Wednesday, 29 October 2025

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:25): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes the failure of the government to release documents relating to the granting of seven new waste-to-energy licences and the increase of permitted waste to be processed through waste-to-energy facilities to 2.35 million tonnes per annum;

(2)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution:

(a) a copy of each application to Recycling Victoria for cap licences; and

(b) a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report or similar documents, outlining the calculations and rationale behind the allocations of each cap licence.

In the recent debate on our motion to hold an inquiry into the development and expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria we sought to counter the gaslighting and spin coming from the companies awarded the licences to operate these massive incinerators. Far from decreasing waste generation and increasing investment in recycling and resource recovery – or being key to Victoria’s transition to a more circular economy – these facilities are expensive and carbon intensive and lock us into continual production of waste. They do not support recycling or a circular economy. Incineration destroys material that could be recycled back into production. These facilities are environmental nightmares, releasing toxic chemicals that remain in the environment for hundreds of years and consuming unsustainable quantities of water. It is hardly surprising that a huge number of state and federal MPs are up in arms about these facilities, given the community concern over the affected areas is just so great.

The process around the approval for these facilities has been particularly opaque. There are so many unanswered questions around the awarding of licences to operate these facilities, the location of these facilities and the quantity of waste to be incinerated by these facilities – questions which need to be addressed by the government. For this reason we are seeking the release of a copy of each of the applications to Recycling Victoria and a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report or similar, outlining their rationale for the awarding of these cap licences. We hope the documents we seek will shed a light on, for example, why the licences granted equate to 3.5 million tonnes when the government policy is only 2.5 million tonnes. What is the rationale behind Recycling Victoria increasing the waste tonnage by 40 per cent, apparently in one stroke? Is Victoria planning on importing waste from other states? Why this huge increase? And why were companies awarded these licences? Was there any due diligence in assessing the corporate character of these licences?

HiQ, formerly High-Quality – always watch the people that change their name – the company awarded the licence for the Sunbury waste-to-energy facility, have faced over a dozen charges of breaching their licence conditions at their Sunbury site, including improper disposal of asbestos waste, failure to comply with remediation notices and failure to comply with pollution abatement or establish an appropriate risk-monitoring program. But Recycling Victoria is fine to award them a licence to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste at HiQ’s ironically named Eco-Hub in Sunbury. Even more bizarrely, when we were briefed by HiQ, they were only seeking 450,000 tonnes of waste. Is this Recycling Victoria going, ‘We know you want more’? What is this? This is a huge increase, and there is no rationale behind it in the public sphere.

We are also curious about the decision not to award the Prospect Hill facility in Lara an operating licence. Could it have anything to do with federal MPs, including the Deputy Prime Minister, for goodness sake, getting behind the local protests? I am not criticising. I am just saying that everyone else in this chamber should join the push, because it is a terrible idea. But what was the role of these members? Did it have anything to do in fact with Daniel Andrews lobbying on behalf of the Chinese parent company? Whatever the reason, it would be interesting to know why that particular project at Lara has potentially fallen over but none of the others have, most of which have received more.

The move to incinerating our rubbish represents a significant and regressive shift for Victoria. These facilities are being pushed through at an unseemly pace, without consideration for the fact that these monstrous incinerators will be across the road in many cases from residential areas, homes, schools, businesses and shops. There are very real pollution and health risks associated with these facilities, which the government is not addressing. While there may be a place for incineration in a comprehensive waste management plan that incorporates proper recycling practices and contributes to Victoria’s plan for a circular economy, the government needs to slow down and do the necessary work to bring the community along, and that starts with transparency. We urge the government to comply with this request. It is simple, it does not take a lot of hours and it does not take a lot of public servants. If the process for awarding these licences is thorough and genuine, there should be nothing to hide.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:30): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Mr Ettershank’s motion seeking documents relating to waste-to-energy facilities, particularly a copy of applications made to Recycling Victoria for cap licences and a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report outlining the calculations and rationale behind the allocations of each cap licence. I cannot attest to the detailed knowledge of the way the cap licencing system works that Mr Ettershank clearly has. I do not have that level of detail or background knowledge – my apologies in advance. I should say at the outset that the government will not oppose the documents motion. It is not our practice to oppose documents motions, and the documents motions moved by this chamber will be considered by the government in the usual way.

More broadly on the waste-to-energy framework, as outlined in our Recycling Victoria policy and the waste-to-energy framework, we do support investment in appropriate waste-to-energy facilities where they will reduce waste to landfill, meet best practice environmental protection requirements, support community amenity and support waste avoidance and recycling. Any facilities that are deemed to be appropriate must operate in accordance with strict environmental and human health regulations in Victoria, including rules that require waste-to-energy facilities to use international best practice pollution controls. In developing these frameworks we have established a robust regulatory regime. As part of that regime, the Environment Protection Authority, planning authorities and Recycling Victoria each have a role to play in ensuring that thermal waste-to-energy facilities meet best practice environmental protection requirements, work with local communities in the way they operate and contribute to circular economy outcomes. The Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 requires that all thermal waste-to-energy facilities in the state of Victoria that process permitted waste need to be licensed. Licences include permission to use a specified amount of permitted waste within an overall cap for Victoria, something which obviously the documents motion itself is seeking to gain further detail on.

Waste-to-energy facilities do require a number of regulatory approvals before they can be constructed or begin operating. They have got to receive planning approval, development and operating licences from both EPA Victoria and Recycling Victoria. It was outlined in our Economic Growth Statement that the government’s intent is to further increase the waste-to-energy scheme cap limit to 2.5 million tonnes per annum, subject to a regulatory impact statement. Data modelling in the regulatory impact statement supported the 2.5 million-tonne cap as the most appropriate limit. The statement and the analysis that underpinned it articulated that it believed that it struck the right balance between diverting as much waste as possible from landfill and managing the risk of overinvestment in waste-to-energy infrastructure. As mentioned, the regulatory framework that governs the planning and operation of waste-to-energy facilities needs to be operated within strict environmental and human health regulations requiring facilities to use international best practice pollution controls.

It is also critical that the proposed facilities build a social licence to operate, and the government expects operators to work closely with affected communities to understand and address concerns as they arise. To receive approvals from the EPA and the planning minister there is a rigorous process undertaken to ensure community consultation and scientific research is undertaken to understand impacts. Recovering energy from waste is one way that we have in Victoria to help shift to a more circular economy by producing energy from materials that would otherwise be sent to landfill, complementing other circular economy initiatives that prioritise waste reduction, reuse and recycling. Obviously these are not initiatives that can be seen in isolation but part of a comprehensive suite of initiatives that are designed to both reduce waste and promote reuse and recycling.

We are committed, as part of our overall suite of policies, to promote the circular economy and to work towards reducing the amount of waste that is being sent to landfill through things like the container deposit scheme, which we debated just minutes ago. We need to do more to address the capacity constraints that exist within our landfills, and securing infrastructure that can process quantities of waste that cannot be recycled is a priority for Victoria.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:35): I am pleased to rise in support of Mr Ettershank’s documents motion to note the failure of the government to release documents relating to the granting of seven new waste-to-energy licences and the increase of permitted waste to be processed through waste-to-energy facilities to 2.35 million tonnes per annum. It was 1 million tonnes – let us just be quite clear; that was the original base that the government had – and it is now 2.35 million tonnes. We supported an increase in that, because it was clear that more than one facility was needed. But how they derived the 2.35 million is a mystery. The government has not explained that ever.

Standing order 10.01 requires the leader of the government to table in the Council, within 30 days of the house agreeing to the resolution, copies of each application to Recycling Victoria for cap licences and a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final reports, including the calculations and rationale behind each licence allocation and the cap. This is a documents motion. It is in the public interest for these documents to be made available to the house and to the community. The community is entitled to know what is happening here. The seven locations are significant. They do impact on local communities, and communities should be entitled to understand fully how the government has arrived at decisions.

I want to be clear that we are not opposed to waste to energy in any way. We think that it has got a significant role in the state’s future. That is not to say that every location of waste to energy is appropriate. It is not to say that every set of decisions made is appropriate. It is not to say that proper EPA and other approvals have been gone through. In some cases, it appears patently that the process has been deficient. I find it interesting, for example, that the minister who is intimately involved in approving these increased volumes is opposed to a particular facility in the north of the city. I mean, there is a raging inconsistency here with this Minister for Energy – a hypocrisy, some would call it. But either way, there is an unexplained inconsistency about how she can be so vehemently opposed to a particular site – without characterising that in any particular way. She has not really put forward what I would call thoughtful or detailed arguments. It is really a ‘I don’t like it near me’ mode that is operating there but at the same time pushing for increased –

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, I usually do go for the details, in fact, and in this case also I am talking about precise details about individual locations. You may be able to shed some light on the hypocrisy that is involved with the minister. The point I am making here is that it is in the public interest to understand these documents. It is in the public interest to put these documents into a zone where individual locations are explained, local communities know and the decision-making behind this is more transparent. Indeed I would say that the state government has been acting quite secretly on a lot of these matters.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:39): I rise today to speak on the motion in my colleague Mr Ettershank’s name, requesting documents relating to waste-to-energy cap licences. Specifically, this motion requests a copy of each application to Recycling Victoria for cap licences and a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report or similar documents outlining the calculations and rationale behind the allocations of each cap licence. Put simply, this documents motion is about transparency.

In Victoria we have more waste-to-energy projects in the works than all other Australian jurisdictions combined, and the annual cap on the amount of waste that can be burnt has increased by 150 per cent in three years to 2.5 million tonnes. Once these projects reach capacity, the vast majority of waste in Victoria could be taken from landfill to be burnt, representing one of the most significant shifts in waste management policy in Victoria’s history. This rapid increase raises many concerns that our request for documents seeks to answer. We want to know what assurances these organisations have provided to get these licences to burn and how Recycling Victoria determines the size of these licences. This government has not been transparent about processes and decisions relating to waste-to-energy; affected communities deserve better.

I would like to thank all the community groups who have worked with us to put this major transition in Victoria’s waste management strategy under the microscope. Our communities are rightly concerned. In the area I represent, the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, Great Southern Waste Technologies has been given approval for the development of a waste-to-energy facility in Dandenong South. This plant has capacity to process 100,000 tonnes of waste per year. Now, while this plant is in an industrial area, it is in close proximity to local waterways and Melbourne Water, where all of our water comes from, making the case for transparency in decision-making all the more important. In Hampton Park, I have been proud to join locals in their fight against the construction of the waste transfer station in the area. Waste from this facility would have been sent out to Maryvale, which could eventually have a capacity of 650,000 tonnes. The scale of this is massive and with it comes a massive responsibility on operators of these projects. The decisions we make will have consequences for generations to come, and it is only fair that we have the information available for us to decide if those decisions are the right ones. That is also why we successfully moved an inquiry into the development and expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria. This inquiry will examine the suitability of existing waste-to-energy plans and policies and the impacts on residential communities and transport infrastructure, the cost–benefit for consumers and businesses, how recycling and emissions are managed, other waste management options, new technologies that support a circular economy and the adequacy of community consultation.

We encourage concerned communities to stay tuned for when submissions are open to the public in the coming months. If we are closing landfills and handing out licences to burn at this kind of massive scale, government must be transparent about all aspects of this transition.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:42): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly on this motion, having not made it quite on the list on the last motion. They are quite of a similar theme indeed – perhaps we should be calling it ‘wasteful Wednesdays’ or ‘waste management Wednesdays’ – but it is a good way to start the day, certainly.

I do just want to very briefly reflect in using relevance, in the broader context of waste, just to note on the previous discussion that despite the bizarre assertions made by the opposition speakers there is no government revenue being made out of the container deposit scheme. Indeed we know it is a great success. I would love to talk more about that; however, this particular slot is allocated for –

David Davis interjected.

Michael GALEA: Indeed Mr Davis, this is a different element of our wasteful Wednesdays that we are here for today.

Now, that is not to say it is not an important topic – it is a very important topic – and indeed I have had the opportunity to speak on similar motions in this place in the past few weeks and months of sitting when it is come to waste-to-energy but also indeed of course to the waste transfer stations, including the particular one in my electorate, to which Ms Payne referred, in Hampton Park. I also share those concerns, noting of course that that is currently before VCAT and noting in a previous recent debate as well there was a committee referral that was put forward in this place; I believe that was by Ms Payne or Mr Ettershank. Forgive me, I am not sure which one.

Rachel Payne interjected.

Michael GALEA: It was you, Ms Payne, and it was very good to see that referral actually endorsed and get up. I was proud to vote in favour of that, because as I said in much more lucid detail at the time, it is very important that we do get this right. There is a clear need; there is a clear issue of what we do with this problem. It is a wicked problem, and we need to balance local interests of communities such as mine in Hampton Park with the broader issue that we are facing, because we cannot sustain without utilising this technology in one way or another. But the appropriate level to which the controls in the local area are supported, and the consultation around that in particular, is something I am very anxious about, which is why I am very excited to see that the Environment and Planning Committee support it and indeed why I was so disappointed that you, Mr Davis, and Mrs Hermans voted against that motion. You chose not to stand with the community on that day in providing that opportunity for our community and many other communities across the state to have their say in that inquiry. It is a very important process to analyse the issue, so it is disappointing that the Liberal Party unanimously voted against that motion. But despite that, and despite their failure to stand up at that moment, we will see this inquiry take place soon. It is not one that I am on, but I very much look forward to seeing the work it does.

Motion agreed to.