Tuesday, 30 August 2022

Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SHING:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:31): I am happy to speak on this piece of legislation because I am a great fan of waste to energy. I go to various councils in my electorate, and they are all complaining about the issue of waste, and I say, ‘Why don’t you see waste as an opportunity, not a problem?’. Many people around the world see waste as an opportunity, not a problem. We need to make use of waste in a very productive way, and what better way to do it than translating waste to energy? It goes to the whole issue of the circular economy, which is a model of production and consumption which involves sharing, leasing, re-using, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products for as long as possible. In this way the life cycle of products is extended. In practice it implies reducing waste to a minimum.

I have been to waste-to-energy plants in the UK and Scandinavia, and I have to say they are very impressive. One I went to in London processes 30 per cent of London’s waste, and there is not an odour, not a skerrick of dust; there is nothing to indicate that you are in a situation where waste is being disposed of, and not anything is left. The energy it produces goes into the grid, the waste that is in the form of dust or very small particles becomes bricks and the slightly bigger particles become road-making materials. It is a very successful operation, run totally by the private sector. It does not need any government subsidy. Councils pay the firm to take the waste. It is shipped down the Thames on a barge to the plant, and there it is disposed of in these gigantic furnaces. There are of course no emissions. The argument against waste to energy is that it produces emissions, but it does not any longer. That has all been solved; it was solved in about the 1980s.

I also went to plants in Scandinavia, including one plant run by several municipal councils. They recycle absolutely everything. I saw cartloads of garden waste being brought in on trailers—it can be delivered over a 24-hour period. That gets converted into compost, which is then purchased by farmers to use in improving the productivity of their land. All the glass is recycled, the paper is recycled seven times, and again no emissions. Can you imagine? Nowhere in Scandinavia would you have emissions from anything. It is a very clean, green economy over there. In fact in Copenhagen I noticed there were seven recycling receptacles. I am not sure where you put them all if you live in a flat or whatever, but still you are able to recycle basically everything.

This is absolutely the way we should go. I am curious that this legislation puts a limit on how many tonnes we can utilise in this fashion in a year. I do not think there should be any limits at all. We should utilise as much as possible. I think it is appalling that we put waste in holes in the ground. I cannot believe that we still do something like that. We should have waste-to-energy plants, but of course you do need large volumes if you are going to have a very decently sized plant.

There are so many benefits from this method of dealing with waste, and it is something that we should have done long ago. We only have to look at where it is done elsewhere in the world to know that it works. I always notice the Greens are very opposed to this, and I would only say they must favour methane coming from the ground whilst we bury our waste in a hole. Surely it is much better to utilise it in a productive way. It creates jobs as well. I see that there are many benefits in other places in the world, and in the EU much is saved. It reduces the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions to a considerable extent. In fact currently the production of materials we use every day accounts for 45 per cent of CO₂ emissions. Moving towards a more circular economy delivers benefits such as reducing pressure on the environment, improving the security of the supply of raw materials, increasing competitiveness and stimulating innovation. It is boosting economic growth to the point of an additional 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product and creating 700 000 jobs in the EU alone. Those are the potential job results by 2030 in this whole circular economy area.

I think that we should have embraced it a long time ago, as I have said. The Victorian Liberal Party has a Zero to Landfill plan. It involves investing in new and upgraded local recycling systems in order to increase the volumes of recycled materials that can be processed in Victoria, and this visionary Zero to Landfill policy will also bring energy-from-waste technology currently being used in central Paris, Amsterdam, Germany and Singapore to Victoria. Large-scale energy-from-waste facilities will also create a low-emission baseload energy supply to help meet Victoria’s growing energy needs. Our policy will work with industry and councils to achieve a 33 per cent reduction of household waste going to landfill by 2025, a 66 per cent reduction of household waste going to landfill by 2030 and a 100 per cent reduction of household waste going to landfill by 2035. We will also commit $120 million over four years for the Sustainability Fund to create a zero-to-landfill fund with two streams: a recycling futures stream to upgrade recycling technology standards, rules and facilities and partner with local councils; and an energy-from-waste stream to deliver projects that recover energy from non-recyclable waste. We will also commit state government departments to work with industry to expedite approvals to get Victoria’s waste management and recycling back on track as quickly as possible. We will require the state government agencies such as Parks Victoria and the Victorian School Building Authority—I do not actually know why we have a school building authority, but anyway—to prioritise fully recycled plastic products as part of their purchasing policies.

There is a waste-to-energy facility in Western Australia currently. It is the Kwinana waste-to-energy facility, and it is an important and significant renewable energy project for Western Australia and Australia. It will be the first thermal utility-scale waste-to-energy facility constructed in the nation, diverting approximately 25 per cent of Perth’s post-recycling rubbish from landfill sites. That project will develop a waste processing facility which will use moving grate technology to process approximately 400 000 tonnes of municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and/or pre-sorted construction and demolition waste per annum to produce approximately 36 megawatts of baseload power for export into the grid. Macquarie Capital estimates that approximately 486 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions will be avoided per year compared with the carbon dioxide emitted from grid-generated electricity in Western Australia. The facility will also export 36 megawatts of electricity into the local grid, sufficient to power 50 000 households.

So what is not to like about waste to energy? There is so much to like about it, and I think that we all ought to do what we can to ensure that these projects get off the ground. I do see that we are trying to limit, as I said, the amount of waste going to waste-to-energy plants, and I hope we are not going to limit the number of enterprises that might get involved in this area. I do not think governments should be picking winners. If there are companies that are capable of providing this technology and performing this very worthwhile service and hopefully making money out of it and employing people, then I am all for as many as we can possibly find. I support the legislation. I will leave it at that and let my colleague Ms Bath continue with the legislation and the speeches. I think that we should all get on board with waste to energy.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:42): I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. I have something to say about waste to energy, but let us remind ourselves that in 2019, about three years ago, Victoria went through and indeed Australia went through a crisis when the waste and recycling services suffered severe disruption. The collapse of SKM Recycling left in Victoria 33 councils without kerbside recycling services, and that left no other option but to send the recyclable material to landfill. This coincided with the announcement of China’s National Sword policy, which banned the import of most plastics and other materials for recycling. This disruption demonstrated how exposed Victoria’s waste and recycling systems were to changes in the global markets and the effects those changes could have on local recycling service delivery. At the time, in order to help and assist the system, our government provided a $6.6 million relief package to assist councils impacted by those disruptions and also worked in partnership with councils, industry and the wider public to develop a policy which would address the issues in our waste and recycling sector.

Following public consultation, in February 2020 the government released Recycling Victoria: A New Economy, which is our 10-year circular economy policy. In 2021 the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill 2021 was passed, which provided the legislative framework for achieving many of the commitments outlined in the policy in 2020. This bill follows to provide these further reforms. Under this policy the Victorian government committed to overhauling our household recycling services, introducing a four-bin system and a container deposit scheme to improve the value captured from the materials we recycle. We committed to establishing a new government body, Recycling Victoria, which began operating on 1 July this year, 2022. Recycling Victoria set out four ambitious targets: firstly, to divert 80 per cent of waste from landfill by 2030; secondly, to cut total waste generation by 15 per cent per capita by 2025; thirdly, to halve the volume of organic material going to landfill between 2020 and 2030; and lastly, to ensure every Victorian has access to food and garden organic waste recycling services or local composting by 2030. The recycling infrastructure plan would allow us to mitigate risks to the industry in order to avoid another crisis like the one we had in 2019 as well as to create efficiency in the market to ensure it is operating at its best.

The opposition member talked about waste to energy and how glorious it is. I would like to add to that and also to debunk the myth about waste to energy. It is indeed a technology that we could use, but waste can be either recyclable or non-recyclable. The recyclable waste we recycle so we do not have to find new materials and then further damage the environment and ecosystem and generate further waste. For a small portion of non-recyclables, waste to energy could help, but we cannot be over-reliant on that or build overcapacity on that.

The opposition talked about how European and Nordic countries have been using waste to energy. Let me quote this. This is on the EU circular economy plans:

There is currently a flurry of activity in the EU around the circular economy. The continent’s ambitious recycling plans mean that most power production from waste could eventually run out of fuel and become obsolete.

Another statement:

The European Commission’s new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) aims to halve residual waste by 2030. The European Parliament’s report on CEAP calls for minimising waste incineration and calls on the Commission to define an EU-wide approach for the management of non-recyclable residual … waste that ensures its optimal treatment. It warns about building an overcapacity of waste incineration that could hamper the development of the circular economy.

That is one element of the bill we will be talking about.

The 2021 circular economy act forms a central part of the Andrews Labor government’s once-in-a-generation reform of Victoria’s waste and recycling system. This bill will further that. The bill will introduce a thermal waste-to-energy scheme which caps the processing of certain types of waste at facilities that process the waste using thermal waste-to-energy processes—that is, Recycling Victoria cannot issue licences that collectively exceed an annual cap on permitted waste, expressed as 1 million tonnes per financial year. Indeed that is necessary. Take the example of Denmark. They have some waste-to-energy processing, but now they have to import waste from overseas to be able to run their overcapacity facilities or factories. That will hamper their climate change target and also generate more CO₂ in the atmosphere.

This bill also enables the head of RV, Recycling Victoria, to deliver a Victorian recycling infrastructure plan, which consolidates existing multiplan frameworks into a single plan with a 30-year horizon to inform long-term strategic planning and support decision-making. Another element of the bill is to establish a risk, consequence and contingency framework to ensure risks and consequences are identified and then managed and contingency plans are implemented to minimise the impacts of serious disruptions to waste, recycling and resource recovery service delivery. The bill also provides for a new compliance tool on application by RV where courts may make monetary benefit orders to get the illegal profits made from non-compliance with the waste and recycling laws.

A further element, but also an important one, is that there will be an amendment in the bill to allow a new information-sharing regime, including to carry out its functions and to support its continuing close work with Recycling Victoria, the Environment Protection Authority Victoria and local councils. Other elements of the bill are about the protection of the environment. The bill will make amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 to improve its efficacy, including amendments to further equip the EPA and local government with powers to effectively undertake their regulatory functions. The bill will also amend the Environment Protection Act 2017 to allow RV to receive funding from the waste levy collected under the act, and certain amendments clarify the transition of permission issues in the repealed Environment Protection Act 1970 into the new framework, which will be applied from 1 July 2021.

To sum up, we as the government are constantly working with industry to promote investment and innovation when it comes to recycling, and this bill reflects those efforts. Analysis has proved that the Australian recycling sector creates 9.2 jobs for every 10 000 tonnes of waste managed, whereas on the other hand sending material to landfill creates only 2.8—about a third of the jobs that would be created by recycling. This government’s waste and recycling reforms will create nearly 4000 new jobs for the recycling sector. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:54): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. From the outset I would just like to put on record that, like the Liberal Party, the National Party will hold a not-oppose position, but we will seek also, with the Liberals, to amend this bill to improve its contents. The bill proposes reforms to the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 and looks at planning, risk, contingency planning and improving market reporting. It will amend a variety of acts—the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Sustainability Victoria Act 2005—and modernise and enable the thermal energy component that we are seeing the need for in our communities, the technology for which is advancing through a variety of consortiums, some of which are in my electorate and I will speak to today.

One thing that I think is really important was raised during the course of the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry that delved into renewables in our state—the importance of them, the variety of them and how in the transition to a low-carbon economy they will play an ever-increasing role. To assess this, naturally you must hear from a variety of witnesses throughout those hearings, which we did. It was potentially somewhat truncated for a very large topic. However, one of the startling pieces of information that I took away from that inquiry was the fact that in terms of renewables manufacturing and renewables componentry Australia—it was not broken up into Victoria—only produces 11 per cent of its renewables componentry, the various parts that make up either wind turbines or photovoltaic cells or even batteries as storage vehicles.

The renewables componentry is very important, and here I believe is a very big opportunity for our state; for my region, Eastern Victoria Region; and for the Latrobe Valley, which is very much at the epicentre of the transition. There are opportunities for not only investments in manufacturing of renewables but also looking at the whole-of-life, cradle-to-grave cycle of those components and the recycling of them, because if we are going to stand here and always sound pure about how renewables, when they are manufacturing electricity, do not produce any CO₂, we actually have to be fair dinkum and say, ‘Well, what is the cradle-to-grave analysis of the carbon footprint of any componentry?’. That is not to say do not do it—not by any stretch—but it is to say, ‘Let’s be honest and let’s work out the best form to mitigate CO₂ production from the cradle to the grave’. Also, how we dispose of the componentry has a toxic effect—there are various resins and the like. So let us be really honest and let us look at not only ways to manufacture and create jobs through manufacturing of componentry but also how we safely recycle them.

Part of the whole philosophy of this bill is looking at recycling, re-using and repurposing, and one of the particular issues that has been in play for a number of years is the cash-for-containers deposit scheme. The Nationals and the Liberals have been calling for this deposit scheme for a couple of years, and we know that the government has finally come to the table and is looking to introduce that scheme as of next year. Back in 2019, again on a committee, we took the opportunity to go to New South Wales and work out the pros and cons of how they did it. They are not necessarily trailblazers, but we saw what worked in the community at a community level, what worked at a logistical level, what worked for removal of litter and recycling of cans and also how it worked in the practicalities of a municipal waste format as well.

One of the key issues that this bill deals with is Victoria’s thermal waste-to-energy scheme. Now, I will put it on record here that I call it ‘energy from waste’ because in my electorate Opal—which is Australian Paper’s mill in Maryvale that for 80 years has been creating jobs and creating paper and is now really moving into the cardboard sector, which is good because we know we are all using far more cardboard—uses the term ‘energy from waste’. It is a tremendous opportunity there that is being realised. It has taken at least five years and many millions of dollars through business case studies, through investigations and through Environment Protection Authority Victoria assessments to get the tick of approval on all of those to move forward.

It was really pleasing to see that my colleague the Honourable Darren Chester, the returned member for Gippsland, made a commitment and had it signed off. It has now been assessed and will certainly go through, the energy-from-waste $48.2 million grant through the Australian government’s modern manufacturing initiative—a Liberal and National federal government initiative. It is good to see that really ramp up and come to fruition. There is much more money required. I think it is in the vicinity of a $600 million investment. This is about the red-bin waste. This is the non-hazardous residential waste material that would otherwise go to landfill, and it is very important. This is not taking away something that could be recycled; it is the running shoe that cannot have any components taken out of it and would otherwise go into landfill. The maximum capacity that this system will take is 325 000 tonnes of residential waste recovered and turned into energy. Again, this will have a really important effect in that this estimated energy from waste will reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria by 270 000 tonnes annually but also, very importantly, provide a sustainable and efficient waste management solution aligned to a circular economy.

I know that there are many people down there, and David Jettner is one of them—he has worked tirelessly for five years on this. It is a huge passion of his, to create positive solutions, reduce their energy consumption, produce that energy from waste and also create jobs and sustainable manufacturing well into the future. One of the other by-products of that is heat, and the next stage that they are looking at is growing barramundi and growing barramundi on a large scale. If you go into restaurants now, it is really common and fantastic to see barramundi. We want to see Australian-grown barramundi. It has nutritious value and is really important as a food source. It is fantastic to have it on our plates in Victorian restaurants. This is the next step in creating jobs—creating a whole, rich, valuable commodity as well with less water, fewer fossil fuels, more energy, less waste to landfill and certainly more sustainability. So I endorse that project and I am looking forward to seeing it come to fruition in a number of years, as that is the lead time to getting that up and running.

One of the other key things about energy from waste is it takes waste out of landfill. We have large centres on the east side of Melbourne that are going to be full to capacity. Hampton Park will be full to capacity. If that is full to capacity and we do not get these recycled, energy-from-waste circular economies in place, then we are going to have to transport waste across to Ravenhall, over the bridge. It would be a disaster. Why don’t we find something useful to do and do it on a grand scale? We propose to take the cap. I know this legislation looks at a cap in terms of energy from waste. We feel that that is not a sensible idea. Having a cap does not necessarily serve the community, and I would just like to rebut the former speaker. He was saying we cannot do energy from waste on a grand scale because in the long run we may run out of the ingredient and therefore it has served its purpose. Well, I see Victorian energy systems and recyclability et cetera evolving all the time. Once upon a time we used to use briquettes. Once upon a time we used to use a whole raft of things, and we are transitioning. Wouldn’t it be tremendous if in 40 years time or 30 years time we run out of energy-from-waste opportunities because we no longer have any landfill? I think the independent private industry will make those decisions on its own, and I support the process.

Certainly the other thing that I think is really important is zero landfill, and that has been The Nationals and the Liberals’ policy—and a very important one. Again on a committee we looked at waste and recycling. The Environment and Planning Committee looked at these circular economies and the importance of having a circular economy, and energy from waste was involved in that. The zero landfill policy really stems from looking at incorporating all of those circular economies. We, The Nationals and the Liberals, have a commitment to do that by 2035, and I think we have to use everything in our arsenal to be able to achieve that. There are some really good examples in Europe where there is very minimal—and I will say 1 to 4 per cent—waste going to landfill. They have a multipronged approach, and energy from waste is certainly part of that.

The other interesting factor that we see coming in is opportunities in a variety of contexts. One consortium that is operating in Gippsland is Gippsland Circular Economy Precinct. They are looking at taking recycled material, residual waste, and turning that into hydrogen. Now, it is not for me to say whether it should go ahead or not. They certainly have been doing a great deal of investigation—finances, expertise and money—and only a couple of weeks ago in Sale H2X, part of that consortium, presented at the Gippsland New Energy Conference. So it is certainly on the landscape. That is where private industry can, if they have got the gumption, go and investigate to see how that can be incorporated. It could be fuel cells in larger vehicles, and that is what they were talking about, in trucks. So that is a real positive as well.

Finally, in terms of container deposit schemes, there would be one word of caution I would put to the government. What we do not want to see—and we have seen it in other elements—is an operation where all of the contracts end up in metropolitan Melbourne. There are opportunities, for example, for the container deposit scheme to have distribution centres and operators working in regional Victoria. We need to be part of that landscape, and we need to have the opportunity not taken away from us in terms of putting out tenders for contracts. There is a special landscape that needs to be looked at. There are opportunities. Also if you talk about CO₂ miles, why are we going to transport waste and containers collected in East Gippsland, for example, in the far east of my electorate, all the way into Melbourne? There should be and could be opportunities, and I encourage the government to investigate those.

The government has also taken away localised contracts in terms of dry-cleaning. This is an example both in the CFA and in Ambulance Victoria. They have taken localised contracts from local drycleaners and are shipping them into Melbourne or into Shepparton, and I think that is absurd. So I also call on the government to make sure when these contracts are being awarded that they look to rural and regional Victoria.

Sitting suspended 4.09 pm until 4.28 pm.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:28): I rise to speak on this bill, particularly in relation to the waste-to-energy component that it addresses. The bill will cap the processing of certain types of hazardous waste in the waste-to-energy process, and I am very glad to hear that. I welcome that, and I welcome what the government is doing in the waste and recycling reforms in the bill. As Dr Kieu was saying, there is recyclable material and non-recyclable material. I would like to see that the only material that is considered for the waste-to-energy process is the non-recyclable component. I welcome the government’s goal of cutting waste by 15 per cent. That is something. It is not enough. There is a huge amount of waste that is generated. I welcome their progress on food and organics. That is progressing nicely throughout our municipal councils. But the whole purpose is recycling and repurposing of our waste.

Waste to energy forms a part of the circular economy concept. It is not a concept that I have strongly promoted, but it is vital to our future. We cannot continue consuming and disposing of waste as if the earth’s resources are infinite. They are not. We are already pushing against capacity constraints in many areas, especially global pollution—CO₂ pollution and plastics in the sea, many forms of pollution—and of course the extreme weather events that we see locally and worldwide are undeniable.

The climate is changing, the planet is warming and people want action. People were taking action, particularly when it came to recycling. They were diligently sorting their waste many years ago and allocating some of it to their recycling bins. Then they saw it taken away by people in a truck, and they assumed it was all recycled and the demand on this planet’s resources was being reduced. People were doing their bit. Then the news broke that the system they relied on was actually not working. Recycling was not taking place as people expected. There were big gaps in the system. People were doing their bit, but the system was not. This system failure represented a major and damaging failure for the government—not only this government—but it also represented a breakdown of trust between the citizens and their government on what they saw as a vitally important issue, and that is recycling. People were very enthusiastic about that many years ago.

One aspect of this bill, as I said previously, is to set the framework for incinerating waste—the so-called waste-to-energy process. Not surprisingly, while good in theory, people do not want such incinerators near their place of abode. They are reluctant to trust regulations around such facilities, and who could blame them? The people who oversaw the breakdown of the recycling systems are the same people who will be regulating the pollution and emissions from these incinerator facilities.

In this regard it is appropriate to revisit the Environment and Planning Committee’s 2019 inquiry into waste and recycling management and what it said about incinerating waste. I was on that committee and so were Mr Melhem and Dr Ratnam. Ms Taylor was on that committee too, and Mr Davis was on that committee. One issue that was raised was that these incineration facilities require a steady supply of waste to be economically viable. A number of environmental groups raised concerns that this factor could mean that incineration technology would not be used as it should, as recommended by the committee—that is, as a last resort for waste disposal of what cannot be recycled. The idea, and one that was very much backed by the report, was that there are many aspects to a circular economy and that the disposal of waste by burning should be a last resort for that which cannot be recycled or re-used.

The Boomerang Alliance stated that high demand for incinerator feedstock would ‘cannibalise any fledgling recycled materials recovery operations’. I was glad to hear Dr Kieu talk about the situation that has happened in Europe where some recycling facilities are importing waste from overseas to meet their contracts. There is that potential. It has the potential to damage a fledgling recycling industry as it offers an easy way out. A ‘Let’s burn it’ attitude will damage the core messaging around recycling. It is very important that waste to energy is implemented as a process complementary to recycling. It should not in any way replace recycling. I understand there are some models in Europe where burning is used as a last resort, and I believe we must stick as closely as possible to that model.

An area of concern is of course the length of contracts to make privately owned waste-to-energy incinerators viable. We might be faced with a situation where waste incineration contracts will have to be a staggering 25 years in duration. No-one knows what technological advances will have been made by then. There could be new processes, say, in 10 years time that render the whole burning option unnecessary, or we could by then have developed our nascent recycling industries and have a real circular economy, as recommended by the recycling and waste inquiry report. We could have eliminated a lot of plastic waste by then, with any luck. Recommendations have been accepted by the government from this report, so let us hope the government stick with what they have said they are adopting and continue to progress that. We will be stuck with long contracts otherwise, and a 25-year contract is a very long time to tie us to having incinerators.

Lee Bell, a well-recognised researcher and commentator on issues to do with toxic materials—he has been in this field for over 25 years—told the committee that a long-term contract would negate the benefit of future innovations in this sector and that councils would be locked into long-term incineration contracts and the benefits of new innovations could not be so easily taken up. Dr Kieu rightly made reference to that too in his contribution. The Municipal Association of Victoria also submitted that long contracts and their demand for feedstock could produce perverse incentives to generate additional waste, and to cite Lee Bell again, he pointed to recent developments in Europe, where incinerating waste is starting to fall out of favour. He said that Denmark and Sweden have imposed taxes on waste incineration due to its environmental impact and other countries are proposing taxes on plastic waste incineration. To quote the report:

The Europeans now recognise that you cannot burn your way out of climate change.

I now turn to the specific area of pollution from such facilities. The Boomerang Alliance told the committee that such waste-to-energy processes presented serious risks to human health and to the environment. I quote the Boomerang Alliance:

There is no thermal process to capture the embodied energy value of mixed waste that will not create significant pollution and toxic releases.

We have statements from the Victorian government that any incinerator proposal must demonstrate it can meet strict environmental standards. We would expect nothing less, but the enforcer of such standards, the Environment Protection Authority Victoria, has a credibility crisis in the eyes of the public. It has let the state down on a number of environmental issues, and it has been necessary for the government to intervene and shake things up there. Many submitters to our inquiry expressed concern about air-monitoring mechanisms for emissions from waste technologies. The committee report said that strict and effective monitoring would be crucial to ensure public confidence. Public confidence in environmental protection in this state is not high, to say the least.

Given the government’s track record when it comes to sites for such incinerators, when they are announced the beleaguered western suburbs of Melbourne are probably where facilities are likely to be located. I know there are some other sites already under active consideration, but it can be confidently predicted that there will be public outcry in the affected areas. It will not be put to a vote, because very few would vote for it, so it is no surprise that any announcement for such sites will occur after the election. And a large union has expressed concerns about air-quality monitoring. The Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation contend that air standards are not being adequately monitored and enforced here in Victoria even now and industry reassurances around pollution levels are unconvincing.

Once again going to Lee Bell, he told the inquiry:

To minimise the risk from the airborne dioxin emissions of incinerators, we also require highly competent regulatory authorities with in‑house technical expertise on monitoring and enforcement of POPs emissions.

Well, if you asked the general public if we had some highly competent regulatory authority with in-house technical expertise on monitoring and enforcement, then at best they would say the jury is out and at worst the answer after some laughter would be no. The Victorian public have seen the EPA’s track record on hazardous waste management, and they are not impressed.

We turn to the Auditor-General’s report of 2017 that found the EPA’s limited monitoring coverage does not provide it with information on air quality for most of the state, including parts of metropolitan Melbourne. The report was also critical of the EPA’s record on publicly reported data and described public confidence on the subject as having been undermined. The Auditor-General stated that improvements in EPA monitoring and management of emissions and pollutants were needed as a matter of urgency if waste-to-energy projects were to be launched.

The committee report also cited evidence from the Boomerang Alliance to say that emissions from such projects, even if implemented properly, will never be zero emissions, they will be reduced emissions. To quote the report:

… that is where you run into a whole lot of community problems. Some of the communities may already have highly polluted environments, which the waste-to-energy incinerator is adding to, and in the case of New South Wales we have yet to see a scheme that gives full confidence they can even meet the current emission limits with the current technologies they are proposing.

Another issue identified in the report is that of dealing with community concern in regard to these incinerators. The report says:

Adequate and meaningful consultation is crucial in order to take into account public health and environmental concerns.

One can only hope that this will happen, because clearly there is a lot of community concern.

The bill is essentially setting up a framework for waste incineration, but there are other more important aspects of a circular economy. Elimination of much of our plastic waste is really important. Proper labelling of plastics as to their method of disposal is essential, as is a huge public education campaign on how to recycle properly. Which bin does the waste go into? I walk down the streets of local shopping centres and look in the waste bins. They have recycling and they have waste to landfill. Both of them are identical in their composition. Both of them have coffee cups, lids, food containers, masks. There is no public effort to separate waste now—or very little—because people do not know how to do this. This is where the government should be aiming most of its attention in the circular economy.

Product stewardship—where are we on that? Making less waste-producing products and implementing a mandatory percentage of recycled material into government acquisitions of furnishings and road, paving and building materials would be at least a big start. These are all things that should be done. The burning should be a last resort, because if you set up the burning first, the temptation is to put it all in and burn it, so we really do need a cap on that. It is good there is a cap, but there are so many problems with relying on the waste-to-energy incinerators. Selecting the sites that are going to be complying with the standards—all of these things are going to be difficult for us, but it is something we have to tackle. I welcome that aspect of the bill. There may be improvements to come on it.

Other aspects of the bill allow Recycling Victoria to set a waste levy, support information sharing with Sustainability Australia and strengthen the Environment Protection Act 2017 with the further addition of regulatory functions—all of those are worthy of support. There is much to this bill. I wish it were more circular in its reference to the circular economy, not just talking about the disposal of last resort means, as I feel it should be.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:43): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill does quite a bit. It talks about infrastructure planning, risk and contingency planning and market reporting. It provides a legislative framework for the so-called circular economy, establishes a cap on thermal waste and provides a series of amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 and amendments to the Sustainability Victoria Act 2005. I should just be quite clear up front that we do not oppose this bill. We think there are some useful steps in the bill. We think there are things we might quibble about, but overall it is not a bill that we seek to oppose.

As Mr Hayes and others have pointed out, there was an inquiry by the Environment and Planning Committee. It looked at a number of these points around waste cycles and made a series of recommendations. I do note there was a minority report that Ms Bath and I wrote, and we pointed to some of the costs, the failure to properly undertake regulatory impact statements and the impacts on families, businesses and the economy. Having said that, many of the principles that were in that inquiry are ones that we agree with, but implementing these things is another matter and it does require care and attention.

In this case the bill, as has been outlined, does introduce major aspects of a circular economy, and I want to particularly zero in on some of the waste-to-energy components. The opposition has made a number of announcements around waste to energy. We support it as a way forward. We think that it is a way to both deliver modest and low carbon dioxide outcomes and particularly use waste in a constructive way, lowering the volume but also providing a useful energy source. It is the truth that in many other places around the world waste to energy is a much more important component than it is in Australia and certainly here. In that sense there is much to learn from overseas.

I do agree with some of the criticisms of the EPA, and I have been a long-term critic of the EPA as a weak and vacillating body that has not always filled the community with confidence about its capacity and its technical abilities indeed. To that extent, I agree with a number of the criticisms that have been made today. The Environment Protection Amendment Bill 2018, which went through in recent times and which in theory was to change it and make it all fabulous, I do not think has changed anything a bit. It is the same old body with the same old problems, so I just put those on record as perhaps a substrate there. I do believe that the EPA does need to be a more credible body, a body that is actually able to provide confidence to the community that it is in a technical sense beyond reproach, and I do not believe that that is the case.

Perhaps one example will suffice: the management of the toxic soil out of the West Gate Tunnel. What a complete and utter shambles. I have had cause to heavily FOI the EPA on these matters and to see the direct interference in the activities of the EPA, to the extent that Chris Eccles and cabinet ministers are meeting and having meetings pulled forward to, in effect, take over decision-making on matters around the West Gate Tunnel. The documents are, frankly, chilling in the sense that an independent agency is in effect being directed by a group of bureaucrats and ministers. Again, I do not think this is the way it should actually be. I just use that by way of example. There are many others that you could point to with the EPA over a lengthy period of time.

I think to make some of these energy options work well you do need confidence in the regulatory environment, and we are a little way from that. Notwithstanding that, the opposition see the opportunity for waste to energy and have made significant public announcements and have seen significant public support for a waste-to-energy regime. We think that the proposed restrictions in the bill are too narrow. There are restrictions that relate to individual outfits—individual operations—and in this case we have left them alone, but as far as an overall cap on waste to energy goes we have argued that there is not a sound basis for the way the government has structured this. Consequently—and I might ask that the clerks distribute these amendments—the opposition does have a series of amendments, and I will summarise quite succinctly. What we seek to do, with the advice of parliamentary counsel, is to ensure that there is no overall cap and that that restriction is not problematic.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr DAVIS pursuant to standing orders.

Mr DAVIS: That is the short story of the amendments. There is a series of them and consequential ones that flow from the intent to remove any cap on the aggregate amount of waste or component of waste that can go into a waste-to-energy regime. So that is where we are focused on this—to say there is opportunity. There is no need for a cap of that sort; we do not believe that that has been justified. That is our main point today.

For the minister’s benefit—and I did convey some of this to Jaala Pulford, but for Mr Leane as minister with carriage of the bill—I would seek some assistance at the start of the committee in terms of a commitment to provide some detailed reconciliation of the Sustainability Fund, the fund that is held at Treasury which the levies all build up in. I would point as a guide to the material that was provided to me some years ago by Mr Jennings when a similar bill—not a waste-to-energy bill, but an EPA-related bill—went through, and he provided significant reconciliation on the amounts of money that were in the fund. Updated figures to in this case I think 30 June would be the obvious date. But with that question and caveat, I am prepared and content to let the bill proceed.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:52): I am happy to speak on these reforms, noting that there certainly is an imperative to better manage waste—to repurpose waste first of all, but secondly and perhaps most importantly to reduce the waste we produce in the first place, because nobody likes landfill and certainly not the emissions that flow from that. As part of that, certainly the imperative to drive much better outcomes and really a truly circular economy has really required strong regulation, and so we are cumulatively ensuring that we have stronger management of waste and recycling in our state for very, very good reason.

I did want to just touch on a couple of points that have been raised today. One of them is—and I am going to be a little liberal in my language—this idea of not capping thermal waste to energy. I find that perplexing at best and actually troubling, very troubling, at worst, and I will say why. I have heard the opposition suggest, ‘Oh, we should look to Europe and learn from them’. Well, yes, we should learn from them for good reason, and I will tell you why: because we have seen what happens in countries where investment in waste-to-energy facilities is encouraged without regulation. These costly plants are built which require a constant, ongoing feed of waste in order to remain profitable, and now countries like Denmark are importing waste from other countries just to fuel their plants. This is not the future. I put it to you this is not the future we need or want for Victoria, and we do not have to have that. Today, passing this bill as it is, in the state that it is in, is the best way to protect against that kind of outcome, because there would be a further penalty for us all if we were to allow that to happen, and that would be that this would drive up our CO₂ emissions—this is what they have found in Europe—and it would be a significant obstacle in achieving our climate change targets. So let us not go down this road. Let us pass the bill with appropriate and strong regulation for the betterment of all Victorians.

The other thing that I did want to allude to is that part of the tighter regulation is ensuring that we have cleaner waste streams, because that then enhances the repurposing of waste. We know that if you, for instance, separate out glass from cardboard and do not let the shards get into that cardboard, both of those different waste properties, so to speak, can then be repurposed in a much more efficient way, therefore reducing landfill. And we all know that there is a big imperative to do that.

I should say, as it stands two-thirds of Victoria’s emissions from the waste sector result from the decomposition of organic material in landfill, and that is a travesty. This is something that we absolutely can turn around, and this is certainly built into our circular economy policy. I am someone who grew up with parents composting from when I was a little kid, learning the benefits of actually repurposing organic material in the best way possible and having worm farms—and now locally we have got the green bins et cetera, but we are going a further step with that because we are making sure that it is truly accessible across the state.

Having that central body, Recycling Victoria, enables us to truly streamline those waste systems and make sure that we truly repurpose the organic matter in such a way that is beneficial to our environment and not toxic to environment. The four-bin system, on that count, will make a huge difference to our environment. Giving Victorians access to a combined food and garden waste service will divert up to—get this—650 000 tonnes of organic waste from landfill each year, and that will in turn significantly reduce our state’s greenhouse gas emissions. That is a very exciting proposition. You can tell I get very excited about repurposing waste but also reducing waste in the first place. I just know there is so much that we can do here—we are already on track to do so—but let us pass this bill as it is to make sure we do not have this sort of uncapped thermal waste to energy. That is not the way to go for Victoria.

Finally, analysis has proved that the Australian recycling sector creates 9.2 jobs for every 10 000 tonnes of waste managed as opposed to going to landfill, whereas sending material to landfill creates only 2.8 jobs. This government’s waste and recycling reforms will create nearly 4000 new jobs, and this is exactly what our Andrews Labor government is all about. One, we are tackling climate change directly—we are making sure that we repurpose waste appropriately but also reduce the waste that we produce in the first place—and we are creating jobs at the same time.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:57): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill, which is the latest piece of legislation from the government on reforming Victoria’s waste system. I acknowledge that this bill introduces several governance and administrative reforms to improve the coordination of waste recycling and provides for the creation of the consolidated Victorian recycling infrastructure plan. These are reforms that the Greens support. However, I will focus my contribution on one concerning part of the bill that warrants more attention.

As we began this term of Parliament, Victoria was facing a serious waste crisis. Successive governments had failed to invest in a local waste management system, instead defaulting to the short-term solution of shipping our waste overseas and forgetting about it. When China stopped accepting our contaminated waste in 2018, our lack of any local recycling infrastructure sent the system into crisis. Recyclables were stockpiled in warehouses, posing serious fire risks. In fact at multiple warehouses we saw stockpiled recycling go up in flames, spewing toxic fumes into the air. Many councils were forced to send recycling trucks to landfill.

In 2019 the Greens initiated a parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s recycling and waste management system. This landmark inquiry found that our lack of any long-term planning for waste management in this state meant that the system was in dire need of broadscale reform. While the committee made a number of important recommendations for reforming our recycling and waste management system, some of which the government has now adopted, it did not go far enough when it comes to the types of transformation we need to create a long-term sustainable waste system founded on principles of recycling, re-using and reducing. The final report had one glaring omission: it failed to properly describe waste incineration as a threat to the development of a genuine circular economy. In my minority report to the inquiry I noted that:

Waste incineration has the potential to undermine recycling in Victoria and that Victoria is unprepared to deal with over 500,000 tonnes of toxic and other ash by-products that will be produced per annum if all proposals currently tabled proceed.

The Greens call for an urgent moratorium on new waste incineration plants in Victoria until 2030 to ensure that the full environmental and public health impacts are properly investigated. So it is really disappointing today to see this bill putting us on the path to a local waste incineration industry. Waste incinerators are expensive to build and expensive to run. They rely on a dedicated waste supply, which means that by signing contracts for new incineration plants we are basically agreeing to generate enough waste to fuel the plant for its lifetime. For example, a proposed waste-processing facility in our south-east, which would likely involve incineration, asked participating councils to commit to supplying minimum levels of waste over a 25-year period. Many of these councils were rightly outraged. At a time when we are trying to reduce the amount of waste we produce and encourage more re-use within a circular economy, guaranteeing a stream of waste in order to fuel a power plant is hypocritical.

I know that the government will claim that they are addressing this problem in this bill, as the bill caps how much incinerators can burn in a year, but this cap, which the government is setting at 1 million tonnes, is far too high. It also exempts projects that could burn a further 600 000 tonnes, meaning we could see up to 1.6 million tonnes of rubbish burnt in Victoria every year. The government’s proposed cap is more than all of the landfill waste collected from all of the household wheelie bins in Victoria in a year. This is not providing the necessary framework for a culture of recycling and re-using but is doubling down on incentives to produce more waste to burn.

I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to limit the capacity of any incinerators licensed under the bill to just 50 000 tonnes per year. This amendment would put a stop to incinerators becoming an industry in Victoria so that we can commit to developing a genuine circular economy. I am happy for those amendments to be circulated now.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: The last thing Victoria needs is an incineration industry. If we run out of waste, then the incinerators will need to find somewhere else to get the fuel the plants need. In Europe many countries have started to turn their coal-fired power stations into waste incinerators, which generate energy from biomass. But these biomass projects burn wood pellets that come from logging South American forests and from logging forests here in Australia—and they call it renewable energy! We are logging our own precious forests to create enough fuel for these plants to burn.

Here at home in Victoria Alinta Energy’s CEO has indicated he is considering turning Loy Yang B into a biomass incinerator and is looking at the European models as an example. Such a move risks condemning our native forests to even more destruction and is totally unnecessary when we can produce enough solar and wind energy to power our state. Thankfully the current Victorian government has exempted burning native forests in incinerators from its definition of ‘renewable energy’, but if Victoria allows large-scale incinerators to get up, the pressure on future governments to find more and more material for them to burn will only increase. The dying native forest industry is looking for ways to limp along, and incinerators must not become its lifeline. Our native forests are worth much more to us thriving than burning.

Let us not create an industry that becomes hungrier for things to burn, including our forests. The Greens support other aspects of the circular economy and other matters bill, but as my colleague in the other place put it, we ‘do not want the circular economy or our plastics to go up in smoke’.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:03): I am pleased to make some remarks this afternoon on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. I must say, listening to the contributions of Dr Ratnam and Mr Hayes, you are left with the feeling that nothing is ever good enough. No matter what is proposed, for Dr Ratnam it is not good enough. And hearing Mr Hayes speak about waste to energy, the fact that it may not be perfect is an argument, in Mr Hayes’s view, to not do it at all. I guess if you are in the situation of not having to implement the positions you put, not having to deal with the realities of the situation with waste in Victoria and Australia, you can hold those views—that if an option is not perfect you should not do it. But the reality is that this Parliament and the government have to deal with the waste situation as it is in Victoria and Australia, and that means implementing solutions which may not be perfect, as with most public policy areas that we deal with. We do not have the luxury of waiting for the perfect solutions; we need to work with the solutions that are available to us now.

I found ironic in the title of the bill the reference to the circular economy. The government likes to put the good bit in the title of the bill to mask the fact that what we have actually seen in the area of energy and waste management from this government is essentially incoherent policy. We have seen incoherence in energy policy, where the government has taken the position essentially of, ‘Let’s shut down our existing sources of energy before we have in place adequate sources of energy to replace them’. In many respects the approach on waste is the same, and I am sure that it is no coincidence that the minister is the same, because we see the approach this government has taken to waste management being one essentially of making it harder and harder for people to use landfill. We have seen a substantial decline in the number of landfills available, both licensed and unlicensed, in Victoria over the last 20 years. We have seen a substantial consequential increase in the cost of using landfill, with a rose-tinted view that this will mean everyone will recycle, and of course that has not been the reality. What we have seen as the cost of using landfill has gone up is increased dumping of waste and rubbish on the sides of roads and in other areas, particularly on the outskirts of rural towns.

The government’s view seems to be one of, ‘If we close landfills, people simply will not generate waste’, and that has not been the case. We saw—and Dr Kieu spoke about this in his contribution—the issue we had with recycling two years ago, where the recycling system in Victoria collapsed and we saw 60 per cent of material that was put into recycling bins end up in landfill. That sent a very strong message to the Victorian community around the lack of importance the government placed on recycling, because the knowledge that 60 per cent of material going into recycling was initially stored and then dumped in landfill sent the message that recycling was not important at the retail level. We have seen an increase, consequently, in the level of mixed content going into recycling bins—content which cannot be recycled and subsequently needs to go to landfill. Of course the government’s policy of mandating more and more bins, splitting the waste stream into four streams at the household level, is only going to lead to that problem being exacerbated, because with four bins you have got a 75 per cent change of putting the material in the wrong one. We are likely to see, with the introduction of the fourth bin, that becoming a larger and larger problem—waste being put into the wrong bin. I think it was Mr Hayes who spoke about the fact that many of these bins are indistinguishable in the way in which they are labelled.

One of the opposition’s key concerns with this bill—and Mr Davis spoke about it in his contribution—is the intent to cap the volume of waste which can go to waste-to-energy plants. We actually see waste to energy as a viable way of managing the waste stream in Victoria. It has been used very successfully in the United States and very successfully in Europe for decades. Mrs McArthur in her contribution spoke about visiting plants in other jurisdictions where modern incineration technology has been used to manage waste to generate energy in a way which produces very few emissions and deals with a growing waste problem. By putting a cap in place with this legislation the government seeks to basically undermine that sector, that possibility, before it gets off the ground. We know that it is an industry sector which needs to operate at scale. If it is to be successful, the waste stream going to waste-to-energy facilities needs to be at a viable level, and artificially capping that simply risks undermining the viability of any plants which may be built.

Ms Bath in her contribution spoke about the Australian Paper plant which is being built at Maryvale. It is a substantial investment by Australian Paper to reduce its reliance on third-party energy supply and to create an ability for that facility to produce its own energy to meet its own requirements for the paper processing plant. That plant, at the scale it is going to be built, will require around 325 000 tonnes of waste to operate at full capacity. That is around a quarter of the rubbish stream, the waste stream, from domestic households in Victoria; when you take out the recyclables, the garbage stream that is left is around 1.2 million tonnes. That plant at Maryvale needs around a quarter of that to be viable. That indicates just how significant the waste stream is that is required to make plants like that viable, and that is simply to provide power to Australian Paper. So artificially capping the total volume of waste which can go to plants risks undermining the sector before it even gets up and operating. And given we are seeing problems with landfill and ongoing problems with recycling, the government’s decision—the government’s intent to handicap waste to energy before it gets off the ground—is absolutely regrettable and a decision that this side of the house does not support.

I would like to turn to the issue of the management of landfills and one which in particular has become of great concern and frustration to constituents in my electorate, particularly at Hampton Park. The Hallam Road landfill is a long-term landfill which is reaching the end of its life, is reaching capacity. That facility has existed, as I said, for a number of years in that area, and increasing frustration has been experienced by the residents of Hampton Park due to the EPA’s unwillingness or inability to manage the oversight of that landfill.

There are a number of conditions in place for the operation of that landfill related to issues such as water run-off, litter, noise, odour—all the sorts of things you would expect to be regulated in relation to a landfill—but the EPA and the minister responsible for the EPA have consistently failed to ensure that the EPA is providing oversight of those terms and conditions under the operating permits. Numerous neighbours to that property have raised concerns about particularly issues like run-off and litter on adjoining properties which are used for farming, and the EPA has failed to uphold the permit conditions and the minister has failed to uphold the permit conditions. And while the government acts in such a way, while the EPA fails to do its job, facilities like the one in Hallam Road will continue to be of concern to the local community, and that will make it increasingly difficult for the government to find waste solutions which are acceptable in any community where they are located. If the community cannot have confidence that the EPA will do its job in upholding permit conditions around environmental matters at waste facilities, why would any new community have any confidence that a facility the government wanted to put in place in the future was going to be properly oversighted?

We have seen in the last few months further moves in relation to the Hallam Road facility, with a proposal via the City of Casey, with the imprimatur of the Victorian government, for that facility to become a transfer station. That is at odds with the expectation of the local community, who believed that that landfill was coming to end of life and would become public open space at the end of its life and are now being told that it will become a transfer station. The minister has, I understand from one of the local papers, asked the City of Casey to extend its consultation period in relation to that matter, presumably so it can be delayed until after the election so that the minister does not have to make a final decision on it prior to the election, but that has come absolutely out of the blue for the local community, who expected that facility to close and expected that land to become public open space.

Again, it highlights the way in which community expectations are not being met and the reason why the government will find it increasingly difficult to address the waste issue through the creation and construction of new facilities—because the community will not have confidence in them. Unless they can get their house in order and manage existing facilities appropriately—oversee existing facilities appropriately where they are operated by the private sector—the community is not going to have confidence, and that is going to be an ongoing problem.

We do not oppose this bill. We do have concerns about the way in which the government seeks to arbitrarily cap the refuse flow to waste-to-energy facilities. We believe that undermines their future viability and undermines the capacity of this state to manage its waste into the future. We will therefore be seeking to make an amendment when the bill gets to committee.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:16): I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It is a bill I am very happy to be speaking on as it reinforces the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to creating a circular economy and a strong recycling system that limits waste in our state. Time and time again we have seen strong environmental legislation brought to our Parliament by the relentless and tireless Minister for Environment and Climate Action and Minister for Solar Homes, Lily D’Ambrosio, and this legislation is just the latest in her steadfast commitment to the Victorian environment as minister. Victoria is now leading the nation in environmental action and emissions reduction. Ever since we came to government in 2014—strongly and ably led by Minister D’Ambrosio—we have worked every single day to deliver climate justice in Victoria.

Only Labor can deliver a circular economy that Victorian households, business and industry can rely upon. We do not just talk about taking action, we get results. We are delivering the largest and most extensive transformation and reform of the state’s waste and recycling sector in Victoria’s history. These reforms will divert 80 per cent of our waste away from landfill by 2030. Not only is this sustainable and will cut down on our state’s waste but it will create good local jobs for Victorians. Indeed it was only a fortnight ago that this government co-announced, with the new federal Albanese government, funding to boost Victoria’s recycling and remanufacturing of plastic, paper, cardboard and tyres. It is part of the Andrews Labor government’s unprecedented $515 million investment to deliver our transition to a circular economy. This will support the creation of more than 3900 Victorian jobs, deliver on our climate change targets and ensure that Victorians, our businesses and vital industries have a recycling system they can rely on.

This is in stark contrast to the Greens, who might say that they support the circular economy, but two weeks ago in the other place the Greens’ position on waste to energy was to have none in Victoria. They proposed an amendment to that effect. This week their amendment seeks to place a cap at 50 000 tonnes a year. Victorians might rightly be asking themselves what position the Greens will take two weeks from now. Modelling shows that waste-to-energy facilities usually have less emissions than landfills. It is simple science. Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Landfills release methane, and burning that methane turns it into carbon dioxide, which is significantly less harmful, not to mention that by burning that methane for energy you are feeding back into the grid and displacing other non-renewable energy sources—aka, we burn less coal.

The Greens might say they fully support a circular economy with no material going to landfill or waste to energy, but as is usual, that is not the world we live in. Victorians send over 4 million tonnes of material to landfill each and every year. While our government is making great strides to reduce that figure with over $102 million in grants allocated to support new and developing recycling technologies, this will not happen overnight. In the meantime landfills are filling up, and that rubbish needs to go somewhere. Waste to energy has its role to play, and our government has always said that it is better than sending things to landfill. While we do not support letting it develop completely unregulated, as we have been clear, a 50 000-tonne cap would effectively prevent any new waste-to-energy plant from coming online in our state. The Greens have not properly consulted on this policy. This is evidenced by the fact that they have changed their minds in the last two weeks. Unlike the Andrews Labor government, they have not held months of industry and community consultations and forums to ensure that we get policy outcomes that create the best outcomes for the Victoria of today. I would question whether they have thought about the many complexities associated with this number, which to me was seemingly plucked from the air.

Would that 50 000-tonne cap licence be allocated to just one boutique operator? How would the financials stack up for that operator? How would that single facility be located and where would it go? How many trucks would it take to transport waste from all over Victoria to that one single facility? What will be done with the non-recyclable waste currently going to metropolitan landfills that are currently scheduled to close within the next few years? And do they support building new landfills across suburban Melbourne? None of this is surprising. The Greens just truly do not support a just transition across any sector. They ask for power stations to be closed overnight with no thought to the thousands of jobs that would be lost, the necessary upgrades to transmission lines that would need to be completed or the fact that the lights simply would not turn on.

Dr Ratnam: On a point of order, Acting President, I just want to clarify. I understand that the member has misinterpreted my amendment. I just wanted to bring her back to the actual amendment, which is not what she is representing in terms of one plant across Victoria. I am just confused about the representation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): There is no point of order. The member is obviously interpreting the amendment as she sees it.

Ms WATT: They might want to wave their magic wands, but we know that any reform is only possible if you bring the community with you. That is the foundation of our waste industry reforms and that is the foundation of all of our government reforms. We set ambitious, achievable goals based on sound public policy, and we bring the community with us. By contrast, our government has a 10-year plan to address the urgent challenges in the recycling sector and make fundamental changes to prevent those issues from recurring. Under our plan Recycling Victoria: A New Economy, we are committed to overhauling our household recycling services and introducing a four-bin system and a container deposit scheme to improve the value captured from the materials we recycle. We also committed to the establishment of a new government body, Recycling Victoria, which began operating on 1 July this year.

Recycling Victoria: A New Economy sets out four ambitious targets for improving our state’s recycling system. These are:

Divert 80 per cent of waste from landfill by 2030, and an interim target of 72 per cent by 2025.

Cut total waste generation by 15 per cent per capita by 2030.

Halve the volume of organic material going to landfill between 2020 and 2030, with an interim target of 20 per cent reduction by 2025.

And lastly, the plan will:

Ensure every Victorian household has access to food and garden organic waste recycling services or local composting by 2030.

The plan also includes a commitment to address plastics pollution. In February 2021 our government announced a ban on specific single-use plastics as part of our delivery of this commitment, and under the Recycled First initiative all major Big Build rail and road construction projects are optimising their use of sustainable and re-used materials. Recycled aggregates, glass, plastic, timber, steel, ballast, crushed concrete, crushed brick, crumbed rubber, reclaimed asphalt pavement and organics are all being used in place of new materials on major road projects. 190 million recycled glass bottles are being used in the $1.8 billion western roads upgrade; more than 400 000 tonnes of high-grade recycled content have been used in the western roads project; and another 200 000 tonnes of recycled materials have been identified for use in the M80 ring-road, Monash Freeway and South Gippsland Highway upgrades. In fact in a world first, noise walls along the Mordialloc Freeway will be made from 75 per cent recycled plastic, including milk and soft drink bottles and soft plastics like bread bags and food wrappers in what should be marked very publicly as Australia’s greenest freeway.

Closer to home, Australia’s Melbourne Zoo also takes sustainability and recycling very seriously. The CEO, Dr Jenny Gray, showed me during a recent visit the vast amount of materials diverted from landfill under their waste management scheme. I was truly amazed to find out that Melbourne Zoo has managed to recycle materials as far and wide reaching as animal manure, food waste, garden waste, animal bedding, sludge, comingled waste, food and cardboard, soft plastics, hard plastics, polystyrene, electronic waste, chemicals, mobile phones, office supplies and cartridges. In total that equates to 88.5 per cent of all materials used at Melbourne Zoo being recycled. Not only are they leading the way in protecting endangered species, but they are also a profound community role model in sustainability and contributing to a circular economy in our state. Next time you head to the zoo do not forget to take your old mobile phone with you, the one that you do not use any more, and help give back to our beautiful, beautiful animals.

There are countless more organisations in my community that are making important contributions to the circular economy. I recently met with the CERES CEO, Cinnamon Evans, as well as the chair of the board, Andrew Hewett, at their iconic environmental precinct in Brunswick East to discuss their plans to expand their environmental work, including education for school groups in recycling initiatives. CERES—oh my gosh, it is just so good, and it is a great example of a community and social enterprise that provides environmental education and sustainable food production and, importantly, is a leader in recycling and reducing waste.

Going back to the bill, it specifically implements a waste-to-energy scheme which caps the processing of certain types of waste at facilities using thermal waste-to-energy methods. Waste to energy involves turning waste materials into heat or electricity. After waste avoidance, re-use and recycling, waste to energy is the final opportunity to get value from materials that would otherwise go to landfill. The bill will also make amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 which will equip the EPA and local government with the powers to effectively undertake their regulatory functions under the Environment Protection Act 2017, such as enabling the EPA and councils to appoint third parties as authorised officers. Other amendments will mitigate the risk of liquidators avoiding clean-up costs. The bill will also amend the Environment Protection Act 2017 to allow Recycling Victoria to receive funding from the waste levy collected under the act.

Recycling is one of the primary ways most Victorians engage with sustainability policy. Everyone puts things in the bin, and when people put things in the recycling bin, they want to do so with the confidence that those materials will actually be re-used or repurposed. We know that an industry as large as the waste and recycling industry requires strong regulation. Until 1 July this year there had not been one central body responsible for this regulation. Our government changed that by creating Recycling Victoria, a body responsible for overseeing and providing strategic leadership to the sector. This bill includes important reforms that will allow Recycling Victoria to provide that necessary leadership and guidance. They will have the powers to oversee, to anticipate and to mitigate risks to the stability of local waste and recycling markets.

Since the passage of the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill 2021, which established Recycling Victoria, we have continued to develop reforms, including enhanced statewide infrastructure planning and a cap on thermal waste-to-energy processing in Victoria, and these reforms require further legislative change. This infrastructure planning will allow Recycling Victoria to mitigate risks to the industry in order to avoid another crisis like the one in 2019 as well as create efficiencies in the market to ensure it is operating at its very best. The cap on thermal waste-to-energy processing in Victoria will ensure that we do not create an over-reliance on this technology in Victoria. Wherever possible we will seek to maximise our recycling of materials. Waste-to-energy facilities are an important alternative for residual waste, aka that waste that cannot be recycled.

The reforms in this bill build upon the important reforms that the government has already achieved, including our reforms to kerbside waste collection. By 2030 all across Victoria, no matter where you live, every household will have access to four separate waste stream services: food and organics, glass, commingled recycling and residual waste. For most households this will come in the form of four bins. Each bin will have a standard colour, and the rules about what can and cannot go in each bin will be standard across the state. So when you head down the coast on a holiday you will know that you can recycle all the same products as you can back home with confidence. And on bins, I know that many residents of the Greens-led Yarra City Council will be hoping there will be a return to weekly recycling bin collections after they were cut by the then Greens mayor, Gabrielle de Vietri. My office has been contacted several times over this issue, and I am hopeful that the council will listen to the concerns of residents.

This four-bin system is special. It will make a huge difference to our environment, giving Victorians access to combined food and garden waste services which will divert up to 650 000 tonnes of organic waste from landfill each year. That will, in turn, significantly reduce our state’s greenhouse gas emissions. As it stands, two-thirds of Victoria’s emissions from the waste sector result from the decomposition of organic material in landfill. Delivering these waste reforms is a key part of our state’s ambitious climate change strategy—the strategy that stands side by side with global leaders on climate change as we make good on our commitments under the Paris agreement.

A separate glass bin will mean that the quality of our recyclable materials will be vastly improved. Glass creates problems when mixed with other recyclables in a bin and in collection trucks because it often breaks and becomes embedded in plastics and paper, making it harder to recycle and ultimately of a lower value. When we separate out our glass, both the glass and the rest of our recycling in our yellow bins will become much more valuable for industry to re-use. We are constantly working with industry to promote investment and innovation when it comes to recycling, and this bill reflects those efforts. I commend it to the chamber.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:30): I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. We like to feel good, and often one of the easy ways to get some of those good feelings is to feel like we are doing good, to feel like we are teaching our children to do the right thing. Before 2019 this is probably how many families felt when they were recycling, carefully sorting items into the appropriate bins and feeling like we had made a meaningful contribution to the environment. The sad truth, though, and to some extent it was a global truth, is that much of this recycling was simply waste that was being shipped off to China mostly not to be recycled. So we felt good, but we likely achieved less than nothing. For much of this waste we would have been better off with it just going to landfill or better yet a waste-to-energy plant rather than expending energy and CO₂ emissions to send it to China for it to end up being incinerated or dumped into the Yangtze River and converted to microplastics in the oceans.

Thankfully this bill opens up a better framework for the establishment of waste-to-energy facilities in Victoria. It is far too late, but we have finally got here. While it is clearly a sensible idea to convert waste that is difficult or expensive to recycle into energy, you have to wonder if we might have arrived here earlier if the government had just thought to rebadge it as the circular economy from the outset. It is one of those feel-good, fuzzy kinds of titles for a bill, the circular economy bill. It brings to mind phrases like ‘We’ve come full circle’ or the ‘circle of life’. Certainly in the other place there were plenty of feel-good vibes not just about the bill but the bill title as well. But what does the bill actually do? Is it all that much? Or is it just another fuzzy illusion to make us feel good that we are doing the right thing?

Before we get to the details in the bill, let us just reflect a little bit on some of the lessons from the recycling crisis that we endured from 2017. As with the toxic waste associated with the production cycle for much of our weather-dependent energy technology—out of sight, out of mind—our recycling was happily sitting in massive stockpiles in China or in warehouses and on industrial sites around Victoria. But then some of these Victorian stockpiles caught on fire from 2017 onwards. This was not only dangerous but also a complete waste of energy that could have been harnessed. And worse, China decided that it did not want to be the dumping ground for the virtuous illusions of Western nations and banned the import of this waste. This set off a cascading set of events that led to increased stockpiles of waste in industrial areas around metropolitan Melbourne, several more fires at some of these places spewing out toxic fumes and the collapse of SKM Recycling, all leading to a crisis in local government as they scrambled to find a solution to waste management. By the time this all played out, tens of thousands of tonnes of compressed kerbside waste had been sitting in shipping containers for nearly two years and was completely contaminated and unsuitable for recovery. If only we had had some high-capacity waste-to-energy facilities at the time, but alas it went off to South Australia to be dumped in landfill.

2019 can seem like a distant time and place with everything that has transpired over the past couple of years, but it is notable that the first item of business before the Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee was a comprehensive inquiry into recycling, which took up much of 2019. It would be fair to call this inquiry comprehensive, with over 700 submissions and many days of hearings. As reflected in the committee report, the government and the regulators had been asleep at the wheel, with a lack of planning and infrastructure investment despite clear signals that the Chinese government was shifting towards restricting the import of contaminated recycling. To be fair to this government, they were not alone in leaving this policy area on set and forget.

Other key findings of the inquiry included that there was widespread confusion about what could actually be recycled. Our attempts to be good environmentalists probably decrease the amount and efficiency of recycling. This is due to another key finding: that contamination was a significant impediment to more successful recycling. Several recommendations related to policy uncertainty around waste-to-energy facilities. This is important to provide certainty to investors and local governments. My colleague Mr Quilty has made me aware of at least one proposal from Bendigo shire to develop a small, modular waste-to-energy facility to deal with their municipal waste. They also expressed frustration that the funds from the government’s landfill levy have not been made available, particularly for regional projects like this one.

Here we come back to the contents of this bill. It follows on from previous legislation, and while it makes several small changes, perhaps the most significant is establishing a framework for incorporating waste-to-energy facilities into Recycling Victoria and broader waste plans. Importantly this does include thermal waste-to-energy facilities to ensure that, if materials cannot be reclaimed, at least the energy embodied in them can be. It is about time. This bill does however propose a cap on these licences, with the stated concern being that building to capacity could result in stranded assets if rates of waste going to landfill decline, as some other jurisdictions have experienced. This concern should be balanced against the ability of the market to analyse their own investment risk and the problem of setting the cap so low that it guarantees more waste going to landfill when it might be better used generating energy. There is also the issue of border regions, where a facility may be negotiating with local governments both in Victoria and in another state and the capacity constraints would not be determined solely by the amount of Victorian landfill waste.

I would however like to thank the Minister for Environment and Climate Action for personally briefing me and my colleague Mr Quilty on this bill. Ministers often leave this task to senior advisers, so that was appreciated. I would also like to thank her office for responding to some follow-up questions. The bill exempts waste-to-energy projects that are already operating or have planning approvals. I was curious to know how many of these there are, what their operating capacity is and what percentage of Victoria’s current landfill this represents. The response that I received from the minister’s office is that there is currently one plant in operation and three that have planning approval. The combined operating capacity if they are completed as proposed would be just over 1 million tonnes out of a total 4 million tonnes of waste that goes to landfill every year. This is a good start, and it is encouraging that we are moving forward and starting to get a handle on waste management.

I believe there are amendments from the opposition and the Greens, one proposing to remove the cap on licences and one proposing to restrict the capacity to 50 000 tonnes. I will be supporting removing the cap. It is not the government’s role to manage investor risk, and if we reduce waste in Victoria and they have the capacity to seek waste from elsewhere, isn’t that better than it going to landfill there? We could utilise the energy here. As far as the amendments from the Greens go, this is perfectly in line with the Greens’ vision of society—devoid of any interaction with economics, where housing appears by magic, we drive Teslas and society is powered by unicorns. In an ideal world, maybe we would all reduce our waste to one wheelie bin per month, products would have perfect re-use and nobody would ever drop their litter on the ground. But we live in this world, and sometimes a decent solution is better than a perfect one.

In 2019 I asked the then minister for the environment what they were planning to do with all of the used and broken solar panels when the proposed e-waste landfill ban came into effect. It turned out the government was funding the construction of 121 sheds to stockpile them while they figured out a solution. Presumably they are still in the sheds. I do not know if there is plan for how to handle decommissioned wind turbines, but this was a challenge identified in the federal Parliament’s inquiry into recycling, with the last recommendation suggesting that the federal government work with state governments to establish a plan. Hopefully it is a bit better than sticking them in a big shed until someone figures it out. I note that some European countries are actually shredding them and using them in waste-to-energy facilities, but this brings us back to the tension between feel-good solutions and real ones.

If we really wanted to come up with energy and climate change solutions, we would be giving serious consideration to nuclear. It might not perfectly fit into this idea of a circular economy, but perhaps it is better than our current weather-dependent technologies, which need to be replaced every 20 years or so. We know how to manage the waste, very little is produced and we know how to safely store it.

Back in 2019 the government passed a bill to ban plastic bags, or at least that is what was promoted and reported. It did not really ban them though; it simply mandated that they be thicker and larger so that they could be re-used—allegedly. I am not sure if the trendsetters in Melbourne’s north realised when they were congratulating themselves for how responsible they were being by staying home during the pandemic and having Uber Eats deliveries that, rather than the old polyethylene plastic bags that required very little energy or materials, these deliveries now come in very thick paper bags; as I discussed at the time, it is just about the most resource-intensive way to create a bag for deliveries.

The minister confirmed at the time that there was no auditing or review process to actually assess whether the ban achieved any significant environmental outcomes. It was just about the vibe of it. While I am generally supportive of this bill, as it does create a framework for further expanding waste-to-energy facilities, I am concerned about the idea that we may keep chasing fluffy ideas with diminishing returns and unknown secondary effects.

I know that several members in the other place have mentioned this company, but it would be remiss to conclude this speech without acknowledging one of the most successful companies in this state at creating profitable and effective solutions for resource recovery. I had the pleasure of touring the facilities of Alex Fraser Group before the pandemic as they were seeking support for ensuring that they had operating certainty at their Clarinda facility in my electorate. My office reached out to them for an update in preparation for this bill, and it is encouraging that their licence has been extended for another 10 years. This company has managed to create a competitive business recycling glass and construction material for road base and asphalt.

Perhaps when I drive down the new Mordialloc Freeway extension I will enjoy some of those good vibes, knowing that it was made from recycled materials—not only that, from a company that, while receiving some small grants from the government, seized a market opportunity to create a needed product that was not just environmentally friendly but market competitive. While the former Minister for Roads declined my suggestion to rename the freeway as the TISM freeway, I will forever know it as the TISM freeway. Maybe I will throw on their 1996 single Garbage with the fantastic cover that states, ‘This is garbage. Don’t recycle it’. I will close with some lyrics from that single:

Now I know that we should separate our garbage

The environment will give us thanks

It’s going too far when teenagers recycle

Their parents’ adolescent angst

I commend this bill to the house.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:42): I rise today to speak on one of my favourite topics: waste. It is something that I brought up in my inaugural speech. It is something that I have been extremely passionate about for the last 25 years, and in my 21 years in local government I sat on waste boards. In my inaugural speech one of the things that I said I really wanted to achieve in my time here in Parliament was to have some waste solutions for the whole of Victoria. I have had some success, being that in 2019 I brought a motion around organic waste and I sat on the committee that looked into this. I was not on any committee until that committee that sat in 2019, and I was encouraged to go on as a participating member because of my waste knowledge and was then able to happily see what actually came out of that. There were so many groups that I knew of at that time.

But I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill amends a number of acts to include a new thermal waste-to-energy scheme, to deliver a new recycling infrastructure plan and a risk framework and to provide new compliance tools and better information sharing, and these are things that I have raised many times. You have 79 councils with 79 ways of educating the community. It has to be a statewide plan. It has to include statewide education, which over this time, with my personal push, has actually occurred. My other push was obviously for waste to energy, which I am glad to see.

The environment and waste management are longstanding passions of mine. I have been on waste boards for 20 years, and when I was on council various state governments consulted me regarding the solutions to the waste problem. But throughout that time I was very critical of governments in the past not making waste and recycling a priority. It has been a first within this house to see some of the concerns that I have had for 25 years being actually addressed. But I must say a lot of these reforms are still not occurring as quickly as I would like them to occur. I know the reforms cannot be implemented overnight, but some of these have been a long time coming.

In June 2019 the Victorian Auditor-General tabled a report in Parliament about recycling, recovering and reprocessing resources from waste, and in this report the Auditor-General was highly critical of the government’s arrangements and the fact that there was no overarching statewide policy governing recycling and waste management. The Auditor-General considered that the statewide guidance was unclear, that there was limited implementation of the statewide strategies and that gaps existed in statewide waste management instruments such as relevant plans, strategies, policies and regulations. So it appears that this government has taken over three years to actually do something about it, to consolidate a plan and be prepared.

In November 2019 the Environment and Planning Committee, which I sat on, tabled a report on the inquiry into recycling and waste management. Four of the recommendations in the report were about waste to energy. The government’s waste-to-energy policy was published in February 2020. In November of 2021 the Victorian waste-to-energy framework was released as part of a Recycling Victoria policy, yet here we are at the end of August 2022 and this government is now bringing the legislation to introduce a waste-to-energy scheme.

We have been waiting for our container deposit scheme to start. That was announced in April last year, and we are to wait until sometime next year. Almost 56 per cent of waste in your average red-lid bin is food waste, yet we have to still wait until the end of 2030 for a food and garden organics service. It is still going to be a long time in this government’s eyes. It is just not good enough. We need action on the environment and on waste now. We do not want to have to keep waiting around for years for this government to deliver on what has been announced. It has shown that this government has not made waste a priority. They could have actually pulled the trigger to get any of these things to happen through this time, and they have not. They have waited until the last minute and will still have targets—till 2030—for years to come.

I will not accept the excuse of the pandemic as a reason why all of these policies have not been done. If anything, this pandemic has shown that this government still has not made waste a priority. During this pandemic they were happy for people to walk around with surgical masks even though we knew that the N95 mask was the mask that actually stopped this virus. We have had litter continually for the last three years. We have got face masks everywhere. You cannot walk around Victoria at this time without finding a dirty surgical mask on the ground or a cloth mask on the ground—both masks absolutely useless through this pandemic. And it is sad, because at times when I have brought this issue up over the last three years I have been told, ‘Oh, no, haz waste is somebody else’s responsibility. Even though we’re handling the pandemic, we’re not going to provide hazardous waste bins throughout the community for the community to actually put away their surgical masks, to have good handling of this medical waste’. They virtually encouraged people to throw them in, hopefully, either a bin or their home bin, but it would seem that that never really occurred because this government did not put hand in glove in the way of making surgical masks, medical waste and hazardous waste priorities at the same time. It was another mismanagement throughout this pandemic. There will be others in this room that will espouse that they are all about the environment and not using single-use items but would happily use a lot of these single-use items that were useless as well as not push for the proper disposal of these items.

I feel like I have been the only voice in this chamber who has said that over the last three years, but if I am wrong, please get up and say, ‘No, Dr Cumming, I too pushed regarding the single-use surgical masks that are in every single gutter, on every single beach, in every single park and in every single place around Victoria’. Our beautiful Victoria has been littered with these useless surgical masks as well as these useless cloth masks. You do not see too many of those N95s disposed of incorrectly, but take a photo and send it to me; I would love to see.

I have also brought up in this place the importance of waste to energy and how other countries around the world have done wonderful things, like in Hawaii. Hawaii has the same population as Victoria—around 6 million people. Hawaii is just an island. It does not have any holes. They have had waste-to-energy plants there for 20 years. They have also taken other steps in the way of dealing with their garbage. They have clear garbage containers, and if you are at a bin that is out in public, there is a clear plastic plastic bag over the top. Why is that? We currently just throw our street litter into a bin and there is no clear garbage bag that ties it up. It allows for dumping—when the bin is being collected or if there is spillage, that litter just goes into the street. In Hawaii they have a wonderful way of making sure that that does not happen by doing what we have promoted at home—that is, using a plastic bin liner to keep your waste in. If all the bins within the community had that, you would not have the spillover that occurs. They have clear plastic bin liners so you can see your rubbish, and you can see if you have missed something recyclable, so you can easily pull it out and get it into recycling.

Hawaii also is very clear about what containers can be recycled. They encourage all of their hotels and all of their takeaway businesses to stick to being very strict about what containers can be used that can be put into organics because they are made of paper, ‘These are the only plastics that you can use, because they can be recycled’ and, ‘These ones will be sent to the incinerator or waste to energy to be made into energy’. Obviously the ones that can be recycled are thrown on a boat, and they are taken to mainland USA for recycling.

That is how we should be doing it here in Victoria. There are lessons to be learned on proper waste to energy. We have got so much rubbish, litter, absolutely everywhere in Victoria—in our waterways, along our beaches—that we need to drag out. We need to incinerate it because it is not recyclable any more, and we have to get into making sure that when it comes to the environment and waste we are self-sustaining here in Victoria, that we look after the waste that we create here in Victoria. We have the facilities here in Victoria that can change it into other products; that should be encouraged. But also the things that we cannot recycle or make into other products we need to get rid of in a sensible way, not just throw them into a hole and cause problems in 50 years—probably all of our holes in the ground and our waste holes will be mined in the future.

We also know that these are archaic methods. Just throwing everything into a bin and throwing it at landfill creates problems such as the fire that we have currently still burning at Barro in the west. It creates fires that seem to not be able to be put out for years. We could actually be making sure that it is not going to landfill in the first place. I will leave it at that. I am grateful that this bill has finally come to this place. I just wish that this government had made it a priority and done it a bit quicker.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (17:56): I also rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022, and I will be brief. I just want to start by congratulating Minister D’Ambrosio and her team for bringing this legislation to this house. That is the result of work of many years under the auspices of implementing the circular economy policy and looking at how we can recycle more and send less rubbish to landfill. The Andrews government has been working on implementing sensible policy in the past eight years to deliver an outcome where we recycle everything we produce. Part of this legislation is in a number of areas, and I had the opportunity to work on that with Minister D’Ambrosio. She convinced me to do a report on this exact issue of waste to energy some years ago and an opportunity to put that in the Western Metro Region. I produced a report for Minister D’Ambrosio, and I am pleased to see that part of that is now actually coming to this house in the form of legislation to look at making sure waste to energy is a reality. In fact one of the companies likely to be the first ones to start the process of waste to energy is in my electorate of Western Metro. I wish them well, and I am looking forward to getting that off the ground.

But I just want to make a number of points about what this legislation is about and what the Andrews Labor government is about. It is about making sure of the circular economy, like the container deposit scheme, for example, and I am looking forward to the implementation of that. I also had the opportunity to be on the Environment and Planning Committee as the chair of that committee with some of my colleagues here—Ms Taylor, Ms Terpstra and the deputy chair, Mr Hayes. We produced a report, and a lot of the content of that report now forms part of this legislation, and many other changes were adopted by this government. So we have got runs on the board.

I was pleased that Minister D’Ambrosio this morning announced that a number of councils are now adopting and we are giving them financial support for the introduction of a fourth bin to make sure glass does not commingle with paper. We are investing seriously and making sure that we move away from sending stuff to landfill. Since I came to this house nearly 10 years ago one of the biggest issues in my electorate has been sending stuff to landfill. I remember introducing a petition signed by 12 000 of my constituents basically demanding that we take action to look at how we can reduce rubbish going to landfill. This legislation, along with the other changes the government has implemented, goes a long way towards achieving that objective, because what I would like to see is us sending zero rubbish to landfill, particularly stuff which generates methane and causes all sorts of health issues. That is why I want to congratulate the minister again for bringing this legislation to this house. I think it is a great start, and it is no secret I am a big supporter of waste to energy. I think what the opposition are proposing is open slather and I think there are some problems with that, but on the other hand with the Greens basically saying 50 000 tonnes a year—God, that will never get off the ground. I think the balance is right. These things can always be up for review as time goes on, but I think it is a step in the right direction, and again I commend the minister on bringing it to the house. I totally support this legislation.

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022. I will only make a couple of short points in relation to this environmental policy and investment for regional and rural Victoria.

I had a briefing last week with Minister D’Ambrosio on this bill, as we do with all of her bills that are brought to the Parliament. I appreciate the opportunity this affords me to ask specific questions relating to the impact of environmental policy on regional Victoria, in particular my electorate of Northern Victoria, and I want to thank the minister and her staff for these conversations.

With regard to the circular economy, the Rural City of Wangaratta has a great organics processing plant that has been operating for the past two years. Its current licence allows it to process 5200 tonnes of organic material each year. The current plant has capacity to process more than double this and council is working on upgrades to take its operation to 12 000 tonnes. There is scope to further expand the facility so it benefits the whole region, by increasing its capacity to process 25 000 tonnes of organic material each year.

As a regional facility this would provide a great service to the north-east, providing a saleable product to increase agricultural productivity, as well as the environment benefit of reducing CO₂ emissions and taking waste out of landfill. During construction it would provide 10 full-time jobs and a further $3 million to the local economy. With increased processing capacity, this would provide long-term additional employment and economic benefits through the supply chain.

In our meeting last week the minister noted the importance of this kind of innovation to achieving the benefits of a circular economy. The project will need investment of around $8 million to achieve this expansion and I am now seeking a meeting for Wangaratta council with the government to present its business case.

More broadly than these types of specific advocacy, as regional MPs both Mr Grimley and I always push for government policy to give regard to the opportunities, benefits and impacts of policy that are specific to regional and rural Victoria.

This includes recognising the risk and impact of natural disasters such as bushfire and flood, understanding the impact of energy policy on the security and reliability of energy in regional areas, and knowing that policy directives towards large-scale wind farms and solar farms may be seen to provide opportunity but also impacts our valuable agricultural land.

Solar panels are the greatest growing stream of e-waste and how we manage them at their end of life continues to be an elephant in the room. Solar panels are banned from going into landfill, so they are stockpiling while recycling opportunities remain limited. It is estimated that more than 100 000 tonnes of solar panels will be in Australia’s waste stream by 2035, and with 83 per cent of the materials not recycled, there either needs to be a cost-effective solution or a shift in policy.

Failure to complete the Murray Basin rail project to its original scope means that 800 000 tonnes of freight will go by road instead of rail every year—that’s 19 million truck kilometres, and the carbon emissions and degradation to regional roads that goes with it. On the other hand, completing the plan to scope would add millions to economic productivity, manufacturing and mining opportunities, green hydrogen production and other investment prospects.

I believe that considering the economic, employment and social impacts of policy decisions on rural and regional Victoria should be embedded in our legislation. The independent member for Indi recently made some steps toward this in some amendments to federal legislation, and I have discussed with the minister what opportunities exist for Victoria to do the same.

Analysis that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party had done by the Parliamentary Budget Office last year showed that regional Victoria is at least 11 per cent worse off than our metropolitan counterparts when it comes to asset investment. Earlier this year I called for regional impact statements to be included in the annual budget process, and I believe there are opportunities to embed this across all policy and portfolio areas so our regional areas get the consideration they deserve.

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I’m also pleased to make a contribution on the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2022.

This legislation is about providing additional reforms to a once-in-a-generation reform of Victoria’s waste and recycling system.

In 2021, the Andrews Labor government passed the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill, which addressed significant issues with our state’s waste and recycling systems.

The bill we are debating today seeks to deliver additional reforms to strengthen these existing laws and ensure that Victoria’s waste system continues to operate effectively.

Before discussing the key aspects of this bill, it is important that we reflect on the reasons why the Andrews Labor government has placed such a high importance on this issue.

In 2019 Victoria’s waste and recycling services suffered severe disruptions.

After the collapse of SKM Recycling, 33 councils were left without kerbside recycling services.

This meant that some councils were left with no choice but to send recyclable material to landfill.

On top of this, China announced their National Sword policy which essentially banned the import of most plastics and other materials for recycling.

These disruptions left Victoria exposed and demonstrated how fragile our waste and recycling system was to changes in the global markets and the effects those changes could have on local recycling service delivery.

Since the passage of the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill—which was a direct response to the waste crisis—we have continued to develop reforms, including enhanced statewide infrastructure planning and a cap on thermal waste-to-energy processing in Victoria.

Despite the effectiveness of these reforms, they still require further legislative change.

Which brings us to the bill before the house today.

This bill seeks to deliver additional reforms to three key pieces of legislation:

• the circular economy act;

• the Sustainability Victoria Act 2005; and

• the Environment Protection Act 2017.

All of the amendments in this bill are aimed at supporting our state’s transition to a circular economy.

It is important to note that the Andrews Labor government has invested an unprecedented $515 million to deliver this transition, which will:

• support the creation of more than 3900 jobs;

• deliver on our climate change targets; and

• ensure Victorians have a recycling system they can rely on.

One of the ways we are making the most of these waste and recycling reforms is by introducing a thermal waste-to-energy scheme.

The scheme caps the processing of permitted waste at facilities that process the waste using thermal waste-to-energy processes.

It provides for the head of Recycling Victoria to license thermal waste-to-energy facilities in Victoria.

These licences cannot be issued if they collectively exceed an annual cap on ‘permitted’ waste, expressed as 1 million tonnes per financial year.

The introduction of this scheme underlines the Andrews Labor government’s continued commitment to climate action.

Another key aspect of the bill is that it will enable the head of Recycling Victoria to deliver a Victorian recycling infrastructure plan.

The plan consolidates the existing multiplan framework into a single plan with a 30-year horizon, which can be used to inform long-term strategic planning and support decision-making at all levels of government.

This is an important aspect of the amendments before the house as it ensures that Victoria will continue to strengthen its systems and be ready to address potential issues that may arise in the future.

Whilst it took a perfect storm for Victoria’s waste and recycling system to experience distress, we must ensure that the new systems that we have put in place are maintained.

The amendments we are making to the Environment Protection Act 2017 aim to improve the efficacy of the act itself.

These amendments seek to further equip the EPA and local governments with the necessary powers to effectively undertake their regulatory functions under the current act.

These powers would include the ability to mitigate the risk of liquidators avoiding clean-up costs and also appoint third parties as authorised officers.

These amendments—like all of those proposed in this bill—have been formed through an extensive consultation process and expert advice.

Despite the wideranging reforms within the Environment Protection Act 2017 when it passed in the previous Parliament, there is always room for improvement and today we are strengthening the act to further benefit all Victorians.

Whilst I have touched on some key aspects of the bill before us today, there are still many other important elements which my colleagues have astutely outlined in great detail.

I will not seek to go over them again, except to say that they will serve to strengthen Victoria’s waste and recycling systems.

Since coming to office in 2014, the Andrews Labor government has not wasted a second in delivering for the people of Victoria—from bold infrastructure projects to much-needed policy reforms.

I am proud to be a member of a government that saw the major problems in our waste and recycling systems and instead of ignoring the problem we took action.

While this government has been working tirelessly to deliver these changes to the recycling industry and to deliver a policy Victorians can rely on, those opposite have no plan to improve recycling in our state.

To their credit, they do have a waste policy; the only problem is it doesn’t seek to actually recycle anything—just burn it!

And doesn’t that sound great for the environment!

Nevertheless we on this side of the house will continue to deliver the bold ideas that Victorians have come to expect from us.

They know that when a problem arises it is the Andrews Labor government who will listen to the experts, develop sound plans and fight hard to see those plans become laws.

For us it’s simple: continue to deliver for all Victorians and that is what this bill does. I commend it to the house.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Veterans) (18:00): I will be very brief and go straight to the commentary around the government’s position on the amendments. There has been a lot of debate centred around waste-to-energy provisions, specifically the cap, which the government stated its intention was to set at 1 million tonnes. This figure was published in our policy document Recycling Victoria: A New Economy released back in February 2020. There was further detail, and it was expanded on in our waste-to-energy framework released in November 2021. Industry has had years now to prepare for the cap and has been consulted throughout the development of the framework.

Dr Ratnam has proposed an amendment to reduce the cap to 50 000 tonnes rather than the 1 million tonnes set by the government in our policy. A 50 000-tonne cap would be so low it would not be viable for nearly any proposed waste-to-energy facility operator. These expensive facilities can only be built on an economy of scale, and at 50 000 tonnes the financials do not stack up. Even if there was a boutique operator who could make the financials work to operate at this level, it would be the only one in Victoria. This would ensure that instead of developing this technology based on need and strategic planning, including geographic location, there would simply be only one facility built somewhere in Victoria, with all the waste trucked around from right across the state.

On the other hand the opposition has proposed an amendment to remove the cap entirely, which completely ignores the complex market reality of our recycling system and emerging technologies. The recycling crisis we went through in 2019 was caused in part by a lack of market regulation and oversight—a lack of real strategic planning. Our government has been working very hard to fix the system and to deliver a recycling system that Victorians can rely on. The Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill 2021, which was passed two years ago with the nearly unanimous support of this chamber, was an important part of that fix, and this bill reforms another important part of it.

I think I will leave my comments there. I know Mr Davis—kindly, I have got to say—said in his second-reading contribution that he wanted certain answers around the Sustainability Fund. I might put that on the record in clause 1 as soon as we go to committee.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (18:04)

I will make a statement on clause 1 just to respond to Mr Davis’s concerns and the questions he raised in his second-reading speech. I can state that the revenue from the Sustainability Fund is first used to fund core activities of key environmental agencies, including the EPA, Sustainability Victoria and now Recycling Victoria. Recycling Victoria receives the same funding previously allocated to the seven waste and resource recovery groups it replaced. The remaining revenue is reinvested to support local councils, industry and other parts of the community. Victoria’s waste levy is closely aligned with other states. The fund publishes a publicly available activities report each financial year, and of course that is something we are happy to provide to Mr Davis. My understanding is that that will be available and tabled in September—next month.

I thank the minister for that. We are obviously keen to get some deeper understanding of the amounts of money in the fund and the disbursement of that money—the government’s intentions on that—and I appreciate that the minister could provide that. I will put on record our nervousness about the appearance of key annual reports, because the annual reports are not due to be tabled by law until 15 October but the Parliament rises in mid-September, and that leaves the risk of significant slippage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister has taken that as a comment, Mr Davis.

I have a number of questions, but if you like I can ask them all in one go on the different clauses, and then you can acquit them as you see fit. Is that okay? It might save some time.

Mr LEANE: Yes, that would be great.

Mr MEDDICK: Just as a general question: who appoints the head of the waste-to-energy review group, and is that public facing?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. It can be public facing, and it is the minister that appoints that position on the advice of and with the assistance of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Thank you, Minister. On page 6, section 3(1) of the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 speaks to definitions of ‘material recovery facility’. What does that mean, and is this definition being made to reflect current council bin pick-ups, for instance?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. The definition of ‘material recovery facility’ is being technically amended to refer to both the facilities that receive mixed recyclables and facilities that receive mixed industrial waste for sorting.

Thank you, Minister. Similarly, in the same clause the bill repeals the definition of ‘diverted material’. Why is that?

Mr Meddick, there were inconsistent definitions of diverted material in different acts, so this is just to make sure we align the definition. It does not have a policy effect, it is just to amend those acts so they are all saying the same thing.

Thank you, Minister. Clause 7, on page 9, speaks about giving the minister oversight over the operations of the head, Recycling Victoria. Is that correct that the minister has oversight of the operations of the head?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. Part of the head’s role is to produce market reports. Therefore the minister has the responsibility for when, how and if those reports are made public.

Thank you, Minister. On page 13 the bill goes to clause 8, and it speaks to a single statewide Victorian recycling infrastructure plan (VRIP) replacing eight plans as it stands under the current Environment Protection Act 2017. Who is responsible for preparing that plan?

Recycling Victoria is responsible for that plan, Mr Meddick.

Thank you, Minister. The VRIP also will apparently contain a schedule of current and future proposed landfill sites, which will reflect the existing arrangements where current and future landfill sites are set out in the schedules to the regional implementation plans. But in part 3, clause 33 of the bill, will the EPA have to have regard to the schedule in the VRIP, and will they be able to issue a permit if a new landfill site is not listed on that list of proposed future landfill sites?

The EPA cannot approve a site if it is not listed on the schedule.

Thank you, Minister. I want to move on to, if I can for a moment, waste to energy. Given that there will be facilities that are not capped as they are already open or they have permits in the pipeline already and will not be subject to the cap, if those operators choose to open another facility, can they move product from the capped facility to the uncapped facility?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. As long as they do not exceed the cap under their current licence, yes, they can do that. But they also of course have to adhere to EPA regulations and licences as well.

Thank you, Minister. This goes to a little bit more clarification around the same subject but on a slightly different tack. Can the whole cap be filled by the one facility? For instance, if a company chooses to open one and then chooses to open another one, will they receive more of the cap, or are they specifically limited to a certain amount? Or will the whole thing maybe go out to a single tender in Victoria? Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. When Recycling Victoria are allocating up to the cap they will need to take into account the needs right across Victoria. So that would mean that your scenario would probably not play out, because they need to take into account all of Victoria.

Thank you, Minister. That is great, that clarification. On to a different subject, I want to talk about the subject of and the clause which talks about banned waste. If someone is caught processing banned waste, is the EPA or Recycling Victoria responsible?

Thank you, Mr Meddick. Actually the answer is both of those agencies. They could be subject to penalties from both of those agencies for recycling the banned waste.

Thank you, Minister. In order for them to be caught obviously there will have to be regular inspections. Are those inspections then to be without notice? There has been criticism in the past of waste facilities getting 24 hours or 48 hours notice or whatever it might be, so they clean things up and everything looks fantastic, but then they just go back to normal afterwards.

Recycling Victoria are developing the inspection regime now, but they will learn from other agencies, including the EPA, about the actual success of inspecting without notice.

Thank you, Minister. I think there are a lot of people that will take great comfort from that one. I just want to come then back to waste to energy, if I can, and in particular with the thermal waste to energy there are two different types of ash that are produced, one of which is bottom ash and the other one is fly-ash. One of those is inert, but the other, which I believe is the fly-ash, is highly toxic. So how is that going to be disposed of? In meetings that I have had with different proposers they have talked about the bottom ash being used to produce building materials, so recycled, but there has not been a lot of discussion around what they do with that toxic ash. How will that be disposed of?

Mr Meddick, as you would imagine, that fly-ash is being managed now because of different waste-to-energy plants. Currently and in the future they will have to follow all the EPA regulations about how they dispose of that in a safe manner.

Thank you, Minister. On page 25 of the explanatory memorandum it speaks about revoking a licence where a licence-holder has obviously done the wrong thing. What is the time frame that they have to do that? For instance, if inspections and everything reveal that a licence-holder is doing terrible things completely in contradiction of their licence, is that cancellation immediate or are we going to wait for six months or 12 months for them to potentially get their act together and then that licence cancellation will not happen?

If there is a significant breach, Recycling Victoria can revoke a licence immediately.

Thank you, Minister. Again, that is great to know. My final question on clause 17 relates to penalties. The clause does not list exactly what the penalty units are. In several other bills where we have these sorts of things introduced it will talk about the penalty units—how many apply for different situations. We do not have that here. It does not also say if those penalties could potentially include custodial sentences. I use the example of what happened at Lara on Broderick Road, where there was an illegal toxic waste facility. That certainly would have resulted in the operator going to jail but for the fact that he passed away. Will that same situation apply, or are we going to be waiting for regulation to see what happens there?

Working backward, there are no custodial sentences. The penalty is called a monetary benefit order, and it is determined by a judge. The judge determines that by how much financial gain that operator has made by operating illegally.

Minister, I was just wondering if I could get you to indulge in a back-of-the-envelope mathematics problem for me. You say currently there is 4 million tonnes of waste going to landfill, and I presume that is after what has been taken out for recycling, food and organics, and glass as it is. There is going to be 1 million tonnes burnt under the cap. There is already 1 million tonnes for which licences have been issued. So that is 2 million tonnes of that. What do you say would happen to the other 2 million tonnes of waste that is currently going to landfill that is not being burnt under this proposal?

I am happy to get advice on any back-of-the-envelope estimation. I thank Mr Hayes. Obviously there is a hierarchy of managing different types of waste as far as the emissions that they create go. Landfill creates higher emissions than waste to energy, but waste to energy creates higher emissions than recycling. The goal of the bill and the previous bill is to reduce landfill as much as possible and really concentrate on the recycling side of activities. I will see if I can get you a further explanation.

Mr Hayes, I have got the back of a piece of paper, and the information I can give you is that there has been $102 million in grants that have resulted in 957 000 tonnes of resource recovery capacity. It is anticipated a further 933 000 tonnes of capacity will be developed by 2025.

I just have a quick question of clarification if I may, Minister, in response to Mr Hayes’s previous question about the tonnage of waste that we are producing that is going to landfill currently. Excluding what is being recycled and composted, my understanding from Sustainability Victoria’s reports—the last one I could find was for 2019–20—is that the total waste collected that was going to landfill was 1.22 million tonnes per year. I have heard estimates of 4 million tonnes. Can I just get clarification of how much Victoria is producing that is going to landfill per year?

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr TARLAMIS: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day pursuant to sessional order 1 be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

The answer, Dr Ratnam, is 4.8 million tonnes.

Four million tonnes going to landfill, excluding compost and recycling?

Yes, 4.8 million tonnes. I think the figure you might have had was for household waste. This is the total.

Okay, household waste. So that is construction et cetera as well that is going to landfill?

Yes.

Okay.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (18:31)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I would invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your remaining amendments.

I move:

1. Clause 14, page 43, lines 1 to 11, omit all words and expressions on those lines.

With the indulgence of the house, I will be very quick here. I have already spoken to this amendment. In a short recapitulation of the material, this seeks to lift the overall cap so that there is no overall cap. Caps or restrictions will apply to individual premises or individual facilities still, but this would lead to no overall cap. We think that this is a sensible way forward. We are not sure why the government has put in that cap. The cap has already created difficulty for a number of providers, but we think waste to energy offers a number of important opportunities and this process of removing a cap would make sense.

The government will be opposing Mr Davis’s amendment for the reasons that I put on the record in the second-reading summation.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

I move:

1. Clause 14, page 44, line 16, after “licence” insert “to process no more than 50 000 tonnes of permitted waste per annum”.

2. Clause 14, page 44, line 17, after “licence” insert “to process no more than 50 000 tonnes of permitted waste per annum”.

As mentioned in my second-reading contribution, the amendment I am moving limits the capacity of incinerators licensed under the bill to 50 000 tonnes per annum. Our amendment would stop an incinerating industry from undermining the circular economy we need to be building in Victoria.

If I can briefly respond to a couple of comments that were directed at my amendment during the substantive debate which are important to correct, I want to correct a bit of misinformation that was circulating. First, in response to Ms Watt’s contribution, I appreciated her contribution, apart from wanting to clarify some assertions that she was making. She asserted that the Greens had changed position somehow in the last two weeks. Just to clarify what occurred in the lower house, my colleagues put forward a reasoned amendment. One of the main reasons my colleagues moved that reasoned amendment was that we needed more exploration and a strengthening of a particular concern that we have around the amount that is going into incineration as canvassed in this bill. But in the Assembly my colleagues cannot move amendments to bills, because this government refuses to allow for proper debate of bills in the lower house and to democratise the Assembly of the Parliament of Victoria, which gives Victoria the reputation as being the least democratic Parliament—in that chamber—in all of Australia. Should they have had the opportunity to put forward amendments, my colleagues, I am sure, would have done so to improve the outcome of this bill.

The Greens have been consistent and clear in our position. We call for a moratorium on waste to energy and this type of incineration. Since 2019 I have introduced several motions, and we have been absolutely consistent in our position that incineration will undermine—

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we have a bit of quiet? If people want to leave, they can. Unfortunately, because Dr Ratnam has contributed to debate on this, it has gone too long to have a 1-minute bell, so we are going to have to have a 4-minute bell anyway. If people want to leave, they can. Dr Ratnam to continue, without assistance.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you very much, Deputy President. Just to reiterate, the Greens have been consistent and clear on our position about our concerns about waste incineration in Victoria and not setting up an industry that will undermine our circular economy and all the efforts that we are collectively putting into improving recycling and re-use in this state. We maintain those concerns, and I am moving this amendment to improve this bill. I often hear calls to compromise and to put solutions on the table, and here we have one that would limit the nature of this industry being set up and would extract so much waste that we will be locking in millions of tonnes of waste for Victoria for decades to come.

What this seems to be from the government in terms of that claim is a distraction from the real problem that has been proposed in this bill, which is locking Victoria’s circular economy into failure by allowing, from what we have heard during this debate, up to 2 million, if not more, tonnes of waste to be burnt every single year. In seeking clarification from the minister about how much waste we are actually producing it is important to clarify that household waste, standing at about 1.2 million tonnes per year, is far less than the 2 million that the government is proposing. There is 1 million already licensed or that has been approved and 1 million that has been proposed in this bill. That takes us up to burning 2 million tonnes of waste per year, far exceeding what we are currently sending to landfill from households.

There is the separate issue of construction waste, and a number of us sat on the waste and recycling inquiry over months a couple of years ago. It is worth interrogating how much of that construction waste is suitable for burning. There is cement; there is concrete. There are all sorts of other pathways for construction waste. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say, ‘Oh, there are 4 million and we’re just going to burn 2 million of it’. It is not good enough. It will undermine our circular economy and undermine the very good efforts—mind you, good efforts by the government too—to improve recycling and re-use. It is doing good things on one hand and then doing terrible things to undermine all the good work on the other.

I want to speak very, very briefly before responding to a couple more comments. Along with undermining the circular economy and locking Victoria into producing millions of tonnes of waste that it might not have produced had we properly invested in re-using and recycling in Victoria, we also know that incinerators generate large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, and they generate large amounts of bottom ash and fly-ash, as Mr Meddick canvassed during the debate. We still do not have appropriate facilities to treat the 20 to 30 per cent of the incineration which will result in waste—

A member interjected.

Dr RATNAM: 20 to 30 per cent of the original feedstock results in waste ash. We have to find a facility that can treat this often hazardous material, and our current toxic waste facility is reaching capacity.

We also know that waste incineration is inefficient and expensive. Waste incinerators are an expensive way to produce energy. Very little of the energy embedded in plastic products is recovered by burning. For example, recycling products saves far more energy overall. Studies have found that energy recaptured by recycling plastics was nearly 75 megajoules per kilogram of waste while incineration was a mere 6 megajoules per kilogram of waste.

In terms of job opportunities we also know that landfilling the same amount of waste creates six jobs compared to 36 jobs when you recycle that waste. So we could be creating more jobs by reducing the amount of waste that we send to incineration. We also know that incineration could have a really deleterious impact on public health because of the nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxides, particulate matter, mercury, lead, dioxins and furans that are emitted from waste incinerators. We have got the industry running around saying, ‘Oh, we’ve got that all sorted’, but we had very, very strong evidence during the inquiry about what happened internationally when these waste incineration plants claimed that they had captured the emissions and they had reduced the carbon dioxide but actual monitoring, particularly in China, found that the damage and the pollution was much, much higher. So before Victoria takes this path of incineration—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I just remind you that this is not an opportunity for another second-reading speech. You are just supposed to be moving your amendments, please. Can I just clarify that you have moved amendments 1 and 2?

Dr RATNAM: Yes, I have. Thank you, Deputy President. I am speaking to why we have proposed this much-reduced tonnage for waste incineration—because of the really serious harms that waste incineration poses to Victoria. Once we enter this path there is no turning back. We have seen in jurisdictions across the world when they have gone down the path of incineration they have locked in tonnes of waste per year for years and years. Some of you might have been familiar with the case in Baltimore County in the United States where Wheelabrator, which has an incinerator plant, sued the City of Baltimore County, Maryland, for failing to deliver on its contracted minimum waste tonnage targets. So what happens if we actually succeed in reducing the amount of waste we generate that goes into those household bins—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, it does sound like you are debating now, so can you just move your amendments, please.

Dr RATNAM: No problem. Those are warnings that Victoria should heed before we enter this pathway, which is why I urge you to support our amendments. This is about ensuring we have a really careful look at proceeding down this path with a limited tonnage, which is what my amendments propose.

In conclusion, I just wanted to respond to a couple more comments that were directed my way during the substantive debate. I heard members of the opposition claim that our proposals were fanciful and not based in reality, but do you know what? A jurisdiction just to the north of us called the ACT have banned waste to energy, and do you know what? They are doing just fine. They are reducing their amount of waste; they are increasing the amount of recycling and re-use because they have actually got a sound environmental waste policy. Just finally in conclusion, we heard arguments from the Liberal Democrats that it is not for governments to provide caps on tonnage and regulate industry, but it is the government’s responsibility and role to regulate harmful industries, and this is a harmful industry. By agreeing to the tonnage that the government is proposing in this bill we are locking ourselves into failure.

I rise to speak against the Greens motion today, being that—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is an amendment.

Dr CUMMING: Oh, sorry, an amendment. Thank you, Deputy President. I am happy to be corrected. I am corrected quite often on my feet here. To dismiss some of the claims that she has made and the examples that Dr Ratnam has given, one example she gave was China. Well, that is not the best example to give. I gave the example of Hawaii, which is a beautiful example—absolutely the demographic, the size, the state of Hawaii compared to us has exactly the same population. The Greens would love to do doom and gloom. Technologies consistently change. We have wonderful filters and they will continually improve. Here in Victoria we have the most amount of litter in our waterways, on our beaches, across our countryside. Dr Ratnam did not say anything about the point that I made around the masks that the Greens have continually pushed that have been in our waterways, in our gutters and on our streets. How do you actually get rid of hazardous waste? You normally burn hazardous waste. There is a residual—

Mr Gepp interjected.

Dr CUMMING: No, respectfully, normally these kinds of facilities are placed in an area that is an industrial area. The filters are there to prevent polluting the environment, and they will continually—

Mr Gepp interjected.

Dr CUMMING: There are no filters in waste to energy? There are filters. Once they burn the waste there is a filter.

Mr Gepp interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming without assistance.

Dr CUMMING: Your government is pushing this, Mr Gepp. So then what—are you going to vote against it?

Mr Gepp: Well, maybe—

Dr CUMMING: Good for you! First time I am going to see—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through the Chair, Dr Cumming.

Dr Ratnam: On a point of order, Deputy President, on a number of occasions you paused my contribution, arguing that it was debate. I am just seeking your clarification about what constitutes debate versus non-debate and what is permissible. I am fine with open contributions; I think all members should be able to contribute. But I am seeking your guidance and ruling about what is appropriate debate, given that this contribution sounds very similar to my contribution in its passion and fervour.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming is fine to lay out her reasons for why she is not voting for your amendments, but I was pulling Dr Cumming and Mr Gepp up because there was becoming a debate between the two of them. Dr Cumming, stick to your reasons. You are not voting for the amendments. And if you can be brief, thank you.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Deputy President. I thought I was actually speaking against the amendment that the Greens have put up tonight as well as what Dr Ratnam has actually said within her contribution on her amendments. So for me, I gave the examples—good examples. You can pull out doom-and-gloom examples to support the rationale for your amendment, Dr Ratnam, but I have sat on waste management boards for 25 years begging government upon government to actually do waste to energy. And seeing that Hawaii has done it for 25 years—wonderful, absolutely wonderful. And I did it on my own.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, just your reasons for voting against, please.

Dr CUMMING: And my reasons are these. Earlier I supported the opposition’s having no gaps, because we have so much waste. For the Greens to actually say that now we have to reduce the amount of waste to energy—I cannot support that. We have so much litter within Victoria that needs to be picked up and cleaned so we have clean beaches, clean rivers, clean gutters and clean streets. We need to get rid of all of this hazardous waste of masks that this government has created during this time and the Greens have supported. I would love for all the litter to be removed to a waste-to-energy facility and then for it to be burnt, because there are items that can be recycled but we have to get to a point where the things that cannot be recycled are burnt.

The opposition will not be supporting this amendment.

I will speak very, very briefly. I just want to make reference to the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Greens on display yet again here in this house this evening. Dr Ratnam will get up here and tell us about the dangers of converting litter to energy, which I think is one of the greatest things we could possibly do, but she does not care about the crap being dumped out in the western suburbs—out at Ravenhall, out at Bulla, out at Tullamarine. A whole range of places out in the western suburbs have had this stuff dumped on them—on us—for years and years and years. It seems the Greens are very selective in their concern for the environment—very selective. If it is in the western suburbs, they could not care less. Get beyond the tram tracks and the Greens just do not care.

I just want to explain the way I am going to vote. I was not going to support Dr Ratnam’s amendment, because I thought 50 000 was too low. But now looking at the figures supplied on the back of the envelope, which I asked the minister for, we are looking at 5 million tonnes of waste going to landfill and 1 million of those tonnes are already scheduled to be burnt. They are already committed to burning, so one-fifth of it is going to be burnt. Then if we add on the 50 000 or so from Dr Ratnam’s amendment there might be more. That is per application, isn’t it?

Dr RATNAM: Fifty thousand overall.

Mr HAYES: Overall. Okay. All right. If it is only 50 000 overall, we are also looking at 957 000 tonnes, that is almost 1 million tonnes, of resource recovery capacity now being added. Another 933 000 tonnes of capacity will be developed over the next three years, so that is another 2 million there. I think we are well on the way to achieving a circular economy. We are well on the way to cleaning up the waste. If we get the building waste out of it, which we will have to do over the next couple of years if we are going to take climate change seriously, then I think if we are burning a fifth of it we are doing well. I do not support the majority view, which is that burning is acceptable. I think that it is the way of dealing with waste as a last resort, so I will support Dr Ratnam’s amendment in that case.

The government will be opposing Dr Ratnam’s amendment for the compelling reasons that I presented during the second-reading summary debate.

Committee divided on amendments:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 15 to 81 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Veterans) (19:04): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

In doing so I acknowledge Mr Davis, Mr Meddick, Dr Ratnam, Mr Hayes, Dr Cumming, Mr Finn and of course the Deputy President for their contributions during the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Veterans) (19:04): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.