Lake Cowal Goldmining Proposal

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [3.47]: I move:

That this House views with concern the State Government's decision to disallow a goldmining project at Lake Cowal.

This matter has taken on added urgency in the light of the Government's deliberate and contemptuous action in the other place of refusing to table relevant documents in relation to the proposed Lake Cowal goldmining project. The Government is now immersed in a morass of arrogance and stupidity. Its leader in the Legislative Council has been censured for failing to obey a direction of that House that he produce the documents. This morning the Government has thumbed its nose at the second deadline, putting it further in contempt of Parliament. Considering the awful cost of having a leader censured and then suspended, some questions must be asked. What is the Government so terrified of making public in relation to the Lake Cowal goldmine decision by the Premier? What has the Carr Labor Government got to hide on Lake Cowal? Why will it not come clean? Why has its Minister for State and Regional Development, who is also the Treasurer, acted in contempt of the Parliament? What is it covering up? Where is the cover-up on Lake Cowal? Why will the Government not tell the people, through this Parliament, how it made its decisions and why it made them? What signals is this sending for mining in New South Wales, indeed in Australia, as far as future investment is concerned?

This is a contemptuous act by a government of ignorance, by a government which does not care about jobs, does not care about investment, and will not talk to the people, let alone the promoters of the mine. What is in the papers about this project that the Government believes it must blatantly cover up, and in the process risk bringing on a sequence of constitutional events which ultimately will take control of the issue out of the hands of Parliament and the Government? Or, is it the lack of papers that the Government is worried about? Could it be that the Premier's arbitrary decision in overruling the commission of inquiry lacks any authoritative support other than compliant reports from public servants which could not stand critical analysis? This House has seen a few spurious documents and reports presented this week by the Government. And there are more! Surely, this is a matter of great urgency because not only is a multimillion dollar project that would create a large number of jobs in jeopardy, but the integrity of the democratic parliamentary system is being trashed by a seemingly unconcerned and arrogant government.

This matter is urgent because at least 200 permanent jobs vitally needed to invigorate the West Wyalong region's economy are being wilfully wasted by a government that refuses to allow common sense to play a part in its decision on the Lake Cowal goldmining project. Some 200 permanent direct jobs and - on the basis of a multiplier factor of four to one - 700 indirect jobs would be created by this $1.2 billion mine over 11 years in the centre of the State. It is urgent because the Premier's vetoing of the commission of inquiry's recommendations sends an alarming signal about future investment and development in New South Wales. Mining investment, a major contributor to our State and national wealth and to employment, will be driven from New South Wales to other States. Despite the concerns of scores of responsible business and local government people in the central west, despite the concerns of the mining industry - representatives of which are in the gallery - and despite the concerns of many families and unemployed people, the Carr Government continues to treat the community with high-handed contempt.

This matter is urgent because the Premier listened to cogent arguments from a deputation of civic leaders from the Council of Bland on Tuesday, yet stubbornly refused to recognise the common sense put forward by those concerned citizens. The main argument used to denigrate the North Limited project is that the 50 parts per million of cyanide used to separate the gold from the ore will wipe out bird populations on Lake Cowal. The 50 parts per million is exactly in conformity with world best practice - a level recognised around the world as being a safe level. Yet we have the Premier challenging this worldwide standard as being incorrect and capable of wiping out bird life at Lake Cowal while the same level does not affect bird life in other parts of the world.

Frightened acolytes surround the Premier, agreeing that 50 parts per million will leave the area moonscaped. North Limited has even suggested the possibility that a lower level of cyanide could be used in the extraction process, albeit less efficient and more costly, but the Premier's brainwashing has been complete; he cannot even bring himself to agree to that. What is the Carr Government, and most importantly the Premier, hiding on this matter? The decision to veto Lake Cowal lacks common sense. It is based on a media-driven campaign by the Premier to create a new image after a series of inept and ill-informed decisions, such as the Department of Agriculture cuts, State environmental planning policy 46, the decision in respect of the Governor, hospital waiting lists, school bus travel, the M4 and M5 tolls and the 3 x 3 formula. The list goes on.

This is a premier in free fall. The Premier has lost the plot, lost his party's support and the support of the people, and lost credibility in the Australian political system. The Premier has not only lost the plot; he is now very much prone to
Page 768
simply making decisions without any logical reason behind them. The decision to prevent North Limited developing a $1.2 billion gold deposit that would provide more than 200 jobs and last for 11 years completely contradicts the Premier's suggestion that New South Wales is leading the investment race. North Limited has already spent $14 million and would have spent nearly $200 million in developing this major mine in the central west of New South Wales.

This matter is urgent because the Premier's decision was taken against all expert opinion, against the recommendations of a government commission of inquiry - which received more than 118 submissions - and contrary to the agreement of the government departments and North Limited on the strict conditions of consent. It is important to note for the record that the Minister for Mineral Resources, who is not in the Chamber this afternoon, on more than two occasions publicly supported the project going ahead. Where is the Minister for Agriculture? Where is the Minister for State and Regional Development?

I know why the Minister for State and Regional Development will not table those papers in the upper House: because he does not have the intestinal fortitude, as the honourable member for Monaro has said. More importantly, he knows that, as Minister for State and Regional Development, he has shirked his responsibilities by not challenging the Premier through the Cabinet process and in this Parliament and demanding that the Premier allow this project to go ahead because it has passed all the necessary tests and would be a major producer of activity in State development. He has shirked his responsibility. He hides in the upper House and says he will not answer questions. I ask you, is that the action of a fair dinkum Minister for State and Regional Development? Let me refer to the inquiry's letter of last month to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. The letter was signed by chairman William Simpson and deputy chairman Kevin Cleland, and said:

Our report canvasses the various conservation, environmental, development and social issues brought before the Commission of Inquiry. We have weighed and balanced these aspects of the proposed development and are satisfied, subject to compliance with the strict conditions we recommend, that conservation and environmental considerations do not preclude you granting consent to the Lake Cowal gold project.

The statement is clear, it is precise and it gives the Premier and the Government the absolute imprimatur to go ahead with this magnificent project. Yet the Premier, who will not release the papers and will not talk to North Limited, and the Minister for State and Regional Development, who has blocked the tabling of papers, are effectively saying that they do not believe the chairman and the deputy chairman of the commission of inquiry. They are effectively downgrading the professional integrity reputation of those two people. They are the Government's own men. It was the Government's own inquiry, but they are saying they will not abide by the commission's recommendations. The matter is urgent because the inquiry's executive summary spelled out in great detail - no doubt so that even the Premier would get the message - that this mining venture, so important to the economy of the region and to the State and the nation, is not only safe but desirable. The summary stated:

On weighing and balancing the scientific and technical evidence before the inquiry we are satisfied that the impact of the Lake Cowal gold project on the environment of Lake Cowal will be low and will not be ecologically significant in the short or long term. The contrary views of some parties are not supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, the Company and government agencies consider that the remaining risk and uncertainty requires extensive monitoring procedures to ensure the mine and associated facilities maintain a low environmental impact and that if variations occur they are quickly detected and remedied.

[Time expired.]

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [3.57]: This motion is not urgent. The decision on Lake Cowal is a responsible one taken by a responsible Government, and the advice provided by the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has been made public in the media and to every member of this House. Lake Cowal is an ephemeral lake of international significance. It is home to more than 170 species of birds, many of them threatened or endangered. The lake is on the register of the National Estate as being one of the most significant waterbird concentration areas in New South Wales and it is subject to three international agreements on the protection of migratory birds. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has refused the development application by North Limited for an open-cut goldmine at Lake Cowal because the effects on the lake and the surrounding wildlife of the mining proposal are not known.

The proposed mine would use deadly cyanide to extract gold from the ore. A tailings dam the size of 450 football fields would be required on the shores of Lake Cowal. The mine pit would be a kilometre wide and 300 metres deep. The Premier and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning stated before the commission of inquiry that there would have to be no impact on the environment if the mine was to proceed. Any risk posed by the mine and by cyanide is unacceptable, given the significance and location of the development. Neither the commission of inquiry nor the company could guarantee that mining operations would not affect the environment at Lake Cowal. The Environment Protection Authority, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning have all raised concerns about the impact of the mine on this most precious environment. Even with stringent conditions, there are two major risks.

Page 769

First, the use of cyanide at 50 parts per million, if allowed, may result in bird fatalities. Given the significance and location of the development, such a risk is unacceptable. Lower levels of cyanide have unknown effects on young birds, and its effects on breeding or birds' eggs is entirely unknown. The effects of chronic exposure to cyanide are unknown. Second, there is a risk that the tailings dam could fail from known risks, such as saturation of earth walls, predictable strength earthquakes, and unknown risks such as unprecedented earthquakes. Other reasons include seepage of saline pit water into the freshwater lake, blasting and vibration effects on bird breeding, and dust containing cyanide and heavy metals settling on birds, stock and humans.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning is required to make a determination on developments such as the Lake Cowal project. After obtaining advice from his department, the Minister made the decision in compliance with every aspect of the law. It is not at all clear to me that members of the Opposition have read the report. If they had, they certainly would not be saying the sorts of things we have just heard from the Leader of the National Party. If he had bothered to read the report he would have noted at page 17 that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning expressed concern about the long-term impact on the environment of the proposal; and, at page 18, that the Environment Protection Authority considered that there was no doubt the proposal would have an impact on Lake Cowal and its surroundings in the short term and in the long term.

The report said at page 21 that any unforeseen accident or failure at the mine site may cause serious environmental damage and affect the productivity and possibly the ecological integrity of the lake. Also on page 21 the report notes that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is still concerned about the compatibility of the mine with such a significant wetland. Again, the National Parks and Wildlife Service considers that the project still involves a high level of risk and uncertainty which could conceivably cause significant or serious environmental damage should the assessment of environmental impacts prove to be inaccurate or fail to see future operating conditions.

At page 45 the point is made that the evidence does not convince the inquiry that the company can achieve the aim of zero bird deaths as a result of cyanide toxicity if the cyanide level in the tailings discharge is controlled to a maximum of 50 milligrams per litre. There are too many uncertainties, and the empirical data indicates otherwise. A final reference from page 46 is that although the level of bird deaths is likely to be low, the potential impact as to the number of species, which may include threatened species, is unknown.

That is what the commissioners' report said. That is the evidence. On the basis of that evidence and on advice from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the Minister refused the development. It is as simple as that. The Leader of the National Party on this occasion, and the Leader of the Opposition on a previous occasion, have tried to argue that the planning process in New South Wales is discouraging investment. Here are the facts. Eight developments are currently under consideration, and a further nine are expected to be lodged this year. They have the potential to create a further 2,560 jobs and have a total value of around $1.5 billion.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. I wish to correct the Minister. From his notes, I inform the House that the figure is $1.51 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party has the right of reply and may then seek to correct the record. Obviously he is trying to waste the time of the Minister.

Mr DEBUS: This is on top of the $1.85 billion of industrial investments since the election. It was this Government that approved the Bengalla mine and is mounting a legal challenge to ensure certainty and clarity of the planning process for mining. Since the Carr Government was elected in March 1995 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has approved 10 major industrial developments, most of them in rural and regional New South Wales, two further developments determined by Orange and Wollongong city councils, and the upgrade of the BHP tin mill at the Port Kembla steelworks. Those projects have the potential to create another 166 jobs, at a total cost of $304 million. The overall levels of investment in New South Wales are a great improvement on the appalling record of the previous Government. In the past year the Carr Government has secured $9.4 billion of new investment, with the potential to create 35,000 new jobs.

Business investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 11.9 per cent on the same period in 1994 - higher than the national average. Private investment over the same period was up 5.1 per cent compared to the same period under the coalition. New South Wales investment was 12 times the national average, the best result of any State. New South Wales leads the nation in job creation, with 83,000 new jobs created since March 1995. During the last year New South Wales has consistently had the lowest level of unemployment in Australia.

I would like to mention the ways in which the previous Government handled planning matters. Of course, that Government held its own commission of inquiry into the M2 tollway. The commission of inquiry recommended against building the M2 motorway, but the previous Government forced it through anyway. So, by the test that the Opposition has been proposing should apply to us, Bruce Baird and Robert Webster acted corruptly in approving the M2 motorway. The bottom line is that the Leader of the National Party would allow a cyanide tailings dam the size of 450 football fields to be built on the shores of Lake Cowal.

Page 770

If he were asked would he allow the mine on the edge of Lake Cowal, what would he say? Of course, he would say yes, and the Liberal Party does not have the courage to stand against him. I know that many people in the Liberal Party agree with the decision that the Government has taken but, as in the case of guns and quite a few other matters, the Liberals are not game to stand against the Leader of the National Party. The decision-making process that we have gone through in this circumstance is clear and it is open, and the advice upon which the decision was made has already been made public. The Government asserts that the decision to stop the mining of Lake Cowal was correct and that the correct processes were followed.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [4.05]: I support the Leader of the National Party on this very important motion that we are most anxious to debate. It is the subject of a grave charge in the other House and the possible expulsion of the Treasurer from the services of that House. That indicates that the Government has failed to answer questions in every forum on this important matter. To stand in the Chamber and claim job creation is an absolute joke. An hour or so ago the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and I had lunch with a number of mining company executives operating mines in New South Wales. They are extremely concerned about the Government's actions, partisanship, lack of consultation, and the way in which the Premier went about arriving at this decision. They have real concerns about investing in this State.

It is a shame that this is occurring at a time when the Government is spending at this stage some $35 million on an exciting exploration project throughout New South Wales known as Discovery 2000. That has led to confirmation of some very prospective areas in New South Wales, particularly in Lake Cowal and the whole of the central west region, which could be one of the richest areas of gold and other minerals deposits - possibly even richer than Kalgoorlie in Western Australia is now. All of a sudden one Sunday night the Premier told 60 Minutes that some birds were killed on a dam a while ago and that the Government was frightened that something similar might happen again in the future. He expressed their concern about the unknown things that could not be assessed because they did not know what they might be.

Mr Debus: You have not read the advice that I have.

Ms MACHIN: I have read a lot of advice on this. The Government will just walk away from the project. Members on this side of the House have the Minister's briefing notes, so there is no need for him to show them to me. The Department of Mineral Resources, as one of its numerous publications, issues a publication on new mining developments. Lake Cowal was one that the Minister for Mining constantly talked about. I read one of his speeches in which he said, "We need to look for elephants in elephant country." What a great statement! He was speaking specifically of developments such as Cadia Hill near Orange and Lake Cowal. How embarrassed the Minister must be to be steamrolled like this, without consultation or advice. A major development coming within his portfolio was just canned because the Premier wanted to gain a few green points.

The issue is much more serious than I think the Government realises. The mining industry is still the single biggest contributor to the New South Wales economy if one includes coal exports as well. Many mining executives are now seriously reconsidering, in light of not only the Lake Cowal decision but various other decisions involving what is known as sovereign risk, whether they should stay in New South Wales. I have here a speech given by the chief executive of RGC recently at an international forum in New Zealand. He said:

The prospectivity/sovereign risk equation has moved against Australia. All mining companies operating away from their home jurisdiction are in the process of treating sovereign risk against geological prospectivity.

In other words, they are weighing up whether it is worth doing business in New South Wales, even if the area of the State is highly prospective. He went on to say:

Australia remains prospective but the degree of difficulty, particularly in gaining access to land and the cost of exploration, is rising.

That is the statement from the chief executive of one of the largest companies in Australia, expressing increasing concern about doing business in this State. That flies in the face of what the Premier said. I now turn to the Lake Cowal decision. I have had numerous briefings on this from the project manager and sat on a platform with him about a week ago to discuss the matter. I had the benefit of a very lengthy briefing on the matter. No project could meet the standards potentially set by the Premier when he ruled out this project. No housing subdivision, no environmental or ecotourism proposal could possibly meet the standards, because the Premier and apparently his advisers claim they do not know what the difficulties might be, are afraid of unforeseen circumstances, and therefore cannot take the risk. I should point out that since 1981 this area has been explored. For at least three years before the change of government in 1988 the present Premier was Minister for Planning and Environment and was responsible for these matters. If the area is such a valuable wetland, it certainly did not become so valuable overnight. Why did the Premier not declare the area a no-go zone at that stage? Why did he allow a company to spend $20 million or more to explore an area, only to tell the company 15 years or so down the track that all bets were off?

Mr Debus: Did you say that it was only 15 years ago?

Ms MACHIN: No, I said some 15 years ago. It is no wonder that the industries are looking to other States and to other nations, where they could quite easily go.

Page 771

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [4.10]: I listened to the presentation made by the Leader of the National Party and was reminded of a comment made to me at the caucus meeting today that the Nationals could be shamed into doing something. There is no way that anybody can shame the Nationals into doing anything, particularly into representing those whom they claim to represent here. Whenever an agricultural issue is being discussed in the House, National Party members are notable for their absence. Yesterday not a single member of the National Party was in the Chamber during the debate on ovine Johne's disease. The National Party opposed the Farm Debt Mediation Bill last year. Whenever there is a discussion about a mining project, however, National Party members rush to the support of the mining lobby.

I intend to present a few facts about the Lake Cowal issue. First, the ore is very low grade. Between 15 and 17 tonnes of ore has to be processed to produce one ounce of gold. One ounce of gold on today's market brings in about $500. It has been said that there are plans to reduce the cyanide content from 50 parts to 20 parts. The use of 50 parts of cyanide would assume that residual gold will be left in the skimp. There is no doubt that the skimp dump will contain residual gold - though it may not be a large amount. In areas in the eastern and north-eastern goldfields in Western Australia where I was stationed for many years the skimp dumps contain residual gold. If the cyanide content is to be reduced from 50 parts to 20 parts, the requisite amount of gold will not be obtained from the ore. The residual left in the mullock that goes out onto the plain or wherever it is to be dumped will contain a residual of gold.

The viability of the project diminishes because the return anticipated is reduced by virtue of the use of a lesser cyanide content. There is a solution to the problem. If the area is so good, the mining company should be prepared to deep mine, pull the ore to the surface and truck or rail it to plants already established at Parkes. There is nothing that can be done about the fiasco at Parkes. The cyanide treatment work is there and is having its effect on the ecology in that anything that alights on it dies. The manager of NorthParkes Mines wrote to me at Lithgow and asked for my comments. I wrote back to him saying that I had spent a number of years in the Kalgoorlie-Leonora district in Western Australia and observed the various forms of goldmining and the extraction of gold and would have to question the use of cyanide on site. The reason for using cyanide on site is that the ore is extremely marginal, to say the least. An operation to mine ore that carries a little more than one pennyweight of gold to the tonne of ore processed is marginal. It would be necessary to pull out huge amounts of ore in order to crush 15 tonnes to produce one ounce of gold.

In New South Wales there are probably 100 such areas - areas where years ago the gold content was insufficient to make mining a viable proposition. The mining companies are out scouting and they do not give a damn about the environment. The mining company proposes for the Lake Cowal area an open-cut mine a kilometre wide and a thousand feet deep. The result would be not a little scar on the environment. There would be no responsibility on the mining company to restore that area when it walks away from the mining operation. This has to be the greatest smokescreen I have ever seen. The goldmining professionals in Western Australia would not touch this project with a 40-foot pole. They have had the experience of having to clean up the Kalgoorlie dumps. Honourable members should go to the back of Boulder and the back of Fimiston and have a look at the moonscape there. The mining companies are now cleaning up the environment, and it is costing them millions to rehabilitate that area. I oppose this development - development that I would normally support. I oppose this development because its location and the effect upon the ecology of the district is too high a price to have to pay.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [4.15]: I join the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Port Macquarie in supporting the motion. I am surprised that the honourable member for Bathurst has spoken in opposition to this development. In the past he has built a good reputation amongst the productive sector of this State as being pro-industry, pro-development, pro-forestry, pro-mining and pro-worker - including union workers - in all of those industries. His turnaround in attitude is a shock to people who regard him as one of the few voices on the Labor Party benches in support of industry. His change in position has gone over very badly. I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Bathurst has made such a turn against his previous pro-industry and pro-development position.

The Labor Government has in one swoop, by one decision, jeopardised the general level of investment in New South Wales. I am not talking about investment in Australia but about investment in this State. I put it that way because there is a considerable volume and a continuous flow of domestic Australian investment to New South Wales. That investment has been jeopardised, in addition to the obvious jeopardy of mining investment from overseas. The fact that a company can undertake at extraordinary expense all of the preparatory work for assessment and then suffer a summary decision imposed dictatorially by the Premier of this State means that there is now a new element of risk in investment and greater uncertainty. I was interested that the honourable member for Bathurst sought to lecture the international merchant banking community on the pros and cons of this investment decision. He should have focused on the extraordinary way in which the Premier intervened personally to destroy a decision and an investment of this nature.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie referred to this as a new element of sovereign risk, which it is. Many quarters of the financial sector
Page 772
have put it that the question of sovereign risk in New South Wales is now assessed differently from the question of sovereign risk in the rest of Australia. That is a shocking indictment on the Premier of New South Wales, a person who makes out - and I think he did so earlier this week or last week - that he goes on overseas missions to Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the United States seeking job-creating investment for this State. With one personal action the Premier has destroyed any semblance of investment prospects in New South Wales and the jobs and prosperity that would flow from that.

The Premier's style of leadership is absolutely hypocritical. The State will never forgive him for the loss of potential jobs from this venture. What is to be said of the process of environmental assessment, given that the Premier summarily announced on Sunday morning that the venture is dead? What is the purpose of the process of obtaining prospecting and exploratory licences, planning focuses, environmental impact statements, assessments, and preparation for, and local government involvement in, the assessment process, commissions of inquiry and various appeal avenues? The entire planning process under the Act is in complete disarray in New South Wales. That process has fallen apart because of the dictatorial summary intervention of the Premier. No consultation has taken place nor was notice given to the company, even as a matter of courtesy. Surely the general manager, the chief executive officer or the chairman of the board could have received a telephone call to be told that the project would not go ahead. Dictatorship is the way things are done in this State. [Time expired.]

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [4.20], in reply: The one significant issue in this debate, apart from the excellent contributions by my colleagues the honourable member for Port Macquarie and the Deputy Leader of the National Party, is the complete lack of integrity and sincerity with which the Government off-handedly responded to the motion for urgent consideration that is so important for mining investment and productivity in this State. The Government put forward a junior Minister to argue its case, and could only find one following speaker, who totally discredited himself in his opening statement. The honourable member for Bathurst spoke about gold bringing $500 an ounce. It is a long time since gold was $500 an ounce in this country. Gold topped $400 an ounce only about six weeks ago, the first time for a long while.

The Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services did not have one original thought. I have his notes. He read them parrot fashion. He just rattled through notes which must have been prepared by an industrious bureaucrat. He did not offer one expression of his own or seek to explain his understanding of the subject. What an insult to the people of New South Wales, to West Wyalong and to the mining industry. The Government has treated this matter in a cavalier fashion. The Treasurer, Minister for Energy, and Minister for State and Regional Development is totally ignoring in the upper House the processes of Parliament and is refusing to comply with the Parliament after being censured, yet the Government has put forward this pathetic Minister who has relied upon bureaucratic notes.

Mr Debus: How many times have you moved this motion?

Mr ARMSTRONG: That is a good question because each time I have moved this motion the Government has blocked it. The Government is frightened to produce the papers and has been frightened to have debate in this House on this issue.

Mr Debus: This must be the fourth time we have had this debate.

Mr ARMSTRONG: This is probably the fourth time. Three times the Government has blocked the motion because it has not been game to front this issue. The Government finally has fronted the issue, but the Minister had to use pathetic notes because he does not have any ideas of his own. The Government does not have any other defence for its actions or any explanation for why the Minister for Mineral Resources supported this issue publicly on no less than two occasions, perhaps more, this year. The Minister supported it yet the Premier does not.

The Minister for Corrective Services did not say whether the matter was discussed in Cabinet. Why did he not refer it to Cabinet or for consultation with the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for State and Regional Development? When did the Minister for State and Regional Development know that the Premier was going to decline this project? Was he informed? When was the Minister for Mineral Resources informed? Did he have any consultation in the decision-making process?

This inept Minister for Corrective Services parroted lines from notes that have been floating around this place for a couple of weeks but did not answer any of the pertinent questions. The Government must be embarrassed that Cabinet Ministers who have sworn an oath to uphold their portfolio and accept responsibility were not even told. The Minister for Corrective Services made no attempt to get them off the hook. They are condemned by the fact that the Minister did not try to defend them. He presented no argument to counter the proposition put forward by me, by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and by the honourable member for Port Macquarie that the commission of inquiry - the ultimate judge and jury in matters of this type in New South Wales - under the auspices of the Government of the day found in favour of the project.

Page 773

The Government cannot wriggle out of that because it is on the record. The Government can discredit the commissioners and the process by ignoring the commission's findings until its members are blue in the face, but the pages of history can never be changed. The Government ignored the commission of inquiry on the whim of the Premier. He was not going to face the press on Easter Sunday at 11 a.m. However, he sneaked in and spoke on television that night - so he would not have to face the press - and announced that this project would not be going ahead. It was widely rumoured on the Thursday preceding the announcement that he was going to announce it on Sunday morning, but he wriggled out of it. That was a cowardly act. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr Peacocke
Mr Beck Mr Phillips
Mr Blackmore Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Debnam Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Downy Ms Allan
Mr Fraser Mr Knowles
Mr D. L. Page Mr Markham

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.