Tuesday, 25 August 2026

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (13:12): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table a report on the inquiry into the development and expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria, including appendices, extracts of proceedings and minority reports, from the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

This is the final report I will table as chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee for this term, and it was certainly a challenging one for the committee. It is clear that Victoria needs to manage a significant waste problem, namely the substantial amount of waste going into landfill, with all of its environmental concerns. The committee heard that really clearly, but we also heard clearly that there are significant and understandable concerns of communities that may be affected by waste-to-energy facilities, particularly in the communities that they live in. I want to be clear that it was not my role as chair of the committee or the committee’s role to determine whether or not waste to energy is appropriate per se – but that discussion was certainly held, and we heard many different views really strongly – and it was not the committee’s role to determine where certain facilities should be located. However, it was the committee’s role to identify the concerns and to ensure that the right questions are asked in the processes that lead to the establishment of these facilities, including community consultation and education surrounding the proposals.

The inquiry certainly attracted substantial community interest, particularly from communities, as I said, that are likely to be affected by proposed facilities. That is exactly why the committee travelled to Sunbury for one day of public hearings to hear from the community there. I am really grateful for the strong and passionate advocacy of community members who appeared before us in panels and provided written submissions to the committee, as well as the evidence and detailed input from experts in environmental and waste management. Despite there being a range of differing views, often on completely opposite ends or somewhere in the middle, the committee appreciated the respectful approach of participants in the inquiry and certainly those who attended our many public hearings. Our final report makes findings and recommendations in relation to waste challenges, waste-to-energy technology, what a waste-to-energy facility can incinerate, what a waste-to-energy facility can emit and where a waste-to-energy facility can be built.

As always, I would like to express my appreciation to committee members for their cooperation and to the committee secretariat for their professional and thorough work during the inquiry process, particularly the administration team of Julie Barnes, Sylvette Bassy and Monique Riordan-Hill, who provided excellent support to us all throughout the inquiry. I would also like to thank Joshua Pedersen, who worked with the committee throughout the inquiry as a research assistant. Finally, I would particularly like to thank Jessica Summers, the inquiry officer for the inquiry, who provided excellent research and writing for the report, as well as expertly managing much of the committee’s evidence gathered during the inquiry.

It is also the final time that I will thank committee manager Michael Baker. This was Mike’s final report before a well-deserved retirement at the end of this term. Yesterday our committee met for what may be the last time – hopefully the last time – and he said he would be in the gallery to watch this report being handed down, just as he sat in the chamber for the delivery of the first report he worked on in 1988. I was not even born then, Mike. Mike has been a terrific support to me as chair across the term and wonderful to all committee members. It has been an absolute joy working alongside him. Thankfully, Mike is a close-by constituent, and I am sure that I will see him in his retirement. We are all just so grateful to Mike for his support and guidance over the last four years as a committee. It meant a lot to me, my first time being chair and being supported through that process. Mike is not just a lovely man but a true professional on the committees team, and I am sure I speak for many members in thanking him for his service to committee teams and to the Parliament over many decades.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (13:17): I too want to thank everyone who helped with this inquiry, in particular the secretariat and the committee chair and my fellow committee members. I especially want to acknowledge the community members whose advocacy got this important inquiry to happen in the first place. I do fear that many will potentially be disappointed. While the majority report here contains I think a good summary of the concerns and evidence that we heard, ultimately it is my view that the findings and recommendations fall well short. The problem for me is the premise of the report, which accepts that thermal waste to energy is a part of Victoria’s waste management system, so it focuses on how we can tinker around the edges and better regulate the technology rather than taking issue with the technology itself. I think this flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence received by this inquiry from experts in waste, environmental management and public health as well as hundreds of community members.

I actually did something I have not done before: I did not support the adoption of the majority report. I have outlined why in a brief minority report and explained that it is the Greens’ position that thermal waste to energy should be removed from Victoria’s waste management options and that this government should do so because we believe that it is their duty to adopt the precautionary principle, and not only that but take heed of the established evidence, which demonstrates that there are known harms from thermal waste to energy, not just to human health but to climate and to ecosystems. There is strong evidence that it will harm our efforts to reduce waste and implement a genuinely circular economy.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:19): I rise to speak on the report as tabled. The Liberals and Nationals also submitted a minority report on this matter. Some very brief conclusions we drew are that Victoria definitely does have a landfill problem that needs to be addressed, that there are bad environmental consequences of landfill and that waste to energy is one of a range of technologies that may be appropriate in addressing those disadvantages. But it must be said that in Victoria’s execution of this policy there have been some extraordinary scenarios where the lack of consultation with communities in terms of where these plants will be placed has been breathtaking in its arrogance, and while the technology has strong international precedents and while bodies like the EPA are extraordinarily eloquent in explaining why they should be placed where they are, they have absolutely no capacity for introspection or explanation as to why they have lost social licence for these things. The reason they have lost social licence is very, very clear: they do not consult, they do not listen to genuine concerns and they have done nothing for the communities. As a result, we had the extraordinary situation where the then energy minister’s policy was to petition against her own policy in her own electorate. It is breathtaking. Effectively everybody is a loser, because the state does not get to address a serious landfill problem and communities do not feel heard and may have inappropriate developments in their own areas. The inquiry was worthwhile. We heard a lot of really good information – and thank you, Mr Baker, in particular – but in some senses it was a missed opportunity because of the lack of introspection and self-examination of the government and the government bodies concerned.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (13:21): I would like to commend the comments of Ms Purcell and Dr Mansfield, and I concur with their thoughts. Clearly we do have a landfill problem, and I think it is equally clear that the answer to that problem is not waste-to-energy incineration. The committee agreed that there are a range of highly toxic pollutants that are produced through this process, as well as extremely toxic fly and bottom ash. It is also of great concern that it would appear that the government is basically seeking to contract out waste management, having failed abjectly at meeting their requirements to divert waste. There are some positive recommendations, including the monitoring of emissions on a continuous basis and that there be an investigation by the Auditor-General to undertake a review of the regulatory framework.

However, there was also a unity ticket between the government and the opposition. We saw, for example, a very narrow interpretation of the precautionary principles. There was a question that the safety of waste to energy be established prior to permits being granted – that was rejected; that all waste-to-energy projects have an environmental impact statement – that was rejected; that the minimum buffers be established around these things – that was rejected; and in the context of that referral to the Auditor-General that, until such time as there is actually a finding from the Auditor-General, there be a moratorium – that was rejected. We have a situation now where there is a need for action, and we are just not seeing it. And what a stark contrast it is, as Mr Welch suggested, where we have government ministers and MPs, state and federal, rejecting this technology while the government says, ‘It’s all good. No worries.’ There is no social licence for this project. I also would like to extend my profound thanks to the secretariat, to Michael Baker and to Jess for all of their great work. It has been a pleasure to work with them on this inquiry.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (13:23): Victoria certainly has a massive problem when it comes to waste. Our state cannot keep burying waste in the ground. During the parliamentary inquiry into the development and expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria, the committee did hear substantial evidence that Victoria’s landfills are filling up and are projected to begin running out of capacity in the mid-2030s. Waste to energy has an important role to play in dealing with the waste that cannot be recycled while generating useful energy and reducing our reliance on landfill. Labor have been in government since 2014. They have had plenty of time to get it right, but the waste in Victoria – pun intended – is an absolute mess. They have wasted their time in office and managed to waste taxpayer funds in the process. Mr Welch referred, in the Liberals and Nationals minority report, to a government minister sponsoring a petition about a project in her own electorate while she was the Minister for Energy and Resources, and that is extraordinary.

The Sunbury hearing was well attended because of community concerns about whether the proposed facility is appropriately located, particularly given its proximity to residential areas and concerns about traffic impacts and heavy vehicle movements that put pressure on public roads in the area. The community raised important concerns, but they felt ignored in the process. Victoria should use waste to energy where appropriate – location does matter – and waste streams, environmental impacts and community interests need to be properly considered. We should prioritise reducing, reusing and recycling waste, but for the material that cannot be recycled, sending it to landfill should not be the only option. Waste to energy can reduce landfill, create jobs, support regional industries and generate energy. But we cannot afford poorly planned waste-to-energy facilities.

I do want to thank the committee members and the secretariat, particularly Michael Baker for his work on this report and also the decades of service that he has contributed to this Parliament – we appreciate that. We support waste to energy where appropriate, and the Nationals will continue to push for sensible waste reduction.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:25):(By leave) I just want to make some comments. I was not a committee member on this inquiry, but I have followed it closely. I do want to put on record my thanks to Michael Baker.

The PRESIDENT: You are a participating member.

David DAVIS: I am a participating member, but I was not an active member on this inquiry. But I have followed it closely. I do want to put on record my thanks to Michael Baker for the work he has done on inquiries over a number of years; I cannot tell you how many, but it is a lot. I am thankful and I think everyone is.

I want to pick up some of the points that have been made by others. The state government’s policy on waste management is in chaos – there is no question of that – and it does need to be thoroughly rethought. I do want to put on record the work of Simmone Cottom and her fierce advocacy for her community on these matters. She has been a tireless, very significant advocate – and many have paid heed to the work that she has done in the local community of Sunbury – in her strong advocacy for that community, against the particular proposals that have been put to that community. I note the hearings, but I also note the firm private advocacy that she has undertaken so that people in this chamber on all sides know what the community is feeling.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (13:27): I rise to speak briefly on this report, as I am a member of this committee. I would like to pay tribute to Michael Baker for his decades of service to the Parliament and acknowledge his work and my appreciation for the support he has given the committee and committee colleagues as well.

On waste to energy, I would echo the comments of Mr Davis, Mrs Broad and Mr Welch. We have the bizarre scenario where we have got members like the member for Mill Park, who designed and introduced this policy into the Parliament, then turning around and running petitions in her own electorate against waste to energy – against her own policy. That also goes for the member for Thomastown and the member for Sunbury, who were all in the Parliament when this legislation was introduced and all spruiking the merits of it, then turning around and petitioning their own communities against it. I think it goes to show why there is no social licence for these projects at the moment, when you have government members flip-flopping on policy. I will tell you one individual that has not flip-flopped on this policy, and that is Simmone Cottom, the Liberal candidate for Sunbury. She stood by her community and has got a firm commitment that if the Liberals and Nationals are elected, there will be no waste incinerator in Sunbury.

Motion agreed to.