Rachel moved a motion requiring the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into the expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria. After the debate, Rachel concluded her motion, before it was taken to a vote in the Victorian Legislative Council. The motion passed, with a vote count of 18 – 10.
Wednesday the 27th of August 2025,
Victorian Legislative Council
Rachel Payne (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
Firstly, I want to thank all of the community groups that have either appeared here today or who have been active in this space. I have learned a lot throughout this process because it has been my community who have come to me with their concerns. They have raised these concerns with me and highlighted why it is so important that we in this place get it right. I mean, we do have to consider what kind of world we want to leave for future generations, and that has to be front of mind in any decisions we make in this place, because decisions we make in this place are long lasting and have impacts. That is especially the case when it comes to impacts that could be impacting our communities around their health and their wellbeing. That is what our communities have raised with us. They are concerned, they are worried, about what waste to energy and the broader infrastructure that facilitates it mean for our communities more broadly.
I also want to thank everybody for making contributions today. There were so many varied and wide contributions in this space. It is important to note that I think we are all overwhelmingly on the same page when we are talking about avoiding waste and wanting to move towards an economy where we reuse, we recycle and we avoid creating the waste initially. However, what we are currently seeing in how we are operating is that is not actually happening, and this is why we are calling for the inquiry.
The facilities that are being proposed are being proposed for residential areas in working-class communities. Why is this continuing to happen? We need to have a look at that. Are the current requirements around where these operators can apply to plan and have a permit fit for purpose? Some of my colleagues also talked about something which is dear to my heart, the Hampton Park waste transfer station, and the EPA decision there should be upheld. I do appreciate that many of my colleagues in this place have raised that issue and looked at the fact that those that are following the guidelines are operating appropriately, but when it comes to operators that continue to challenge the EPA’s decisions, continue to litigate any sort of issues that surround the current facilities they have got, there is no doubt that there is going to be ongoing community concern and a lack of trust in these operators as to how they are going to operate these sorts of facilities.
When we have 11 applications in Victoria, we also need to question that. An inquiry process allows that community consultation, which is something that most people raised in their contributions – the importance of community consultation – but it also allows the experts to come in and educate us. I appreciate that we had an inquiry similar to this only a few years ago, but what was born out of that was the circular economy policy, and we are not meeting those targets. We are five years through a circular economy policy, and we are producing and creating more waste and using more plastic than ever before.
I do feel that we can get to a place where we could see the circular economy become more robust, and waste to energy may have a part to play in that. But we also need to make sure that the regulators have the teeth to hold these multinational corporations to account on their emissions targets and on their requirements of how they operate in communities and that they do the right thing by our communities, because the way we are seeing them behave currently is they are just litigating every challenge they receive.
Again, I want to thank all of the community for being active in this space. We have learned a lot throughout this process. I look forward to the inquiry going forward, and I hope that everyone will support the motion going forward.
Amendments agreed to.
Council divided on amended motion:
Ayes (18): Ryan Batchelor, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell
Noes (10): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Joe McCracken
Amended motion agreed to.
Related:
> Waste-to-Energy inquiry debate sparked – Rachel Payne
> Victoria’s Burning Problem – Rachel Payne
> Rubbish: A burning problem in Victoria – Rachel Payne
> Waste incineration and landfill targets – Rachel Payne
> Waste-to-energy could cause more problems than it solves – Rachel Payne
