Community speakers unanimous in opposition to Tarago waste-to-energy plan at Goulburn hearing: A Call for Trust and Transparency
The proposed waste-to-energy plant at Tarago has sparked intense opposition, with community speakers at the NSW parliamentary inquiry in Goulburn expressing universal non-support. The $600 million Veolia proposal, which aims to burn 380,000 tonnes of Sydney's non-recyclable waste annually at the Woodlawn site, has raised serious concerns.
One of the key issues is the trust deficit. Speakers, including resident Charlotte Payne, have highlighted ongoing environmental problems at the Woodlawn landfill, such as persistent odour issues, which have caused significant distress and health impacts on local families. This lack of trust is further compounded by the revelation that Veolia sought changes to emissions standards, as noted by Goulburn MP Wendy Tuckerman, which many see as a direct threat to the community's well-being.
The question of regional versus urban responsibility is also at the forefront. Goulburn councillor Keith Smith and others argue that Sydney should bear the burden of its waste, rather than dumping it on regional communities like Tarago. This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the social licence of such projects, as Reverend Paul Davey emphasized, stating that the community stands united against waste incineration.
The potential long-term risks are another major point of contention. Tuckerman argues that the proposal shifts uncertainty onto a small regional community, and farmers like Stan Moore have raised concerns about food safety and the contamination of agricultural land. The mental health impact on residents, as noted by Committee chair Nicole Overall, further underscores the gravity of the situation.
The need for transparency and accountability is paramount. Veolia's response, while acknowledging odour issues and working on solutions, has done little to assuage the community's concerns. The company's defense of the proposal as internationally proven technology falls short when faced with the real-world consequences of its operations.
As the inquiry continues, the call for trust and transparency grows louder. The community's opposition is not merely a reactionary stance but a well-founded concern for their health, environment, and future. The final report must address these concerns and provide a clear path forward that prioritizes the well-being of both the community and the environment.
