HUMELINK LANDOWNERS' SURVEY RESULTS The HumeLink Landowners' survey was open for four weeks, from 5 August to 2 September 2021 A total of 110 responses were received, although not all questions were answered This document provides an overview of the survey results
AIM The aim of the survey was to collect feedback from property owners and locals potentially affected by the proposed HumeLink on their experience of TransGrid’s consultation process.
SUMMARY The vast majority of survey respondents (93%) were not at all satisfied or not satisfied with TransGrid’s consultation about HumeLink. Respondents indicated they believed TransGrid provided poor quality information regarding HumeLink and their engagement practices were limited in scope and quality, resulting in dissatisfaction and stress across the community. Survey respondents also believed TransGrid failed to provide clarity on how community feedback would influence the project. The majority of survey respondents believed TransGrid did not take into account community views, environmental issues or farming interests when planning HumeLink Respondents suggested their satisfaction with TransGrid's engagement could have been improved if: TransGrid had communicated better, including providing regular updates and easy to access information, and responding to concerns in a timely manner TransGrid had provided evidence and details of how decisions were made regarding route selections TransGrid had closed the loop with stakeholders so they understood how their feedback had been used. More than two thirds of survey respondents indicated they are willing to lock their gate if no action is taken by TransGrid to respond to their concerns. The majority of respondents who provided feedback on HumeLink to TransGrid through their consultation process believed taking part in the consultation process negatively impacted their mental health.
SURVEY RESULTS WHO COMPLETED THE SURVEY The majority of survey respondents (66%) said they were affected by the proposed HumeLink as a proposed route corridor travels through a property they own and/or live on.
Location The majority of respondents (84%) were from the following regions: Tumut and Talbingo - Postcode 2720 - 25 respondents Kyeamba Valley and Kyeamba/Wagga - Postcodes 2652 and 2650 - 22 respondents Adjungbilly and Batlow - Postcodes 2730 and 2727 - 17 respondents Yaven Creek - Postcode 2729 - 14 respondents
Gender
Age
There was a fairly even split between male (53%) and female (45%) survey respondents. 2% of respondents preferred not to state their gender.
There was a fairly even split between respondents aged 54 years and younger (43%), and respondents aged 55 years and older (57%).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Two respondents (2%) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
FEEDBACK ON TRANSGRID'S CONSULTATION Information received from TranGrid The majority of respondents (87%) described the quality of the information they received from TransGrid regarding HumeLink as ‘Very Poor’ or ‘Poor’
How would you describe the quality of the information you have received from TransGrid regarding HumeLink?
Opportunity to provide feedback Respondents were asked if TransGrid provided opportunities for them to submit feedback on HumeLink; 56% answered ‘Yes’ while 44% answered ‘No’. The majority of respondents (88%) rated TransGrid’s explanation of how their feedback could influence the project (what is negotiable and non-negotiable) as ‘Very Poor’ or ‘Poor’.
How would you rate TransGrid’s explanation of how your feedback can influence the project (what is negotiable and non-negotiable)?
Feedback provided to TransGrid The majority of respondents (59%, 58 respondents) provided feedback on HumeLink to TransGrid through their consultation processes.
Have you provided feedback on HumeLink to TransGrid through their consultation processes?
Respondents who provided feedback to TransGrid were then asked the following questions:
What have been your primary concerns regarding HumeLink? The most selected responses were: 1. Changes in value of land (93%) 2. Visual impacts (88%) 3. Impact on farm development and/or succession plans (82%) 4. Land acquisition and easement process (79%) 5. Impact on agricultural productivity (77%) 6. Risk of bushfires from overhead transmission lines (74%) 7. Risk of health issues (72%) Has TransGrid communicated to you how your feedback has been used to shape the proposed HumeLink? The majority (80%) stated ‘No’, 9% stated 'Yes' and 11% stated 'Unsure'. Has TransGrid communicated to you why the project can’t be modified to accommodate some of your feedback? The majority of respondents (67%) stated ‘No’, 20% stated 'Yes' and 13% stated 'Unsure'. 'Why did you not provide feedback to TransGrid through their consultation processes?’. A total of 36 responses were received to this question (out of a total of 40 who said they did not provide feedback on HumeLink to TransGrid through their consultation processes). The most common response was they did not provide feedback because they were not given the opportunity or they were unaware of opportunities to provide feedback (18 responses). Impact on mental health Respondents who provided feedback to TransGrid were asked if taking part in TransGrid’s consultation process on HumeLink had negatively impacted their mental health; the majority (76%) stated ‘Yes’. Those who answered ‘Yes’ were then asked ‘How has your mental health been negatively impacted by TransGrid's consultation process on HumeLink?’. A total of 40 responses were received to this question. Nearly half of the comments (17 responses) mentioned stress, while anxiety was also mentioned in 10 responses. Seven of the responses mentioned their ability to sleep had been impacted. Most respondents detailed their concerns, which resulted in their mental health being negatively impacted. The most common concerns mentioned were: Lack of clarity and uncertainty regarding the project and its impacts (14 responses) Impact on farming, the ability to conduct day-to-day activities, and plan for the future (10 responses) There were 13 responses that referred to the impact of not being listened to, and TransGrid’s perceived overall lack of care and disrespect of community members. INDICATIVE COMMENTS INCLUDE "Stress, not been able to sleep, worry about financial costs, total farm work has declined due to lack of time through dealing with related HumeLink paperwork, feeling of failure in not having control of one's own land, feeling of being in limbo not knowing which way to go as far as the future, have (sought) medical treatment to try and cope.”
“The consultation process has caused an incredible amount of anxiety, so many unknowns and being treated with such disrespect by people who require OUR land to complete their project. Being threatened with compulsory acquisition is bullying and leaves me with feelings of hopelessness. The amount of time spent giving feedback that is then ignored, and the lack of care at genuine concerns is extremely deflating and soul destroying” “Stress. Creating a division and bad feeling between community members. Not knowing when/where or if it will happen. The devaluation of property. Lack of compensation.” TransGrids' planning of HumeLink The majority of respondents strongly disagreed with the following statements: TransGrid has taken into account community views when planning HumeLink TransGrid has taken into account environmental issues when planning HumeLink TransGrid has taken into account farming interests when planning HumeLink
Satisfaction with consultation The vast majority of respondents (93%) were not at all satisfied or not satisfied with TransGrid’s consultation about HumeLink.
How satisfied are you with TransGrid’s consultation about HumeLink?
Respondents who selected ‘Not at all satisfied’ or ‘Not satisfied’ with TransGrid’s consultation about HumeLink, were then asked ‘What could TransGrid have done differently to improve your satisfaction?’. A total of 88 comments were received to this question. The themes most common within responses were: Better communications (19 responses) These responses included suggestions such as regular updates, clear explanations, easy to access information online, provide timely responses to concerns and demonstrate the organisation has listened Be more transparent (16 responses) These responses included suggestions such as being honest regarding process and the project negotiables, provide details on how decisions made particularly in terms of route selection and provide evidence to support decisions Better engagement/consultation (14 responses) These responses included suggestions such as closing the engagement loop i.e. explaining how feedback is used, provide accessible engagement open to groups and ensure staff are informed Listen (15 responses) Plan the route to travel through public land (14 responses) Meet with landowners face-to-face (13 responses) Furthermore people stated the meetings should have been held as a group rather than with individual landowners.
INDICATIVE COMMENTS INCLUDE “Provide more regular updates. Even if there is nothing to report then that's what they should report. Provide results of consultation. I have no idea if they have listened and taken on board what has been said. I want to know a more step by step process of what to do when they finally tell us the lines will actually go on our land.” “(Should) Have consulted with communities before determining the path to correctly understand and appreciate the impact their preferred path would have on our communities. Better transparency and clarity around route finalisation. Actually getting back to us when they promise to, not months later” "Talk to all farmers as a collective. Not individually. Listen and consider the alternative routes proposed by landholders..through state forest.”
NEXT STEPS The question 'What do you think should be the next step in TransGrid’s HumeLink project?', was framed as a multiple choice question with an 'Other' comments option. The majority of respondents (63%) selected ‘TransGrid complete a feasibility study which considers all options and routes, including the opportunity to go underground’. Furthermore 43% of respondents selected ‘Restart the engagement process and recommence with TransGrid co-designing an engagement process with locals’. A total of 18 'Other' responses were received. Nearly half of these responses (8 responses) would like to see an alternative route that travels through public land. The majority of respondents (69%) are 'Definitely willing' and another 14% 'Probably willing' to lock their gate if no action is taken by TransGrid to respond to community concerns. I would like to acknowledge the Wiradjuri people who are the Traditional Owners of this land. I would also like to pay respect to Elders past and present and extend that respect to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
For more detailed survey results, please contact Rachelle Kell (Community Engagement Co-ordinator) at rachellekell@outlook.com
www.joemcgirr.com.au | www.facebook.com/DrJoeMcGirrMP waggawagga@parliament.nsw.gov.au | 64 Baylis Street | (02) 6921 1622