement:
…regulatory measures have sensibly restrained developers from fatiguing communities with consultation effort, especially by developers that aren’t even awarded a feasibility licence.
Navigation of online and written information
3.65DCCEEW stated that submissions to its consultation process were able to be made through the DCCEEW Consultation Hub page, which included resources to provide additional information for the proposed areas, including:
an overview of the proposed area, and frequently asked questions providing localised answers;
an overview of existing marine users and interests;
a downloadable file showing the proposed area; and
a link to a map of the proposed area hosted by Geoscience Australia.
3.66The Consultation Hub webpages for each of the six declared areas provide an overview of the current status of the development process, a summary of public consultation undertaken, and information about the area.
3.67Several submitters stated that the information contained on the DCCEEW website relating to the public consultation, or to the proposed offshore wind industry, was difficult to find and challenging to navigate.
3.68For example, Moonshadow—TQC Cruises stated that the DCCEEW website is 'not a website that many would consider looking at' ordinarily. It also submitted that 'to state that this is a form of direct consultation is not practical' and described the consultation process as 'overwhelming to navigate'.
3.69The Port Stephens Greens noted the 'very large volume of information' available on the DCCEEW website, but stated that 'there is almost too much information, without enough easy to use navigation tools or explanation'.
3.70Western Rock Lobster Council stated that 'critical contextual, economic and scientific information [was] absent from the initial consultation process', and that the information provided 'presented [an] Australia-wide perspective which may not be entirely appropriate to individual regions but was not accompanied by local (State and regional) information'. Western Rock Lobster Council considered that the information provided 'was suitably generic as to apply to several other sites and provided little context to understand why one area had been identified in preference to any other'.
3.71Responsible Future (Illawarra Chapter) also contended that the written materials were not detailed, and stated that the flyers provided through letterbox drops were one-sided, and 'promoted the benefits without addressing the detail and facts of what is proposed and the associated risks'.
3.72It was the view of the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) that more thorough information should have been provided, and it called for identification and mapping of biodiversity values and social uses of the offshore wind regions prior to the release of the draft areas. It stated that: 'This lack of planning we believe has led the community into panic'. The VNPA stated that 'because this was not a well thought out process it gave the impression that the Federal Government's lacked care for the protection of marine values'.
Interaction between Commonwealth and state frameworks
3.73Some submitters highlighted the complexity of navigating legislative and regulatory environments at the Commonwealth and state levels. At the Commonwealth level, consultation is led by DCCEEW with mapping provided by Geoscience Australia. The Offshore Infrastructure Regulator is responsible for the regulation of work health and safety, infrastructure integrity and environmental management for offshore infrastructure activities in Commonwealth waters. State and territory governments are responsible for licensing and regulating projects and associated infrastructure within their coastal waters (under three nautical miles).
3.74The Australian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy, for example, drew attention to the 'complex and disjointed' responsibilities for renewable energy rollouts, and stated that different layers of government and different departments within those governments are involved. The centre gave the example that the placement and location of offshore wind projects is determined by the Australian Government, but other aspects such as transmission infrastructure are managed by state and local governments.
3.75Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) stated that the 'arrangements governing ocean access are complex, multi-layered, and vary between jurisdictions'. SIA further stated that there are a variety of overlapping activities which occur on and in the oceans which add to the level of complexity with regard to planning and management.
3.76The Gippsland Climate Change Network stated that there is confusion between Commonwealth and state processes, and gave the following example:
There is currently some confusion regarding these industry regulatory and legislative frameworks' relationship between State and Federal Governments in the context of offshore wind development…Such complexity underscores the need to consolidate the process and provide a streamlined approach that minimizes the risk of community fatigue.
3.77Western Rock Lobster Council also drew attention to the issue of jurisdictional overlap:
…the framework is not clear on how the interface between State and Commonwealth jurisdictions will be managed in respect of impacts caused by Commonwealth identified offshore energy initiatives on State coastal waters and site related industries and communities along the WA Coast.
Misinformation and disinformation
3.78Various submitters identified misinformation and disinformation as one of the most significant threats to genuine community consultation. For example the CEC, Smart Energy Council and WWF Australia, among others, stated that bad faith actors weaponised misinformation to cause exacerbated community concerns and resistance to offshore wind.
3.79Similarly, the Maritime Union of Australia and the Electrical Trades Union stated that it was their belief that ‘an internationally coordinated disinformation campaign’ had affected Australian communities throughout the consultation processes.
3.80The Port Stephens Greens stated that 'there are credible reports that worldwide opposition to windfarms is a coordinated campaign funded by fossil fuel producers'.
3.81Misinformation and disinformation was said to have circulated through posts on social media platforms, including in Facebook groups. One example of misinformation related to offshore wind farms was given by Good for the Gong and Doctors for the Environment Australia, who drew attention to the online circulation of a fake journal article which claimed that offshore wind farms would kill whales. The editor of the journal has stated publicly that the article does not exist.
3.82AFP Fact Check noted the spread of posts regarding potential impacts of offshore wind projects on whales, and whale migration, and highlighted posts on social media which stated that whales would become entangled in cables and anchor chains. However, AFP Fact Check stated that 'experts and whale welfare groups say the claims are exaggerated. While offshore wind farms do pose risks of entanglement and could alter migration pathways, safeguards can be put in place'.
3.83Media articles also stated that posters, placards and billboards had shown images of beached or living whales with wind turbines in the background, and that social media posts linking to clips from United States (US) network Fox News or of US President Donald Trump discussing offshore wind farms were shared widely in groups opposing offshore wind developments.
3.84WWF Australia stated that offshore wind 'has been a key target for disinformation campaigns that have amplified community opposition and led to polarisation'. WWF Australia highlighted research from the University of Technology Sydney which analysed submissions made during the Illawarra public consultation period, and found that 'a large proportion of submissions opposing the Illawarra offshore Renewable Energy Zone were either directly or indirectly traceable to fossil fuel interests'.
3.85The CEC stated that the presence of misinformation and disinformation was concerning, and prevented community members from being able to engage in the process. The CEC noted that DCCEEW had provided information on its website Offshore Wind Facts, which was updated throughout the consultation processes.
3.86During the consultation period, certain communities raised concerns in relation to the offshore wind projects. Some submitters believed these concerns were amplified by a lack of clear information from the government, subsequently leading to an increase in deliberate misinformation being spread amongst communities. Oceanex and Hunter Workers explained that confusion throughout the consultation process was amplified by misinformation and disinformation shared across several Facebook groups. HJA stated that it considered the public consultation process to be the same as other Australian Government consultation processes, but that 'in our view an information vacuum has allowed misinformation to thrive'.
3.87Sea Shepherd Australia raised similar concerns about the amount of misinformation and disinformation witnessed during the consultation period, and stated that it had itself been a victim of this:
[Sea Shepherd Australia] has had to take action to have our material taken down from a website where our policy position was being misrepresented by an anti-OSW [offshore wind] group. The government should actively develop a strategy for dealing with this and as part of this, support information emanating from trusted sources such as universities and publish more information itself. This is particularly important in relation to peer-reviewed research.
3.88The time between the public consultation period and the announcement of the declared area was said to have led to the growth of misinformation and disinformation. According to the Port Stephens Greens, this was due to a lack of substantive new information creating an information vacuum over a 14-month period.
3.89Responsible Future (Illawarra Chapter), however, submitted that claims of misinformation had been exaggerated to suit political agendas:
False accusations linking groups opposing the proposal to fossil fuel companies and exaggerated claims of "misinformation/disinformation" spread by opponents have been deliberately orchestrated politically and by the media to undermine credibility and sow division within the community. Media coverage has generally been biased.
Combatting misinformation and disinformation
3.90Many submitters argued that the Australian Government should take a role in combatting misinformation and disinformation in relation to the development of a potential offshore wind industry. For example, Good for the Gong suggested that the Australian Government should identify, promote and support services which combat misinformation and disinformation.
3.91Similarly, the Community Power Agency stated that more resources should be directed to raising community awareness for the rationale of offshore wind, addressing community concerns, and providing clarity on legislative and regulatory frameworks, to assist in combating misinformation.
3.92The Port Stephens Greens stated that the Australian Government had been unprepared for campaigns against offshore wind projects:
The failure to understand the community and anticipate the exploitation of the issue for political purposes has allowed opponents of renewables to drive a wedge into the environmental movement, dividing activists and organisations which might have been expected to rally behind the prospect of a major new source of renewable, zero emissions energy.
3.93The Committee for the Hunter stated that 'debate and discussion on Hunter offshore wind has been marked by misinformation' and suggested that the Australian Electoral Commission should monitor misleading or deceptive communications surrounding political advertising in the Hunter area during the upcoming federal election.
3.94On the other hand, although high levels of concern over misinformation and disinformation are understandable, the Australian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy cautioned against 'an excessive focus on mis/disinformation' which 'will only serve to further alienate vocal opponents if they feel their complaints are being dismissed as wrong or misinformed'.
Future consultation
3.95This section sets out inquiry participants' views on the next stages of public consultation to be undertaken, by both the Australian Government and prospective proponents, and includes suggestions to improve or clarify information provision and feedback.
3.96For example, WWF Australia suggested that community engagement could be improved by providing greater clarity around the process itself, and stated that it is important that the community understands that offshore wind farm development is a lengthy process, with multiple opportunities for public feedback, and also that there are still many approval milestones and key assessments to be undertaken.
3.97Business Hunter considered that there was time for DCCEEW to create resources to clearly communicate key information:
The opportunity to create a resource communicating key messages such as the project rationale, role within the broader energy context, anticipated impact on future business and household energy costs, key project phases and projected timeline (including consultation opportunities) has not been missed, and would encourage collaboration and inclusivity as this project moves forward.
3.98HunterNet submitted that the reduction in size of the declared area in the Hunter proposed offshore wind area (including a reduction in size of the proposed generation capacity from 8 gigawatts (GW) to 5 GW) should have led to consultation. HunterNet was of the view that the smaller size would not support the establishment of an offshore wind industry, and that the Hunter area is ideal for offshore wind. HunterNet suggested that consultation should have taken place to discuss this:
An extra step to bring stakeholders together to better understand mutual needs would have been preferable to at least explore the possible without needlessly and over compromising respective needs which seems to have occurred. This may have resulted in a far different outcome in terms of sizing and placement of the zone, opening up the opportunity and likely success of establishing an industry for global participation. The extra step of mutual stakeholder orientation should have occurred in the consultation process to mitigate the issues and risks detailed above.
3.99Climate Action Newcastle suggested the establishment of independent expert reference and advisory groups and resourcing local community groups to participate in future consultations.
3.100Concerns over future consultation fatigue were raised by the South Gippsland Shire Council, who noted that multiple similar projects are underway concurrently. Further, the South Gippsland Shire Council expressed that a coordinated approach to such future consultations should be undertaken.
Consultation to be undertaken during Stage 2
3.101Public consultation opportunities are set to continue as projects progress through the offshore wind industry assessment and approval process set out in the previous chapter. Sea Shepherd Australia noted that a number of issues raised during the public Stage 1 consultation processes are set to be addressed by proponents during the next stage. Particularly, many issues raised during consultation would be addressed when feasibility licence holders are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
3.102Wollongong City Council stated that its submission to the DCCEEW consultation was underpinned by the understanding that the consultation was the first phase to seek public feedback, with an expectation that more consultation opportunities would arise as the project evolves. Wollongong City Council particularly noted the opportunity for proponents to provide more detailed consultation during the approval process.
3.103The Australian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy suggested that more work should be undertaken on contextualising the offshore wind projects within the broader energy transition and environmental changes.
3.104Further to this, Oceanex highlighted that organisations granted feasibility licences ‘hold the prime responsibility for stakeholder engagement, community consultation and social licence’.
3.105RES Australia noted that it is unlikely that construction would commence for at least four years, with projects yet to complete and lodge their Environmental Impact Statements, a requirement for further approvals to commence construction.
3.106TasRex, a renewable energy company, pointed out that, regarding Stage2 of the offshore wind development process, the regulatory framework only provides the proponent with 60 days to apply for a feasibility licence after the declaration of the area, which includes instances where the area is different to the area on which there was consultation. TasRex stated that this limited the opportunity for proponents to consider community views:
Short lodgement timeframes place significant demands on a proponent's ability to consider the broad and varied interests of the diverse stakeholder groups in the declared zone in finalising the proposed area for which to seek a feasibility licence, alongside finalising the technical aspects of the project and bid.
3.107HunterNet highlighted the future opportunities for public engagement and suggested that DCCEEW be more active in 'reinforcing the message that communities have a lot more consultation to be enjoyed'.
Next chapter
3.108The next chapter sets out views on the consultation process relating to the impacts of offshore wind projects on the marine environment, fishing and tourism industries, and noise and light pollution.