Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Short Form Documents Motions
29 October 2025
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I move:
That this house:
(1) notes the failure of the government to release documents relating to the granting of seven new waste-to-energy licences and the increase of permitted waste to be processed through waste-to-energy facilities to 2.35 million tonnes per annum;
(2) in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution:
(a) a copy of each application to Recycling Victoria for cap licences; and
(b) a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report or similar documents, outlining the calculations and rationale behind the allocations of each cap licence.
In the recent debate on our motion to hold an inquiry into the development and expansion of waste-to-energy infrastructure in Victoria we sought to counter the gaslighting and spin coming from the companies awarded the licences to operate these massive incinerators.
Far from decreasing waste generation and increasing investment in recycling and resource recovery – or being key to Victoria’s transition to a more circular economy – these facilities are expensive and carbon intensive and lock us into continual production of waste. They do not support recycling or a circular economy. Incineration destroys material that could be recycled back into production.
These facilities are environmental nightmares, releasing toxic chemicals that remain in the environment for hundreds of years and consuming unsustainable quantities of water. It is hardly surprising that a huge number of state and federal MPs are up in arms about these facilities, given the community concern over the affected areas is just so great.
The process around the approval for these facilities has been particularly opaque. There are so many unanswered questions around the awarding of licences to operate these facilities, the location of these facilities and the quantity of waste to be incinerated by these facilities – questions which need to be addressed by the government.
For this reason we are seeking the release of a copy of each of the applications to Recycling Victoria and a copy of Recycling Victoria’s final report or similar, outlining their rationale for the awarding of these cap licences. We hope the documents we seek will shed a light on, for example, why the licences granted equate to 3.5 million tonnes when the government policy is only 2.5 million tonnes.
What is the rationale behind Recycling Victoria increasing the waste tonnage by 40 per cent, apparently in one stroke? Is Victoria planning on importing waste from other states? Why this huge increase? And why were companies awarded these licences? Was there any due diligence in assessing the corporate character of these licences?
HiQ, formerly High-Quality – always watch the people that change their name – the company awarded the licence for the Sunbury waste-to-energy facility, have faced over a dozen charges of breaching their licence conditions at their Sunbury site, including improper disposal of asbestos waste, failure to comply with remediation notices and failure to comply with pollution abatement or establish an appropriate risk-monitoring program.
But Recycling Victoria is fine to award them a licence to burn 750,000 tonnes of waste at HiQ’s ironically named Eco-Hub in Sunbury. Even more bizarrely, when we were briefed by HiQ, they were only seeking 450,000 tonnes of waste. Is this Recycling Victoria going, ‘We know you want more’? What is this? This is a huge increase, and there is no rationale behind it in the public sphere.
We are also curious about the decision not to award the Prospect Hill facility in Lara an operating licence. Could it have anything to do with federal MPs, including the Deputy Prime Minister, for goodness sake, getting behind the local protests? I am not criticising. I am just saying that everyone else in this chamber should join the push, because it is a terrible idea. But what was the role of these members? Did it have anything to do in fact with Daniel Andrews lobbying on behalf of the Chinese parent company? Whatever the reason, it would be interesting to know why that particular project at Lara has potentially fallen over but none of the others have, most of which have received more.
The move to incinerating our rubbish represents a significant and regressive shift for Victoria. These facilities are being pushed through at an unseemly pace, without consideration for the fact that these monstrous incinerators will be across the road in many cases from residential areas, homes, schools, businesses and shops. There are very real pollution and health risks associated with these facilities, which the government is not addressing.
While there may be a place for incineration in a comprehensive waste management plan that incorporates proper recycling practices and contributes to Victoria’s plan for a circular economy, the government needs to slow down and do the necessary work to bring the community along, and that starts with transparency.
We urge the government to comply with this request. It is simple, it does not take a lot of hours and it does not take a lot of public servants. If the process for awarding these licences is thorough and genuine, there should be nothing to hide.
[Motion passed]
