Rachel spoke on a petition tabled by her Legalise Cannabis Victoria colleague, David Ettershank, member for Western Metropolitan. This petition called on the Minister for Planning to halt any progress toward a waste incinerator in Sunbury, citing concerns such as air pollution, impact on ecosystems and proximity to residential development.
Wednesday the 18th of February 2026,
Victorian Legislative Council
Rachel Payne (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
I rise today to speak in support of the petition brought forward by the concerned residents of Sunbury. I would like to acknowledge the community members who are here for this debate today and thank them for their ongoing advocacy, and my colleague David Ettershank, who has been actively campaigning alongside the community. I think we can all agree that Victoria has a waste problem. With our landfills nearing capacity and recycling rates stagnating, the state is turning to waste to energy as a solution, and outer suburban areas like Sunbury are bearing the brunt.
If built, the proposed incinerator in Sunbury will be a beast. The proponent, HiQ, is proposing a facility that would run 24 hours a day, seven days a week and burn up to 750,000 tonnes of waste each year. That volume goes well beyond local needs. So where is all this waste coming from? Well, the Minister for Environment has assured me that the government does not support any further increases to the current waste energy cap or importing waste from other jurisdictions. I remain incredibly sceptical. If this government does not want to continue opening new landfills, more waste is going to have to be imported from across the state and perhaps across the country, regardless of whether they support it. No wonder residents are feeling like they are in a dumping ground. I have heard from families who made Sunbury their home, and it offers open spaces, relative affordability and a sense of community. This facility would sit 1 kilometre from an established housing estate and nearby schools, creeks and parklands. Traffic impacts would also be significant. It is estimated that this facility would bring 700 additional trucks each day onto already congested local roads. This means more emissions, more noise and more strain on infrastructure. Sunbury residents should not have to choose between an affordable home or their health.
In my own electorate we have also seen plans for a waste-to-energy facility in Dandenong South, nearing the fragile local Dandenong Creek and connecting waterways. Again, these outer suburbs are the dumping ground in this government’s waste agenda. We must ask ourselves the broader question: is waste to energy the answer? These facilities require a steady stream of feedstock to remain economically viable. That within itself risks locking the state into decades of waste generation to service a beast that must be fed. The government has committed to transitioning to a circular economy, yet incineration sits at the lower end of waste hierarchy. It recovers some energy, yes, but it does not prioritise reduction or reuse, it does not demand greater corporate responsibility and it does not transform consumer patterns. We only need to look to the UK or internationally for some examples. Burning waste does not vanish it, it merely transforms it into emissions and residual ash. Most facilities produce by-products, including bottom ash and fly, and these contain heavy metals and other toxic substances.
We know that the risks associated with that are respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and increased risks of cancer from exposure. Now Sunbury residents are being asked to put faith in HiQ, a company that has been fined by the EPA for 13 offences. It is entirely reasonable for the community to question whether HiQ should be trusted to operate a facility that generates these kinds of hazardous by-products. Sunbury residents are asking for fairness, transparency and the right to live in a community that is healthy and sustainable. We owe it to them to step back, to listen and to wait until the waste-to-energy inquiry is complete so that we can then ask whether this is truly the best way forward.
Related:
- Victoria’s Burning Problem – Waste to Energy – Rachel Payne
- Waste-to-energy: How is Victoria stacking up? – Rachel Payne
- Waste-to-energy could cause more problems than it solves – Rachel Payne
- Waste-to-Energy inquiry debate sparked – Rachel Payne
- Waste incineration and landfill targets – Rachel Payne
- Rubbish: A burning problem in Victoria – Rachel Payne
- Dandenong South Incinerator Has Residents Inflamed – Rachel Payne
