Wednesday, 28 May 2025

Petitions

Waste and recycling management

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:48): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

This is a David and Goliath fight, a community standing together against big government and big business to protect their homes and their community. The proposed waste transfer station in Hampton Park is not just unpopular, it has been categorically rejected, and that is why today people have come out from their homes. We have a mayor, a deputy and councillors here as well who have joined us. Over 6200 residents have provided petitions, objections and submissions. They are parents, business owners, families and migrants living in Lynbrook, Hampton Park, Narre Warren South, Lyndhurst and Cranbourne North. The residents understand the need for a place to dump waste, but it should not be acceptable for any responsible government to allow this to be located near homes, schools or in a residential area. The new Casey councillors agree and unanimously voted for the government to move this facility to another location. If VCAT overturns the EPA’s refusal and allows this waste station to go ahead in this area, the government needs to defend the EPA’s decision, because the location is inappropriate and there are genuine health, safety and environmental concerns.

I thank the people of the Lynbrook Residents Association here today, Hampton Park Progress, the Casey Residents & Ratepayers Association, the ‘We Say No’ campaign and all of the councillors and people. When the community cried out, Labor state MPs were nowhere to be found. Only after massive public pressure, supported by my work in this place, did the member for Narre Warren South finally acknowledge the community’s concerns. The Minister for Planning claims the matter is out of her hands, but her government laid the foundations for this project. It was Victorian Labor’s plans on recycling and waste infrastructure which identified this site in a residential area as a waste hub in 2018. It required community consultation, but people’s concerns have been ignored, and there are no protections that can be practically implemented with it being only 54 metres away from people’s homes.

How hypocritical is this government? The energy minister publicly opposes a waste-to-energy facility in Wollert, neighbouring her electorate, despite masterminding these plans. Meanwhile the Deputy Prime Minister opposed one in Lara, the area which he represents in federal Parliament. If this facility was no good for the people of Wollert or Lara, why is it acceptable for the people in my community? While we support recycling and waste into energy, these facilities need to be positioned away from residential areas. Sporting clubs, schools and community groups like Lynbrook Primary, the Hampton Park Junior Football Club and the Hazara Shamama Association are concerned about the risk to their community and young people and feel they have been ignored. No material about the waste facility has been provided in any language other than English.

The 2015 Hampton Park development plan identified the site for parkland, but the Labor-appointed Casey council administrators approved a revised development plan earmarking the land as a major waste hub despite overwhelming public objections. In November 2024 council officers granted planning permission just three business days before the new councillors were sworn in – no public notice, no consultation and no third-party appeal rights allowed. There were no environmental or social significant impact assessments. Shockingly, Casey council granted planning permission while allegedly being involved with a south-east waste processing company. In recent correspondence the company’s chair confirmed that an agreement was signed on the basis that the Hampton Park transfer station would be able to gain a permit for operation. Residents and councillors have been told that there are no exit clauses in the contract. This is a breach of public trust.

Recently the EPA refused Veolia’s licence, citing unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Concerns include soil and water contamination and battery-related fires. Toxic waste has been known to cause sleeplessness, anxiety and impaired childhood development. Pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, methane and harmful bacteria have been shown to cause respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular problems and cognitive harm. International data has demonstrated links between birth defects and toxic and environmental and chemical waste. I commend this petition to the house because these are the facts, and I very much hope that the government will listen to them.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:53): I rise to speak on what is an important decision, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this.

Interjections from gallery.

The PRESIDENT: Again, just to the gallery: it is fantastic that you are in the Victorian Parliament. We really appreciate you making the effort, but there is no audience participation, so if you could hold back on your applause or otherwise, we would really appreciate it. You have been great and quiet, so if you could stay that way. The babies are exempt – they are free to make noise.

Michael GALEA: I rise to speak on what is an important petition, and I welcome the opportunity to debate its acceptance today. This petition opposes a proposal by Veolia Australia and New Zealand to build a waste transfer station at their site in Hampton Park. In order for this proposal to succeed, it needed to be granted, first, a planning permit by the City of Casey and then a development licence from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria, the EPA. As the responsible authority for the Casey planning scheme, the City of Casey approved the planning permit for this facility in October 2024. What is noteworthy about the timing of this is that this approval was made whilst the council was under administration, less than a few weeks before last year’s council elections. Whilst the council administrators were within their rights to make this decision at the time, to me it is very disappointing that the decision was not held over until after the council elections just a few weeks later. This would have allowed councillors elected by and accountable to the community to make that call.

Following the planning permit approval, the applicant sought a development licence from the EPA. As I am sure everyone in this room knows, on 9 April this year the EPA rejected the licence on the grounds that the development would result in unacceptable risks to human health and to the environment. The decision by the EPA underscores the vital role that it plays in our state and the importance of it as an institution. The appropriate decision has been made here by the appropriate body. Their decision to deny a development licence is one that I personally welcome and support. Noting that the applicant has appealed this decision to VCAT and that the case is currently awaiting a hearing in August, sub judice prevents me from commenting any further on the case. What I will say, though, is that I sincerely hope that an alternative location can be found.

Today we do have with us many members of the local community who have been affected by the proposal. I would like to thank them for their advocacy. I am also very troubled by some of the accounts that I have heard of their experiences in attempting to raise their valid concerns with the applicant in this process. I am concerned, from what I have heard, about the way in which they were responded to. I also do note the advocacy of many people, including many of the newly elected Casey councillors, the member for Narre Warren South Gary Maas and Mrs Hermans and Ms Payne in this place as well. We do know that the circular economy is very important, but we also know how vital it is for the community to be heard. I welcome and support the adoption of this petition.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:57): I would like to begin by welcoming residents of Hampton Park here for this debate and thanking them for their ongoing advocacy. Because of your efforts, today we call on the government to ensure that a waste transfer station is not constructed in Hampton Park.

Six out of every 10 people in Hampton Park were born overseas, and eight out of every 10 residents have parents born overseas. Hampton Park is a suburb of people who choose to make Australia home and raise their families in the south-east. When they bought their houses, most residents were told that the landfill site was nearing capacity and would be rehabilitated into parkland. Many homes built in the 1990s stand within 500 metres of the landfill site. It is not surprising then that the people living in these homes were looking forward to the prospect of the landfill being replaced with parkland. But in 2022 there was a change of plan. Out of nowhere the then Andrews government declared the tip to be an ongoing waste site of state significance – the world’s worst accolade.

Now the operator, Veolia, has applied to run a new waste transfer station adjacent to the site, just 250 metres or less from homes. Unfortunately the community do not have a lot of faith in Veolia, who have been taken to the Supreme Court for breaching licence conditions. According to the EPA, Veolia allowed methane gas emissions from the tip to reach unhealthy levels 22 times and generated toxic run-offs onto farmland. They are bad operators. Veolia’s proposed waste transfer station would process the rubbish of nine councils, making it the biggest waste transfer station in Victoria, crunching through half a million tonnes of waste each year. It is also the only waste transfer station of this scale not planned in an industrial area. I do not think it is okay to dump half a million tonnes of waste into people’s homes. That is why I have joined the community in their fight to stop this obscene proposal, because it is not okay to treat people like rubbish.

Last month the EPA refused Veolia’s development licence for the transfer station, citing unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. This aligns with community concerns, with over 750 submissions made to the EPA. Over 95 per cent of respondents are against the proposal. But before the EPA even handed down its decision, Veolia applied to VCAT for a review. They claimed the application review timeframe expired on 23 January, but the EPA made a request for information on 24 January. Basically, Veolia have called in the umpire because the EPA was one day late, and now residents are in a limbo while they await VCAT’s decision.

If the transfer station is built, there will be more than 500 trucks coming and going 18 hours a day. Along with household waste, the centre would accept demolition waste, fluorescent tubes, gas bottles, acid batteries, metals, paints, soils and TVs, to name a few. This is on the nose, metaphorically and literally. More than half of the waste at the waste transfer station, 350,000 tonnes, will be compacted into sealed containers and then go on a 120-kilometre trip to the contentious Maryvale incinerator.

This has all grown out of the 2020 Recycling Victoria policy designed to protect the environment. And yet here we are, trucking 325,000 tonnes of rubbish from a south-eastern suburb down the Princes Highway to burn in the Latrobe Valley. There is no denying we need to move away from the model of rubbish going straight into landfill, but we must also consider the impact of amenity. Veolia itself boasts that its Clyde transfer facility in New South Wales is one of the most efficient transfer stations in the world. And why is that? Because it is on a railway line, reducing local truck movements by 37,000 per annum. Frankly, allowing a waste transfer station in a residential area with 500 trucks a day moving through the local community is not a solution. Do we really want to set that precedent? I think it is all a load of rubbish.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:02): I rise today not to oppose the idea of waste infrastructure, but to condemn the reckless, inequitable and shamefully arrogant way this government has handled the proposed waste transfer station in Hampton Park. This is a community that has had more than its fair share. It lives in the shadow of one of the state’s largest landfills. It absorbs the trucks, the odours, the noise and the risk. Now the government wants to add 550,000 tonnes of commercial waste a year to a site just 54 metres from homes. The EPA said no, the community said no, and more than 4400 residents signed a petition opposing this plan. And yet, instead of respecting expert advice and local voices, the developer is now appealing the EPA decision on a one-day administrative technicality – not on environmental grounds, not because the health risks are not real, but because they missed a deadline.

There was no social impact statement, no proper environment effects statement and no genuine consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse residents, despite this being one of Victoria’s most multicultural and disadvantaged regions. This is the same government that talks a big game when it comes to inclusion. They claim to fight for the vulnerable. They insist that every Victorian deserves a safe and healthy home. But let us be clear: if this facility was proposed 54 metres from the Premier’s house, it would not pass the first hurdle. So why is it acceptable in Hampton Park? We have seen this before: Brookland Greens, methane gas, hundreds evacuated and a $23 million class action because VCAT ignored the EPA. Yet here we are, walking into it once again.

It is not about one facility. This is about a culture where planning is done to the community rather than with the community, where those already living with disadvantage are treated as being disposable – their lungs, their roads and their peace all sacrificed so the system can keep turning without consequence. This is environmental injustice, and it must stop here. I call on the government to uphold the EPA’s decision, reject the appeal and restore trust in process right now, because that trust has been broken. Every Victorian, no matter their background, their income or their postcode, deserves protection from harm, and it is fair to say that they should have some say in the future in their own hands, not just what is told to them by the government.

I want to say well done to Mrs Hermans on her outstanding advocacy for the community and well done to the community for taking a stand and getting all those signatures and standing up for what is right, and I commend this motion to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:05): Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has contacted my office both recently and in the last term of Parliament about this long-running issue. I first went down when I was invited by people to go down and look at what was happening there, and I did. I went down, and there was actually a protest – I tend to go to lots of protests – and it is very clear, if you see just how close the houses are to this proposed facility, that there is very much potential for harm to local property owners and residents. So I was very disappointed when the administrators, as was pointed out by Mr Galea, under the last council, which was under administration, made this decision without being able to be held to account democratically. In my view, they should have waited until after the election for the new councillors, who would have been able to be held to account. So I was disappointed with that decision.

When the EPA started their consultations I actually went down there to see their consultation sessions. I spoke to staff from the EPA. I have had lots of complaints about the EPA in the past, but I will say that when I went and talked to the people there – they were environmental experts and engineers, and I spoke to many of the people there – I saw the types of consultation they were doing and I was quite satisfied that they were doing good work. So when they came back with their recommendation that this project should not go ahead, I feel that they made the correct decision and that it should not go ahead and another site should be found.

There is no doubt that there is a waste management issue. We do need waste facilities, but this particular one is inappropriate. It is not the right place to have it – it is absolutely not. I know now that it is before VCAT, and I really hope that this can be expedited, because the people that have been fighting against this because they are worried about the harm to their health, they are worried about the traffic and they are worried about the amenity to their life have been worrying about this for too long. I hope that there can be finality on this as soon as possible so that residents no longer have to keep putting up this fight.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:08): I am truly pleased to stand and speak on this petition raised by the community of Hampton Park and raised by my colleague Mrs Hermans. It seems to be, with fresh eyes on, a catastrophic failure of common sense over and over and over again to the community. Just imagine you are standing outside a childcare centre or a school or an aged care home watching a 38-metre A-double truck thunder past, hauling compacted waste through a suburban street, and imagine that happening dozens of times a day. That is the future that Hampton Park residents are facing unless we act. I am strongly supporting this call because there is just no commonsense reason why you would locate this in a residential area. This is an industrial process that belongs in an industrial area; that is why we have them. Again, it is common sense.

To date, the proposal, for all the other reasons we have heard – the chemicals, the waste, the smell, the traffic – has injected industrial-scale traffic into the area. There has been no transparent traffic modelling, there has been no clear data on truck routes and there have been no plans for turning radiuses or for peak-hour freight interactions. There has been a failure to really give any reassurance of how this operation could operate safely within the existing infrastructure. And then there is the sheer volume of freight movement through the area. We must also consider, really, amongst all the other considerations, long-term wear and tear on the roads, which ultimately the residents will end up paying for because the council ends up paying for it.

On every level there is a failure of common sense. You must wonder, ‘Where were the adults in the room at any one of these stages?’ Sadly, the adults in the room turned out to be the residents, who had to raise a petition and had to go through so much angst to do it. I congratulate them for not simply going along with it but putting their heads above the parapet and actually making a difference. Hopefully you will get a short circuit of the process, and hopefully you will find that the democratic process can work with Parliament, with your representatives.

But we still have questions. Has there been road modelling? Where is the public traffic impact study? Where was the consultation? Most of all, can we please have some common sense and take a basic sense of fairness and apply that to the process alongside the common sense. I commend this petition. I commend all those who have participated in it. We will not let it go, and we will stand with you. This is not the end of the matter. It will go on now – together.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (18:11): I am glad to be able to speak in support of this petition today on behalf of the Greens and the community who has rallied against this project. Can I also thank the community for their advocacy, including our federal candidate for the seat of Holt, Payal Tiwari, who has been an active campaigner on this issue, and the many others who have joined in supporting the community in their advocacy.

Veolia’s proposed waste transfer station in Hampton Park will lead to a steady stream of trucks ferrying tonnes of Melbourne’s nappies, apple cores and plastic bags over 100 kilometres to Maryvale for incineration. Can anyone think of a sillier idea during this time of worsening global heating than to burn truckloads of fuel to transport waste into Gippsland so we can burn it, sending all that carbon up into the atmosphere? It is no longer controversial to point out that we are seeing the impact of climate change virtually every other week somewhere in the world and too often in Australia. Today we spent half the day debating the drought that is going on in Victoria at the moment.

Waste to energy is often justified on the grounds that it has got to go somewhere. True, but the Greens do not think that ‘somewhere’ should be up into the atmosphere. Or it is justified because it is a waste of energy not to burn it. Well, we are trying to stop burning fossil fuels, and this is just another fuel we should not be burning. Add it to the same list as coal, oil and gas, because the carbon emissions are comparable. Or it is justified because methane emissions from organic matter in rubbish buried in landfill are worse than if we just burn the lot. That would be true if we were not separating out food and garden waste or at least moving towards that and capturing the methane from landfill. The Greens strongly oppose Labor’s introduction of waste-to-energy plants to Victoria, because we are in a climate crisis. Pull something – anything – out of your rubbish bin tonight, and I guarantee you there is something better we can do with it than burn it.

We need more investment in resource recovery and recycling to keep waste out of landfill. But we also need to be very mindful of where these facilities are, especially if they are going to be close to residential areas. Residents nearby have a right to be consulted and to have their health and wellbeing prioritised. We have already heard that facilities like this require hundreds of truck movements day in, day out. That comes with diesel emissions and pollution, which are incredibly bad for people’s health and wellbeing – noise, light pollution, you name it – so these sorts of facilities cannot be located so closely to residents. None of this has been considered in this proposal. It is reassuring to see that the EPA has done its due diligence and rejected this project. I really hope that the VCAT outcome is a positive one and reinforces that decision that was made by the EPA, but it would also be astute for the government in this instance to follow suit – to do what they actually have the power to do: intervene and ensure that this facility does not go ahead.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:14): Today there are local families and individuals in the gallery and watching at home. These are people, they are not rubbish. They do not deserve to be treated like rubbish, and they do not deserve to live with it. It is great to have the crossbench come along and stand with us, but I want them to know that the Liberals–Nationals hear you and we stand with you. It is time the Allan Labor government did more and did the same. Thank you to the Lynbrook Residents Association, in particular Vernadette, Scott, Sue and others; the federal member for Latrobe; Anthony, the vice-president of the Casey Residents and Ratepayers Association; and many others that I know I will have forgotten. To all the councillors that are fighting for this outside of your busy jobs and lives, you invest countless hours to defend your community.

We call on the relevant ministers to: ( 1) launch a commission into the legal and procedural basis of the permit issued by Casey council; (2) revoke the planning permit approved based on the EPA’s findings; (3) direct that version 4.1 of the 2015 Hampton Park development plan remains the sole legally enforceable planning document for this site until a new development plan is authorised by the minister, publicly exhibited and formally incorporated into the Casey planning scheme; (4) guarantee that all future planning applications for this site undergo public notice and provide full third-party appeal rights; (5) defend the EPA’s decision that the location is inappropriate, and there are genuine health and safety and environmental concerns if VCAT overturns their refusal; (6) initiate a probity audit into the governance and decision-making processes within Casey council, including potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual role as both permanent authority and stakeholder of a south-east waste organisation; and (7) seek an alternative appropriately zoned location, such as an industrial precinct or disused quarry pit away from the residential areas, with safe access to existing rail infrastructure.

These actions are about public health and safety, environmental protection, good governance and democratic accountability. Residents have not been heard, and they deserve better.

Motion agreed to.