Member for Goulburn, Wendy Tuckerman, is urging local residents to make submissions to the newly announced Parliamentary inquiry into proposed waste-to-energy incinerators including at Tarago.
The inquiry follows widespread concern that almost one million tonnes of Sydney’s waste could be redirected for incineration in regional NSW each year – including 380,000 tonnes earmarked for Tarago.
Mrs Tuckerman said the inquiry was a vital opportunity for the community to raise concerns about health, environmental and agricultural impacts.
“Regional NSW should not be treated as Sydney’s dumping ground,” Mrs Tuckerman said. “This is our chance to make sure the voices of our community are heard loud and clear.”
The inquiry will investigate the safety, health, and environmental impacts of proposed waste-to-energy facilities at Tarago and Parkes. Key areas of focus include:
- Whether the proposed technologies match international best practice.
- The spread and quality of emissions and how they are monitored.
- Potential health impacts, including effects on drinking water, rainwater harvesting, and soil.
- Risks to agriculture such as sheep, cattle, and crop production across the region.
- Long-term impacts of waste dumping in Tarago.
- Specific implications for the Parkes Special Activation Precinct.
- Lessons from older incinerator technology compared to newer proposals.
The inquiry will also consider broader related matters to ensure regional communities are not unfairly burdened with Sydney’s waste.
Residents can find detailed information on how to make a submission by visiting wendytuckerman.com. Submissions are open now and will close on Friday, 31 October 2025.
“Every submission counts,” Mrs Tuckerman said. “Whether you’re worried about emissions, transport risks, or the long-term impact on agriculture and local health – your input is crucial.”
Residents can use these points to guide their submissions. It’s best to:
- Write in your own words,
- Focus on how the issues affect you, your family, and your community, and highlight any personal stories (health, farming, environment, lifestyle).
- Be respectful, clear, and try link your points to any of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
- Remember that submissions close October 31.
Individuals who do not have access to email or the internet can still make a submission by post. Please find below information that can be shared with the constituent.
To lodge a submission by post, please address it to:
The Director
Select Committee on Proposed Energy from Waste Facilities
Legislative Council, Parliament House
6 Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000
When making a submission, please include the following contact details:
- First name and surname
- Address
- Contact phone number
- Email (if applicable)
Lodging a submission as an individual
When you lodge your submission, please let us know if you are requesting that:
- your submission be published in full on the website including your name
- your submission be published in full on the website but with your name removed
- only particular sections of your submission be published and other sections be kept confidential
- all of your submission including your name be kept confidential.
- Your entire submission (including your name) kept confidential.
Lodging a submission on behalf of an organisation
Please consider the above options as they relate to the organisation, noting that ‘your name’ in this instance refers to the organisation’s name, not the individual submitting it. The name of an individual lodging a submission on behalf of an organisation will not be published on the website.
Please note that it is the committee’s decision on how to deal with your request. Personal contact details and signatures will automatically be removed from all submissions.
1. Technology Performance
Examine performance of technologies at Tarago and Parkes compared to “state of the art” facilities overseas.
- Waste-to-energy is promoted as “clean” but studies show PFAS and other harmful chemicals are not fully destroyed by incineration, contaminating air, water, and ash.
- Overseas examples are often in industrial zones, not prime farmland or water catchments like Tarago.
- If these facilities were safe, why are they banned or rejected in Western Sydney but allowed in regional towns?
2. Environmental and Health Impacts
Consider emissions standards, environmental impacts, and community health concerns.
- Air quality risks: Burning 380,000 tonnes annually at Tarago could release toxins into nearby communities.
- Water safety: Tarago sits within Sydney’s water catchment – contamination risks would affect both local residents and Sydney’s drinking supply.
- PFAS pollution: International evidence shows incineration does not reliably break down PFAS, leading to harmful by-products.
- Agriculture: Local farmers risk contamination of soil, livestock, and crops, threatening livelihoods and food safety.
3. Transport and Infrastructure
Review impacts of transporting large volumes of waste to regional sites.
- Almost a million tonnes of waste could be trucked/railed through NSW annually.
- Tarago already takes 40% of Sydney’s waste via landfill adding incineration to the ever worsening odour, noise, and spillage that is being produced by Veolia.
- More freight means more emissions, as well as rail/road wear, traffic accidents, and safety risks for regional towns.
4. Community Consultation and Social Licence
Examine adequacy of consultation with impacted communities.
- Residents in Tarago and Goulburn were never meaningfully consulted on the scale or risks of these projects.
- Past issues at Woodlawn landfill (odour, spills, EPA breaches) show trust has already been eroded from the company that is proposing to operate the incinerator.
- Locals deserve to know if it was fine for Western Sydney to reject these projects, why are regional communities treated differently?
5. Policy and Alternatives
Consider policy context, waste strategy, and alternatives.
- Sydney’s waste, Sydney’s responsibility – waste should be managed near where it’s produced, not shifted where you can’t see the problems.
- Incineration undermines recycling and contradicts NSW’s circular economy goals.
- Better alternatives exist:
- Plastics plan with mandatory recycled content,
- Ban unnecessary single-use packaging,
- Improve recycling and food/green waste recovery,
- Ensure packaging is recyclable, reusable, or compostable.
6. Equity and Fairness
Ensure regional communities are not unfairly burdened.
- Tarago already bears more than its share with the Woodlawn landfill.
- Forcing Sydney’s waste on regional NSW is a double standard that treats country towns as dumping grounds.
- Any waste strategy must guarantee no community is sacrificed for the city’s comfort.
WENDY TUCKERMAN 