Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.10 p.m.]: I move:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Primary Industries, the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources or the Department of Industry and Investment:

(a) all documents, created since January 2005, that relate or refer to discussions, or any other form of communication, between the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, the Honourable Ian Macdonald, MLC, and any representatives of the coal mining company China Shenhua Energy about the company’s plans to explore for coal in the Gunnedah Basin or to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales, and

(b) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

This debate is about releasing documents that would give the public an understanding of what is really happening. These documents should be released because what has happened over recent years in this regard appears to be extremely shadowy and the Parliament has an opportunity today to open this up to public scrutiny. In summary, we have a foreign company that wants to explore for coal and to set up coal-fired power plants, we have a Minister who has made frequent visits to the country of origin of that company, we have a Minister who has told the public that this project is only about exploration, that there is a rigorous process in place and we do not know whether there will be a coalmine, we have a company prepared to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to set up rail infrastructure to transport the coal from the area to a port, and meanwhile the company is buying properties in the area where the mine would be, but apparently it is only at the exploration stage. What is really going on here?

Let me fill in the story as to why these documents should be released. At each step of the way the public have been kept in the dark and today we have the opportunity to do the right thing by the community of New South Wales. We will begin with the company. China Shenhua is one of about 30 subsidiaries of its parent company, the Chinese state-owned Shenhua group. The Hon. Ian Macdonald is the relevant Minister and at the time when much of the original deal was done with China Shenhua for these hundreds of millions of dollars that were paid just for coal exploration he was both Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for Mineral Resources. The land we are talking about is rich farming land in the Liverpool Plains area. I urge all members who have not visited this area to do so. When you visit the area you can really understand why these farmers are fighting so passionately about their land, why they have initiated the court cases, why they travel back and forth to Canberra and Macquarie Street, why they are bussed down for protests, and why they held that blockade for so long. In many cases this land has been in their families for generations, and they also know it is a food bowl for the future. These farmers are deeply committed to looking after this area.

We have dealt with the company, the Minister and the land, so what is the proposal? Apparently all it is at the moment is to explore for coal in the Watermark area of the Liverpool Plains. If this area were developed into a full-scale mine—the position of the Greens on this is on the record—it would rip the heart out of the Liverpool Plains, an area of fertile land with so many aquifers that regularly feed the area that over recent decades there has rarely been a drought. I come now to the deal. These papers should be released because we get only a glimmer every now and again of what is going on in this regard.

The rumours started in July 2008 that negotiations were going on with Chinese companies, possibly for $600 million, for the rights to explore for coal. When the deal was firmed up with China Shenhua to explore for coal in the Watermark region we heard it was actually $300 million. That was seen as quite extraordinary. That amount of money had never been paid before. All of a sudden the Minister announced this deal with great fanfare. I am interested to hear his version of these events because many people want to know: Why so much money? Was so much money really given just to explore for coal? Was that the only understanding that China Shenhua had? When we get to August 2008 we find out that $175 million of the $300 million is earmarked for transport infrastructure—rail lines—to transport the coal from Watermark to the Port of Newcastle. Apparently, China Shenhua is willing to put in this money for rail infrastructure when it does not even know it has a mine project.

This is supposed to be at the exploration stage! How many times have we heard the Minister use his favourite word "rigorous" and that we will have a rigorous process? That word is used to suggest that there will be a tough process to assess whether the mine should go ahead. Maybe it is a tough process, but until the documents are revealed how can we tell? At the same time Minister Macdonald is taking trips to China. This is where the Minister says he has nothing to hide and he has no problems—comments he has frequently made over the years. Now is his opportunity to allow the documents to be released so the community knows what has gone on. I understand that since 2005 he has made five work-related trips to China: one in 2005, one in 2007 and three times between January 2008 and July 2009.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I am getting a taste for Peking duck.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection and I acknowledge the laughter from the Minister.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You are overly serious at times.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I am not overly serious. You are so secretive, Minister. It is just good for the public when they read this—and so many people do—to get a sense of what goes on in this place. This is the Minister's opportunity to come clean about what meetings he has held with China Shenhua. Were there discussions about the $300 million? What does it mean when a company states it will put that amount of money on the table just to explore for coal? Is that all the deal was? Was there anything in return? If the Minister has nothing to hide, he should not have a problem about releasing this information.

I refer to another factor that has been occurring in recent years. This project is at the exploration stage. According to the Minister, China Shenhua understands that at present it can only explore for coal. No guarantee has been given that a coalmine will be allowed in the area. However, China Shenhua is buying up farm properties. It has been reported that in a number of cases it has paid prices up to 300 per cent above the current land values. Why would a company buy land in an area where it hopes to mine for coal but, according to the Minister and his staff, has not been given a guarantee that the project will go ahead? Why is the company buying land? Why is the company giving money to the Government? Why is the company investing money in rail infrastructure? The public has a right to have answers to these questions. Understandably, many people believe that China Shenhua is confident that approval will be granted for its mining venture, given the activities of the company in the Liverpool Plains. This issue is back in the news. In early May Mr Wang Jinli, senior vice president of China Shenhua, made a statement in Beijing. However, confusion surrounded his statement. The issue was first reported in the Australian Financial Review on 3 May 2010, quoting the senior vice president as saying:

Shenhua's development will not have a big impact on the environment because the location of the mine is on high country and away from the river system. In future there will be some mining under the river but this will be deep enough and engineered not to impact on the river.

Following a huge outcry of concern from locals because this was contrary to all expectations, two days later, in a media release from Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Ltd, Mr Wang said:

What I did say was that Shenhua will mine in the Ridge country so as to not impact the River.

Mr Clayton, the local China Shenhua representative, said in the media release:

Shenhua Watermark will NOT be mining under the black soil.

I have put those remarks on the record to give their version of events. However, I dispute that the company has clearly stated its position. It asserted that confusion arose as a result of a breakdown in translation. The Australian Financial Review again reported on this issue on 6 May 2010. The newspaper had another translator review Mr Wang's comments. The article states:

Mr Wang said his comments related to possible future long-wall mining, though the company's current exploration relates to open cut mining.

That is a significant comment. Until now we have been told that China Shenhua's operations are open-cut mining. It is now opening up about future longwall mining. The article goes on:

The translation was a Shenhua translation that did say that Shenhua might mine under the river.

The Australian Financial Review had Mr Wang's comments analysed by another interpreter. She interpreted Mr Wang as saying that there might be some mining "under the water level" not "under the river".

Mr Clayton said it was possible the company could mine beneath the water level adjacent to the aquifer but "it won't be directly underneath the aquifer".

There is much confusion. To summarise, Mr Wang Jinli makes a statement in Beijing, about which there is great outcry and concern, and Shenhua Watermark attempts to correct the statement in a media release. The second translation does not lessen the confusion. The confusion is compounded by Mr Clayton—who is an Australian representative of China Shenhua, so translation is not a factor—when he refers to mining beneath the water and near the aquifer. We are not getting a clear picture. This further underlines the need for the documents to be released. The people of New South Wales, particularly the locals of the Liverpool Plains area, must be informed about this project. At present there is minimal transparency in relation to this project.

There is minimal transparency in relation to the exploration deal. Why has the company paid millions of dollars for rail infrastructure when, apparently, it has not received approval for the mine project, certainly not official approval? There is no transparency about the coalmine project. Evidence suggests that the company is very confident that it has the project wrapped up. The company has put in hundred of millions of dollars and has bought up properties. On that score, there is no transparency. There is no transparency about the talks between China Shenhua and the Minister. For those reasons alone this motion should be passed. The motion does not criticise the Minister. It calls for the production of documents under Standing Order 52 to release papers for scrutiny. I urge all members of the House, particularly those from the Opposition and the crossbenches, to support the motion. The Minister has often said in relation to this project that he has nothing to hide. He has said there are no problems with it. I also urge the Minister to support the motion. It would be a significant step in informing the public about this project and it would help build public confidence in the process, which at times has been shown to be lacking.

I refer to a couple of other reasons why this material should be released. Members would be aware in recent months of media coverage about issues associated with coalmining and coal-fired power stations. I refer particularly to health, climate change and food security issues. The job of the Parliament is to consider the needs of New South Wales and strike a balance to best serve the people and the environment. We are looking not only at short-term measures but to the future. That requires us to consider climate change and the coal industry, including coal-fired power plants and coalmines. That is another reason for openness. We have to weigh up the issues so that we can decide whether this is a responsible plan. The end game is that this company wants to develop a large open-cut coalmine. There must be transparency in the process in the early stages so that we, the legislators, the local people who bear the brunt of these changes and the people of New South Wales are well informed.

I highlight the health implications of open-cut coalmines. I do not need to go into that in detail. I am sure members are aware of the publicity last week about the high levels of asthma in the Hunter, where many open-cut coalmines operate. I also highlight the very important issue of food security. The Liverpool Plains is a food bowl that will continue to be fertile for thousands of years and provide food for many generations. Should this land be sacrificed for a coalmine that lasts 20 or 30 years? I know that members have different opinions on this issue. I am calling for the release of these documents so that we can be better informed when we weigh up the issues about the future of this area. I urge members to support the motion before the House. I again thank members for allowing the motion to be debated.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast (4.29 p.m.): The Government opposes this motion. I will address some of the statements made by Ms Lee Rhiannon in her contribution. Her last statement was that we do not want people mining under the Liverpool Plains. How many times do I have to remind the member that the Watermark licence does not impact on the Liverpool Plains; it is in the ranges area? Last year BHP Billiton surrendered, as part of its exploration lease, the right to mine under the Liverpool Plains, and its exploration activity is concentrated in the ranges as well.

The New South Wales Government first invited expressions of interest for exploration in the Watermark area in October 2007, and expressions of interest closed in February 2008. In August 2008 the New South Wales Government announced that it would grant an exploration licence for the Watermark coal exploration area near Gunnedah for a period of five years. The State Government has the highest levels of scrutiny in the expressions of interest process. I granted the exploration licence to China Shenhua Energy Company on the recommendation of an expert assessment panel, which included an independent probity auditor. That is why an assessment panel made the recommendation after thoroughly reviewing all the expressions of interest and following the normal protocols.

Former New South Wales Nationals leader Ian Armstrong chairs a community consultative committee to involve the community in the ongoing process, and there is full transparency in that process. They have many, many meetings and they discuss every issue one could imagine in relation to that area. Indeed, a lot of information goes public from those meetings. The exploration phase is being carried out under strict conditions in accordance with the Mining Act 1992.

The entire enterprise, if successful after government assessments, could be worth more than $670 million to the people of New South Wales. The Watermark area is located approximately 35 kilometres south-east of Gunnedah in the Gunnedah coalfield. The actual mine site is expected to be a much smaller proportion of the exploration licence. That fact is often confused in public debate. Exploration licence areas are generally much larger than the actual mine sites. The exploration licence is for an area of approximately 190 square kilometres, which is expected to contain shallow coal resources of domestic and export quality thermal coal. The Government is answerable for ensuring that all of this State's natural resources are utilised to the maximum benefit of the people of New South Wales. These are State assets and the coal is State coal. It is not privately owned coal; it is State coal that is held on behalf of the people of New South Wales.

China Shenhua Energy Company is the leading integrated coal-based energy company in the world. Its main businesses include production and marketing of coal, power generation, railway transportation and port operation. The company operates six underground mines in the more than 10 million tonnes per annum category and a number of large open-cut mines in China. These mines utilise state-of-the-art mining techniques and equipment. China Shenhua possesses world-leading technologies in mining and power generation, including implementing recycling technologies and a sound safety record. It places safety and environmental protection as its number one priority.

There is no mining proposal and there is no development application before the Government. If the exploration led to a mining proposal, which subsequently passed the New South Wales Government's rigorous and stringent major projects development consent process, then there would be substantial benefits to New South Wales at State, regional and local levels. This includes the creation of more than 1,200 new direct and indirect jobs in New South Wales during Watermark's production phase, with more than 400 direct jobs in the local region; investment in mine development of about $500 million—this amount excludes mining equipment and rail line upgrades—and a commitment to significant investment of $175 million in the development of expanded coal-loading infrastructure at the Port of Newcastle, and any associated infrastructure. We must remember that this money has not been paid; it will be paid dependent upon the granting of a development application, if that subsequently occurs.

Other benefits to New South Wales will be the creation of about 300 direct jobs during construction and more than 400 direct jobs in the local region during the production phase over a mine life in excess of 40 years—an incredible amount of economic development and opportunity for the region—and a commitment to participating in funding options studies for necessary rail infrastructure upgrades in the Gunnedah basin. Upgrades in the Gunnedah basin will service all the industries in that region, not just the mining sector. It would assist and greatly aid the production of food and delivery of that food into the Newcastle port.

Another benefit will be a significant financial commitment over the five-year exploration licence period of $1 million per annum up to a maximum of five years to a regional community trust. The trust will be available for local educational programs, medical programs, indigenous programs and environmental programs. It will generate funding for infrastructure and services such as hospitals, schools and roads. I am advised, and I will make this very clear, that the exploration licence does not include any reference to a power station. In general terms, Shenhua has expressed over the years an interest in power generation if the reform process was sent to public tender. But what is not factual is the assertion that this Government has a secret deal with China Shenhua Energy to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales. That is not correct and it is mischievous nonsense on the part of the Greens. There have been no negotiations or secret deals with Shenhua in relation to these matters.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Didn't the Fin Review bring it up?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. I will deal with that in a second. I have made some notes based on what Ms Lee Rhiannon has said and I intend to deal with some of them. There have been no negotiations or secret deals with Shenhua in relation to these matters. I think you will find that it was the member who made such assertions, not the Australian Financial Review. The Greens' assertion that New South Wales Government Ministers should keep the people of New South Wales informed on proposed major mining and industry developments is precisely what we are doing. Any proposals for any power station anywhere in New South Wales would need to follow due process, that is, a development application would need to be lodged with the Department of Planning.

The facts are simple: No such application has been lodged, no deals have been made and nothing has been agreed to. This has not been a shadowy process. In fact, when it was announced, there was a very public release of the terms of the arrangement and that was made clear to the public. Yes, it is a foreign company. We have a large number of companies within the coal sector in Australia, and indeed other sectors, that are either foreign owned or have substantial foreign ownership. It is a furphy to concentrate upon China for some reason.

In relation to visits to China, I do not resile from the fact that I have been to a number of Asian countries over five or six years. I have been not only to China but also to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and India. I do not resile from that at all, in spite of any nonsense that occurs in the media. We have an obligation to engage our neighbours and keep in close contact with them. Yes, I have made presentations to a series of companies in Asia about opportunities in New South Wales. That is my job, not only in this sector but in other sectors, from agriculture to fishing—all the areas of my portfolios. I make it clear that they have not paid a cent for railway tracks in New South Wales. The railway tracks part of the $175 million is provisional. Eventually, if there is a development application approved and a mining licence granted then that contribution would come into play.

As I said, the public have not been kept in the dark. We have to be very careful when we start making those sorts of slanders about a company that has sought to invest in our country and in imports from this country's considerable assets. Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about rich farmland. I think the member is getting somewhat confused. In fact, I assisted in negotiating with BHP Billiton and allowed it to make it clear that it would not be proceeding with that part of its licence that included the Liverpool Plains. That was signed legally.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the water study?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The water study is out for tender at the moment.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Are you providing funds for it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: According to the records, we have already supplied about $600,000.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They need more than that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Melinda Pavey should wait a second; there is much more to come. She should not jump in. We have been servicing all the relevant water processes. If we were not serious we would not have established the original committee chaired by Pam Allan or the ministerial oversight committee chaired by Mal Peters. All of that has required extensive work and this Government has been funding that work, no-one else. Members of the Opposition should be very careful. That is a clear commitment of money and resources. Ms Lee Rhiannon has been a little nicer in this place than she has been in the media. Finally she had the decency to read the article in the Australian Financial Review that clearly indicates that the vice president's words were translated incorrectly.

[Interruption]

They are technical issues and they have to be dealt with in the development application. There are water levels all over this State.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Ms Lee Rhiannon will have the opportunity to respond at the appropriate time.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the money for the water study?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The water study will be going ahead. The Hon. Trevor Khan should not worry himself.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government has been dealing with this matter in a very open and transparent way. There are no deals with Shenhua. It must go through the full process required of any company that wants to undertake development in this State.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the water study?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is obvious that the Hon. Trevor Khan wants to leave the Chamber early.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the second time. The member should not test me.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As the Hon. Trevor Khan knows, this has been a very open process. Shenhua has been prepared to enter into an expression of interest process that involved a number of bidders. It was at the height of the commodities boom, coal was a very desirable commodity and companies were prepared to make significant investments. And they still are, given that the global financial crisis is receding. I make it very clear that there are no deals. We are only at the exploratory stage. This motion is not only frivolous, misleading and mischievous, it is also a great waste of time and process, and if it is passed, the time of many fine public servants who are trying to get on with the job will also be wasted. The Government opposes the motion.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.44 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this motion. About a week ago I was approached by the spokesperson of the Caroona Action Group, Mr Duddy, who asked whether the Opposition was willing to support an order for documents under Standing Order 52 relating to the article referred to by the Minister and others and the claims that there were discussions between Shenhua and the Government to build a coal-fired power station.

There were two clear points of view in the public domain: the Minister's view that there had been no negotiations and the view that there had been negotiations. I thought it was appropriate to source the papers to test whether the Minister had been fair dinkum about this matter. If he had been fair dinkum and had not been giving us spin—as he sometimes can—there would be no papers dealing with negotiations. However, if he had misled the people of this State there would be papers produced that would indicate that. As far as I was concerned it was a discrete and proper request. I indicated to Mr Duddy that I would take the proposal to the Coalition leadership group and obtain approval to go forward, and I did that. I told him that I had to contact the people involved before proceeding with the proposal. I have not spoken with the affected people, but my understanding is that the Coalition supports part of this motion.

I did not realise that this motion was about to be debated. If I had, I would have prepared an amendment to remove the inappropriate words referring to the coal area. Of course, I could move to adjourn this debate until the next sitting day that private members' business takes precedence so that the Opposition can present a detailed contribution. However, I am seeking an indication from members as to whether moving an amendment now is the appropriate way to proceed. I am certainly willing to amend the motion on the run. However, if there be an indication of little or no support for an amendment, it may be appropriate to seek to adjourn the debate so that we can have proper negotiations. We could delete from the motion reference to material that was not part of the understanding we were looking for and concentrate on the specific allegation and concern across New South Wales that a private deal was arrived at between the Government and Shenhua. I know that is a concern for the Minister as I am sure it is for the company, but it is no less a concern for the people who live in the area. In order to clarify the situation that in my view is the appropriate thing to do. Accordingly, I move:

That the question be amended by deleting the words "to explore for coal in Gunnedah Basin or" in paragraph (a).

The relevant part of the motion would therefore be as follows:

all documents, created since January 2005, that relate to all refer to discussions, or any other form of communication, between the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, the Honourable Ian Macdonald MLC, and any representatives of the coal mining company China Shenhua Energy about the company's plans to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales

It will then be discrete with regard to the question that was asked of me and the comment made by the Minister that he certainly has not had such discussions. The call for papers would, so far as the Minister is concerned, clear up the matter. If that is not the case, so be it.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [4.50 p.m.]: The motion of Ms Lee Rhiannon is a fishing expedition. The Minister has flatly denied there had been any discussions in relation to investment in power stations with China Shenhua Energy. I do not see the point of an amendment that seeks to wait another week—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not what my amendment does. My amendment will delete most of the fishing expedition.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Thank you; I stand corrected. There will therefore be a more accurate representation of what papers are required for that assessment. We will reserve our judgement on this matter until we hear Ms Lee Rhiannon's reply. We are not inclined to support this sort of trolling, and that is what it is, when we are talking about companies that may or may not in the future wish to invest millions, if not billions, of dollars in this country. There are ramifications. This may not affect just China Shenhua Energy. There may be a whole host of other companies the Government is finessing to get them to invest in this country. It may not necessarily be in the best interests of the people of New South Wales if documents detailing confidential discussions or indications of whether a company does or does not want to do things are spread all over the place. We are not sure yet how we will vote on this.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [4.52 p.m.]: I indicate to all members of the House that this matter has received extensive publicity in the media in the Tamworth and Gunnedah regions. The reason for the notoriety seems to arise primarily because of statements made by representatives of the company and what precisely was said by the representatives of the company and the interpreters. To that extent, the issue has arisen because of comments made either directly or vicariously by the company, and it is appropriate within the limited scope that those issues are resolved.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who participated in the debate. The Minister's comments were interesting and informative up to a certain point. In many ways they were informative because of what he failed to say. The Minister tells us that there are no mining proposals before the Government and no secret deals, but I suggest that his opposition to the release of these documents highlights a continuing refusal to come clean with regard to discussions. Clearly there would be discussions about the future, post the exploration stage. Time and again we have seen coal exploration in New South Wales as the first stage of full-scale mining.

The Shooters Party representative, Mr Robert Brown, made comments about a fishing expedition. The wording of the motion has been devised very carefully. The motion is certainly not a fishing expedition, and that argument has been weakened further by the amendment. This is not about looking at documents relating to the exploration for coal in the Gunnedah basin; it is about investing in, building and operating new coal-fired power plants. That is what the documents are linked to. The motion is very specific. I urge the Shooters Party to think carefully about that.

I remind them that often they say they are friends of the farmers. Indeed, almost a year ago in this place when we were debating the Greens bill to protect prime agricultural land from mining Mr Brown, I think it was, said that although the members of the Shooters Party supported the bill they could not vote for it because it was a Greens bill. I recall that famous "Junkyard Dogs" headline on the front page of the Land. It was certainly interesting the way the Land interpreted the matter because of the vote. I suggest to Mr Brown that this is his opportunity to correct the record, if that is what he wants to do. It is not stating a position on the issue; it is just saying, "Open up debate so that the locals and the people of New South Wales have an opportunity to understand how this process is working." I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.