Port of Hastings wind project referred to corruption body 

Tensions between Victorian and federal officials over the environmental feasibility of a renewable energy project at the Port of Hastings are exposed in confidential documents that lay bare the state’s desperation to secure approval for its plans.

Correspondence and minutes of meetings between senior state and Commonwealth bureaucrats in the aftermath of Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s rejection of the Allan government’s proposal for an offshore wind hub at the environmentally sensitive site suggest Victorian officials wanted their federal counterparts to help them revise the project.

Victoria’s approach prompted the Commonwealth’s most senior environmental bureaucrat, Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water secretary David Fredericks, to warn in writing that it was “not appropriate” for his departmental officials to provide advice on how to make the project fit for environmental approval.

The DCCEEW is responsible for administering the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) regime considered by Plibersek when she rejected as “clearly unacceptable” the Port of Hastings Corporation’s proposed Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal in January last year.

The VRET is pivotal to the Allan government’s ambition to establish an offshore wind industry capable of generating two gigawatts of power by 2032. It would enable local storage and assembly of wind farm components to be used along Victoria’s coast.

The government has publicly flagged its intention to resubmit a revised VRET for environmental approval.

According to the minutes of a roundtable meeting in March 2024 between officials from DCCEEW and the Victorian bureaucrats, an official not identified in the documents said Plibersek’s decision “compromised the state and Commonwealth’s ability to transition to renewable energy” and significantly devalued the Port of Hastings.

At the same meeting, a bureaucrat from Victoria’s Department of Transport and Planning urged the roundtable to “lead to an outcome and characterise a new bid to get through the DCCEEW regulatory process”.

This prompted the chair of the meeting, DCCEEW divisional head Shane Gaddes, to remind the Victorian officials that “the purpose of the roundtable was not to co-design a resubmission”.

The documents were obtained by the Victorian opposition under freedom of information.

Opposition spokesman for energy and resources David Davis has forwarded the documents to the state’s anti-corruption agency, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, and urged it to investigate whether Victorian government officials “actively sought to obtain inside running” for the VRET project.

Davis told IBAC Commissioner Victoria Elliott the documents showed “deeply concerning” conduct by Victorian government officials.

“It is apparent from the released documents that Victorian government officials sought to co-opt Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water officials to support, indeed co-design, a revised Victorian government proposal for its Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal at the Port of Hastings,” he wrote.

“This gives every appearance of senior Victorian government officials attempting to ‘cook up’ a solution to the Victorian government’s dilemma by directly applying inappropriate and otherwise unrecorded pressure on the secretary of DCCEEW in a meeting that has never been disclosed publicly.”

IBAC does not publicly disclose matters being assessed or under investigation.

Victoria’s Department of Transport and Planning defended the conduct of state bureaucrats involved in the meetings. “Representatives from the Victorian public service always act with integrity with their Commonwealth counterparts on the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal project at the Port of Hastings,” a department spokesperson said.

Victoria’s Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio, in response to detailed questions about the contents of the documents, offered a one line comment through a government spokesperson: “It’s not surprising David Davis and the Victorian Liberals don’t understand government processes for major projects – they haven’t delivered one in 30 years.”

Plibersek denied the project EPBC approval because of the impact it would have on the surrounding Western Port Bay, a wetlands of international importance.

Victoria has since refined its VRET proposal, pushing out its timeline by two years, reducing the amount of land reclamation it requires from 29 to 18 hectares and reducing the area to be affected by dredging.

The copy of the letter made available under freedom of information was heavily redacted after Younis’ department objected to its release on the grounds it contained information communicated in confidence.

In a February 26 response, Fredericks confirmed the establishment of a working group of state and federal officials to “develop a mutual understanding of the issues” but warned: “it is not appropriate for the group to develop solutions or outcomes for any future referrals.”

Fredericks and Younis did not respond to questions from this masthead.

Following the exchange of letters between the two secretaries, the DCCEEW insisted that every meeting of the “Joint Victorian-Commonwealth Offshore Wind Working Group” would begin with a disclaimer.

The disclaimer read: “The purpose is to inform Victorian officials to assist them in their continued work with the Port of Hastings. This does not represent co-design work. The Port of Hastings Corporation remains solely responsible for developing its proposal and possible referral under the EPBC Act.“”

A Department of Transport and Planning spokesperson said it was “standard practice to outline what is in and out of scope of formal discussions between government departments”.

Dr Colleen Lewis, an honorary professor of Australian studies at ANU, has examined the documents. While she does not believe they contain evidence of misconduct, she said they raised more questions than answers.

“Why the need for a disclaimer?” she asked. “Was it prompted by a level of distrust and/or concerns about poor decision-making by the Victorian government? What is being hidden from the public by all these redactions?”

Davis in his letter to IBAC said the redactions would take years to challenge under the Victoria’s freedom of information law and invited the anti-corruption body to use its powers to examine the unredacted documents.