Overseas Investment Office approve land sale for ‘Waste to Poisons’ plant.
South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL) applied with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) in May 2023 to acquire sensitive land and significant business assets.
When the application was received, former government ministers determined SIRRL’s application to be of ‘National Interest.’ Therefore, the finance minister was required to decide whether it was contrary to NZ’s national interests; if determined to be contrary, the appropriate ministers would decline the application.
If determined not contrary to National Interests, the final decision was to be made by the Land Information Minister, Chris Penk, and the associate Finance Minister, David Seymour.
Sensitive land assets
The land acquisition part of the application was subject to a freehold interest in approximately 14.85 hectares of land located at Carroll’s and Morven Glenavy Roads, Waimate.
The land belongs to Murphy Farms Limited and is part of a dairy farm operation. At the time of the application, the 14.85 hectares of farmland was part of a larger parcel of land, which required subdivision to allow the land to be acquired and held as a separate title.
SIRRL director Paul Taylor stated in March 2023, at a meeting in Glenavy, that the company explored the Waimate area as a location. He said they looked at “3-4 locations” around Waimate before deciding that the Carroll’s and Morven/Glenavy Roads location was “perfect.” Mr. Taylor then added, “We set about acquiring that land.”
The land was subsequently listed for sale through a deadline treaty process that began on December 17, 2021, and concluded on February 25, 2022.
OIO requirements stipulate that farmland acquired by overseas interests must first be publicly listed for at least 30 days. Listing the land by way of a deadline treaty process satisfies these requirements. It also allows the landowner to privately pre-negotiate a deal with overseas buyers as the landowner is not obliged to accept the highest bid and can further negotiate with any party after the conclusion of the deadline treaty while still ‘ticking the OIO box’.
If negotiations between the landowner and prospective overseas purchaser had resulted in a conditional purchase agreement before any public sale listing, as Mr Taylors’ comments might suggest, then publicly listing the land after the fact achieves what, other than ensuring the landowner gets the best price available?
The farmland, which will be repurposed for industrial use, is set to house a waste-to-energy plant.
Resource consent applications have been lodged with Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Waimate District Council (WDC). Due to the proposal’s scope, both councils requested that the Environment Minister call in the applications.
Former Environment Minister David Parker decided to call in the application after an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommendation.
SIRRL’s resource consent application will be decided in the Environment Court. The EPA is currently awaiting information requests from ECan and WDC to be met by the applicant- South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL), before proceeding with public notification and the Environment Court process.
Significant business assets
SIRRL applied to acquire sensitive land and significant business assets simultaneously. The two applications were bundled and processed together.
SIRRL’s shareholding is as follows:
- China Tianying (CNTY) 41%
- Zhongying (EUZY) 19%
- Renew Energy Limited (REL) 40%
EUZY is 100% owned by CNTY.
REL is registered as an NZ company, making SIRRL 60% overseas-owned.
SIRRL was registered on the NZ Companies register on March 24, 2021.
The proposal involves an investment of $350 million, significantly more than the $100 million threshold requiring consent for significant business assets.
OIO’s recommendation
The OIO recommended that the Land Information Minister, Chris Penk, and Associate Finance Minister, David Seymor, approve the application.
Benefits
The OIO recommendation stated that SIRRL’s application would provide the following benefits to New Zealand: Increased jobs, significant capital expenditure, the introduction of new technology and business skills and energy production.
Scrutiny suggests that the OIO’s perceived benefits are contestable:
- Increase in jobs. SIRRL proposes diverting waste away from landfills. However, there may be increased jobs in Glenavy (Waimate mayor Craig Rowley stated at a Willowbidge Hall meeting in 2023 that jobs were not needed in the district). Still, if consented, the Project Kea incinerator plant will take jobs away from alternative waste management practices like landfills.
- There is also sufficient evidence that reducing, recovering, reusing, and recycling practices that form part of a circular economy provides many more jobs than W-t-E. The OIO’s claim of an increase in jobs is nearsighted.
- Significant capital expenditure. At first glance, the $350 million investment seems significantly beneficial. However, W-t-E plants have knock-on (or knock-off) effects on human and environmental health. These hidden costs associated with pollution cost New Zealand. W-t-E produces particulates, heavy metals, dioxins, and many more pollutants. Hospital and doctor visits for pollution-related illnesses in New Zealand run into the hundreds of millions yearly. Then, there are also the associated costs that come with the lack of productivity from illness. $350 million invested in genuinely renewable energy production would surely be of more benefit to New Zealand than a hugely polluting incinerator reliant on the burning of fossil-derived plastics. Solar, wind, or hydro would produce up to 6 times the energy for the same investment, with a fraction of the emission outputs. It would add to NZ’s overall renewable energy generation, which will benefit NZ in its future exports as the requirement for net-zero carbon products impacts global markets.
- The introduction of new technology. Waste-to-energy incineration is not new or innovative. It has been used for decades as a waste disposal method in countries with limited land mass for landfilling, like Japan, Singapore, and parts of the UK. Although advances in emission control technology have forced us to keep up with emission regulations, the waste-to-energy conversion process has not evolved much in that time. It is still known as a very inefficient energy generation method and requires vast resources to try and mitigate emissions. In Europe, W-t-E use is beginning to be seen as a false solution to waste, as its outputs contribute significantly to climate change. This has seen European nations invest in alternative, less invasive methods of dealing with residual waste, including aerobic digestion and advances in recycling. This move away from W-t-E has resulted in W-t-E companies targeting countries like New Zealand with inadequate regulations.
While energy generation is a secondary function of waste-to-energy, it’s important to note that it’s a highly inefficient and polluting method of producing electricity. It emits more harmful emissions than coal-fired electricity per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. For instance, Sweden, a country with 34 waste incinerators, only generates 4% of its total electricity from these plants.
Submissions
The OIO stated in its recommendation that the application received 30 third-party submissions.The OIO provided a summary of these submissions in its recommendation report, which included the following:
- The submissions highlighted the potential negative impacts of the facility’s emissions on the health of people, animals, and crops.
- The perceived lack of significant economic benefit from the application.
- The potential increased pressure on existing infrastructure, including roading.
- The facility is located on a floodplain.
- The impact on the perception of the area.
The recommendation stated that the above submissions “generally are not relevant to the assessment whether to grant consent, as they do not relate to the benefits likely to occur.”
Scope of application
WWW was informed of SIRRL’s application with the OIO from two sources: Eugenie Sage from the Green Party and Dhilum Nightingale, WWW’s legal representative. Both received letters notifying them of SIRRL’s application to acquire sensitive land, as they had earlier inquired whether an application to the OIO to purchase land had been received from SIRRL.
Both letters received on May 25, 2023, from Emma Bailey, senior solicitor on behalf of the OIO, stated that the OIO had now received an application to acquire sensitive land assets from SIRRL. Still, the letters failed to mention that the application was also to acquire significant business assets.
Members of WWW were made aware that the company was also applying for significant business assets shortly before submissions were due, but only after emailing the OIO and asking if the application included significant business assets, which Emma Bailey confirmed on behalf of the OIO.
Had all submitters been made aware of the application for significant business assets, it would have likely influenced their submissions to include concerns related to significant business assets.
Of course, submissions related to the applicants would be relevant to the benefit test and, therefore, likely influence the decision to grant consent.
Withheld from the submissions summary.
The OIO received 30 third-party submissions against the application to acquire sensitive land. These included a submission raising concerns about the applicant operating as a business for two years before making a significant business assets application. This submission was accompanied by a letter outlining concerns about the applicants 40% shareholder company; Renew Energy Limited (REL). The letter highlighted REL’s involvement in the illegal storage of waste at locations in and around Christchurch, a serious issue that should be of concern to the decision-making body. The accompanying letter was also treated as a submission.
In 2020, REL and ERP Group were served an abatement notice by ECan to remove illegally stored baled waste from Spencerville Road, Belfast, Canterbury.
The REL-owned waste, baled by ERP Group, was to be used as fuel for a proposed waste-to-energy plant commissioned by REL. However, over the following year, the waste was removed and landfilled.
The applicant proposes to build a waste-to-energy plant on the land in question. Given that the company is listed in NZ as a waste disposal company, concerns raised that bring into question the applicant’s ability to lawfully conduct waste management practices should be relevant to SIRRL’s application.
Further submission concerns should be included in the OIO recommendation report.
Several other submitters made similar concerns about the proponents.
These further concerns should have been included in the submission summary of the OIO’s recommendation.
Omitted concerns included:
- The proponent’s history
- The proposal’s inconsistency with Government policy.
- Energy production is insignificant and not renewable.
- Jobs- The proposed facility only creates employment by displacing existing employment elsewhere.
- The proposal’s viability, including economics, waste availability, and lack of infrastructure, reflects a high risk of the proposed capital expenditure not eventuating.
- Budget- Low compared to similar-sized plants in Europe.
Given the circumstances, its fair to question why these concerns, particularly those related to the proponents, were not included in the summary of submissions and why the OIO deemed all submissions irrelevant in its recommendation report to the Ministers.
The Ministers should have been fully aware of the proponents’ history, as it directly relates to their future proposal.
OIO’s description of the applicant.
1. Renew Energy Limited (REL)
The OIO recommendation referred to REL as follows:
“REL is a New Zealand company which provides sustainable landfill diversion solutions for waste. It has spent three years conducting extensive research and feasibility assessment for the establishment of New Zealand’s first waste-to-energy plant.”
REL has been trying to establish a waste-to-energy plant in New Zealand since 2016, involving failed proposals in Westport and Hokitika, raising concerns about the company’s ability to manage such projects.
REL’s previous proposals have embroiled the company in controversy, including the illegal storage of waste in North Canterbury, which is well documented on the ECan (Environment Canterbury) website.
REL was working with ERP Group, which was also baling waste and illegally storing it at locations around Christchurch.
In a media article, ERP owner Michael Corcoran stated that the illegally stored waste would fuel a W-t-E plant in Waimate.
ERP subsequently walked away, leaving behind thousands of bales of waste at a significant cost to its landlords to dispose of.
After ECan served ERP Group notices to remove the waste from the Christchurch sites, REL and SIRRL director Paul Taylor attempted to secure a heads of agreement (HOA) between Timaru District Council and ERP. This HOA, which had provisions for ERP to transport the already baled waste from the Christchurch locations to the Timaru landfill for storage, while a W-t-E plant was to be commissioned in Waimate, demonstrates the close collaboration between ERP Group and REL.
The OIO recommendation report should have provided information about REL and ERP Group’s illegal waste storage, given third-party submissions offered information.
To date, REL’s operations have included undercutting credible waste management companies to acquire waste. They have then illegally stored the waste in the hope of getting a W-t-E plant commissioned. See below: Stuff article on ERP Groups’ illegal waste storage and its impacts on competitors:
‘Pressure on the local authorities to do something about the bales is also coming from ERP’s competitors, who believe ERP can undercut them by not paying the costs of disposing of the rubbish at an approved disposal facility such as Kate Valley. The advantage ERP gained by not paying disposal costs was in the millions of dollars, Storm claimed.‘
REL does not operate waste transfer stations, collection, or recycling services. However, REL is described on the NZ companies register as a waste disposal company; landfilling is the only available waste disposal practice in NZ.
After several failed attempts to store waste in Christchurch for proposed waste-to-energy facilities, the stored waste was eventually landfilled.
So, having been made aware of this information through submissions, how can the OIO justify describing REL as providing “sustainable landfill diversion solutions for waste?”
2. China Tianying (CNTY)
In its recommendation report, the OIO described CNTY, the 60% Chinese owner of SIRRL, as follows:
“CNTY operates more than 400 waste processing facilities spread across 34 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and America.”
The OIO report states that this material was sourced from an Indonesian website, with a link provided in the small print.
The report continued, “On available information, it is assessed that CNTY is involved in the operation of approximately 20% of global W-t-E plants.”
I refer again to the OIO’s small print contained in the footer of the report, which states the following:
“This figure[the 20%] is calculated through the operation of 400 or more waste processing facilities that CNTY operates globally compared to the reported 1700 identified W-t-E plants operating globally. It is realistic that not all of CNTY’s 400 plants involve W-t-E facilities; however, this is its core business.”
The small print in the OIO’s recommendation report contradicts the description of CNTY provided in the main text of the same report by stating that “It is realistic that not all of CNTY’s 400 plants involve W-t-E facilities.” However, this acknowledgement that the information used to ascertain the amount of W-t-E facilities CNTY operates globally is flawed is not only disregarded; it is again used as the basis to provide a representation of CNTY’s stake in W-t-E facilities globally by stating, “On available information, it is assessed that CNTY is involved in the operation of approximately 20% of global W-t-E plants.” This further inflates the applicant’s credentials.
SIRRL’s planning report contained in its resource consent application states the following about CNTY:
‘CNTY is a Chinese registered company with significant experience in energy recovery and waste handling. Since 2009, CNTY has designed and delivered 14 EfW Plants throughout Asia and have a further eight currently under construction.’
At best, CNTY operates 22 waste-to-energy plants throughout Asia. Stating that CNTY is involved in 20% of the global W-t-E market is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
Below is the actual text provided on the Indonesian webpage. Nowhere does it state that CNTY is involved in 20% of the global W-t-E market.
‘CNTY is a well-known waste management company and an experienced player in the environmental services industry with partners in more than 34 countries and more than 400 waste processing facilities spread across various regions in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and America.’
It’s important to note that waste processing facilities, as described in the Indonesian webpage, could involve the collection, sorting, and recycling of waste, which is vastly different from the complex W-t-E plants that the OIO report suggests CNTY is involved in. This distinction is crucial in understanding the misrepresentation of CNTY’s involvement in the global waste-to-energy market.
SIRRL’s application was received in May 2023, and the decision came in March 2024, providing the OIO with plenty of time to source the facts.
The OIO provided ministers with information from one relatively obscure source, the Indonesian webpage, which they then embellished by adding material they acknowledged as incorrect. This reliance on a single source, without thorough investigation, is a clear indication of the lack of due diligence in the OIO’s report.
Advocates for W-t-E circulating OIO’s false information.
The Press published an opinion article on May 28, 2024, by Mike Yardley titled ‘A better way to get rid of our non-recyclable waste.’ This article stated the following:
‘South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL) is planning to construct New Zealand’s first large scale WtE plant just north of the Waitaki River, in Glenavy. The location is also handily situated for waste to be transported by rail. And the project has moved one step closer to reality this month with the Overseas Investment Office approving SIRRL to purchase a 15 hectare block of land on Morven Glenavy Rd. The company is a joint venture between Renew Energy and China Tianying Inc, the majority shareholder, which operates more than 400 WtE facilities in 34 countries.’
I queried The Press on Mr Yardley’s source regarding the CNTY information he provided, and I was told it was sourced from the OIO recommendation report. The Press editor, Geoff Collett, stated the following about the information contained in the article:
“This reference is directly taken from the overseas investment decision released by Land Information NZ. Given that it is contained in an official document, it seems reasonable to me that Mike – and by extension us – should be able to rely on it as a fair description of the process.”
Therefore, the false information the OIO has provided has been circulated as fact by The Press to its newspaper subscribers and globally via the Stuff platform.
Resource consent likely to be granted
The OIO recommendation report also states:
“The applicant has provided a copy of advice which considers it more likely than not that consent(for the resource consent applications)will be granted by the Environment Court.” And goes on to say,
“That we are not aware of any evidence that the relevant consents will not be granted. Although there is some uncertainty, based on current evidence we consider the development of the facility is likely to proceed.”
The small print reference for the above text states that SIRRL’s lawyer, Mark Christensen, provided the letter of advice to Robert Hughes, a partner at Anderson Lloyd law firm acting on behalf of the OIO. The small print also states that Mr Christensen has previously advised the OIO on resource management issues.
Christensen was also a partner at Anderson Lloyd for 16 years.
Waimate District Council and Ecan have confirmed that they were both approached by the OIO to provide an opinion on whether the Environment Court would likely grant SIRRL’s consent to build a W-t-E plant. Both councils refused to provide an opinion, stating it would be inappropriate.
Therefore, the OIO has formed its view of a future Environment Court decision based on a letter provided by the applicant’s lawyer.
It is in SIRRL’s best interests for the OIO to believe that resource consent will likely be granted in the applicants’ favour, as this decision will affect the OIO’s recommendation and the minister’s final decision.
Environment Court is just as likely to rule against SIRRL’s resource consent application.
The OIO accepted the opinion of the applicant’s lawyer that the resource consent application pending in the Environment Court will go in SIRRL’s favour, based on what? Tarot cards or tea leaves?
Whether the applicant’s legal counsel has advised the OIO on resource management matters in the past is irrelevant and should have no bearing on the OIO’s recommendation report regarding SIRRL’s application.
As already mentioned, it’s in the applicant’s best interest to have the OIO believe that resource consent is likely to be granted, and for the OIO to accept his advice as it has is a conflict of interest.
The Environment Court is just as likely to rule against SIRRL’s resource consent application to build and operate a waste-to-energy plant for a raft of reasons, including:
- The proposed site is within a flood zone.
- The proposed activity is outside of the district plan in multiple respects.
- The applicant intends to store large amounts of waste and hazardous material in a flood zone.
- Waste incineration is contrary to the government’s waste minimisation policy.
- Emissions are argued to be hazardous to human and environmental health.
- The site is currently productive farmland.
- There is a lack of infrastructure to support any W-t-E plant.
- Waste-to-energy threatens the country’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with its global commitments.
- Strong local objection.
SIRRL conducted business for two years before applying for significant business assets.
SIRRL was registered on the NZ companies register in March 2021. The shareholding of the company at the time was 60% overseas owned.
SIRRL finally applied to acquire significant business assets in May 2023.
In these two years, SIRRL lodged two resource consent applications to build a waste-to-energy plant on the nearly 15 hectares of land that make up the application to acquire sensitive land. These resource consent applications included multiple technical reports commissioned by the company.
Page 23 of the applicants resource consent application ‘Operational Technical Overview’ report states that SIRRL has engaged with waste suppliers and “has signed conditional Heads of Agreements with waste suppliers to provide the yearly waste volumes to the plant.”
This activity has involved SIRRL competing against legitimate NZ waste management companies to acquire that understanding.
SIRRL has engaged the services of public relations firm Convergence since July 2021. Convergence has been employed to build and operate a website called Project Kea. This website has been used to promote SIRRL’s proposal to construct a W-t-E plant in Waimate.
These practices show that SIRRL has been operating as a business since registering on the NZ companies register in March 2021 without prior approval from the OIO to acquire significant business assets, constituting a breach of the Overseas Investment Act.
Communication with the OIO
A reported breach of the Overseas Investment Act was lodged on the OIO’s website, once again outlining that SIRRL had been operating in NZ as a business for over two years without OIO approval.
A response in the form of an email was received from Jatin Mistry on April 30, 2024, stating that the OIO has investigated the claims and found no evidence of SIRRL breaching the Act.
There has since been a series of emails between a WWW member and multiple OIO staff. The latest communication from Senior Solicitor Emma Bailey states the following:
Page 9 of the recommendation report, under the heading Business activities, states the following:
‘The Applicant was ‘established’ in March 2021 for the sole purpose of constructing and operating the facility, which will convert both municipal and construction solid waste, otherwise destined for landfill, into electricity.’
The recommendation report authored by the OIO clearly states that the applicant (SIRRL) was established as a business in March 2021.
After lodging a suspected breach of the Overseas Investment Act 2005, why is the OIO’s senior solicitor, Emma Bailey, telling us that the OIO has determined that SIRRL is not yet established?
Before making an application to the OIO, SIRRL’s known activities have included:
- Registered in NZ as a ‘recycling of other non-metal waste and scrap- collecting, sorting, dealing, wholesaling’ company’, Whom the OIO claims in its recommendation report, was ‘established with the sole purpose of constructing and operating the facility’ (a WtE plant in Waimate).
- Since registering the company, SIRRL has also made its intention of investing $350 million in building the plant well-known, as documented in many media articles.
- SIRRL lodged two suites of resource consent applications with ECan and Waimate District Council, which included commissioning numerous expert reports.
- On page 9 of its recommendation report, the OIO states, ‘ REL has spent the past three years conducting an extensive research and feasibility assessment for the establishment of New Zealand’s first waste-to-energy plant.’ However, this activity was conducted by SIRRL, not REL.
- SIRRL have acquired “conditional Heads of Agreements with waste suppliers to acquire the annual waste volumes”, as mentioned on page 23 of its resource consent application, Operational Technical Overview report.
- SIRRL has also employed a public relations company since approximately July 2021 to build and operate a website promoting its proposed Project Kea waste-to-energy plant.
These activities directly relate to the subsequent applications for significant business assets and sensitive land acquisition with the OIO.
I argue that SIRRL has been operating as an established business in breach of the Overseas Investment Act for over two years. The OIO should have provided this information to the ministers in its recommendation report.
Contrary to New Zealand’s National Interests.
The OIO acceptance notification included the decision by Minister of Finance Nicola Willis, who stated the application was “not contrary to NZ’s National Interests.”
Waste-to-energy is commonly regarded as contrary to recycling efforts as it incentivises waste production and disposal for limited energy generation; the waste that provides the highest calorific value includes recyclables, therefore, it is in the best interests of W-t-E company to burn this material.
W-t-E may also result in councils sending recyclable material to an incinerator because it is cheaper, as we do not currently have regulations in place in NZ to protect against this.
Waste-to-energy plants also require a constant feedstock of waste. This means that inputs cannot be dialled back when waste streams decrease; this often results in the importation of waste to keep the plants economically viable.
How is incentivising waste production in accordance with NZ’s National Interests when, as a nation, we are trying to minimise waste production?
W-t-E plants release between 0.7 tonnes – 1.7 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of waste burnt. A plant Project Kea’s size will produce up to 620,500 tonnes of CO2 each year. With the average car in New Zealand producing 5.2 tonnes of CO2 annually, the Project Kea incinerator will release the equivalent of up to 119,000 extra cars on our roads each year.
NZ has signed the Paris Agreement and is committed to reducing GHG emissions; consenting a W-t-E plant that will release up to 21 million tonnes of CO2 over its 35 year lifetime is contrary to New Zealand’s National interests as it threatens our ability to reach our committed global obligations.
CNTY carries enormous debt.
China Tianying is described as an environmental protection company involved in the energy-from-waste sector. An article published on April 8, 2024, stated the company had debts of 8.5 billion yuan as of September 2023. Despite these significant debts, recent large-scale investments have seen that debt balloon to 10.7 billion ($2.4 billion NZ) by July 2024. China Tianying (CNTY) is the controlling shareholder of South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL), the company proposing a waste-to-energy plant for Glenavy, Waimate.
Despite huge debts, SIRRL application passes OIO’s ‘benefit’ test.
Despite China Tianying (CNTY), the controlling shareholder of South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL), carrying $NZ 2 billion in debt as of September 2023, the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) permitted SIRRL to acquire sensitive land and significant business assets. The proposed $350 million waste-to-energy investment was determined to meet the benefit test. The OIO provided an overview of CNTY in its recommendation report, stating that waste-to-energy was the company’s “core business.”
Surely, such a large debt acquired by a company whose ‘core business’ is waste-to-energy should raise some alarm bells when determining an application involving the building of a waste-to-energy plant. Due diligence should have suggested a risk that such debt may compromise SIRRL’s ability to complete the proposed development, given that CNTY is funding the project.
Chinese government ownership.
The Chinese government owns approximately 10% of CNTY’s shareholder companies, but the OIO recommendation report for Ministers Penk and Seymour did not mention this.
CONCLUSION
The OIO’s recommendation report:
- Provided false information,
- Grossly inflated the credentials of the applicant,
- Discredited legitimate concerns submitters held against the applicant and its application while accepting the advice of the applicant’s legal counsel without basis.
- Overlooked how the applicant had been operating as a business in NZ for two years before applying to the OIO to establish a business.
- Neglected to do due diligence on the applicant’s previous involvement in illegally storing waste at locations around Christchurch despite being alerted to it.
- It failed to do due diligence on CNTY, its Chinese government ownership and its vast debt.
Further mistakes
- The recommendation report, page 28, states that SIRRL’s application was filed in 2022 when, in fact, it was in 2023.
- Page 6 of the recommendation report states that at the time of processing SIRRL’s OIO application lodged in May 2023, a subdivision of the land was pending. Page 100 of ‘The Primary Investigation report‘ contained in SIRRL’s resource consent application shows that Waimate District Council granted the subdivision of the land on April 5, 2022.
- Page 6 of the recommendation report, Background and proposed transaction, states, ‘The facility will convert municipal and construction solid waste (MSW) into steam, water, and electricity.’ The facility does not convert waste into steam and water; it requires 2.5 million litres of fresh water daily from on-site ground bores.
The information contained in this complaint shows that Ministers Penk and Seymour approved the application without pertinent details about the applicant.
They were also provided with false information that embellished the applicant.
As a result, the OIO report used to inform the Ministers should be discredited, and the consent should be retracted as it has been obtained under false pretences provided by the OIO.