Scott River · Warren–Blackwood · Western Australia
Scott River
Wind Farm.
The questions
that remain.
30 turbines. 250 metres tall. On a habitat that exists nowhere else on Earth — assessed under planning rules that were scrapped four years ago and never replaced.
Australia needs renewables. It needs them urgently. That is exactly why this process has to be done properly.
“Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced — rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes.”
Bevan Eatts MLA · WA Legislative Assembly · 19 February 2026
Under existing law, this project cannot be properly approved. Here is the evidence.
The people of Scott River asked a straightforward question. They deserve a straight answer.
SCROLL
POSITION
Australia needs renewables. It needs them urgently. That is exactly why this process has to be done properly.
“Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced — rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes.”
Bevan Eatts MLA, reporting to the WA Legislative Assembly the direct accounts of Scott River residents · 19 February 2026
A 30-turbine, 250-metre wind farm is proposed for one of WA’s most ecologically sensitive areas. Landowners at Scott River were approached and asked to sign confidentiality agreements before they could discuss the project with their own neighbours. More than 50 residents packed a community forum in Augusta to be heard.
These are not allegations. They are documented facts. And together they mean one thing: as the law currently stands, this project cannot be properly approved. Not because wind energy is wrong. Because the legal requirements for approval have not been met — and some of them cannot be met until the government acts.
Before this project can proceed
Five things must happen. Each one is already required by existing law.
Not because of this document. Because of laws already on the books — some signed by Australia at the highest international level. None of them have been met.
01
Issue a current assessment framework — EP Act 1986 (WA)
02
Publish the federal assessment so the Minister can be satisfied — EPBC Act 1999
03
Assess species impact before approval, not after — EPBC Act s.18
04
Apply standards the regulator itself says are adequate — EP Act 1986 (WA)
05
Consult the community at the formative stage — EP Act 1986 (WA)
Scroll to see the evidence for each. Five sections. Five documented gaps.
The Project — What is being proposed
Proposed turbines
0 turbines
Expanded from 3 to 30 after Synergy acquisition
Turbine height
0 metres
Each turbine — among the tallest in the world
Eiffel Tower
330m
Scott River
250m
Big Ben
96m
Listed ecological community
Scott River
Ironstone
Association
Ironstone
Association
Critically Endangered — exists nowhere else on Earth
Listed under the EPBC Act · Once destroyed, it cannot be reconstructed · Site identified in the federal referral
01 — THE REGULATORY GAP
Approval blocked · No valid assessment framework
State law
The primary WA guidelines for wind farm planning were scrapped in March 2020. Nothing replaced them. This project was assessed four years into that void.
Planning Bulletin No. 67 — issued in 2004 by the Western Australian Planning Commission — was the governing framework for wind farm planning in WA for 16 years. It was rescinded on 10 March 2020. No replacement was issued. The Scott River project was referred to the WA EPA in early 2024 — four years into that regulatory vacuum. There are no current, binding WA-specific wind farm planning guidelines in force for this assessment.
The Regulatory Vacuum — tap any event to unfold · 9 events
May 2004
Planning Bulletin No. 67 issued
WA's primary framework for wind farm planning — in force for 16 years. Set out assessment requirements, community consultation obligations, environmental impact standards, noise setbacks, and avian impact rules.
Source: Western Australian Planning Commission · Planning Bulletin No. 67, May 2004 WA Planning
2014
Wind farm concept embedded in Shire AMR corporate plan [disputed]
This item was raised in Senate debates by Senator Tyron Whitten (One Nation WA) in February 2026. Senator Whitten alleged 10 public officers were involved and that the project was later outsourced to AMRCCE. The Shire of Augusta–Margaret River contests and denies these claims. Both positions are on the public record.
Source: Senate debates, Feb 2026 (Senator Whitten, One Nation WA) — contested and denied by the Shire of Augusta–Margaret River Senate Hansard 3 Feb
June 2017
Shire votes to outsource project to AMRCCE [disputed]
Senator Whitten (One Nation WA) alleged in Senate debates that no conflict of interest declarations were recorded at the vote. The Shire of Augusta–Margaret River contests and denies this claim. This item is recorded as a matter raised in the federal parliamentary record.
Source: Senate debates, Feb 2026 (Senator Whitten, One Nation WA) — contested and denied by the Shire of Augusta–Margaret River Senate Hansard 3 Feb
10 March 2020
Planning Bulletin No. 67 rescinded — no replacement issued
The rescinded stamp is on the document. No replacement was issued. WA wind farm planning entered a legal grey zone. The regulatory vacuum that would last at least four years opened on this date.
Source: PB67 rescinded stamp · WA Planning Commission records WA Planning
November 2023
Green Energy Approvals Initiative — Crown land before EPA approval
WA Lands Minister John Carey announces a class exemption to the 1986 Environmental Protection Act — allowing the government to grant an option to lease Crown land before EPA assessment is complete. Independent energy reporting described it as "an effective bypass to the Environmental Protection Authority." Minister Whitby defended it as not reducing EPA responsibilities.
Source: WA Government announcement, Nov 2023 · RenewEconomy reporting RenewEconomy
Early 2024
Synergy acquires project — expands from 3 to 30 turbines
24 September 2025
Synergy lodges Development Application with RDAP
The Development Application is formally lodged with the Regional Development Assessment Panel. This is the first formal DA submission, while EPA assessment is still ongoing. Community opposition intensifies.
Source: RDAP public records · September 2025 WA EPA
19 February 2026
Scott River raised in WA Legislative Assembly
The project is raised in a Premier's Statement response in the WA Legislative Assembly, framing the consultation failure as a pattern across the Cook Government. Community members are described as feeling excluded from a process that was already well advanced. "Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced, rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes."
Source: WA Legislative Assembly · WA Hansard, 19 February 2026 WA Hansard
10 March 2026
Senate vote: motion to release EPBC referral brief defeated 27–31
Motion moved in the Senate — Order for production of the EPBC referral decision brief for matter 2025/10370 (Scott River Wind Farm). The motion was defeated 27 to 31. The referral decision brief remains withheld from public view. The question this raises is straightforward: if the assessment is robust and the environmental outcomes are sound, why withhold the document that demonstrates it?
Source: Senate Hansard, 10 March 2026 — division result · EPBC matter 2025/10370 Senate Hansard EPBC Portal
The Green Energy Approvals Initiative compounds the problem. If Crown land can be committed before an assessment is complete, the assessment's ability to influence the outcome is structurally undermined.
The Gap
How can a project of this scale, in an area of this ecological sensitivity, be assessed to an adequate standard when the framework for that assessment was withdrawn four years before it began — and has not been replaced? Without current guidelines, the WA EPA has no defined standard to assess against. Any approval built on this assessment is built on a void.
Legal consequence — approval process cannot proceed
02 — INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
Approval blocked · Bindings obligations not met
Global obligations
Australia has made binding commitments at the highest international level. They say the energy transition and biodiversity protection must proceed together — not at each other's expense.
The Paris Agreement commits Australia to limiting global warming to 1.5°C and achieving net zero by 2050. In December 2022, Australia also signed the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Paris Agreement & Kunming–Montreal — what Australia committed to
THE PARIS AGREEMENT — TEMPERATURE PATHWAY Australia NDC DCCEEW
PARIS AGREEMENT — SIGNED 2016
Limit warming to 1.5°C
Australia ratified 2016 · legally binding under international law
AUSTRALIA NDC — JUNE 2022
43% reduction by 2030
Below 2005 levels · net zero by 2050 · legislated under Climate Change Act 2022
WA GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE
50 GW new renewables
Needed over 20 years · wind is part of the answer · renewable energy is not in dispute here
KUNMING–MONTREAL GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK — SIGNED DECEMBER 2022 CBD.int
23 TARGETS BY 2030 — TARGET 14 HIGHLIGHTED
Target 14: biodiversity fully integrated in energy & infrastructure
30%
Protect 30% of land and ocean by 2030
The 30×30 target — Scott River Ironstone Association is precisely this kind of irreplaceable habitat
55%
Of global GDP supported by healthy ecosystems
Biodiversity and climate are mutually dependent — not competing priorities
T14
Biodiversity must be "fully integrated" in energy and infrastructure decisions
The Framework is explicit: the energy transition cannot be used as justification for damaging biodiversity
WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE
Australia committed to renewable energy and biodiversity protection in the same period. These commitments are not in tension — the Kunming–Montreal Framework explicitly requires them to proceed together. A wind farm on critically endangered habitat, assessed against guidelines that no longer exist, tested both at once.
International obligations — Australia's signed commitments at a glance
Paris Agreement
1.5°C
Maximum global temperature rise
Australia NDC — 2030
0%
Emissions reduction by 2030
Net zero by 2050
WA renewable target
0 GW
New capacity needed — 20 years
Current
~3 GW
Target
50 GW
Global GDP at risk
0%
Of global GDP supported by healthy ecosystems
EPBC ACT — FEDERAL ASSESSMENT REGISTER
Scott River referred under EPBC matter 2025/10370 via a Senate motion. Federal requirements apply in addition to — not instead of — state approvals.
EPBC matter 2025/10370
WA EPA Scott River
What is at risk — EPBC-listed species and communities
Scott River Ironstone Association
Critically EndangeredListed ecological community under the EPBC Act · Nationally recognised biodiversity hotspot
Carnaby's Black Cockatoo
ThreatenedCritical foraging wetlands and nesting hollows at the site · EPBC Act s.18
Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo
ThreatenedListed threatened species under EPBC Act · Site identified as significant habitat
30×30 TARGET
Each cell = 1%. Teal = protected.
Under the Kunming–Montreal Framework, Australia committed to protect 30% of land and ocean by 2030. The Scott River Ironstone Association is precisely the kind of irreplaceable habitat that commitment was designed to protect.
03 — FEDERAL LAW
Approval blocked · Ministerial approval cannot proceed
EPBC Act 1999
Section 18 of Australia's national environment law prohibits any action with a significant impact on a listed threatened species without Ministerial approval — following rigorous prior assessment. This is not discretionary.
Federal Transparency — Senate vote on EPBC referral disclosure, 10 March 2026
0
AYES — for disclosure
vs
0
NOES — against disclosure
Voted for disclosure (27)
Voted against disclosure (31)
The motion sought production of the EPBC referral decision brief for matter 2025/10370 — the federal government's own environmental assessment of this project. The motion was defeated 27–31. The full division record is available in Senate Hansard, 10 March 2026. The question is not about which parties voted which way. It is simpler: the federal government assessed this project's environmental impact, and the Senate voted against making that assessment public. If the process is sound, publication builds confidence. If there are problems, the public has a right to know.
The Gap
The federal government's own environmental assessment found something. The Senate voted against making it public. If the assessment is robust and the outcomes are sound, why vote against disclosure? The federal Minister cannot grant approval under the EPBC Act without being satisfied the project meets the Act's requirements. A withheld assessment cannot be verified. An unverified assessment cannot satisfy the Act.
Legal consequence — Ministerial satisfaction test cannot be met
04 — THE REGULATOR'S OWN WORDS
Approval blocked · Regulator has disqualified its own standard
WA EPA submission, June 2024
This layer does not come from project opponents or from community groups. It comes from the WA government's own independent environmental regulator.
In June 2024, the WA EPA submitted a formal response to the federal government’s draft Onshore Wind Farm Guidance. Signed by Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh, the submission makes one central finding: the current national standards for assessing wind farms are not good enough.
WA EPA Submission — 6 findings · tap to step through
The Gap
The WA EPA is simultaneously assessing the Scott River project and publicly calling for the very standards being applied to it to be strengthened. How confident can anyone be that the current assessment will deliver the environmental protection Australia has committed to? The regulator has told the government, in writing, that the framework it is currently applying is not good enough. That statement is signed, dated, and on the public record. It is not possible to un-say it.
Legal consequence — assessment standard is self-declared insufficient
The EPA found six failures in the standards being applied to this project. The community found one more: no one asked them first.
05 — THE COMMUNITY
Consultation that shapes outcomes
Residents at Scott River were not asked. They were told. Some were asked to sign confidentiality agreements before they could discuss it with their neighbours.
In October 2024, more than 50 residents attended a community forum in Augusta. What they brought wasn’t opposition to wind energy — it was a failure of process.
"Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced, rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes."
WA Legislative Assembly · Premier's Statement Response · 19 February 2026 WA Hansard
Community response — documented evidence
Online petition signatures
0
Referencing specific EPBC Act provisions
Not a general objection to wind energy. A legal argument about whether proper process is being followed.
Community forum — October 2024
0+
Residents attended the Augusta forum
Residents described feeling the project's location, scale, and design were effectively settled before they walked in the door. Many had not been told it was coming.
AMR Times
AMR Times
06 — THE FULL PICTURE
Obligations vs current status
Obligations on the record — vs current status at Scott River
03Convention on Biological Diversity — legally binding since 1993In force
05Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) — independent EPA assessment before approval WA EPAIn force
06WA wind farm planning guidelines — Planning Bulletin No. 67Rescinded 2020
07Replacement WA wind farm planning guidelinesNever issued
08National wind farm guidance — WA EPA says: insufficientInadequate
10Crown land lease to occur after — not before — EPA environmental approvalBypassed
11Pre-approval Bird and Bat Management Plans (EPA's own recommendation)Not required
12Genuine community consultation at formative stage before decisions locked inNot delivered
THE QUESTION
This is not an argument against renewable energy. Wind is part of the answer. Australia has committed to it at the highest level. The question is whether this specific project, at this specific site, was assessed to the standard those commitments require.
Here is what is simultaneously true: Australia has signed the Paris Agreement. Australia has signed Kunming–Montreal. Federal law (EPBC Act) prohibits actions with significant impact on threatened species without rigorous assessment. The primary WA wind farm planning guidelines were scrapped four years ago and never replaced. The government created a mechanism to commit Crown land before the EPA had finished its assessment. The EPA itself says the standards applied to this project are not good enough. The federal referral brief is hidden — the Senate voted against its release.
THE QUESTION
Can the government demonstrate that this project, at this site, assessed under this framework, meets the commitments Australia has already made — globally, federally, and at state level? Not whether it will generate clean energy. We know it will. Whether the process meets the standard.
If the answer is yes: show the work. Release the EPBC referral brief. Publish the bird and bat assessment data. Commission independent assessment of the acid sulphate soil risks.
If the answer is no — or if the government cannot demonstrate it — then the obligation is clear: pause, get the framework right, and do it properly. Not for the opponents of wind energy. For the landholders at Scott River who were asked to stay quiet. For the communities downstream. For the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos that have no other place to go. And for the credibility of every renewable project that comes after this one.
FIVE QUESTIONS
Five approval pre-conditions
Five things that must happen before this project can be lawfully approved — each one already required under existing law
Why none of this is optional — the legal basis for each gate
Five gates. Each one already required by existing law. Each one independently blocking valid approval until it is resolved.
01
State assessment framework
The WA EPA has stated on the public record that the standards applied to this assessment are not adequate. An approval built on a framework the regulator has publicly rejected cannot stand.
EP Act 1986 (WA) — EPA assessment must meet an adequate standard
WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024 — signed Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair
WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024 — signed Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair
and the federal layer that should backstop the state assessment is withheld
02
Federal approval requirement
The federal Minister must be satisfied the project meets the EPBC Act before granting approval. A withheld assessment cannot be verified. An unverified assessment cannot satisfy the Act.
EPBC Act 1999 — Ministerial satisfaction required before approval
EPBC matter 2025/10370 · Senate voted 27–31 against disclosure, 10 March 2026
EPBC matter 2025/10370 · Senate voted 27–31 against disclosure, 10 March 2026
and even transparency would not fix the underlying data gap
03
Site-specific environmental factors
The EPA's assessment report must address all relevant environmental factors. Acid sulphate soils are present at shallow depth across this site. A report that does not address this risk is incomplete on its face.
EP Act 1986 (WA) — EPA report must address all environmental factors relevant to the proposal
Acid sulphate soil risk identified in this document · independent assessment not yet published
Acid sulphate soil risk identified in this document · independent assessment not yet published
which directly affects the species living in what that data gap conceals
04
Threatened species — EPBC Act s.18
Section 18 of the EPBC Act makes it unlawful to take an action with a significant impact on a listed threatened species without prior Ministerial approval. The Deputy Chair of the WA EPA has stated in writing that the information needed to assess that impact must come before approval — not after.
Direct quote — WA EPA submission, June 2024
"Much of the information currently required is essential information that should be provided as part of the assessment documentation… and not provided post approval."
Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — Finding 3
EPBC Act s.18 — in force · Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo both listed at this site
and all of this happened while the community was kept outside the process
05
Community consultation — EP Act 1986 (WA)
The EPA's own submission requires that regional approaches include community aspirations at the formative stage — describing this as essential for effective environmental pathways for wind farms. The community at Scott River was not given this standing.
Direct quote — WA EPA submission, June 2024
"Social surroundings impacts and community aspirations for their regions" — described as essential for "efficient and effective environmental pathways for decarbonisation projects like windfarms."
Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — Finding 6
EP Act 1986 (WA) — EPA must have regard to interests of affected community · WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, June 2024
Each gate above is independently documented. Together they are cumulative — resolving one does not remove the others.
Tap any item below to see the full legal basis and what needs to happen before this can proceed.
Tap any item below to see the full legal basis and what needs to happen before this can proceed.
01
+ SEE MORE
What planning guidelines apply?
Planning Bulletin No. 67 was rescinded in 2020. No replacement has been issued. What standards is this project actually being assessed against?
The gap
Planning Bulletin No. 67 — WA's primary wind farm planning framework — was rescinded on 10 March 2020. No replacement has been issued. This project was referred for assessment in early 2024, four years into that regulatory vacuum. The national guidance that applies in its place has been found insufficient by the WA EPA itself.
Why it matters
Without current, binding guidelines, there is no fixed floor for what the assessment must demonstrate. Victoria and South Australia both have current wind farm planning frameworks. WA does not. The standard is whatever the assessor decides, case by case.
Why it cannot be skipped
The WA EPA has already stated on the public record that the standards applied to this assessment are not good enough. Its own signed submission says current national wind farm guidance is insufficient. An EPA assessment built on a framework the EPA itself has publicly rejected cannot form a sound basis for approval. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) requires the EPA’s assessment to be conducted to an adequate standard — and the regulator has told the government, in writing, that it currently is not.
The question
Which specific planning standards were applied to this assessment, and do they meet the requirements of the WA government's own Environmental Protection Act?
02
+ SEE MORE
What did the federal assessment find?
The EPBC referral decision brief for matter 2025/10370 exists. The Senate voted against releasing it. Why?
The gap
The federal government assessed this project's environmental impact under the EPBC Act. The assessment is complete. The referral decision brief — the document recording what that assessment found — has not been made public. A Senate motion on 10 March 2026 sought its release. It was defeated 27–31.
Why it matters
Public environmental assessments of publicly-owned projects on public land should be publicly available. This project is being developed by Synergy — a state-owned utility — on Crown land. The federal government assessed it using public funds. If the assessment is sound, publication costs nothing.
Why it cannot be skipped
Under the EPBC Act, the federal Minister must be satisfied that a proposed action will not unacceptably impact matters of national environmental significance before granting approval. A referral brief that no one outside government has read cannot be scrutinised, verified, or legally challenged. If the project proceeds to federal approval and the brief has never been published, that approval rests on an assessment no one was permitted to examine.
The question
What does the EPBC referral decision brief for matter 2025/10370 say, and why has the government not made it public?
03
+ SEE MORE
What are the site-specific environmental risks?
Acid sulphate soils, hydrology, and biodiversity impacts have not been independently assessed and published.
The gap
The Scott River Plain has known acid sulphate soils at shallow depth. Wind turbine construction requires significant earthworks — foundations, access roads, cable trenches. Disturbing acid sulphate soils releases sulphuric acid into surrounding waterways. The Flinders Bay estuary is downstream. No independent assessment of this risk has been published.
Why it matters
Acid sulphate soil damage is long-term and often irreversible. Standard practice for projects of this scale in ecologically sensitive areas requires independent assessment before construction begins. This is not precautionary — it is the minimum standard.
Why it cannot be skipped
Under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), the EPA’s report to the Minister must address all environmental factors relevant to the proposal. Acid sulphate soils at shallow depth across a wind farm development envelope are a documented environmental factor listed in the WA EPA’s own technical guidance. An EPA report that does not address this is incomplete on its face. A Development Application determined without this data is open to challenge on that basis.
The question
Has an independent assessment of acid sulphate soils, hydrology, and biodiversity impacts been completed across the full development envelope, and if so, where are the results?
04
+ SEE MORE
Where are the Bird and Bat Management Plans?
The WA EPA's own submission says these must be pre-approval. They aren't required to be.
The gap
In its June 2024 submission to the federal government, the WA EPA stated directly that bird and bat management plans are "essential information that should be provided as part of the assessment documentation… and not provided post approval."
Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024, Finding 3 Under current national guidance, they can be post-approval conditions rather than assessment inputs.
Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024, Finding 3 Under current national guidance, they can be post-approval conditions rather than assessment inputs.
Why it matters
Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo are both listed threatened species present at the site. Their management cannot be deferred to after construction begins. The purpose of the EPBC Act is to require rigorous prior assessment — not retrospective management.
Why it cannot be skipped
EPBC Act s.18 makes it unlawful to take an action with a significant impact on a listed threatened species without prior Ministerial approval. The Minister cannot lawfully grant that approval without knowing the impact on those species. The WA EPA’s own Deputy Chair has stated in writing that the information required to make that assessment must be part of the documentation — “essential information that should be provided as part of the assessment documentation… and not provided post approval.”Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024, Finding 3 Approving first and managing later is not what the Act permits.
The question
Were Bird and Bat Management Plans submitted as part of the assessment, or will they be required only as post-approval conditions — and does this meet the WA EPA's own standard?
05
+ SEE MORE
Was the community consulted before decisions were made?
Residents reported being approached for confidentiality agreements. The EPA says consultation must happen at the formative stage.
The gap
Landowners reported being asked to sign confidentiality agreements preventing them from discussing the proposal with neighbours. More than 50 residents attended a community forum in October 2024. The WA EPA's own June 2024 submission says regional approaches must include community aspirations at the formative stage — when concerns can genuinely shape outcomes, not merely respond to them.
Why it cannot be skipped
The WA EPA’s own submission to the federal government states that regional approaches to wind farm assessment must include “social surroundings impacts and community aspirations for their regions.” It describes this as essential for “efficient and effective environmental pathways for decarbonisation projects like windfarms.” These are the regulator’s own words, in a signed submission, on the public record. Lee McIntosh, Deputy Chair, WA EPA — WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024, Finding 6These are the regulator’s own words, in a signed submission, on the public record. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), the EPA must have regard to the interests of any section of the community affected by a proposal. The community at Scott River is that section. That is not a political opinion. It is what the EPA itself has written.
Why it matters
The EPA is explicit: genuine community engagement is not a courtesy — it is described as essential for "efficient and effective environmental pathways for decarbonisation projects like windfarms." Projects that erode community trust make every future renewable project harder. Social licence is not a cost of the transition. It is a precondition for it.
The question
At what stage was the community first able to meaningfully influence the project's location, scale, and design — and does this meet the WA EPA's standard for formative-stage consultation?
The people of Scott River asked. The evidence is on the record. The answers should be too.
EPBC matter 2025/10370 · WA EPA proposal: Wind Farm Scott River · Senate Hansard, 10 March 2026