HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Northern Transmission Project

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (15:15): On 14 October I advised the house of a community meeting I attended at Eudunda regarding the proposed northern transmission line through the Mid North by ElectraNet. I understand that ElectraNet is a private company, 45 per cent of which is overseas owned and 55 per cent of which is owned by Australian superannuation funds, and was originally created as part of the privatisation of the Electricity Trust of South Australia in 1999 by the Liberal Party of South Australia. ElectraNet is also a private monopoly regulated by a number of state and federal regulators on different elements of their business undertakings. Unusually, ElectraNet also has the power to compulsorily acquire private property, a power that is usually reserved for governments.

ElectraNet is responsible for operating the high-voltage transmission network that moves electricity from generators to substations and large customers. ElectraNet is currently undertaking a major project in the Mid North of South Australia referred to as the Northern Transmission Project, with the project having two elements, namely north and south of Bundey. The north Bundey alignment has been finalised, but the southern alignment is subject to a considerable amount of community concern and angst about the impact the current corridor options will have on very productive farmland.

In this context, I was invited to participate in two community forums recently, one in Marrabel on Sunday 19 October and the most recent on Wednesday 22 October at Riverton. Both these community forums were well organised and well facilitated. This ensured that they shed more light and understanding, not just heat. These forums were in response to the way ElectraNet has undertaken its community consultation.

In short, ElectraNet has raised the ire of local farmers and residents because the information sessions have been viewed as a box-ticking exercise. ElectraNet has generally sent out community engagement staff who often are not in a position to respond to complex questions or do not have a broad understanding of how the sector works. To my knowledge, no executive with decision-making power has attended any of these information sessions. In the view of farming communities, this is not effective community engagement or consultation. I share this view.

This infrastructure, while necessary to ensure we have a long-term, stable grid, will nevertheless have a lifetime effect on some farmers. It warrants a genuine dialogue. ElectraNet has been invited to participate in the community forums. They have chosen, or decided, that it is better for them to not attend. I do not share that view. They have not acquired the trust of farming communities, and their lack of participation has further eroded the level of trust. They need to do better.

Last Wednesday, just prior to the Riverton community forum, ElectraNet advised people who live within the corridors of the options under consideration that, yes, they would hold a community forum, but it would be a virtual forum online—yes, a virtual forum. In what virtual reality does ElectraNet live if they believe a consolation prize of a virtual forum would be viewed by farming communities as reasonable, respectful and fair?

My experience as a Labor MP has been that while farmers are angry and anxious about the proposal and process they would be willing to have a meaningful dialogue, given the opportunity. My side of politics is not the one normally favoured by farmers, but when I have attended the community forums those present have been passionate but at the same time respectful and courteous. They have asked relevant questions and listened to the answers. The requests by farmers are simple, relevant and reasonable. I quote from the petition circulated at the community forums to demonstrate this:

Affected farmers and communities want ElectraNet to:

1. Undertake forthwith meaningful direct consultation with the affected communities and

2. Formally assess a potential fifth transmission corridor, located east of Goyder's line, alongside the current [northern transmission] route options, noting this alternative route would in all likelihood:

a. Avoid high-value cropping land and key tourism landscapes that the current proposed corridors would impact.

b. Follow lower-productivity grazing country, which aligns more closely with South Australia's planning priorities, regional development, and long-term food security objectives.

If ElectraNet chooses not to treat the farming communities with respect and enter into a meaningful dialogue with them, then I think the farmers, the farming communities and I have every right to intervene and agitate with the relevant regulators at every point. They will be heard.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT