Day 4, Thursday 15th October AGL EES hearings by Chris Atmore

Thursday 15 October (Day Four)


The day began with the IAC announcing that they will make a further site visit next Monday, but that they hope when COVID restrictions permit, to make an accompanied visit at some point. It’s also been agreed that where expert witnesses have not been able to visit the site and therefore can’t answer some questions, they may be later recalled to add to their answers.


Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) then presented its arguments (no witnesses so they couldn’t be cross-examined). It’s fair to say that PoHDA echo the proponents in their enthusiasm for the project (see Docs 2700 and 231), including insisting that the Port is naturally deepwater, already long-term industrial, and in their words ‘open for business’. They say there is already a significant suite of policies and planning controls to support the project and that they are well used to balancing the needs of the Port against those of the environment.


PoHDA presented a slide show which the IAC pointed out needed to be clearer and annotated, particularly relating to the Crib Point Jetty. What came through is that none of the Port jetties regularly have ships the size of the FSRU. However, they’ve already got the necessary approvals to remediate the CP Jetty so it can accommodate project construction. PoHDA identifies Crib Point as strategically important for importing bulk liquids and gases and says this is consistent with current and future Government approved plans for the Port and Crib Point.


The IAC, and submitters through Counsel Assisting Jason Kane, asked a number of questions on notice (meaning answers will be provided later).


The afternoon was taken up with the evidence and examination of the proponent’s expert planning witness, Andrew Biasci (Docs 68 and 176), who is involved in the drafting of the Incorporated Document that is the basis for the proposed planning scheme changes.


Mr Biasci’s focus was on land use impacts, and his evidence dovetailed with the PoHDA’s in terms of the claimed suitability of the Port for the project. He did however introduce a new phrase, ‘sunken investment’ – meaning ‘we’ve spent all this money on infrastructure so industry shouldn’t be stopped unless you’ve got a really good reason’.


Mr Biasci also echoed proponent and PoHDA assertions that the project has State significance and so it should be encouraged and signed off on by the Planning Minister rather than the MP Shire Council. He was confident that there are enough existing checks and balances that there is no need for a detailed economic or tourism report. Visual impacts are also to be expected in a working Port and in his view the EES is addressing these appropriately.


In cross-examination, Counsel Assisting asked whether visual and landscape impacts should be considered as part of managing the construction stage. Mr Biasci did not think so. Mr Kane also drew out a number of possible gaps and uncertainties in the Incorporated Document (ID), including whether MP Council is expected to play at least some role in enforcing the planning amendments. Referring to a clause in the ID which refers to Council, the community and other stakeholders, Mr Kane asked who ‘the community’ is and the response was that this is to be determined (making us wonder what the claimed stakeholder consultation by AGL was for).


Mr Kane noted that another clause in the ID refers to various plans associated with the Project, including the Operation Environmental Management Plan, only being made available on the proponent’s website until the project starts operating. The response seemed to suggest that this clause was just lifted from another project without any specific consideration of the ramifications.  


Rupert Watters then took over for the MP and Bass Coast Shire Councils. He raised questions about whether the various policies such as Plan Melbourne actually supported the project in the way that Mr Biasci suggested, because those policies aim to actively improve the environment or prioritise environmental protection over development, and that’s not what the project would do.


Mr Watters also presented a map from the Melbourne Industrial and Commercial Land Use Plan that shows that in fact Crib Point is only of regional significance (the State significance area does not start until north of Long Island Jetty).


Finally Robert Forrester, for our combined environment group, extracted an agreement from Mr Biasci that there is nothing in the EES that claims if the Project is denied approval that it will be detrimental to the Port of Hastings. Mr Forrester also hammered home the lack of State significance argument for Crib Point, and left us with the implications that the witness’s conclusions overly rely on Port strategy, which has weaker persuasive authority than legislation.







DAY 3 was a gruelling technical day focusing on the gas market and the ‘rationale’ for the project.

The hearings covered the expert evidence of Richard Bolt, Jerome Fahrer and Owen Kelp on behalf of the proponents.

Their expert reports and presentations can be found in the Tabled Documents – Nos:
• Bolt -66 & 189
• Fahrer – 67 & 190
• Kelp – 87 & 190.

In addition, Dr Fahrer did a submission in reply to Bruce Robertson’s expert evidence (for us) @ Document 167 and this was also addressed in the hearings.

The day opened with Counsel for the proponents introducing their experts emphasizing that Richard Bolt was focusing on the strategic policy context and Fahrer and Kelp were focused on ‘an independent’ overview of the energy market and impact of the Crib point terminal.

Mr Townshend, in his opening remarks for the proponents, also once again tried to narrow the focus of this aspect of the EES by stating it had to be ‘kept under control’ and should not stray into a wider ambit including environmental sustainable development and broader policy matters. The Chair did not respond. Mr Townsend then went on to give an overview of the expert evidence focusing on energy security in the policy context and that it will be a market decision to proceed. He also emphasized that this is a ‘light intervention’ in the market because the ship can be sailed away and is a transition energy policy.

Richard Bolt then went through his presentation. Mr Watters for the MPSC then undertook cross-examination and did an amazing job, examining different aspects of Mr Bolt’s evidence. Particular aspects included questioning and drilling down into:
• Total gas domestic supply v all supply (and LNG export components)
• Deficiencies in AEMO data and new COAG requirements for mandatory surveys to better base projections on
• Forecasted shortfalls up to 2024 and what they really mean
• Efficiencies in the energy market through decarbonisation policies
• Emphasis in Bolt report on gas powered generation when this is not a big user of gas
• The Victorian Emissions reductions targets and Report of expert panel which Bolt was not familiar with but he agreed energy regulatory changes were sound policy
• Discussion of domestic reserve policies which Bolt did not address in his policy context report and which Watters said had stopped the shortfall originally predicted in 2017
• The PM’s energy statement including support for initiatives for domestic gas and pipeline initiatives to which Bolt said these are all options but they lock in infrastructure whereas FSRU is ‘light touch’ approach to which MPSC counsel replied that this infrastructure could be used for green hydrogen.

Mr McArdle for our combined group then further cross-examined Mr Bolt focusing on:
• Policy context is not one overarching document but comprise many of which Bolt has synthesized only some and that Bolt focused only on supply side with an emphasis that more gas is good and that he did not address climate side policies
• Gas helps decarbonise but only in respect of gas powered generation so very narrow as ‘transition fuel
• Bolt said this Crib point was best option but when questioned he hadn’t properly examined other options such as pipeline upgrades.

Mr Kane, Counsel assisting then asked about when is greatest GPG peaks and this was identified as summer when gas demand generally is down.

Dr Fahrer and Mr Kelp then gave their presentation jointly. Cross examination by MPSC then addressed the following aspects:
• The modeling does not factor in current climate policy settings including Vic Interim target or on sustainable development as IEA does (see The Age today front page) re IEA on renewables
• In the absence of the project it was agreed gas consumption will be lower (but the they say prices will be higher) but they also said that the market will sort itself out so no actual shortfall
• Modeling is hypothetical and as such the claims made re Crib Point could also apply to another import terminal in Vic such as Viva energy – no comment
• Technical discussion on double counting of demand side initiatives (their view) but they couldn’t say what they were
• Their model does not address negative effects – very one sided
• Manufacturing claims demolished by MPSC.

Our Counsel then followed focusing on:
• The negative impacts are more consumption of fossil fuel – they agreed that b/c of lower cost there will be more consumption
• Reinforced position in previous cross-examination re other alternatives and plenty of gas in Australia.
• That modeling shows plenty of gas for Vic without the project until 2030 and that it would enable Vic to continue to be a net exporter until at least 2032 and that the modeling shows peak imports not until 2040.

Jason Kane, Counsel assisting IAC also asked questions and was able to clarify that the modeling suggest no gas imports in summer months until 2040 (really!!) Except for operational reasons and then it would only be about 2pjs

In summary in our view the cross-examination showed many weak aspects of the expert witnesses.

The IAC Hearings ~ Day two by Chris Atmore

Tuesday 13 October (Day Two)

Our barrister successfully argued for Save Westernport to be permitted to address the IAC separately from the legal team for the three joint organisations.

The EPA said that whether discharging chlorine and cold water into our Ramsar wetland is allowable is a question that relies on how the Water SEPP – the relevant environmental policy – should be interpreted, and this hasn’t ever been tested. At this stage it’s not clear how much the IAC will leave for the EPA when the EPA decide after the Hearing whether to approve the FSRU works approval application.

The rest of Day Two consisted of opening submissions from project opponents – basically explaining what they will be arguing in more detail later in the Hearing. We first heard from the Mornington Peninsula and Bass Coast Shire Councils that AGL and APA have failed to justify the Project and to properly assess its impacts on tourism, groundwater, birds, Merran’s Sun Orchid, noise and traffic. The two Councils also singled out the fact that greenhouse gases from the project would undermine not only national emissions targets but also local commitments to addressing the climate emergency. They also singled out the damage to amenity that would be done by visual and noise impacts, especially at Woolleys Beach.

Cardinia Shire Council flagged that they will address the project rationale, greenhouse gases and climate change in November, but today mainly indicated concerns about pipeline safety and impacts on land users, traffic safety and groundwater.

The Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation submission was a stark reminder of how due to being forced to proceed under COVID restrictions we could not even have a traditional welcome to Country. The BLCAC pointed out all the detail that the proponents have provided re different land uses – except regarding the traditional owners where the only relevant documents are the Cultural Heritage Management Plans that are still not finished. Even by the standards of other projects the BLCAC said this is poor.

Despite this we were generously welcomed remotely by Aunty Dyan Summers and Uncle Mik Edwards. Aunty Dyan told us:

‘It scares me that all of our stories are going to be lost if this project goes ahead and how that will affect me. I know I’m not the only Aboriginal woman that feels the same way. This land is not just stones and bones. Land is our being. We’ve learned to walk carefully over the land.’

Uncle Mik reinforced this:

‘It’s not just land to us, it’s our cathedral of spirituality and our library of history that goes back for aeons. We’re all connected through one red blood. We don’t own Mother Earth, she owns us all and will take us home one day. We’re all equal but I don’t feel it very often. I welcome you all to our custodianship of Mother Earth and hope this will be our chance to bring things into equal balance. We’re not well because we’re not balanced. Failure to listen to us exacerbates that.’

What has become known as ‘the Joint Submitter’ or ‘the Joint Environment Group’ – SW, EV and VNPA – then presented its opening submission, focusing for now mainly on why the IAC needs to consider whether the project is needed from within an interactive policy context. Part of the reason for doing this is to counter suggestions yesterday from the proponent that the IAC should just apply policy, not scrutinise it. We say that it’s too complex not to examine how much gas we really need and then consider, given all of the impacts of the project, whether this is really the best way to meet that need.

Finally, Save Westernport outlined how we are embedded in community and what Westernport Bay means to us. We talked about how hard it has been to engage with this process under COVID restrictions, but that the community is determined to oppose the project as strongly as we can, because AGL and APA will never have a social licence. Further in the Hearing we plan to raise issues that will not be dealt with via the Joint Environment Group and to complement the evidence presented from experts with our firsthand knowledge of the social impacts on us.

Our submissions are Doc 154 and Doc 155 under Tabled Documents at


Media Background for Crib Point terminal inquiry hearings, by Greg Foyster

The briefer includes essential info on the hearings, appearance dates, access links and contact details for spokespeople.


AGL is proposing to build a 290-metre floating gas import terminal at Crib Point in Westernport Bay, south-east of Melbourne. Westernport Bay is recognised as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention.

It is home to vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered whales, turtles, fish and waterbirds. The terminal, known as a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU), would receive liquefied natural gas (LNG) via shipments from interstate or overseas, then convert this LNG back into gas for distribution via a new pipeline (to be built by APA) running 60 kilometres from Crib Point to Pakenham. AGL’s description of the project is at


Two energy companies, AGL and APA, have proposed the project. In October 2018, the Victorian Minister for Planning required the companies to submit an environment effects statement (EES).

AGL took two years to create the 11,000 page EES, and the community was given 40 days to respond during a public exhibition phase from 2 July to 26 August. This coincided with stage four lockdown restrictions.

A joint Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) was appointed to consider the EES and submissions and give advice to ministers and government agencies on the project. All documents relating to the hearings, including public submissions, are at: The hearings will be held online from Monday 12 October to 17 December.

The timetable is here.

Zoom details for the hearings:
Meeting ID: 810 4993 0543
Passcode: 771844 

link >


The environmental assessment for this project has generated an unprecedented number of public submissions.

More than 4345 submissions are publicly available on the IAC website, and more than 9,000 additional individual submissions were attached to Environment Victoria’s submission.

The previous record for most submissions to a Victorian EES was the Mornington Safe Harbour project with 2018 submissions.



Submissions opposing include federal MP Greg Hunt, several shire councils (Bass Coast, Mornington, Cardinia), recreational fishing peak bodies, tourism operators, local business owners, environment and climate groups.

All submissions can searched at

Links to submissions from conservation and community groups: Environment Victoria Victorian National Parks Association

Save Westernport Westernport & Peninsula Protection Council (submission 3149)
Friends of French Island (submission 1140)
For a summary of concerns related to tourism, fishing and local businesses, contact Environment Victoria Media and Content Manager Greg Foyster on 0410879031 or



The committee has 30 days to send a report to the Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne.

The Minister has 30 days to respond and make his decision. The committee’s report is not public until after the Minister has decided, and the Minister has discretion to ignore the committee’s recommendations.
In the recent North-East Link EES, the Minister approved the project and dismissed key findings of the panel.


Greg Foyster, Environment Victoria, 0410879031,

Julia Stockigt, Save Westernport, 0425 306 830,

Candy van Rood, Save Westernport, 0412494985,

Shannon Hurley, Victorian National Parks Association, 0433 481 346,

Jeff Nottle, Phillip Island Conservation Society Inc, 0419 158 232,

Karri Giles, Westernport & Peninsula Protection Council, 0425707448,

Livia Cullen,Environmental Justice Australia, 0411108239,

Bron Gwyther, Friends of French Island, 0422032527,

Key Hearing Dates

Date Group or expert appearing 12 Oct Opening submission from AGL and APA 13 Oct

Opening submissions from Minister for Planning, Minister for Environment, EPA, councils, Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, Environment Victoria, Save Westernport and Victorian National Parks Association, instructed by Environmental Justice Australia 14 Oct – 6 Nov

Expert witness statements from AGL and APA covering economics, environment impacts, pipeline etc 9 Nov – 16 Nov

Mornington Shire and Bass Coast Shire with expert witnesses on greenhouse gas emissions, groundwater, marine ecology, water birds, traffic etc 17 Nov

Cardinia Council expert witness on groundwater 18 Nov
City of Casey, EPA Victoria,
Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation 19 Nov

Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council with expert witness Mary Cole on Phytophthera cinnamon, Amphiboulus Chytrid Fungus G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd with expert witness Peter Ramsey in Engineering 23 Nov Environment Victoria,

Save Westernport Inc and Victorian National Parks Association with expert witness Bruce Robertson on energy finance and Perran Cook of Monash University on environmental chemistry 24 Nov

As above with expert witness Matt Edmunds on marine ecology and ecological assessments 25 Nov As above with expert witness John Wardrop on environmental science (oil spills) and Tom Baldock of the University of Queensland on hydrodynamics 26 Nov

As above with expert witness Bonnie Rosen on social impacts and Vanessa Wong of Monash University on soil science 30 Nov

Environment Victoria, Save Westernport Inc and Victorian National Parks Association continued 1 Dec – 2 Dec

Save Westernport and Environment Victoria continued 3 Dec Expert witnesses on animal wildlife rescue, green retrofits and climate/energy French Island Community Association 7 Dec – 15 Dec

Approximately 340 individual submissions, each allotted 5 to 8 minutes 15 Dec Discussion on Mitigation Measures/Environment Performance Requirements 16 Dec

Closing submissions from Minister for Planning, Minister for Environment, EPA, Councils, Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation and Environment Victoria, Save Westernport and Victorian National Parks Association, instructed by Environmental Justice Australia 1

7 Dec Closing submissions from AGL and APA

The Inquiry and Advisory Committee Hearings have begun!

The Inquiry and Advisory Committee Hearings have begun!

October 12th, was Day One of the EES Hearing into AGL’s Gas Import proposal in Westernport Bay.

Summary of Day One by Save Westernport’s Chris Atmore

This was the first day of the EES Hearing.
We heard that the Inquiry and Advisory Committee (the IAC) will visit Crib Point and sites along the proposed route of the pipeline, but these visits may not be accompanied due to COVID restrictions. The community had requested a guide to point out important areas that would be impacted.

Disappointingly, Phillip Island and areas south of Crib Point, including Cerberus, and from Somers and Balnarring to Flinders are not on the list of places the Panel will visit as we requested.

We think a visit to these places is important for the Panel members to get a better understanding of the character and economy of the Bay, and we’ll try to pursue this with the Panel.

Chair Kathy Mitchell said that it was inappropriate for Save Westernport to present its submissions unrepresented because it is also one of three clients represented by Environmental Justice Australia and a team of barristers. We disagree and hope to respond to this tomorrow morning.

Groups other than the main parties are likely to be allocated 10 minutes each and individual submitters who asked to speak when they made their written submissions will be allowed just 5 minutes each to speak. That part of the timetable is still being finalised.

AGL and APA (‘the proponent’) spent the rest of the day presenting their Opening Submission – essentially a general overview of what they plan to argue, including videos promoting the FSRU, Crib Point Receiving Facility and Pipeline works.

The proponent says that what is in the scope of the IAC to consider should be narrower than we say eg arguments about climate change should not be relevant. They will also argue that the Port of Hastings is already industrialised and that it’s just a question of balancing industry against the environmental considerations and that they can do this. They claim that their EES goes above and beyond EESs for other projects eg they assume worst case scenarios when assessing risk and impacts.

AGL and APA have made some changes to various key documents. We can expect to see more of this as the Hearing progresses.
Tomorrow the IAC will hear from most of the other main parties, including the Environment Protection Authority, Mornington Peninsula, Bass and Cardinia Shire Councils, and Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation.
At 3.15pm our barristers will present the Opening Submission on behalf of Environment Victoria, Save Westernport and Victorian National Parks Association.

We wish our legal team all the best as they present the Opening Submission representing the community’s views on why this proposal must not go ahead.

To watch the Hearings live each day, go to
At the top it says ‘How to access the Hearing’
Click on
‘Crib Point IAC – Hearing Link’
Type in your email address, and then click on the Zoom link to watch the Hearing from 10 am each day, (except Fridays)

If you require technical assistance, ring 03 9078 9726

AGL’s Annual General Meeting October 7

AGL’s Annual General Meeting October 7



Did you know the AGL corporation is holding their Annual General Meeting, on October 7 2020 ?

Over the past few years, members and supporters of Save Westernport have attended the AGM to protest against  AGL and ask how the Board can allow AGL to embark on a new fossil fuels project in the face of the climate emergency and unmistakable community backlash.
The extent of community opposition confirms that the Crib Point proposal is at odds with every guiding policy that the AGL corporation claims to prioritise. We can draw media attention to this disparity by
asking confronting questions about this of the AGL Board in the presence of their shareholders.

The AGM is as an important opportunity to raise these concerns with shareholders and board members, to question their commitment to ‘Social License’ and emphasise the absence of community approval for the Crib Point proposal.

AGL’s hypocrisy in the misrepresentation of the public image they present as a responsible, innovative company is confirmed in their 2019 Sustainability report

AGL claims this policy “can be summarised in terms of leaving a positive legacy; AGL will strive to make a net positive social, economic and environmental contribution to the communities in which we operate. AGL’s community engagement commitments that operate under this framework are that AGL will:

● Be proactive: we will engage with communities early and often, so that we understand and respond to their interests and concerns.
● Be “exible and inclusive: we will offer a range of engagement opportunities that are tailored to the variety of needs and preferences of the communities in which we seek to operate.
● Be transparent: we will act honestly and ethically in all our dealings with the communities in which we operate, to ensure that our activities address community needs and expectations.”

Despite misrepresenting their commitment to sustainability and innovation, the actions of Australia’s biggest carbon polluter confirm a shocking lack of preparedness to confront the climate emergency or to support their customers in the inevitable transition from gas and other fossil fuels.

AGL’s past convictions for deceptive and misleading conduct highlight the need to challenge AGL and their Boardmembers whenever we can. As members of the public we are entitled to expect AGL to live up to the standards they have identified.

AGL has been determined to prolong the country’s hopeless dependence on gas, which has provided the AGL corporation with such sustained inflated profits, not even the destruction of our climate has proven enough of an incentive to ensure responsible action or the fulfillment if their stated aims. them with such enormous profits.

There’s little doubt that sustainable energy solutions would far more advanced, and would likely be ready to roll out now if AGL had not been allowed to spend several years and hundreds of millions of dollars exaggerating gas demand and the possibility of shortages in order to gain approval for their dangerous, inappropriate, irresponsible and out dated gas projects like Crib Point.

When they announced plans at Crib Point, AGL claimed their urgently need for gas to pimminent shortfalls for Victorian families and business. Since then we discovered AGL’s plans for two new gas fired power stations in SA and NSW, plus a third one to be built by pipeline company APA. under construction.

They have never said where they plan to get the gas from. 

And yet companies like AGL are under increasing pressure from their own shareholders and insurers to get with the times and do what is required to tackle climbing temperatures before 2050.

The emphasis they put on renewables in their own advertising demonstrates the unmistakable awareness from within these corporations that comes from the highest levels of their strategic planning departments.

They know their shareholders are waking up to the fact that gas is no transition fuel . People expect more— they’re demanding responsible action on climate, and meaningful investment in sustainable projects, rather than just a symbolic commitment that, to AGL means little more than the tokenistic ‘greenwashing’ seen in their advertising.

This year the AGL AGM will be streamed online, due to current COVID restrictions.

Only shareholders are eligible to attend their AGM.
However if you or someone you know holds AGL shares, and would consider providing your shareholder privilege to  a member of Save Westernport to ask a question at the AGM to someone at Save Westernport, please contact us to let us know. It is your right as a shareholder to allow a proxy to attend the AGM on your behalf.

This is a legitimate and effective way to exert pressure and encourage change within the corporate realm, used by groups like Sea Shepard, Market Forces and Friends of the Earth with great results.

If you’re an AGL shareholder and you’d like help framing an effective question for you to ask at the AGM on October 7, or for more information, please contact Save Westernport at or 59830094.

Save  Westernport and Environment Victoria are planning an Action  to protest online and send our message to Boardmembers, shareholders and the media, that this community will NEVER accept AGL’s plans to import fossil fuels in Westernport. 

We know we have the support of our local Mornington Peninsula Shire Council , and Bass Coast Council, who have each declared a Climate Emergency, and have voted to oppose AGL in Westernport.

In February 2020, the Bass Coast Shire Council Announced:

1. Council declares its strong opposition to the development of fossil fuel assets on Western Port and in particular, opposition to the AGL’s proposed Gas Import Jetty project for Crib Point.

2. That Council will write to the Premier advising him that:

2.1 Council has declared a climate emergency and is currently developing a comprehensive Climate Emergency Action Plan pursuing a community target of zero net emissions

Despite paying lipservice to policies of energy sustainability and innovation, AGL’s actions continue to contradict this position. We aim to challenge them about this whenever we can.

The emphasis placed on renewable energy in their own advertising demonstrates an unmistakable awareness from within the highest levels of their strategic planning departments of how highly this is prioritised by Australians.

They know their shareholders are waking up to the fact that gas is no transition fuel . People expect more— they’re demanding responsible action on climate, and meaningful investment in sustainable projects, rather than just a symbolic commitment that, to AGL means little more than the tokenistic ‘greenwashing’ seen in their advertising.

This year the AGL AGM will be streamed online, due to current COVID restrictions.

Only shareholders are eligible to attend their AGM.
However if you or someone you know holds AGL shares, and would consider providing your shareholder privilege to ask a question at the AGM to someone at Save Westernport, it is your right to allow a proxy shareholder to attend the AGM on your behalf.

This is a legitimate and effective way to exert pressure and encourage change within the corporate realm, used by groups like Sea Shepard, Market Forces and Friends of the Earth with great results.

Or if you’re an AGL shareholder and you’d like help submitting a challenging question that you could ask at the AGM on October 7, or for more information, please contact Save Westernport at or 59830094.

Join Save Westernport and Environment Victoria at our online Action as we protest AGL and send an unmistakable message to Boardmembers, shareholders and the media, that this community will NEVER accept AGL’s plans to import fossil fuels in Westernport. 

Email us at  or watch this space for details of our AGM plans. 

‘Environmental democracy and mental health in the time of coronavirus’ an article by Chris Atmore

‘Environmental democracy and mental health in the time of coronavirus’ an article by Chris Atmore

(photo by Stacey Chillcott)

‘A browser is what you use to get onto a website on the Internet,’ I say to Peter. He’s having difficulty trying to use Zoom, which was downloaded for him so that he can access the test session for the forthcoming environmental impact assessment hearings.

A desktop computer might make things easier but that belongs to his son and his employer won’t allow Zoom to be used on it, so it’s a new iPad for Peter, which he is also trying to work out. It’s not helped by the fact that Peter’s not feeling sharp because he’s in the midst of chemotherapy treatment’…. read on

Full Moon Meditation ~ October 2nd, 7am

Full Moon Meditation ~ October 2nd, 7am

What is Sacred Activism?

‘Sacred Activism is a transforming force of compassion-in-action that is born of a fusion of deep spiritual knowledge, courage, love, and passion, with wise radical action in the world. The large-scale practice of Sacred Activism can become an essential force for preserving and healing the planet and its inhabitants.’

Andrew Harvey

Meditating during a Full Moon amplifies the power and intention of that meditation. Also meditating in groups empowers and supports all of us who need to continuously hold a positive and hope-filled trajectory when it comes to any kind of activism for the purpose of creating a better world. ~Candy vR

Save Westernport and AGL

AGL have very very deep pockets and endless resources. They are very determined to go ahead with this idiotic proposal of theirs, to install a gas import jetty and pipeline (APA). The whole project stinks and the majority of Mornington Peninsula residents and visitors do not want this to happen to the sacred and life-filled waters of Warn-mar-in.  AGL also more-than-likely have the State government on their side, complicit. Which adds to their determination, despite the fact that they know they do not have ‘Social License’.

There Full Moon group meditations and Vigils can change everything. Please spread the word to your friends. The more people we have at our meeting the more powerful.

NB: To attend, please email us at:, and put ‘Full Moon Meditation’ in the subject line.  We will then send you the zoom link on Thursday afternoon.

Please share widely!







‘Art is in Our Nature’, MP News article & more

‘Art is in Our Nature’, MP News article & more

The work of 54 acclaimed contemporary artists comes together in this exciting exhibition to increase awareness of the campaign to stop AGL’s proposed gas import terminal from being approved at Crib Point, and to raise urgently needed funds for Save Westernport Inc to mount a legal challenge in partnership with Environment Victoria and the Victorian National Parks Association.

‘I reached out to the broader art community and was struck by the incredibly generous response of artists. Many have personal connections to the Mornington Peninsula, and it has been heart-warming to hear their stories. Our community is passionate about this issue and the broader community is as well.’

– Penelope Gebhardt, Curator


Read our article in the latest Mornington Peninsula News, click on the image

#savewesternport stands with #schoolstrike4climate

#savewesternport stands with #schoolstrike4climate

Save Westernport supports everyone doing at-home protests against gas development on this Global Day of Action against Gas.
Many people on the Mornington Peninsula are running online or private events, joining Hundreds of Thousands of people protesting about the gas threat here in Australia.

Check out the local events for this global day of action here

Today the @schoolstrikeforclimate are calling us to flood the PM @scottmorrisonmp on social media —twitter, Facebook, Instagram, tiktok, and with phonecalls (02)6277 7700 to tell him we demand a safe, clean funded future, not a gas lead recovery.

Let’s call the PM to tell him that gas is no ‘transition fuel’. It’s just as dangerous and inefficient to burn as coal, and every dollar spent on it is a dollar taken from the Renewable Energy solutions needed to power our future.

Our demands are no public funds for gas and other damaging fossil fuel projects. Instead, recovery funds should be spent on.

1. Resourcing aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led solutions that guarantee land rights and care for country.

2. The creation of jobs that fast-track solutions to the climate crisis and help communities recover.

3. Projects that transition our economy and communities to 100% renewable energy by 2030x through expanded public ownership”.

Thank you @sachaguggenheimer #fundourfuturenotgas @schoolstrikeforclimate rallies are being held around Australia . @scottmorrisonmp

Sacha: ecosystem collapse will destroy far more than just our economy. We’ll look back on Coronavirus and think, what a walk in the park compared to the devastation brought on us by #climatechange

Link in my bio to the online @schoolstrikeforclimate wrap up rally at 6pm EST. We’re in a pandemic, so this Day of Action won’t have us gathering in huge numbers, but each of us will be taking action, however and wherever we can.

💪🌎 @savewesternport