Submission on the Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement (IIAS)

July 11^th, 2001

Basslink Joint Advisory Panel
GPO Box 2036
HOBART TAS 7001

Dear Panel,

Re: Submission on the Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement (IIAS)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft IIAS.

As per the guidelines to lodging a submission:

Name and Address:

The Hon. Peter Hall, MLC Gippsland Province
190 Franklin Street (P.O. Box 1506)
Traralgon Vic 3844

Interest in the Proposal: 

Firstly as a resident of the Latrobe Valley, I have a personal genuine concern for those who will be directly affected by the Basslink proposal. Secondly, as an elected Parliamentary representative for the people of Gippsland, I feel it is my duty to convey the views of the community I represent through this submission process. As an MP I also have regard for the needs of Victoria as a whole.

Do we need Basslink?

Basslink is a project to link the Tasmanian electricity grid to the Victorian electricity grid. This will enable Tasmania to participate in the National Electricity. While I can see some merit in such a connection – principally enhancing supply security – I also see drawbacks.

It is recognised that demand for electricity in Victoria is increasing and additional electricity will be required if peak demand in the future is to be met. This will require purchasing electricity from outside the State (in this regard Basslink has some merit) or investing in additional generation capacity within Victoria. In respect to purchasing electricity from interstate, this peak-demand electricity will be at a very high price, particularly from Tasmania where the transportation will be costly.

It is my view that it will be cheaper for Victorian distributors to purchase electricity from peak-demand generators here in Victoria. And market signals in the generation industry support this view.

In recent months Victoria has seen a surge in investment in electricity generation. Gas-fired generation capacity of more than 1300 megawatts has been announced. This additional capacity is designed to meet Victoria’s peak-demand periods.

Such investment is great for Victoria and my real concern is that Basslink will impede further such investment.

While it can be argued that Basslink in itself is an investment, it is an investment in a transmission line only and as such will only generate employment during construction. Gas-fired power stations create employment during construction and on-going employment during operation. Alternative energy sources, particularly wind power, also offers a tremendous opportunity for investment and increased production in Victoria.

I appreciate that Tasmania is also seeking to improve supply security with the mainland link that Basslink provides. However with the planned Duke Energy natural gas link between Victoria and Tasmania, Tasmania will have the opportunity to invest in its own gas-fired generation capacity. At best Basslink would provide an additional 300 megawatts to Tasmania, this could easily be replaced by gas-fired or alternative energy sourced production. Such direct investment would have greater long-term benefits to the Tasmanian economy than that which Basslink offers.

In concluding this point, I ask myself whether Victoria needs Basslink on the basis of increasing capacity? My conclusion is that it does not. Victoria needs more power, but I firmly believe that this need can be met, and more long-lasting benefits had, by encouraging further investment in our own generation capacity.

Overhead or Underground?

In respect to this issue, I wish to only comment on that section of the proposal that traverses land in Victoria. I am not familiar with the Tasmanian section. I also feel

I am not sufficiently familiar with the marine issues to comment on the section across Bass Strait. However in respect to this latter matter, I am aware of concerns held by some Victorian professional fishermen and I trust the panel will consider their views.

The overwhelming view of the constituents I represent is that if Basslink is to proceed, the entire Victorian land section should be underground. I concur wholeheartedly with this view. As a long term resident of the Latrobe Valley I live daily with a mass of overhead transmission lines emanating in all directions from the various generators. They are a blight on the landscape and I am sure that if the same community environmental values were held then as they are today, those transmission lines would be required to be undergrounded. It is worthy of note that distribution networks within new housing areas and even on farming properties are almost always now required to be undergrounded for reason of both visual amenity and safety. The undergrounding of transmission lines is also becoming a much common occurrence as new transmission lines are established.

I have driven the proposed Victorian land route and applaud the decision to put the first 6.9km coastal section underground. The report itself concedes that the Old Rosedale Road underground route achieves the best biodiversity and amenity result, but claims the associated high cost renders the project commercially infeasible.

Well, the people of South Gippsland and I happen to believe that the local environment should not be compromised while the undergrounding alternative exists. The visual amenity through those areas of Gippsland along the Basslink route is an invaluable asset and its destruction by the imposition of overhead cables and pylons is something that cannot be afforded. It is something that at the end of the day I do not believe the Victorian Government will accept. In the Autumn session of Parliament, the Environment Protection Act was amended to insert a set of environment protection principles. If the Government measure the environmental impact of Basslink against these principles of environment protection then I do not believe the Government can support the overhead transmission proposal.

In so far as I, and the people I represent, are concerned, the use of pylons and overhead transmission cables is a non-negotiable item. If Basslink is to proceed, it must be underground through the entirety of the Gippsland route! If as the IIAS claims undergrounding makes the project uneconomic, then so be it. As indicated earlier in this submission I believe there are better alternatives to improve supply security in Victoria and Tasmania.

The very significant detrimental environment impact pylons and overhead transmission will have, balanced against the at best marginal benefits Basslink may bring, leads me to the conclusion that this project should not proceed. If however in the event that it does, I am totally committed to ensuring the route across Victorian land is fully underground.

If the panel would like me to elaborate on this submission, I would be happy to do so.

Yours sincerely,

PETER HALL M.L.C.
MEMBER FOR GIPPSLAND PROVINCE