Garoo Solar Farm

As someone working in the IT industry, I see reliable and affordable electricity as becoming more and more important for Australia’s future. Growth in areas like digital infrastructure, data centres, cloud services and AI will depend on having enough power supply to support them. For that reason, I think renewable energy and battery storage projects are important not only from an environmental point of view, but also for the future of Australian industry, innovation and energy security. In my view, projects like this can play a meaningful role in supporting both local development and the country’s long-term economic needs.

I support the project because Australia needs more energy supply, and increasing renewable energy generation and storage should help improve the overall balance of the electricity system over time. From an everyday point of view, households and businesses are already under pressure from living and operating costs, so investment in new energy infrastructure is important. While one project on its own will not solve everything, developments like this can still contribute to a more stable and affordable power system in the long term.

I am totally opposed to this ridiculous waste of resources for the following reasons:
Having read the proposal from Jinko, and the press release from Murray Watt, I wish to make the following comments:
- the 60,000 homes that would be powered by this monstrosity should ALL have solar panels on their roof. Why is the govt subsidizing these people who chose to not install solar panels??
- will the 234,000 solar panels used in its construction be made in Australia? We all know the answer to that, dont we?! No, they will be made in China and purchased from a company that Jinko has a sweet heart deaql with. NO benefit to local manufacturing!
- the 250 jobs that will supposedly be created will all be taken by over seas based (same country as the owners) workers who will come in on "work visas" and send their pay back home, and leave as soon as the project is completed. Thats how these people operate. Its all "in house" again, WITH NO BENEFIT TO AUSTRALIA.
- as for the five long term local jobs supposedly created, if the land was left to agricultural production as it is now, this would create al LOT MORE THAN FIVE JOBS LOCALLY, BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY.
- NOWHERE in the submission is an EOL Plan (End Of Life) for the project.
What will happen to the 234,000 solar panels when the project is finally scrapped (or gets trashed by the next hailstorm, or bushfire)? No exit plan at all. And no land remediation plan. Unbelievably poor project design by the Proponents and unbelievably poor due diligence by any Govt Dept that approves it.
- Have a good look at the supposed "project benefits" - very little substantiation, if any, of these and no Cost/Benefit Analysis.
- No offer to post an environmental BOND up front, that would be used to compensate any damage that this massive waste of money will create, such as water, soil or airborne pollution, or in the event the organization goes into liquidation.
- and finally, what compensation are you proposing to pay to the surrounding agricultural land owners for the serious and substantial reduction in the value of their land that this planning disaster will precipitate? If this project goes ahead, you will need to have the gap between the land values pre and post development paid to all affected adjacent land owners, UP FRONT, not some pathetic and insulting token offer of $1000 in electricity for 30 years. Quite frankly, THAT IS AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE OWNERS OF ALL NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES.
In summary, Federal Minister Murray Watt, and NSW State Planning Minister Paul Scully, you two are both being played, and taken for a ride.
The Garoo Solar Farm has the potential to be a financial, environmental and most importantly for you two, political disaster.
My qualifications for this assessment?
I am an Agricultural Economist who has spent the last 30 years fixing poorly thought through business decisions. And this proposal has all of the hallmarks of being one of these.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Anthony G Gapes
B Ag Econ, MBA

I am hereby submitting our objection to the project on behalf or my family with the reasons outlined in the attachment.

I would like to note that the portal will not accept our attachment containing our objection letter but it has been sent onto Rita via email.

I strongly and unequivocally object to the heavy metal leaching, BANNED PFOS coated Garoo Solar Scam and FILTHY 360 MW/1440 MWh FIRE Hazardous, Lethal Hydrogen Fluoride Gas🔥 BELCHING BESS ‘BOMB’ planned at 291 Garoo Road, 40 km south of Tamworth without social licence - against the will of the local community and broader rural NSW - yet another life-threatening, obnoxious part of the diabolically RECKLESS RenewaBULL RUIN-A-BULL RORT (SSD‑79747209) that the Authoritarian NSW Government is harming its citizens with.

How easily the same old ‘clean, cheap energy’ lies & deception roll off the tongue of the UNclean Energy Council, Farmers for Toxic Action, Energy Con, the CCP vested interests & delusional Department fools in-spite of the extensive ruination & energy/fuel poverty we're all experiencing as we’re deliberately being deprived of our own God given naturally plentiful, far superior, reliable, affordable, efficient, 24/7, sovereign, Coal & Nuclear Power resources.

There is a complete failure of the NSW Government to perform their highest duty - to Protect its Citizens from their dire, wrongly Approved, life-threatening, poisonous ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE impacts of their reckless RenewaBULL 'Moral Hazard' Experiment - which they have been made fully aware of in detail by the most reputable experts for two decades - as a seriously detrimental, ecocidal disaster & intermittent, grid destabilising, energy poverty nightmare - yet are knowingly forcing personal discomfort on rural communities & electricity consumers WITH NO CONSENT - NO SOCIAL LICENCE.

EnergyCON’s provision of mental health services demonstrates its cruel torture of rural communities - who they are continually & unconscionably harming AGAINST THEIR WILL & AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF AUSTRALIA & the GREATER GOOD

Regarding looming Legal Prosecutions - instead of mounting a relentless misinformation/disinformation narrative adnauseam for the Fake Green Vested interests - the UNclean Energy Council's propaganda machine 'RUIN ECONOMY' needs to clean up their act with beneficial, factual clarifications of:
Who are the main Perpetrators?
Who are the Accomplices?
Who is an Accessory After the Fact? - Will this be the gullible, pariah, Landowner Hosts who definitely deserve their BLACK LIST status?

What will they be accused of?->

Wilful Culpability - acted with full awareness of their actions and, often, with the intent to cause harm or breach a duty.

• Wilful Misconduct: Intentional improper behavior by someone in authority, or knowingly acting against the best interests of the public.

• Wilful Damage: Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property (e.g., environmental vandalism, decimation of irreplaceable natural resources and irreversible poisoning of our uncontaminated soil/water heritage.

Wilful Damage - intentionally damages, destroys, pollutes, or obstructs another person's property.

How any of the arrogant, delusional fools making up such destructive policy, writing deceptive, widely debunked ‘Guidelines’ and ‘Frameworks’ & approving this toxic, energy depriving, cyber security prone infrastructure could ever imagine covering our food bowl in unethically produced, CCP controlling toxic junk was a solution to anything is unbelievable.🙈

There is a complete failure of the NSW Authoritarian Dictatorship Government to perform their highest duty - to Protect its Citizens from the dire life threatening impacts of their reckless RenewaBULL 'Moral Hazard' Experiment - which they have been made fully aware of in great detail by the most reputable experts for two decades - as a seriously detrimental, ecocidal disaster & intermittent, grid destabilising, energy poverty nightmare - yet are knowingly forcing personal discomfort on our rural and city communities & all electricity consumers AGAINST OUR WILL - WITH NO CONSENT - NO SOCIAL LICENCE.

EnergyCON’s provision of mental health services espoused at the recent REZ Inquiry Hearing as a considerate gesture - only demonstrates that dodgy EnergyCON is knowingly, cruelly and heartlessly torturing rural community victims - who they are relentlessly & unconscionably harming AGAINST THEIR WILL & AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF AUSTRALIA & the GREATER GOOD - solely for predatory, vested interests.

Despite the best of experts at the NSW REZ Inquiry Hearing clearly identifying the horrendous cumulative impacts, the negligence of NO Risk Research at all - the tragic likelihood of poisoning us & our children & the obvious ever skyrocketing energy costs with evidence proving Solar/Wind ARE NOT THE CHEAPEST FORM OF ENERGY at all & are NEVER EVER going to be - the UNclean Energy Council’s🤢🤑🤮ongoing MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, LIES & DECEPTION further expose them - the Fake Green ‘Renewable’ Solar/Wind industry🤢🤑🤮as nothing more than 🩸DRACULA IN CHARGE OF THE BLOOD BANK🩸with Energy CON & dodgy wolkenkuckkucksheim narcissistic DCCEEW/DPHI Department fools parading their idiocy & doubling down with fast tracking it even more, throwing more of our public money into it & having no intention of pausing their nightmare at all.

It wouldn’t matter to them in their “Traumland & Luftschloss” (delusional, fool’s paradise) how many people suffered & died in the process as they continue to “show a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.”
FIRE & RESCUE & the RFS hierarchy only confirmed this with their disgracefully flippant and reckless claims of the plethora of highly hazardous, uncontrollable, life-threatening, poisonous plans being manageable!
Tell that to the many thousands of rural people being subjected to extreme danger …as well as tens of thousands of city folk - including the people of Penrith - when their latest Lithium-ion BESS plan catches Fire🔥 & thousands of people within 600 metres - including numerous early childhood centres & schools - with some community facilities as close as 200 metres - are subjected to lethal Hydrogen Fluoride Gas!!

In a moment of honesty NSW FIRE & RESCUE actually said:

**”There is a General Lack of Guidance and Provisions in Building Codes, Standards, and Legislation in Relation to Safety to Address the Potential Risks From These Technologies.
Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.”
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=940

Besides that admission:->

**Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks & Extinguisher Limitations
1.CSIRO ActivFire® Advisory Note AN-004
CSIRO explicitly states it "has not and will not certify ... that any fire extinguisher can effectively extinguish a Li-Ion battery fire."
Verification Services.

Further Objections to Garoo Solar + BESS SWINDLE FACTORY:-

1. Misleading & Scientifically Invalid Assessment Claims
The Department’s assessment contains major false claims and unverified assumptions:
The Assessment Report claims that the heavy metals in solar panels (cadmium, lead, nickel, copper, indium, gallium, silver, etc.) “cannot be easily released into the environment” unless crushed into fine dust. This is not supported by field‑tested scientific evidence for Garoo’s climatic, soil, storm, and fire conditions.
There is no site‑specific research, only generic guideline references to modules being “enclosed.” This simplistic claim completely ignores real‑world failure modes such as hail impact, wind abrasion, fires, panel cracking, water ingress, and thermal cycling — all of which can release toxic elements.
The assessment fails entirely to evaluate silver ion leaching, which is a known environmental risk for photovoltaic modules, leaving a serious data gap.
Reference: Independent research on photovoltaic leaching shows toxic elements can be released, contrary to the Assessment’s claim.

2. Scale & Structural Details of the Project
The Project proposes installation of approximately 234,000 solar PV modules, each with an expected power rating of ~635 W, producing up to 133.76 MW AC of energy.
A centralised BESS system of 360 MW / 1,440 MWh is proposed, requiring numerous Power Conversion Units (up to 142 for BESS + 38 for solar farm).
The layout covers ~369 hectares, with a permanent disturbance footprint of ~305.43 hectares.
Despite the enormous scale, the Assessment:
Fails to model cumulative environmental or health impacts.
Makes no attempt to quantify potential release of toxic substances from this vast installation.

3. Agricultural Land & Food Security at Risk
The proposed Garoo Solar site lies entirely within RU1 Primary Production land currently used for livestock grazing and irrigated cropping.
The assessment:
Grossly understates the impact on agriculture by labeling the land as “moderate capability,” yet it fails to consider long‑term contamination from solar panel heavy metals or battery chemicals.
Ignores the irreversible loss of productive farmland and poisoning of water sources - harming local food supply and regional agricultural output.
Replacing productive RU1 land with industrial infrastructure without adequate risk assessment is reckless and exposes local communities to permanent economic damage.

4. Water Quality and Hydrological Risks Unassessed
There is no credible analysis of how solar panel contamination, battery chemicals, or disturbed soil may impact local waterways or groundwater:
The Project area’s drainage systems and proposed new drainage infrastructure interact with local waterways essential for agriculture and ecology.
The Assessment does not include independent expert facts or even modelling of how toxic runoff could affect creeks, irrigation systems, or aquifers.
This oversight is egregious and unacceptable for a project of this magnitude.
……continued ….->

Continued …..->

5. Bushfire Prone Landscape — Risk Underestimated
The entire site is located within a bushfire‑prone landscape.
The Bushfire Risk Assessment:
Admits the risk of flame contact with infrastructure.
Yet claims risk is manageable without providing appropriate worst‑case modelling for solar arrays and large BESS systems.
Fails to measure implications for adjacent agricultural land and critical rural infrastructure if systems are compromised in a fire event.
The assessment’s assertions are unacceptable as they are not backed by independent fire science specific to mega‑scale solar and battery arrays.

6. False & Inadequate Social Impact Representation
The Social Impact Assessment characterises community concerns (health, contamination, agricultural damage) as “perceived impacts.”
There is no evidence proving that these concerns are unfounded.
Local residents, farmers, and community groups have expressed well‑founded fears supported by emerging toxicological and ecological research.
Classifying legitimate concerns as perceptions rather than evidence is misleading, extremely disrespectful and wrong.

7. Modern Slavery & Unethical Solar Supply Chains
This project will rely on imported solar panels and batteries that will be tied to:
Forced labour conditions, including Xinjiang and Congo related supply chains, a matter recognised by human rights authorities and anti‑slavery watchdogs.
Existing legislative instruments (Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018; NSW Local Government Act 1993 Sections 428 & 438) impose obligations to avoid procurement from modern slavery sources, yet the Government, including the NSW Anti‑Slavery Commissioner and NSW Parliament Anti‑Slavery Committee, has practically failed to enforce these in renewable infrastructure projects.
In other projects e.g., Oxley Bridge Road Uranquinty Solar, the modern slavery compliance condition - Condition C4A has not been enforced, allowing panels from manufacturers linked to unethical supply chains to be installed.
This is an ethical and legal failure of governance and demands urgent scrutiny.

8. Toxic Chemical Regulation Gaps
Chinese Solar panel manufacturing and BESS components contain PFAS/PFOS chemicals, which are increasingly recognised as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.
PFAS/PFOS are already subject to bans and strict controls, yet the Assessment contains no meaningful analysis of their import, lifecycle, or potential soil and water impacts.
Allowing unregulated importation and installation of systems containing known and emerging toxins is irresponsible.

9. Economic Disaster & Loss of Social Licence
The economic modelling in the Assessment:
Overstates benefits from construction jobs and economic output.
Understates and ignores liabilities such as irreversible contamination cleanup, impossible remediation costs, extensive agricultural production loss, contamination of surrounding land/vital water sources and property value decline.
There is no genuine social licence for this project, and repeated dismissals of community concern show disrespect for local governance and democratic process.

10. National Security & Infrastructure Vulnerability
The Assessment fails to consider:
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities associated with CCP-linked solar inverters and BESS components.
Risks from integration with broader renewable grid frameworks, including the ASEAN Power Grid agenda, which sabotages energy security and national security.
These are legitimate strategic concerns that warrant immediate rejection.

Conclusion
The Garoo Solar & BESS Assessment is fundamentally flawed.
It is built on false claims, omitted risks, inadequate science, insufficient economic analysis, and ethical oversights.
The project threatens environmental destruction, agricultural contamination, human health hazards, economic devastation, and national security vulnerabilities.
This proposal must be rejected and the whole RECKLESS RenewaBULL RUIN-A-BULL RORT immediately paused until rigorous, independent, field‑based risk research is conducted to determine the environmental, public health, supply chain and national security risks as well as whole of life energy/emissions assessment and expert energy/economic analysis.
No further approvals should ever be granted without independent expert factual assessments, tangible enforcement mechanisms, upfront remediation bonds, and documented community consent.

References:
**Leaching Via Weak Spots in Solar Panels
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 348883160_Leaching_via_Weak_Spots_in_Photovoltaic_Modules
“Our long-term experiments clearly demonstrate that it is possible to leach out all, or at least a large amount, of the (toxic) elements from the photovoltaic modules. It is therefore not sufficient to carry out experiments just over 24 h and to conclude on the stability and environmental impact of photovoltaic modules.”

**Solar Realities - Physicist John Droz jr
https://election-integrity.info/Energy/Solar_Energy_Concerns.pdf
We know that these are some of the toxic (some carcinogenic) chemicals that have been identified as likely being in solar panels (click on the links to get an idea of what some of the adverse health consequences are):
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAs) (also see here and here) Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Fluorinated Ethylene (FEP)
Cadmium Telluride
Copper Indium Selenide Cadmium Gallium diselenide Copper Indium Gallium diselenide Silicon Tetrachloride Hexafluoroethane
Polyvinyl Fluoride
Also, here is a basic explanation of the silicon manufacturing part of solar panels. The following are some additional toxic chemicals that have been identified as possibly being involved in the fabrication of solar panels, which might end up in the finished product:
Hydrogen chloride
Silicon tetrachloride
Hydrochloric acid
Sulfuric acid
Nitric acid
Sulfuric acid
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Formaldehyde
Arsine gas
Trichlorosilane gas
Silane gas
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur hexafluoride
Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide
Lead

**Giant Hail Causes Injuries and Damage to Cars, Homes Across South-East Queensland - ABC News - 1/11/2025 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-01/qld-thunderstorms-hit-south-east-saturday/ 105961034

**South-East Queensland Lashed by Two Days of Giant Hail, with the Possibility of More Storms to Come - ABC News -
3/11/2025 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/storms-giant-hail-hits-south-east-queensland- weather-bom/105963838

**What We’ve Learned from the Sydney Hailstorm of 1999
https://www.fm.com/insights/sydney-hailstorm-1999
Adding to the complexity, the widespread adoption of solar panels has introduced new vulnerabilities.
“Solar panels weren’t being used in '99. Now they are, and they’re not resilient to hail either,” Hunneyball pointed out.
The future of hail risk in Australia is likely to see increasing damage due to solar panels on roofs and solar farms.
Without building resilience into this technology, the issues will persist.

**Contamination from Industrialised Solar’s Galvanised Steel Supports
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/srbXaCbKgVXocgsm/?mibextid=xfxF2i
“Australia is the second-most affected country by hail in the world, trailing only the United States.”

“PFAS Contamination is a Serious Issue that Needs Immediate Attention”
**COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN
Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025. (21 Feb 2024)

**NOTE: Chinese Solar Panels are coated in Perfluorooctane Sulfonate or Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid.

**”PFOS and PFOS-related Chemicals are Still Being Produced for Regulated Uses (Primarily in China)”
https://greensciencepolicy.org/our-work/building-materials/pfas-in-building-materials/

**”PFOS Chemicals are Just as Bad for Wildlife as they are for Humans.
Tests have found that even small levels of contamination can lead to compromised immune systems and brain asymmetry.” https://www.completehomefiltration.com.au/difference-between- pfas-and-pfos/)

**It does not matter how much PFAS we take out of the environment if we keep on pumping them in.
Relying on clean-ups is like bailing out a sinking boat with a teacup while the crew is busy drilling new holes in the hull.

**PFAS Remediation: Why Clean-Ups Alone Cannot Solve the Problem
https://chemsec.org/why-pfas-remediation-alone-cannot-solve-the-problem/

**WINAICO’s Glass-Glass Solar Modules are PFAS-Free - WINAICO Australia - 17/6/24
https://www.winaico.com.au/blog/winaicos-glass-glass-solar-modules-are-pfas-free - ‘in order to reduce harmful chemicals being released
in the environment, to protect human health, ecosystems and wildlife from contamination, enable safe rainwater consumption and reduce Toxic Solar waste with a sustainable, reusable product.’

**PFAS and Other Compounds
in Solar Panels, Wiring, and Coatings
https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7BC0A8A29D-275C-45FD-97DB-F8BA66E80800%7D

**SAVING GREENE: Citizens For Sensible Solar
https://www.facebook.com/groups/CitizensForSensibleSolar/
‘Renewable energy should offer more than promises that it is good for the environment.
The solar industry promotes photovoltaic (PV) technology in the most wholesome terms: generating clean, free power from the sun.
This benevolent assessment potentially omits environmental impacts during the manufacturing, operational lifetime, and disposal of solar panels and battery storage systems.
Host towns need proof, not simply promises, when evaluating how renewable projects may affect their residents and environment, both now and in the future.

We OBJECT to Toxic Metals and Soil Poisoning
The assessment falsely claims that metals in solar panels, including cadmium, lead, indium, and silver, are “locked” and cannot leach.
This ignores real-world risks: hail, storms, heat, fire, or panel degradation can release toxins into soil.
With over 234,000 panels planned, even minor leaching could permanently contaminate RU1 agricultural land, destroying decades of fertility and productivity.

No decommissioning or remediation bond exists to cover future soil recovery.
This represents reckless disregard for food security, soil health, and rural livelihoods.

There is totally unacceptable BESS Fire and Toxic Chemical Risk
The BESS plan for 360 MW / 1440 MWh storage ignores thermal runaway, fire propagation, and release of hydrogen fluoride or heavy metals.
No credible independent fire modeling exists. Should a fire occur, nearby agricultural soils and water systems could be contaminated for decades.

The Department assessment dismisses these risks without evidence, reflecting gross negligence and failure of scientific due diligence, leaving communities exposed to irreversible contamination.

There are huge risks to waterways from toxic
solar runoff contamination.

The project is adjacent to drainage systems and watercourses essential for local agriculture.
Yet, the assessment fails to provide any hydrological modeling for runoff, leaching, or stormwater contamination.

Toxic metals and PFAS from batteries and panels will migrate into streams, contaminating irrigation water. Ignoring these pathways demonstrates reckless environmental oversight, threatening regional food production and biodiversity.

The Agricultural Impact is seriously understated.
The assessment claims land has “moderate” capability for agriculture but fails to account for shading, compaction, chemical contamination, and disruption to soil biology.
RU1 land is permanently at risk of becoming infertile under the proposed panel footprint.
No longitudinal studies, field trials, or environmental impact monitoring plans are included, showing a complete lack of scientific rigor and endangering local farmers’ livelihoods.

Absence of upfront Decommissioning/Remediation Bonds is unacceptable.

There is no enforceable financial guarantee or decommissioning bond to remediate contaminated soils, broken panels, or BESS infrastructure at project end-of-life.
Without this, gullible landowners and the local regulatory authority and community victims will shoulder immense costs for soil, water, and biodiversity recovery.
This omission constitutes reckless disregard for public safety and economic accountability.

We rural landowners, farmers and community residents of NSW absolutely object to the further unnecessary ecocidal destruction of our state by the RUIN-A-BULL toxic contaminating, pathetically intermittent, energy depriving Garoo Solar Electricity Generating Works and poisonous Battery Energy Storage System located at 291 Garoo Road, Garoo, NSW for the following reasons:

1. Environmental, Soil & Water Risks Grossly Underestimated
The Assessment incorrectly asserts that toxic metals in solar panels cannot enter the environment. It fails to analyse how 234,000+ panels and associated support infrastructure could contribute to soil contamination and waterway pollution. There is also no modelling of stormwater runoff or chemical leaching into irrigation systems that support livestock and cropping activities.

2. Irreversible Loss of RU1 Agricultural Land
The proposed 369 ha site includes prime RU1 land currently used for livestock grazing and irrigated cropping. The assessment’s claim that impacts are manageable ignores the long‑term risks of contamination that could render land permanently unproductive, destroying livelihoods and regional food supply.

3. Waterway Contamination Not Evaluated
The project interacts with local drainage and water channels essential for agricultural and ecological health. The Assessment contains no hydrological risk assessment, leaving communities vulnerable to toxic contamination affecting irrigation and livestock water sources.

4. Bushfire Vulnerability Is Inadequately Modeled
The site is bushfire‑prone, yet the Risk Assessment lacks worst‑case fire simulations involving large arrays plus a 360 MW battery system. Toxic smoke, chemical runoff post‑fire, and emergency response readiness are not addressed.

5. Mischaracterisation of Community Concerns as “Perceived”
The Social Impact Assessment dismisses community fears as perceptions rather than evidence‑based issues. This fails to respect local lived experience and emerging scientific concerns about contamination, public health, and agricultural impacts.

6. Modern Slavery and Ethical Supply Chain Concerns
The Garoo Solar project will rely on imported solar panels and batteries predominantly components from manufacturers linked to forced labour conditions in China, the Congo and elsewhere.
The NSW Government and regulators have failed to enforce mandatory ethical procurement provisions, including those required under the Modern Slavery Condition C4A in other solar project approvals.
There is no demonstration of compliance with the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018 or NSW Local Government Act obligations regarding procurement free from modern slavery.

7. PFAS / PFOS Toxicity Unaddressed
Fake Green Solar and Battery components are THE ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE as they contain toxic heavy-metals and PFAS/PFOS chemicals known to persist in the environment forever.
It is completely unacceptable that there is no proper analysis of how these chemicals, if released through weathering, fire, or breakage, could affect soil, water, and human health.

8. Economic Harms Not Properly Assessed
Economic modelling overstates construction benefits while ignoring:
Agricultural losses due to land contamination
Decreased property values
Cost of environmental remediation without essential upfront bonds
Loss of export capacity from regional agriculture
Local communities stand to suffer net economic loss and public health disaster

9. National Security Implications Ignored
The Assessment contains no analysis of critical infrastructure risks associated with dependency on pathetically intermittent CCP‑sourced RenewaBULL components and integration with broader grid infrastructure.
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities, geopolitical dependencies, and energy sovereignty risks are absent from consideration.

10. Regulatory Failures & Lack of Social Licence
The Garoo Solar Assessment is filled with:
False claims about environmental safety
Omitted risk analyses
Ignored cumulative impacts
Dismissed community concerns
This reflects shocking regulatory failure and demonstrates that the project has no genuine social licence.

Conclusion
For these reasons, we vehemently object to the Garoo Solar & BESS disaster.
A comprehensive, independent, interdisciplinary environmental, health, agricultural, and socio‑economic risk assessment, including enforceable remediation bonds and human rights compliance measures are all required with well proven, independent, peer reviewed Australian research prior to anymore of these ECOCIDAL approvals.

I object this project due to it's use of prime agricultural land and impacts to surrounding land values resulting from altered rural character due to the project.
This project will have an effect on the Health and Wellbeing of the immediate neighbours and surrounding farming community.

No implications for Aviation Safety

The proposal is objected to. See the attached Submission letter,

Contamination and Waste Management are issues that are being swept under the carpet. It’s time government stop putting renewable energy targets ahead of the nation’s public health and food security. Please see attached for further details:

Please find submission on behalf of Daniel & Karina McCulloch attached.

See attachment

I support the project because it is likely to bring real job opportunities to the area, especially during construction, and also create work for local contractors, suppliers and service businesses. In regional areas, that kind of investment can make a real difference. Even temporary construction activity can help support local families, small businesses and the broader local economy.

This project has many negative implications to myself, my business and the property where I conduct my business which is my main source of income.