Wednesday, 6 March 2024

Petitions

Waste and recycling management

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:41): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

The proposed waste incinerator in Lara must be stopped, and before we get into why, I first want to thank the Lara community and especially those who have come up from Lara to Parliament today and the thousands of Victorians who have signed this petition to enable this debate to happen. A dedicated group have put in countless hours fighting against this incinerator proposal. They have taken it upon themselves to do what the proponent and the government have failed to do and inform their fellow Lara residents about this project that is slated for development in their backyards.

What they have found is that when people hear about this project, they are appalled and astounded that anything like this could even be considered. For decades the government has neglected waste and recycling, and now they want to burn the problem and leave communities like Lara to deal with the mess. We need to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, but setting fire to our waste problem should never be the answer. Yet the Victorian Labor government has been allowing the development of waste incinerators across the state.

The latest project awaiting sign-off from the government is a massive waste incinerator proposed by Prospect Hill International in the suburb of Lara, about 18 kilometres north of Geelong. If built, it will burn 400 000 tonnes of waste per year, which is more waste than is collected in the red bins across my whole electorate of Western Victoria in a year, so it is unclear where this waste is going to come from. The proposed site is within hundreds of metres of homes. It is incredibly close to many schools, preschools, childcare centres and agricultural land. The Lara community has made it abundantly clear they do not want this project to go ahead, and for good reason. Studies have shown that waste incineration is not safe, it is not sustainable and it is definitely not renewable.

One, it is not safe. Lara already faces air pollution levels the World Health Organization would deem unsafe. Understandably the Lara community is deeply concerned about the impact this incinerator would have on their health and environment, and they have been working hard to fight against this project. The burning of waste materials such as plastic and PVC releases toxic pollutants into the air, including mercury, lead and dioxins, many of which have no safe exposure limits, and studies have indicated a range of human health impacts related to exposure to pollutants resulting from waste incineration. It is not good enough that our regional communities like Lara are the ones being burdened with these hazardous waste facilities. As representatives of these communities, we must ask ourselves: what are we willing to risk, given the proximity of this incinerator to communities and key farming land?

Number 2, it is not sustainable. Not only does this project risk the health of Lara residents, it completely undermines efforts to build a genuinely circular economy. It is inevitable that these incinerators will end up burning recyclables, plastic and organic waste because there is no commitment that they will separate the waste that they receive and very little confidence in the mechanisms available to ensure that this is monitored and enforced. These facilities are beasts that need to be fed waste 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in order to run properly. In places where these have been established overseas it has been shown that they actually undermine investment in alternative, sustainable waste management options. What this state government needs to be focused on is waste reduction and recycling, not supporting toxic incinerators.

And number 3, they are not renewable. Mass incineration is not a form of renewable energy. They are fossil fuel power plants. It is one of the most emissions-intensive and expensive forms of energy, and that is before you consider the fossil fuels and finite resources used to make all the waste that is being burned to turn into energy. We are in a climate crisis, and projects like this are taking us in a direction that we cannot afford.

The community of Lara have sent a clear message to Labor that we need to end short-term fixes that endanger their health, undermine a circular economy and only make climate change worse. With the stroke of a pen the Minister for Planning Sonya Kilkenny could knock this project off – she could put people first – and I stand with the Lara community in calling on her to do so.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:46): I rise today to speak on the petition tabled in the last sitting week in regard to the proposed Lara waste-to-energy plant. Victoria is making real change as we shift towards a circular economy, and waste-to-energy systems have an important role to play. Waste-to-energy plants are the final opportunity to extract valuable energy and other output materials that would otherwise be sent to landfill. This complements and emphasises our other circular economy initiatives, which prioritise our reduce, re-use and recycle ethos.

This government has established a framework to regulate waste energy in this state. The Environmental Protection Authority Victoria – the EPA – planning authorities and the newly established Recycling Victoria all have an important role to plan to ensure that thermal waste-to-energy facilities meet best practice standards to continue to protect our environment, the communities in which they operate and the matters of human health and land planning. In addition to requirements under Victoria’s environmental protection and planning frameworks, the Victorian government has recently introduced new, legislated licensing requirements for thermal waste-to-energy facilities under Victoria’s waste-to-energy scheme to ensure these facilities support Victoria’s transition to a circular economy. The act and supporting regulations also set out what types of waste are permissible for processing in thermal waste-to-energy facilities – and permitted waste is truly residual waste that cannot be reasonably subject to further sorting and recycling, whereas waste that can be further sorted and recycled is banned from processing by thermal waste-to-energy facilities.

The scheme is designed to ensure investment in our waste-to-energy facilities does not exceed our needs as we avoid, re-use and recycle more waste in the future. It strikes the right balance in Victoria’s transition to a circular economy. You see, all thermal waste-to-energy facilities that intend to process permitted waste in Victoria, whether they are existing or proposed, will be required to have the licences under all three of these legislative and regulatory frameworks.

The proposed facility will service Greater Geelong and the western metropolitan area, processing 400,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and industrial and commercial waste into 35 megawatts of electricity, with a possible future extension for an additional 200,000 tonnes per year. The energy generated will power 50,000 Victorian homes, including surrounding care facilities, schools and community centres. The proposed plant will not just create energy, it will create hundreds of jobs during construction and more than 30 additional jobs during the ongoing operation, and it will divert 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of waste from landfill every year throughout its 25-year landscape.

I know that there are many community members who feel strongly about this proposal and have deep concerns about the health and environmental impacts of a facility like this. I acknowledge that some of those community members are here today, and I commend their passion. I have spoken with the member for Lara in the other place, who has been working closely with community members who stand in opposition to this facility. I know that the member for Lara has attended committee forums on this matter and engages regularly with constituents, including those who have organised this petition. The Labor government will continue to work with community groups to provide the best outcome to all parties and will continue to collaborate for a better future for all Victorians. Energy from waste is an important and exciting link to the sustainable waste management chain, and it complements existing waste management processes such as recycling, re-use or avoiding the creation of waste. Thank you very much, and I cannot commend this petition to the house.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:50): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the petition to reject the proposal to construct a waste-to-energy plant at Lara in Geelong. There is no question that we need to address the state’s growing waste management problems. We need to find alternatives to tipping tonnes of waste into our landfill sites every day. But I am not surprised that people in Lara are opposing the construction of a waste-to-energy facility in their community, which will see 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of waste incinerated per year. It will have disastrous impacts on air quality and create dangerous levels of environmental contamination. Waste-to-energy incineration is the most expensive and pollutant-intensive way to manage waste or to make energy. Incinerators emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases, and while they may reduce landfill it is important to remember that for every hundred tonnes of waste burned, 25 tonnes will become toxic ash which will still require secure landfilling. I want to quote from the government response to the 2019 recycling and waste management inquiry. In relation to waste-to-energy technology, the Victorian government committed to supporting only projects that, amongst other conditions: (1) met best-practice environment protection requirements including air pollution controls, (2) did not inhibit innovation in re-use or recycling of materials or (3) reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to the waste and energy services they displaced. By its very nature, waste-to-energy incineration relies on the production of waste to keep the facility running, and this includes waste that could be recycled.

Now, they are not very good at reducing gas emissions either. While the CO₂ emitted from waste incineration depends on the composition of the waste, the emissions released from waste-to-energy incineration can be very high. Every tonne of waste incinerated can produce as much as 1.7 tonnes of carbon emissions, including emissions from fossil fuels, burning plastics and biogenic fuel, wood, paper and food. That is not a huge win for the environment when you consider the vast amount of noxious pollutants also being emitted. Waste-to-energy technology also inhibits the re-use and recycling of materials and undermines the move to lower carbon options for waste management.

These facilities have a massive appetite for waste. The Lara facility, as I said before, is looking to incinerate 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes per year, and if the City of Greater Geelong has already ruled out using the plant, where is the necessary waste to keep this facility operational going to come from? Well, I reckon a fair chunk of it is going to be brought in from Melbourne – surprise, surprise – and it is going to be trucked through the western suburbs. So we are looking at thousands of additional trucks passing through our western suburbs on the way to Lara, further impacting the already very poor air quality in our region. We know that one of the key sources of air pollution in the inner west comes from transportation, with the EPA acknowledging that:

Air quality in the area doesn’t meet Australia’s national air quality standards.

And the level of particulate matter regularly exceeds the national standard. On top of everything else, the facility requires an investment of $700 million. That is investment that could be going into innovative recycling initiatives and could even help fund the state’s transition to a circular economy. Rather than building more waste-to-energy incineration plants, which will lock us into a 25-year cycle of producing waste to feed the beast, we should be investing in solutions to reduce waste that meet best-practice environment protection requirements to protect the health and wellbeing of all Victorians.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:55): I rise too to speak in support of this petition, which makes clear that the community of Lara want to send a clear message that the proposed waste incinerator must be stopped, and I want to thank all the community campaigners for the momentum and the awareness they have created through their activism and their advocacy. It is so important that these issues get a spotlight on them, because they are issues that so many people do not want us to know about but that are so important for our public health, our wellbeing and the future of our environment.

Waste incineration is an antiquated response to both waste management and energy production. It is preposterous that this government wants to burn more toxic pollutants into the atmosphere when we are in the midst of a climate emergency. We should be looking towards the future with climate-safe solutions. We should be creating better waste-sorting practices and incentivising the use of non-wasteful materials. Instead the Labor government is committing the Lara community and Victoria to an incinerator, which will allow the ceaseless release of greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere. In fact it will produce more emissions per unit of energy than even a coal plant, and that is to say nothing of the toxins released from the burning of plastic and other hazardous materials.

Implementing such a program in the midst of a climate crisis is a huge step in the wrong direction. The people of Lara have clearly spoken out against this project and I anticipate will continue to speak out to get the government’s attention. They are horrified at the thought of toxic pollutants being emitted into their backyard, but the government is not listening to them. The public were given just a token one month of consultation over the Easter school holidays last year. The community’s rejection of the project was clear then, and it is clear now. Thousands have signed the petition, as residents know that this project presents serious risks to the wellbeing of their community. The government cannot in good conscience sign off on this incinerator. If they are truly committed to better waste management and to the people of Lara, they should scrap the incinerator project now.

Speaking to the issues regarding waste and recycling that the proposed incinerator and a number of incinerator projects pose to Victoria, I would like to expand on that for the remainder of the time that I have. As has been referenced by the previous speakers, Dr Mansfield and Mr Ettershank particularly, it is really important to remember that this conversation is happening in the context of previous conversations this Parliament has had and this chamber has had about the future of waste and recycling in this state. A few years ago, when the recycling system essentially ground to a halt and we had a crisis, this Parliament did its work by launching a parliamentary inquiry into waste and recycling in Victoria. It was groundbreaking, it was expansive and it had some very, very strong recommendations for government. Through that inquiry we looked deeply into the prospect and the avenue of incineration as a potential pathway to consider for materials that would otherwise go to landfill, and it was clear that there were a number of problems with the incineration pathway.

Firstly, they lock in waste. We have already seen in jurisdictions that have gone down the pathway of incineration that we are talking about corporations who make a profit off waste. There is a lot of PR around energy generation and how this is good for the environment, but you have to look at the contracts and how much waste they require for these incinerators to be viable. We have seen in the US, for example, counties facing fines or legal action because they did not produce enough waste. The councils were doing the right thing by reducing the amount of waste the community was producing, which was a good environmental outcome, yet the councils were then punished by these corporations because they were not producing enough waste for the company to make a profit.

We have already heard that incinerators generate large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, and that cannot be a viable pathway in the midst of a climate emergency. We know that waste incinerators are energy inefficient and expensive, as Mr Ettershank has already cited. Studies have found that energy recaptured by recycling plastics was nearly 75 megajoules per kilogram compared to just 6 megajoules per kilogram of waste. There is a wasted opportunity here in terms of job creation. We know that waste incineration would create one job versus six jobs created through recycling programs, so if we are thinking about setting up a proper circular economy, we should be looking at ways that both support our local economies and support the reduction of waste. I commend this petition and thank the community for bringing this issue to the attention of the house.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:00): I would like to thank my parliamentary colleagues who have contributed to this debate this afternoon. In particular I would like to thank Mr Ettershank for highlighting a range of facts about this facility and about waste incineration more broadly that I think really demonstrate quite clearly why this facility should not be approved. He also pointed out that this facility will impact not only the Lara community but communities beyond, like the western suburbs of Melbourne. I would also like to thank my colleague Dr Ratnam, who again outlined the case against waste incineration more broadly and has campaigned heavily against this throughout her time in Parliament.

While I am really pleased that the government was willing to contribute to this debate, and I think it is really important for the community of Lara to hear the government’s position, I think it will be of cold comfort that Ms Watt appeared to be speaking quite favourably about this development. As far as I understand, it is yet to receive planning approval, but from what has been said I am very concerned that it may be headed for a tick of approval from the Minister for Planning. I can tell you that if that is the case, this will not be the last you hear about this. This community has been fighting. They stand ready to continue to fight, and they are not alone. An increasing number of bodies across the Greater Geelong community are uniting to stand against this facility. I know that there are people exploring legal action that can be taken, including a number of developers in the area. The Committee for Geelong, most recently, which is a consortium of different business groups and various other entities, have come out in opposition to this facility. So this will not be the end, and I would urge the government to listen to our community, to listen to the science around waste incineration and to stop the Lara waste incinerator.

Motion agreed to.