By Violet Li
Hampton Park and its surrounding residents travelled far to Parliament on a rainy Wednesday afternoon to support a debate against the proposed Hampton Park waste transfer station.
More than 50 residents braved the weather and travelled more than 40 kilometres to the Parliament on Wednesday 28 May to attend a petition debate led by local Opposition MP Ann-Marie Hermans.
Wearing “WTS WE SAY NO” shirts and holding a “STOP THE WTS PROTECT HAMPTON PARK” banner, they peacefully rallied against the proposed facility before the debate.
Ms Hermans tabled two petitions with more than 4000 signatures to stop the construction of the proposed Hampton Park waste transfer station in parliament back in February.
The petitions were moved on Wednesday night after a debate, gaining unanimous support across the crossbenchers.
Ms Hermans called on the relevant ministers to support the EPA’s refusal if challenged at VCAT, based on health, safety, and environmental risks.
She also called for investigating the legal basis of the planning permit issued by Casey Council, revoking the permit that was approved contrary to EPA findings, conducting a probity audit into Casey Council’s governance, focusing on potential conflicts of interest, and identifying an alternative site in an appropriate industrial area, away from homes and with access to rail infrastructure.
The two petitions were tabled before the EPA rejected the development licence of the proposed waste transfer station in April; however, Veolia appealed the rejection as it was made outside the prescribed legal timeframe. The matter has now been in the hands of VCAT, the state tribunal.
A separate planning permit was approved by Casey Council before the elected councillors last year. This year, the newly elected councillor group have moved against the proposed facility.
“If VCAT overturns the EPA’s refusal and allows this waste station to go ahead in this area, the government needs to defend the EPA’s decision, because the location is inappropriate and there are genuine health, safety and environmental concerns,” Ms Hermans said when opening the debate on Wednesday night.
“The energy minister publicly opposes a waste-to-energy facility in Wollert, neighbouring her electorate, despite masterminding these plans. Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister opposed one in Lara, the area which he represents in federal Parliament. If this facility was no good for the people of Wollert or Lara, why is it acceptable for the people in my community?
“While we support recycling and waste into energy, these facilities need to be positioned away from residential areas.
“Sporting clubs, schools and community groups like Lynbrook Primary, the Hampton Park Junior Football Club and the Hazara Shamama Association are concerned about the risk to their community and young people and feel they have been ignored.”
The opening speech was met with loud applause from the public gallery, and the president of the Legislative Council had to remind everyone that no audience participation was encouraged.
During the debate, Labor MP for South-Eastern Metropolitan Michael Galea said it was “very disappointing” that the planning permit for the proposed waste transfer station was decided before the elected council last year, and he welcomed and supported the EPA’s rejection.
“I sincerely hope that an alternative location can be found,” he said.
Legalise Cannabis MP Rachel Payne highlighted at the debate that Veolia’s proposed waste transfer station would process the rubbish of nine councils, making it the biggest waste transfer station in Victoria, crunching through half a million tonnes of waste each year.
“It is also the only waste transfer station of this scale not planned in an industrial area,” she said.
“I do not think it is okay to dump half a million tonnes of waste into people’s homes. “That is why I have joined the community in their fight to stop this obscene proposal, because it is not okay to treat people like rubbish.”
Liberal MP Renee Heath condemned the “reckless, inequitable and shamefully arrogant way this government has handled the proposed waste transfer station”.
“This is a community that has had more than its fair share. It lives in the shadow of one of the state’s largest landfills. It absorbs the trucks, the odours, the noise and the risk. Now the government wants to add 550,000 tonnes of commercial waste a year to a site just 54 metres from homes,” she said.
“There was no social impact statement, no proper environmental effects statement and no genuine consultation with culturally and linguistically diverse residents, despite this being one of Victoria’s most multicultural and disadvantaged regions.”
The debate night saw familiar faces in the crowd, including several Casey Councillors and several local candidates who ran for the Federal Election this year.
A spokesperson of Lynbrook Residents Association (LRA), which represents the residents of five suburbs surrounding the proposed waste transfer station and organised the rally, said there was an overwhelming sense of pride and validation across the community.
“Many of us were moved to tears witnessing years of advocacy formally recognised at the highest level,” they said.
“Seeing our concerns echoed in Parliament reaffirmed that our voices matter—this is not just about a development; it’s about protecting the wellbeing of our families and our future.”
The spokesperson hoped that the government would act swiftly and decisively on the actions called for in the petition.
“Now that it has received unanimous support, we are urging the government to take meaningful steps, especially to ensure that community health, environmental safeguards, and transparency are placed above commercial interests,” they said.
“We also call for stronger safeguards to prevent similar proposals from being fast-tracked near residential areas in the future.
“Most importantly, we hope this marks a turning point where community voices are no longer sidelined but genuinely respected and embedded in planning decisions.”
Ms Hermans said it was unfortunate that the government had a backbencher respond and did not have a single Minister respond at the debate.
“It is quite damning of the government, as the Minister for Planning (in the other place) can fix this rubbish dump and waste transfer situation effective immediately, thereby rendering an appeal to VCAT irrelevant,” she said.
“Interestingly, the Minister didn’t even have the courtesy to attend or listen to the debate in the chamber.”
Minister for Planning Sonya Kilkenny responded to the two petitions in March, claiming that she did not have the ability under the Planning and Environment Act 7987 to overturn or vary a decision once a council has issued a planning permit.
“The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum to seek a review of this matter,” she stated.
“Any request for an investigation into the council’s conduct should be directed to the Victorian Ombudsman or the Local Government Inspectorate.”
As for the actions called in the petitions, Ms Hermans said it might put more pressure on the situation and on the government.
“It wasn’t opposed by the government but. Unfortunately, we got little more than a nod of sympathy yesterday,” she said.
*This story is still developing with more comments coming through.
