The latest Oz Mulch story on A Current Affair

The latest chapter of our story will air on Channel 9 and 9Now @7pm, 3 January 2025.

Watch the ACA promo

We continue to be blown away by everyone's support and care. 

We are so humbled by the phenomenal support from NSW Greens MP, Sue Higginson. Someone who knows too well that the EPA has an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting our environment. 

The team at A Current Affair have been wonderful. They can see the injustice, and they really care about our business and our family – doing this story was personal for them. 

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

If you really want your voice heard, email the NSW Minister for the Environment, Penny Sharpe and demand the EPA be held accountable. 

1. Visit https://www. .gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-environment-heritage
2. Enter your details. Name and email address are needed.
3. Submit your enquiry. Feel free to use any of the below points. You can also outline how our closure has impacted you and your family.

Subject: Cease EPA action against OZ Mulch until an independent investigation into EPA conduct is complete.

This is relating to: Environment

Message:

In the interests of the environment, and the public in NSW, I believe it appropriate that EPA pause all action against Damien Jensen and his associated entities until the completion of an external and independent investigation into the EPA’s conduct in all matters relating to 76 Nomad Rd Toronto. 

• I do not believe the EPA is acting ethically, or in the public interest. 
• The targeting of Damien Jensen and his family business by the EPA isn’t right. The EPA has lost my trust. Our environment and our community deserve better.
• I do not believe the EPA is using public resources efficiently and appropriately. The unprecedented powers the EPA has been given to protect our environment and help our community, have clearly been misused.
• The EPA needs to reflect on its own strategic plan, where it talks about ‘fairness’, ‘accountability’ and ‘effective delivery of public value’, and taking action that is ‘proportionate, fit for purpose and appropriate to the circumstances’ where the focus is on the community impact, ‘rather than just on setting and following rules.’
• How can the EPA allow someone with a conflict of interest to remain working on a matter, and to be given the power to provide personal recommendations, discredit expert opinion, omit important information and provide misleading information to close a business?
• I believe the EPA needs to stop misleading Lake Macquarie City Council and influencing unnecessary delays of over two years to the DA modification for the site. 
• The EPA needs to direct public resources away from protecting its reputation at all costs, and instead focus on other sites that are getting away with pollution and environmental harm.
  • How is it that NSW largest sites that stockpile human waste can be allowed to operate with ZERO water testing? The EPA makes Damien water test, despite low volumes and the lowest risk waste – twigs, branches, leaves and backyard greenery.
  • How can NSW’s largest green waste business with 18 sites escape a composting audit for over 20 years, when Damien’s tiny business has been audited three times in the past four years?
  • How can the EPA permit sites to stockpile waste in excess of a million cubic metres, and not be required to have lined dams?   The EPA is closing Damien’s site because it believes he needs a lined dam, despite operating below 1000 cubic metres.
  • Why does NSW’s largest green waste business not have to pay any financial assurance on almost every single one of their 18 sites?  The EPA is making Damien pay financial assurance of $100,000, even when his business is closed.
  • How are NSW’s largest green waste sites be permitted to operate without a Pollution Management Plan (PMP) – considered one of the basics of risk management by EPA?  Damien’s site has always had one.
  • How is it right that the EPA shuts down Damien's business based on a risk of ammonia leaving its site, but allows another site 1km away to discharge high levels of ammonia into surrounding bushland? How can the EPA classify that pollution event as the lowest level and priority of environmental impact and allow that business to continue to operate without any fines or recourse, yet justify closure of Damien's business based on a RISK? How can the EPA publicly support an expansion of that business, despite multiple ongoing environmental breaches and thousands of community complaints, but close Damien's business with zero consultation when Damien’s business has never had a complaint, and never had water leaving his site of environmental concern?  How is it smart for the environment and the community that the green waste from Damien's site is now diverted to that same, already overflowing, already polluting facility?
• NSW needs to take a serious look at the EPAs conduct and an even more serious look at its culture. The EPA needs to focus on protecting the environment, not attacking the little guys – particularly those who are recycling and helping the circular economy.