Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:42): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

Sunbury is a hip, diverse and rapidly growing town. Its vibrant centre is host to a burgeoning cosmopolitan foodie culture, supported by access to exceptional local vineyards and farms, and locals have easy access to abundant native vegetation and wildlife. It is no wonder the people of Sunbury are proud and protective of their part of the world. As this petition attests, Sunbury also has no shortage of passionate residents determined to stop Sunbury being treated like the natural home for Melbourne’s toxic waste dumps. On hearing about the plans to plonk a big, dirty waste incinerator in their backyards, the locals wasted no time in getting a petition up and managed to collect 3500 signatures in a matter of weeks. They are fighting the good fight for the future of residents.

As part of the government’s proposed metropolitan activity centre plan, Sunbury and its surrounding areas are set to become a thriving activity centre with thousands of new residents, major retailers and speciality stores. And guess where it is growing? It is growing towards the HiQ plant. Why is this government now planning to just trash the town? Did the government think that they could just wave this through before the populace had time to clock what was happening and raise objections? They did not reckon on the speed with which the No Sunbury Waste Incinerator group could grow from a handful of concerned residents to a fully fledged community movement. The group now has 2500 members on Facebook alone.

Let us be clear: the group is not going to take this incinerator proposal lying down. If the proponents of this project thought there would be no resistance, they were wrong. It is amazing how the threat of an incinerator in your backyard can fire up the community. And let us be clear: that is what this is. It is an incinerator. It is simply burning garbage. As members know, the EPA have issued a waste cap licence to HiQ to burn three-quarters of a million tonnes of waste annually in this facility. Instead of investing in ways to get these resources and hazardous materials out of our waste stream, the government wants to pile them up and burn them. We know the incinerators cannot be turned off, or should not be turned off, when the government hits its waste reduction targets. That would be logical, but the technology does not allow that without risk. We are going to keep feeding this hungry beast constantly until it is decommissioned. Let me assure you the people of Sunbury ain’t throwing away anything close to three-quarters of a million tonnes of rubbish every year. The total landfill produced by the Hume LGA is 14,000 tonnes, so we are going to be trucking in an additional 736,000 tonnes from all over the state to keep feeding our very hungry incinerator. And this is only one of seven proposed by the state government. We will, if these go through, have more incinerators in Victoria than in all of Australia combined.

Let us face it, the promise of waste to energy is a scam. The energy produced will not be powering homes in Sunbury or feeding the grid. The energy produced by the incinerator will power the incinerator – little or nothing more – and while doing that it will produce the same amount, if not more, of greenhouse gas emissions as coal-produced energy. I am amazed at the government’s general lack of care around waste management and its jaundiced and enduring faith in the market to take care of our waste problems without much oversight. For example, I was quite startled to learn that there are no minimum environmental standards set for tenderers. The laissez-faire approach is deeply troubling and further evidence of the government’s lacklustre approach to environmental regulation – doubly so, given that the government has refused to release the documentation that has been requested on the tender and selection processes. Members might remember that Chris Bowen, the now federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy, opposed the construction of incinerators in his patch in western Sydney, describing this as ‘not clean energy … It is literally a dumpster fire.’

What about HiQ? Well, most recently, in 2024, the EPA laid a series of charges against HiQ for failure to implement a range of safety measures, and that did not stop them being awarded the licence. I just conclude by saying that with a project that is as disgusting as this it pays to be diligent, and before we commit to incinerating three-quarters of a million tonnes of garbage, let us allow an appropriate due diligence process via an inquiry to occur. Pending that, no incinerator for Sunbury.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (17:48): I just want to place a few comments on the record in relation to this particular petition. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge all those who have been engaging in our democratic processes by signing the petition, and I understand from conversations I have had with the local member for Sunbury Josh Bull that the community does hold concerns about the proposed waste-to-energy facility in Sunbury. I know Josh very well, and I know that as someone who has grown up in Sunbury and lived there for 40 years and is raising his family there, he cares deeply about his community. I know that he has taken the time to listen carefully to the views of the community and consider them, and he has also made his personal position clear about this project. I do want to acknowledge his ongoing advocacy on behalf of his community and for bringing those matters to the Parliament.

It is also important to note that anyone in Victoria who wants to develop and operate a waste-to-energy facility must first obtain all of the required regulatory approvals before they can commence construction and operation, and waste-to-energy projects are governed by multiple pieces of legislation in Victoria, including the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Environment Effects Act 1978 and the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021. Any proponent who is seeking planning approval must demonstrate that a waste-to-energy facility is consistent with relevant policies and controls relating to the environment, economic and social impacts in line with the Victorian planning provisions and the Planning and Environment Act. If a planning permit application is submitted to the Minister for Planning, who is the responsible authority for waste-to-energy projects, under those circumstances the minister will be required to consider and determine the application in line with the requirements of those acts.

I am advised by the Minister for Planning that as of 2 February 2026 a planning application has not been submitted to the Department of Transport and Planning for the proposed waste-to-energy facility in Sunbury. I think that is an important point to note here. This assessment process would include referral to relevant government authorities, consultation with the Hume City Council, public notice and opportunity for public submissions. Key elements of the assessment would also consider relevant state and local policies contained in the Hume planning scheme, together with environmental, economic, social and relevant technical considerations. If an application for this project is submitted – currently there is no application – and it is considered satisfactory for public consultation, community members will have a further opportunity to engage in the planning process and make their views on the proposal known to the Department of Transport and Planning. That is in addition to the requirements under the Planning and Environment Act. The proposal would also require approval of a development licence under the EPA, the Environment Protection Authority Victoria. Development licence applications primarily include scientific assessment of potential risks to human health and the environment from matters such as pollution, waste, air quality and odour.

I also note that the petition mentions the Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry, which will soon no doubt be accepting submissions from the public. It is important to note that the government did support that inquiry going ahead. I think that will be an important process and a further opportunity for the community to have their say.

The safety and environment of all Victorians is a priority for our government, and the Victorian government has established a very robust framework to regulate waste to energy. Waste-to-energy facilities must operate in accordance with strict environment and human health regulations in Victoria. These rules require waste-to-energy facilities to use international best practice pollution controls. It is also critical that proposed facilities build a social licence to operate, and the government expects operators to work closely with affected communities to understand and address any concerns they raise. Again, it is important to note that none of those parts of the process have been entered into yet, because at this point in time there is no application for a licence before the minister. The EPA, planning authorities and Recycling Victoria each have a role to play in ensuring that waste-to-energy facilities meet these standards.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:53): I am pleased to rise and make some comments about this petition, and I indicate that we support taking note of the petition. I am very respectful of the work that has been done by so many in the community in Sunbury. I am going to make a broad statement of policy that we are not necessarily opposed to waste to energy. We see that that has a role, but that does not mean that every waste-to-energy project is well positioned or well managed. In this case the Sunbury community has every reason to call this process out. Despite what the minister just said, I have little confidence that the Allan Labor government will have a fair process, will have a proper process and will have a process that actually listens to the community.

The community in Sunbury have been taken for granted by this government. I do not want to be very unkind about Mr Bull, but I do not believe he has stood up for his community properly. I do not believe he has fought for his community. I know Simmone Cottom. She is a very strong advocate, a true local in the area and very strongly engaged in supporting her community. She has made her points known to me as the Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and to many others in the coalition about the need to make sure that there is a proper process that respects the community in the Sunbury area, and there has not been to date.

The minister and her comments leave me with no enthusiasm, no confidence that the community will have the right response. We are very concerned about this particular proposal. We are very concerned that it does not have the right protections for a community in the local area, and that is partially because of the work done by Simmone and Trung and Moira in the upper house to make sure that the opposition – the Liberals, the Nationals – actually understand what is important on these matters. I thank Mr Ettershank for bringing this to the chamber. I thank Ms Cottom in particular for her strong advocacy on behalf of the local community.

I make the point that whilst you can have a general support for a particular policy, that does not mean you can ride roughshod over local communities when it comes to the buffer zones, the protections that are needed, the distances that are required and the huge impact by many of the vehicles in that area. The Sunbury community has suffered massively with the toxic spoil that came out of the West Gate Tunnel. They rolled truck after truck after truck – millions of them. Labor did that, and there was no proper process in providing the approvals for that particular process. I say an incinerator needs a proper buffer, it needs a proper environment effects statement, and it needs to make sure that it does not impact negatively on a local community.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:57): I am glad to see this petition come before the house. I sincerely thank the member for Western Metropolitan Region, Mr Ettershank, for bringing it forward, along with the thousands of Victorians who signed it. I want to acknowledge the dedication of the community members of the No Sunbury Waste Incinerator group who have come here today to say no to the proposed incinerator in their backyard.

Sunbury residents are tired of being treated as a dumping ground for Melbourne’s waste. They do not want the government to build a toxic, dirty, polluting waste incinerator in their community. They deserve to be listened to. We absolutely need to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. We 100 per cent agree with that, but setting fire to our waste is not part of the solution. For too long this government has neglected waste management and recycling, and now, instead of doing the right thing, the government is literally starting a dumpster fire and leaving communities like Sunbury to deal with the toxic consequences.

The Victorian government’s decision to roll out waste-to-energy incinerators across the state will only throw further fuel on the fire of the climate crisis we are living through. Victoria recently experienced record-breaking temperatures. There are out-of-control bushfires still burning in this state. The impacts of climate change are here now, and we know that there is worse to come. It is staggering that Recycling Victoria granted a cap licence to HiQ in August last year to process up to 750,000 tonnes of residual material every year in Sunbury. Waste incineration produces vast amounts of greenhouse gases – as Mr Ettershank has pointed out – and it is completely inconsistent with the government’s so-called commitment to net zero. These facilities lock in decades of emissions at precisely the moment when we need to be cutting them and cutting them fast.

The proposed Sunbury incinerator is a threat to the health of local residents. Even so-called best practice incinerators emit toxic air pollutants, persistent organic pollutants, microplastics and hazardous ash. Evidence from Europe shows long-term dioxin contamination in the soil, eggs and produce surrounding waste incinerator facilities at harmful levels to human health. If built, the waste incinerator in Sunbury will expose nearby communities to increased risk of cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease and harm to unborn babies. Yet residents are being asked to accept these unacceptable risks. Worse still, these projects hand public health over to private corporations whose primary responsibility is to shareholders, not to communities.

Waste incinerators are enormously expensive to build, which means they require a guaranteed supply of waste for decades. Councils are locked into long-term contracts that actively discourage waste reduction and recycling, because these hungry beasts require to be fed with waste 24 hours a day, seven days a week to run properly, which creates a really perverse incentive to burn recyclables, plastics and organics that should never be incinerated in the first place. Jurisdictions across Europe and the US are now moving away from waste incineration for precisely these reasons. Denmark, once heavily reliant on the incinerators, is shutting them down and reinvesting in waste reduction and recycling instead. They have learnt the hard way that burning waste locks in failure. We should learn from that lesson, not repeat their mistakes. The priority for this government should be waste reduction and recycling, not building toxic waste incinerators. Burning our rubbish is expensive and incredibly inefficient. Recycling, on the other hand, creates jobs – six times more jobs than incineration – and we are always hearing about how important jobs are to this government. Well, let us talk about jobs. Doing things with our waste other than burning it would actually be better for our economy, and it would deliver far greater energy and economic value.

Communities are rightly calling out the hypocrisy of this government supporting these projects in principle but local ALP members opposing them when they are proposed in their backyards. We only have to look at the Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio, who campaigned against a Cleanaway waste-to-energy facility in Wollert, or the member for Lara Ella George, who has successfully advocated against a Prospect Hill International proposal in Lara. I have joined her in some of that advocacy, and it was welcome, but there is some hypocrisy here. And now we are hearing that the local member in Sunbury Josh Bull is standing with the community in opposing this one.

What is the government doing? There are safer, cleaner and more effective ways to manage residual waste in Victoria. The Sunbury community has sent a clear message that enough is enough, and with the stroke of a pen the government could stop this project before it even starts. They could put people first, and the Greens stand with the community in calling on the government to do so.

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (18:02): I rise today to speak on the petition put forward by my colleague Mr Ettershank regarding the waste incineration on Sunbury Road, and I thank him for doing it because it is a very important subject for my constituents in the western suburbs. It must be made quite clear that the Victorian Liberal coalition does not oppose good, appropriate waste-to-energy technologies in Victoria. In fact our Zero to Landfill aims to do exactly that. We are committed to less waste going to landfill, better recycling and new clean energy for Victoria, preserving resources for future generations.

But supporting waste-to-energy initiatives in principle does not mean accepting a project that is deeply inappropriate for its proposed location, lacks proper process and poses significant risk to residents in my electorate. And that is exactly what the case is with the proposed waste-to-energy incinerator on Sunbury Road, Bulla. The proposal would see up to 750,000 tonnes of waste burned every year, far more than that area produces, effectively turning Sunbury and Bulla into a dumping ground for waste from across Victoria. Any major infrastructure project without proper process would bear great cost on the community, costs that would have direct and indirect impacts on the Sunbury community. You are looking at a 60-metre smokestack operating 24 hours for 30 years that would tower over nearby homes and farmland, permanently changing the character of the Sunbury community in my electorate.

Residents have raised concerns to me. My colleague Simmone Cottom has raised concerns to me and has advocated quite deeply for the area about the health and environmental impacts with the transformation of waste and by-products such as ash out of the facilities. The presence of a large industrial facility near residential areas can decrease local desirability and hinder property value growth. This situation would significantly disadvantage my community in Sunbury and all 3264 of those who signed the petitions.

Additionally, there are some serious traffic concerns regarding this project, as my colleague Mr Davis has mentioned. The project is expected to generate over 300 truck movements per day across the area – we know Sunbury, and I have been up in this chamber quite a bit regarding improving roads in the area – which would put further strain on already congested roads, increase the noise level and the safety risk in the whole area. Beyond the tangible impacts we are facing at the moment, there is widespread frustration about the process itself. Many residents feel that the decision has been made for the community but not with them. That is the issue we are talking about here today regarding this process. We are not opposed to turning waste into energy – in fact every technology is looked at with a wider scope on its feasibility. A Victorian Liberal–National government would commit to ending household waste being sent to Victorian landfill, but we cannot support projects that endanger the health of a community, damage the local amenities, undermine property values of hardworking Victorians and, most importantly, fail the basic test of putting community interest first. I want to end my contribution by saying that my community in Sunbury deserve better than becoming Melbourne’s dumping ground. We deserve a transparent process, modern solutions and a project that respects the people who live there and call it home.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:06): I rise today to speak in support of the petition brought forward by the concerned residents of Sunbury. I would like to acknowledge the community members who are here for this debate today and thank them for their ongoing advocacy, and my colleague David Ettershank, who has been actively campaigning alongside the community. I think we can all agree that Victoria has a waste problem. With our landfills nearing capacity and recycling rates stagnating, the state is turning to waste to energy as a solution, and outer suburban areas like Sunbury are bearing the brunt.

If built, the proposed incinerator in Sunbury will be a beast. The proponent, HiQ, is proposing a facility that would run 24 hours a day, seven days a week and burn up to 750,000 tonnes of waste each year. That volume goes well beyond local needs. So where is all this waste coming from? Well, the Minister for Environment has assured me that the government does not support any further increases to the current waste energy cap or importing waste from other jurisdictions. I remain incredibly sceptical. If this government does not want to continue opening new landfills, more waste is going to have to be imported from across the state and perhaps across the country, regardless of whether they support it. No wonder residents are feeling like they are in a dumping ground. I have heard from families who made Sunbury their home, and it offers open spaces, relative affordability and a sense of community. This facility would sit 1 kilometre from an established housing estate and nearby schools, creeks and parklands. Traffic impacts would also be significant. It is estimated that this facility would bring 700 additional trucks each day onto already congested local roads. This means more emissions, more noise and more strain on infrastructure. Sunbury residents should not have to choose between an affordable home or their health.

In my own electorate we have also seen plans for a waste-to-energy facility in Dandenong South, nearing the fragile local Dandenong Creek and connecting waterways. Again, these outer suburbs are the dumping ground in this government’s waste agenda. We must ask ourselves the broader question: is waste to energy the answer? These facilities require a steady stream of feedstock to remain economically viable. That within itself risks locking the state into decades of waste generation to service a beast that must be fed. The government has committed to transitioning to a circular economy, yet incineration sits at the lower end of waste hierarchy. It recovers some energy, yes, but it does not prioritise reduction or reuse, it does not demand greater corporate responsibility and it does not transform consumer patterns. We only need to look to the UK or internationally for some examples. Burning waste does not vanish it, it merely transforms it into emissions and residual ash. Most facilities produce by-products, including bottom ash and fly, and these contain heavy metals and other toxic substances.

We know that the risks associated with that are respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and increased risks of cancer from exposure. Now Sunbury residents are being asked to put faith in HiQ, a company that has been fined by the EPA for 13 offences. It is entirely reasonable for the community to question whether HiQ should be trusted to operate a facility that generates these kinds of hazardous by-products. Sunbury residents are asking for fairness, transparency and the right to live in a community that is healthy and sustainable. We owe it to them to step back, to listen and to wait until the waste-to-energy inquiry is complete so that we can then ask whether this is truly the best way forward.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:10): Let me provide, first of all, my support for petitions; they are an enormously important endeavour in our Parliament. I just want to say that we also need balance, because there are good energy-from-waste systems that can occur in locations in regional Victoria with industrial centres that actually diminish CO₂ emissions and take cars’ equivalent emissions off the road. But I fully support this petition.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (18:11): Can I firstly thank all of the members for their contributions today and all the members of the community who have come in to witness the debate. I think I can safely say on behalf of the community that we are all sick of the greenwash. Minister Stitt’s assurances about regulatory safeguards and consultation are a joke, and Sunbury residents, every time they drive down Bulla Road, witness 1.5 million cubic metres of soil dragged out of the West Gate Tunnel project as a daily reminder of how superficial consultation can be and how those safeguards fail our community time after time. I welcome the support of the opposition. It is terrific if you have come on board, because obviously you did vote against the inquiry, but it is great that you have come on board to join us now, so thank you for that.

Across the world, these are technologies in retreat, and we need to recognise that they are simply not appropriate. Minister Stitt talked about a social licence. Well, I can say with great confidence there is no social licence forthcoming for these projects. This is a terrible technology. It is toxic, it is inefficient and it is absolutely antithetical to the government’s own policy on waste and how we reduce landfill. I think it is also a testament for us to think about the politics here. All of these seven projects are being dropped into safe Labor seats, and we can see the number of people in the government who have come to witness this debate: the government benches are empty bar Minister Tierney. So what is that about? It is about disrespect. It is dishonesty. If the government are so keen and confident about this technology, let them put it in some marginal eastern suburb seats, and then let us see how we go, because it is not going to happen. In the interim, can I just say, ‘Sunbury says no.’

Motion agreed to.