News

Debate over proposed Tarago waste-to-energy facility reaches Senate

Max O'Driscoll1 December 2021
Artist's impression of Advanced Energy Recovery Centre in Tarago

An artist’s impression of the proposed Advanced Energy Recovery Centre in Tarago. Image: Veolia.

The debate regarding whether the controversial Tarago waste-to-energy facility should go ahead has officially reached the federal level of government.

Duty Senator for Hume Deborah O’Neill has called out the would-be constructors and operators of the facility, Veolia, and pressured Federal Member for Hume Angus Taylor to support his constituents and publicly oppose the project.

Veolia’s proposed $600 million Advanced Energy Recovery Centre in Tarago has been met with strong opposition from the local community.

Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Yass Valley Council and Member for Goulburn Wendy Tuckerman have all spoken out against the project as well.

Presenting to the Senate on Wednesday, 24 November, Senator O’Neill declared she is supporting the local community, which does not want to see the “toxic project” go ahead. She used examples of prior failings in Tarago as an example of why the project would be a “disaster for the local community”.


READ ALSO: ‘New direction’ for NSW Police as Boorowa’s Karen Webb named Police Commissioner


“[The site of the proposed project] is only 5km away from Tarago Public School, a school which is already suffering from an epidemic of lead pollution and contaminated drinking water,” she said.

“Currently in that town, there is no reticulated water and all water is collected from rainwater. Could you imagine the effects on water of a waste incinerator belching fumes into the air in the drinking water of that community?”

Senator O’Neill then directed her words specifically towards Veolia and the company’s withdrawal of funding from Goulburn Mulwaree Council, which she believes was in direct response to council announcing its opposition to the waste-to-energy project.

“Veolia is not on the community’s side, and in a petulant reaction to a council motion opposing the incinerator, Veolia decided to withdraw its previously promised $2.5 million grant for the local performing arts centre,” she said.

“They are absolutely not dealing in good faith with the community. Not only imposing their will without adequate protection for the health of the community, but using their power to destabilise the local economy and walking away from a commitment that was to support the benefit of those who are interested in performing arts.

“This is a type of appalling corporate citizenship and just a sign of how little this company regards the local community.”


READ ALSO: Denzil Sturgiss reflects on 22 years as a Goulburn Mulwaree councillor


Senator O’Neill finished by taking a parting swipe at Federal Member for Hume and Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor by saying she wishes the Tarago community had a local member who stood up for them.

A Veolia spokesperson responded to Senator O’Neill’s assertion that they are not on the side of the local community, and in particular the comments made linking the withdrawal of funding from the Goulburn Performing Arts Centre project to council’s announcement of opposition towards the waste-to-energy facility.

“The allegations made are untrue,” said the spokesperson. “Veolia is, and always has been, on the community’s side.

“Since 2004, Veolia has generously contributed more than $18 million to the community through its operational host fees and the Veolia Mulwaree Trust. We’re proud of this positive impact, and as good corporate citizens are committed to providing ongoing support to community initiatives.

“Veolia has agreed to allocate $9 million of its host fees to the Goulburn Performing Arts Centre – which we think is a marvellous project – to pay for council’s borrowings.

“We are proposing the Advanced Energy Recovery Centre because it is globally proven as safe, is significantly more sustainable than landfilling for non-recyclable waste, and will deliver an economic boost of more than $600 million to the region.

“This proposed project is completely unrelated to the Performing Arts Centre and is subject to the highest legal, regulatory and planning scrutiny.”

Mr Taylor has not recently made public comments on the waste-to-energy project. Privately, he has pointed to the matter as a NSW Government issue and not one he’d like to get involved in.

The Communities Against the Tarago Incinerator group has become increasingly frustrated with their local member, who they say should meet with them to hear their concerns.

What's Your Opinion?

2 Responses to Debate over proposed Tarago waste-to-energy facility reaches Senate

Filter
Order
Jane Bremmer Jane Bremmer 5:44 pm 01 Dec 21

This deliberate and willful misinformation campaign by Veolia must stop. Waste incineration has not been “globally proven as safe”. In fact the most recent, global, independent, peer reviewed and published meta analysis and systemic review of the science on the health impacts of waste incineration undertaken by the Public Health Association of Australia states otherwise. This study concluded, “While the results were not consistent across the literature, based on a precautionary principle there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe. There is some suggestion that newer incinerator technologies with robust maintenance schedules may be less harmful, but diseases from exposures tend to manifest only after many years of cumulative exposure, so it is premature to conclude that these newer technologies improve safety.
Incineration for waste management, including waste-to-energy options, is likely to remain an alternative that governments will consider. However, the financial and ecological costs of waste to energy are comparably high. Building reliance on a waste stream for energy counters the need to reduce waste overall. This review suggests that incineration is not without problems and so it is an option that needs to be pursued carefully with close monitoring. Local community groups have a basis for legitimate concern and so siting of incineration facilities needs to take these concerns into account. Early transparent consultation with communities about these facilities is essential.” Its time for the media to expose this and for the federal and state governments to uphold our independent health experts ahead of paid industry lobbyists.

Matt Ford Matt Ford 2:47 pm 01 Dec 21

Dear Editor

Australia’s absymal performance dealing with “rubbish”, swinging mostly between: burying, burning or offshoring, is a disgrace on our parliamentary representatives.

No we don’t just have keep-cup inner city residents up in arms here but ordinary Australians.

In fact you may find farmers are into keep-cups, because Australians everywhere, despite the neo-liberal hands off, business will find a convenient solution, smoke screen – see the waste of energy plant – are not, just like people all around the world, enthusiastic about being poisoned by pathetic grandfathered schemes.

Appalling schemes allowed to slip through environmental protections by some overpaid & apathetic politicians and bureaucrats.

You need look no further than one of our largest economic partners, Japan, to see waste happily sorted into 45 different categories by willing residents and employees throughout the entire economy.

What is needed is waste sorting leadership and infrastructure here in Australia and none to soon.

Top