Debate resumed from 7 May 2008.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [2.50 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Mining Amendment Bill 2008 and indicate that we will not oppose the bill. However, the Opposition has some concerns that reflect representations that my colleagues and I have received from the mining industry. I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for seeking to clarify the Government's position in relation to several issues that were raised by my colleagues in the other place and I will attempt to not raise concerns that have been addressed satisfactorily by her. The bill seeks to change the environmental regulations and the enforcement provisions of the administrative processes within the mining industry.

The Opposition believes it pertinent to note that in 2005 the State Labor Government released a positions paper concerning the proposed changes, but the bill was not introduced until 2008. Although the Opposition believes that the proposed changes are significant, three years is far too long to hold the industry in limbo over these amendments. The mining industry is vital to the New South Wales economy; it is a significant export earner, it provides thousands of jobs, provides the Government with hundreds of millions of dollars through royalties, and holds together many rural communities. The industry deserves consideration.

Whether exploration, mining approval or a regulation concerning actual mining is involved, years are lost with the industry forced to comply with ever-increasing legislation or regulations. The Coalition believes in sustainability and environmental neutrality of the mining industry. However, it equally supports the need to bring this great State back to its economic prominence—back into distinction, after being dragged backwards by a tired and arrogant State Labor Government crippled by inaction through numerous scandals.

The mining industry, along with most other forms of commerce in New South Wales, is being forced to comply with ever-increasing regulation. This once mighty State of ours is going backwards during the time of a minerals boom, prompting economists from the ANZ Bank to describe Australia late last year as a "two-speed economy", referring to the booming economic growth of Queensland and Western Australia compared to the sluggish, and some say recessive, nature of the New South Wales economy. It is the Opposition's contention that the State is engulfed in red tape.

Notwithstanding what honourable members of the Government have said about the bill, the Opposition shares the concerns of the Minerals Council of New South Wales that these amendments will increase red tape and restrict the viability of mining operations. The bill brings the Mining Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act essentially under one umbrella. I accept what honourable members on the other side have said—that the Government intends to reduce red tape through the enactment of amendments to the assessment processes under the Mining Act that allow for recognition of either agency's' assessment processes.

However, the Coalition believes that by doing so, and without express exemptions, that will lead to situations whereby one bureaucracy is frozen into inaction while other bureaucracies go through their assessment processes. That would prove to be the case, because the original bureaucracy knows full well that it can now—nay, must—recognise other agencies' processes and to act themselves could leave the door open for a challenge of lack of due process. As a result, not only will red tape and the time involved to process applications increase, but also the Opposition envisages that turf wars between bureaucracies will develop.

The Minerals Council believes that the bill needs to go further to address the most serious concerns of the industry—cutting red tape—if it is to deliver on the original intent of improving mining administration in New South Wales. The Coalition agrees wholeheartedly. It has been noted by the Minerals Council that the bill has a number of amendments that appear to increase red tape for the mining industry, contrary to Government policy. The key concern of the Minerals Council is how the Mining Act and the Department of Primary Industries, as the overseer of that Act, will interact with the legislation and other government agencies in their roles. The Minerals Council informs that this is particularly the case where many of the proposed amendments will result in further duplication with other government agencies, particularly the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Department of Planning.

Again, I accept from honourable members opposite that there is not an intention for duplication or multiple prosecutions and that "prosecutions will be coordinated across agencies wherever possible". However, the Coalition hears a lot from those opposite of integrated and coordination action of the State's bureaucracies. I fear that by enacting a bill that opens the door for further interagency lack of communication and inaction, we will witness the exact opposite. In response to the assertions that the Government does not intend multiple prosecutions and that the Minister is committed to delivering guidelines and supporting materials establishing an enforcement policy by the end of 2008, I again draw to the attention of the House the three-year time lag between when the discussion paper outlining the proposed changes was released and the bill being brought before Parliament. The Opposition supports the Government's action on these guidelines and hopes that they are delivered to the industry in a timely fashion and not delayed through bureaucratic processes.

An industry that has been waiting for three years to implement the changes of this Government will now have to wait a further six months before fully knowing the Government's enforcement policy. That is not an ideal situation. The Minerals Council further believes a significant duplication arises from the application of section 75V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments make it clear that the environmental impacts associated with the exploration and mining of minerals will be assessed prior to those activities being approved and carried out. Although the Opposition supports such integrated assessment, it questions the seriousness of the Government to actually implement changes in any sector in an integrated fashion. Experience tells us that whilst buzzwords such as "integrated assessment", "whole-of-government approach" and "interagency communication" are oft touted by the Government, all it takes is a simple examination of how different departments communicate with one another to find basic flaws.

Almost every committee undertaken by honourable members throughout the spectrum of views in this place and the other place hears from bureaucrats and front-line service providers of a lack of communication between departments and, depending on the context, that can have grave consequences. In the other place the member for Wollongong, a Parliamentary Secretary, said:

The assessment will take place in an integrated fashion

She went further, and said:

aspects of the assessment may take place under the Mining Act approval processes or another environmental approval process such as a Department of Planning approval.

The Opposition identifies a conflict between those two statements and foresees a situation arising that would lead to a lack of integration and communication between the various government agencies that are involved with these amendments. The Coalition recognises the significance of the bill and will not, as I said, oppose it. Government members in both places have attempted to satisfy the concerns of the Coalition and the industry about the changes. Essentially, the Coalition does not oppose the legislative changes. Our concerns, that we all hope prove to be inaccurate, lie with the operation of the law and the role played by State bureaucracies within a vitally important industry of New South Wales—an industry, may I add, that will play a key role in any economic revival of the State.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [2.59 p.m.]: I support the Mining Amendment Bill 2008. Mining has long been an important contributor to the wellbeing of communities across this State. Mining is providing great economic returns. However, the mining industry must be sustainable and minimise impacts on the environment. The Government recognises the need for sustainability by incorporating ecologically sustainable development in the new objects clause of the bill. The integrated approvals process proposed in the amending provisions of the bill is the primary means of achieving ecologically sustainable development. One of our most important responsibilities is to regulate mining in such a way as to minimise adverse impacts. This means ensuring that impacts are managed and rehabilitation of mine sites is undertaken to restore land and water to a state that will be suitable for use by future generations. The Government has a strong legislative framework in place to make sure that the impacts of mining activities on the environment are minimised. The proposed amendments to the Mining Act strengthen regulation of the mining industry, consistent with other New South Wales environmental legislation. The bill does not duplicate that legislation.

Today I want to speak about the role each element of the legislative framework plays to ensure that impacts on the environment are minimised throughout the life of a mine. The legislative framework for mining is made up of three main Acts, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Mining Act 1992. The three Acts work to protect the mining environment in different ways. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides an assessment and approval process for new projects. Under that Act mining proposals must be assessed for their environmental and social impacts well before they are allowed to commence.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Minister for Planning is the approval authority for major mining proposals, while councils and shires are the consent authorities for small projects. Exploration proposals are assessed by the Department of Primary Industries. If a project is approved under any of the department's processes, conditions may be imposed on a project to make sure the environment is protected. The upfront assessment of environmental impacts is a key mechanism in achieving that objective. Encouraging ecologically sustainable development is an object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. That Act coordinates the upfront assessment process for mines in the State. The second of the three Acts that provide environmental management is the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. Its role is to ensure that mining operations effectively control any air, noise, water and waste pollution. That Act requires that anyone seeking to carry out an activity that could pollute the surrounding environment must have a licence.

I turn now to the Government's role and responsibilities under the Mining Act for environmental management of exploration, mining operations and rehabilitation. The Department of Primary Industries is responsible for regulating the rehabilitation of mine sites. To do so effectively, the department must ensure that the industry manages its impacts on the environment during the life of a mining project to minimise the area that will require rehabilitation. The bill will provide additional powers and strengthen the requirements for environmental management. On a regular basis companies will be required to provide an updated rehabilitation plan, report against achievement of that plan, and provide security against achievement of the rehabilitation.

Securities cover the full rehabilitation costs of activities on all titles to ensure that the State does not incur financial liabilities if a titleholder defaults on their rehabilitation obligations. Only when the department is satisfied that all rehabilitation requirements have been met will the security be discharged. The Department of Primary Industries currently holds more than $820 million in rehabilitation security bonds. Given the necessary range of approvals required, it is important to coordinate and streamline the requirements. This is a key objective of the proposed amendments. The amendments draw on powers in other legislation to enable the integration of agency processes, as their powers will be similar.

Those powers do not duplicate—rather, they complement—other environmental legislation, and facilitate the reduction of red tape. For example, having consistent legislation will mean that companies will be able to produce one environmental report to satisfy the reporting requirements under a number of Acts and one audit could be undertaken to meet the requirements of a number of agencies. Reporting requirements will be streamlined under the proposed amendments because all agencies will have similar powers of investigation and will be required to treat information obtained in the same way. This will reduce the administrative burden for operators while ensuring that each agency receives the necessary compliance data and maintains appropriate oversight of operations.

The proposed amendments do not increase or duplicate the existing approvals framework but rather specifically recognise that if an issue already has been assessed under another process, the assessment under the Mining Act does not need to duplicate the consideration. This is a significant benefit for industry as it will reduce administration costs and streamline the approvals processes. Taken together with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the existing legislative framework to protect the environment from mining impacts is effective: but, as effective as the present environmental regulation of the industry is, the bill's proposals for amendment will significantly strengthen that framework. In addition, the amendments will assist in achieving consistency across the legislative framework in managing the environmental impacts of mining, facilitate streamlining, and reduce duplication in the approvals framework. The bill's amending provisions are designed to ensure that the mining industry is responsible for the environment and that the industry is sustainable in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.05 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Mining Amendment Bill 2008, which deals with a number of important aspects. The bill amends the Mining Act 1992, which regulates mining activities in New South Wales by requiring certain titles to be obtained prior to the commencement of mining operations. These titles, together with other statutory approvals, such as environment protection licences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and planning approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, regulate the impact of mining on the environment. The Mining Act, among other things, regulates the rehabilitation of mine sites during the course of mining, and that is very important.

The environmental management provisions in this legislation have not been updated since the Act commenced in 1992. As a result, some parts of the Act no longer represent contemporary environmental standards. The bill will amend the Act to ensure it is consistent with contemporary environmental standards, particularly by the inclusion of objects that are extremely important. The bill will incorporate the principles of ecologically sustainable development within the Act. The objects of the principal Act already deal with a number of aspects but the bill will make the objects very specific from the Government's perspective and particularly from the mining industry's perspective—they will know where they stand. As a result of this bill being passed, the objects of the Act will recognise and foster the significant social and economic benefits to New South Wales resulting from the efficient development of mineral resources.

We all know that mining has been of great economic benefit to New South Wales. Previous debates have discussed the need to remove bottlenecks suffered by the mining industry, particularly those relating to the transportation of exports or at loading facilities in our ports. The Christian Democratic Party supported new developments in Newcastle to provide adequate shipping facilities for the transportation of minerals to wherever they need to go, which is mainly China. The objects of the bill provide for an integrated framework for the effective regulation of authorisations for prospecting and mining operations. This will ensure that there are no hillbilly operations, and that prospecting and mining operations are properly authorised as well as conducted lawfully.

A most important new object is a framework for compensation to landholders for loss or damage resulting from mining operations. There are ongoing reports of subsidence in certain areas of New South Wales, for example, in the Hunter Valley and in the Camden area. In some cases longwall mining may have brought about the subsidence. It is therefore extremely important that landholders have a legal entitlement to compensation. The new objects also will ensure an appropriate return to the State from mineral resources. In other words, royalties will be payable and those royalties will go into Consolidated Revenue, which will benefit the people of the State and not simply the owners of the mines. Two of the new objects deal with the rehabilitation of mine sites—a most important endeavour in which great advances have been made in recent years. The legislation will require the payment of security to provide for the rehabilitation of mine sites, and will ensure effective rehabilitation of disturbed land and water. The new objects also will ensure that mineral resources are identified and developed in ways that minimise impacts on the environment.

It is very important to spell out in detail the area of rehabilitation, the security to be paid by the mine company, which is its guarantee of carrying out rehabilitation of mine sites and that the rehabilitation is effective. Although it may be debatable whether land can be restored to its original state, the Government must ensure that after mines, especially open mines, are closed, the land is restored as close as is humanly possible to its natural state. The Christian Democratic Party supports the legislation, which will strengthen existing environmental requirements to effectively manage environmental impacts of mining without unnecessarily adding to the costs of compliance by the industry or creating more extreme green tape that prevents the efficient operation of the mining industry in the State.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.11 p.m.]: I support the Mining Amendment Bill 2008. Mining in New South Wales has a long and significant history. In 1797 Lieutenant John Shortland noticed, while he was searching for escaped convicts, a coal seam in a headland near an area that later became Newcastle. By 1799, just two years after the discovery of coal and only 11 years after European settlement, the first shipload of coal was exported from Newcastle to Bengal. A Department of Lands surveyor made the earliest recorded discovery of gold in 1823 at Bathurst. In 1851, the first Australian gold rush began in the central west of the State. The New England region also has a rich history of mining—for some years the greatest amount of blue sapphire in the world was produced annually from the New England region.

Diamond mining in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was estimated to have produced up to 500,000 carats. Tin mining was undertaken when demand was high. Broken Hill provided one of the greatest minerals bonanzas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with its lead, zinc and silver resources. The wealth derived from the mineral resources of New South Wales has played a significant role in the history and development of Australia. But there was a problem with all this mining activity, and that problem was the frequent degradation of the countryside around mine workings. Often just as much of a problem were the safety issues from unsafe ground, abandoned shafts and machinery. In the past the need to rehabilitate land was not recognised. Environmental damage was seen simply as the cost for winning the wealth associated with mineral resources.

As time went on, community and Government expectations changed and mining operations were required to make sure that the environment was managed. Standards of care regarding pollutants and the need for effective rehabilitation were introduced. As we know, such requirements have since been extended significantly and the current bill proposes a further enhancement of the requirements. In the meantime, many of the old abandoned mines were left un-rehabilitated and in a derelict state. Currently more than 570 New South Wales mine sites are classified as derelict, the majority of which are small metalliferous mines. The Derelict Mines Program commenced in the 1970s with an annual allocation of $125,000. The program was created to fund the rehabilitation of the most environmentally damaging and unsafe of these unrehabilitated areas. The program continues today, with an annual allocation of around $1.8 million.

Funds are applied to the rehabilitation of former mine sites when companies no longer exist and individuals who may be held responsible cannot be found. For land to be included in the Derelict Mines Program, mining must have been authorised under the Mining Act 1992 or its predecessors, the mining title must be extinguished, and mining must have ceased. Due to the current requirement for securities to cover rehabilitation obligations, the funds from the program will be applied only to mining operations that had been abandoned prior to the introduction of these requirements. The Department of Primary Industries, in consultation with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Department of Lands and the New South Wales Minerals Council, administers the program.

Projects that are eligible for funding under the program are selected on a priority basis. Priorities include the risks to public safety, pollution impacts, contamination, erosion or land degradation, and public concerns. In 2006-07 approximately 37 rehabilitation projects were completed under the program. One of these was the rehabilitation of the former Yerranderie silver mine, which is south west of Sydney. This project was undertaken in partnership with the Sydney Catchment Authority, which contributed funding of $100,000. The work done under the Derelict Mines Program is both essential and a great service to the New South Wales environment and our community. However, until proposals were included in the Mining Amendment Bill, the Derelict Mines Program had no legislative basis and that led to practical problems for those carrying out the rehabilitation work on the mine sites. For example, there can be difficulty in obtaining access to some sites where the abandoned workings and affected areas are located on private properties. If access cannot be obtained, the issues associated with the sites cannot be remedied. Without remedial works, impacts such as pollution, erosion, unsafe mine shafts and equipment could represent continual exposure of both the environment and the community to risks.

The amendments proposed in the Mining Amendment Bill 2008 are designed to overcome unwanted possible outcomes. First, the amendments provide a statutory basis for the New South Wales Derelict Mines Program as they propose to declare sites as derelict mine sites. Such declarations will allow authorised officers and contractors engaged by the State to enter sites to undertake appropriate rehabilitation works. Second, the amendments provide for the establishment of a Derelict Mines Fund. The Government will continue to support the fund financially, as it has for over 30 years. The fund also will have access to proceeds from the disposal of unclaimed mining plant and equipment.

The amendments clarify and bring up to date provisions for the removal and disposal of plant and equipment under the Mining Act. Further, the proposed amendments will define the extent to which forfeited securities from other mine sites can be used for the rehabilitation of abandoned mines. The amendments will support the existing good work carried out under the Derelict Mines Program and will ensure that the State has appropriate powers to carry out works on abandoned mine sites so that adverse impacts are reduced.

The Mining Act already provides for the holder of a mining authority to lodge a security to cover obligations arising from the Act. The Mining Amendment Bill 2008 further strengthens the legislative provisions relating to securities, which means that, in the future, should a mine be abandoned, the securities will be a source of funds for rehabilitating the site. Rehabilitation of modern mine sites therefore will not become an impost on the Government or the community. The Derelict Mines Program takes care of rehabilitation from mining that has long past. The requirement to lodge securities takes care of the costs of rehabilitation of mine sites in the future. The amendments will provide a more certain basis for both the collection of securities and the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites, for the benefit of the environment and the broader community of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.20 p.m.]: Three years ago when the Government briefed the Greens and environment groups on the review of the Mining Act, the Greens welcomed the Government's intention to strengthen the environmental provisions of the Act. We are pleased that some of the improvements discussed at that meeting in 2005 have made their way into the bill. It has been a long time coming, but this aspect is positive. I point out that once again the Minister responsible for legislation—in this case Mr Macdonald, the Minister for Mineral Resources—is not in the House when a major legislation is being debated.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: His Parliamentary Secretary is in the Chamber.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection, but I still note that there has been a major change in the way the House works. Rarely are Ministers in the House when their own legislation is being debated, and that reflects an attitude of disrespect for parliamentary process that appears to be coming from this Government.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Oh, rubbish!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge all the interjections. It is disappointing that Labor members defend such actions. The Greens recognise that the Government has updated and improved the environmental provisions of the Mining Act in line with other environmental legislation. We support the inclusion of the principles of environmentally sustainable development in the Act and the broadening of the definition of the environment, which had not been updated since 1982. Though the bulk of the amendments are technical in nature, there are some good things in the bill, such as tightened environmental management of mine rehabilitation and improved regulation of rehabilitation bonds, with regular audits of mine operations; the right of the Minister to vary mining titles that govern the mine area, rehabilitation plans, compensation liabilities and royalties over the life of the mine; the capacity of the Minister to examine the past environmental performance of mining companies; and greater liability placed on directors of mining companies for offences committed by a mine and for damage caused to off-title lands.

Although the Greens support the bill, we do so with profound concern and regret that the seven-year process did not go further. The amendments do not address the ongoing environmental destruction mining causes to rivers, farmlands and regional communities and, in particular, the longer-term need to curb expansion of the coal industry as a response to climate change. Despite what staff of the Department of Primary Industries describe as a lengthy review process—one staffer told us it began in 2001-02—the Government has failed to address most of the key mining-related environmental considerations: the impact of coalmining and coal-fired power on Australia's carbon dioxide emissions and our response to climate change; the continued environmental destruction, especially of rivers and water catchment areas, caused by open cut and underground mining activities; the speculative public money being spent on clean coal research that should be invested in proven renewable energy technologies; the excessive subsidy of the coal industry at the expense of investing in renewable energy industries; the loss of potential jobs growth in renewable and sustainable industries; the impossibility of ever rehabilitating the mega coalmines that have burgeoned in this State; and the severe shortcomings of public participation in the environmental decision making processes for mining approvals in New South Wales.

Fundamentally, mining is at odds with the environment. It destroys habitats and agricultural lands, damages rivers and wetlands and pollutes communities. But the Greens are not against mining, as the Minister and Conservative members of both Labor and the Coalition parties like to make out.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You want to close the mines.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection. Once again the member has it totally wrong. We are not calling for the closure of mines.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Yes you are.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: You will not find that in our policy anywhere. We are saying there should be no new coalmines. Read our policy, listen to our statements and get it right. We are advocating a balanced policy that limits—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Throw the coalminers out of work!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, we are making sure. The Government is throwing them out of work. The number of coalminers in this State has decreased by thousands under the Labor Government. Our policy advocates and sets out how we can ensure that they and their children will have jobs well into the future.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: That is the Government's position.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It certainly does not play out that way. We are advocating a balanced policy that limits environmental damage and negative health impacts while ensuring the economic benefits of extractive industries flow to local communities, not to overseas interests. I was hoping there might have been an interjection at this point because that is where Mr Macdonald and his ilk are really backing the overseas companies. The Greens acknowledge there are some benefits from the mining interests but so much of it is going directly overseas. The thrust of the Mining Act has always been the regulation of mining for the benefit of mining companies, their profits and State royalties. The changes that the Government is proposing do not alter that. The Government spent seven years reviewing the environmental provisions of its pro-mining laws, passed up crucial opportunities to protect environmentally sensitive areas from mining and overlooked the urgent need to respond to the demands of climate change. That amounts to an abandonment of responsibility for managing the protection of the environment and is deeply disturbing to the Greens and to everyone who is concerned about the future of our natural world.

I know the Minister will deny he has responsibility for the environment—he has told us that time and again—but that is rubbish. We all know that for years the State has sheltered the mining industry from the laws that other industries must follow to ensure the protection of the environment. Mining companies have historically enjoyed an elevated status of State significant development. Until very recently section 74 of the Mining Act exempted mining companies from many environmental controls in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the results for the environment, rivers and wetlands have been disastrous. Any genuine attempt by the Government to improve environmental outcomes of mining must include an examination of all the legislation that regulates and approves mining—the planning legislation that governs conditions of consent and the environmental legislation that governs pollution licences—as well as the Mining Act. Mining regulation in New South Wales is a multifaceted beast. Any review should have covered the regulatory role of both the Department of Planning and the Department of Environment and Climate Change. To do less in the current era of climate change was sheer negligence on the part of the Government.

The regulation of mining in New South Wales has failed to prevent environmental damage. The review could have shifted the outdated emphasis of New South Wales laws from predicting and monitoring mining damage and patching it up afterwards to preventing damage, and constraining the obscene grab for profits by the industry so that waterways and sensitive ecosystems may be spared irreparable damage. That is the point that the conservative members in this place need to understand. We can have balance; we can have mining but simultaneously we need to work on environmental protection rather than sacrifice it. Let us face it: our rivers, creeks, rich farming lands, wetland and native woodlands have been sacrificed to the insatiable hunger of greedy mining giants intent on bloating their already obscene profits. The big winners are overseas investors.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What is an obscene profit?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not saying there is anything wrong with profit. I am objecting to the profit going overseas. The members interjecting are backing the multinational coalmining companies owned in China, the United States and Scandinavia, and that is where the profit is going.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What about BHP Billiton?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Where does the Hon. Greg Donnelly think most of its profit is going? He is living in the past, about 40 years ago, if he thinks its profits stay here.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: We are doing all right.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: When we talk about BHP Billiton, we are talking about big profits. In 2006, in six months, BHP Billiton's profit was more than $11 billion. All we are saying is that a lot of that money should be staying here and put to work in Australia. The big winners are overseas investors and the losers are the people who live in mining communities as well as the health of our environment. The Greens had hoped the review would result in a tougher regime to avoid and minimise mining damage to environmentally sensitive lands and water. We also hoped it would result in a legislative framework for assessing and managing the cumulative impact of mining on regions, water catchments, river systems, biodiversity and climate change. It did not. This failure goes to the heart of the Greens' regrets over this bill. Incorporating the principles of environmentally sustainable development [ESD] into the objects of the Mining Act is little more than tokenism if specific laws are not introduced to achieve those objectives, just as the principles of environmentally sustainable development are little more than tokenism in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, can exercise broad discretion to determine the environmental conditions of consent for a coalmine based on little more than a concept plan and a streamlined environmental assessment.

Without adopted laws to achieve the environmentally sustainable development objectives, one has to be suspicious that this aspect of the bill is a public relations exercise. I can already hear the Minister the next time local communities, environment groups and the Greens object to a new mining operation. The Minister will be issuing media releases and making speeches about how the law requires the Government to judge each mining application according to environmentally sustainable development objectives. But it is just another deceptive smokescreen, which allows business as usual for the mining companies. During the Legislative Assembly debate on the bill, when Opposition members were not moonlighting as lobbyists for the New South Wales Minerals Council—

[Interruption]

There has been a loud moan from the Opposition. Would Opposition members like that interjection to be recorded in Hansard? Their objection was extreme—and not surprisingly. They have been ousted because of the job they did, but I imagine the Minerals Council was very pleased with it. They hopped up and down about the turf war between the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Planning and the excessive red tape that the poor mining companies have to wade through to get a mining approval.

Coalition members revealed their parties' true colours with their callous disregard for environmental outcomes or sustainable development, instead complaining that there is too much environmental regulation in New South Wales and bemoaning that mining companies can be prosecuted under three different Acts for breaching their licences, breaching their conditions of consent and polluting the environment.

The Government's integrated approach to environmental management is consistent with the national strategy for ecologically sustainable development, which has been recognised in Australia since 1992. So it is fortunate that the Coalition did not have carriage of this review. Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is sinister. It seriously weakens the environmental assessment of mining. It handed a gift to the mining industry in June 2005 when the Government guaranteed that any mining project approval under section 75V of part 3A would also have to be granted a mining lease. No mining company has had an application for a mining lease rejected under part 3A, even when the mine threatens to cause major environmental damage, and that status quo is unchanged by this bill.

Protecting rivers from mining is one such example. Subsidence caused by longwall coalmining was listed as a key threatening process in July 2005 in very strong recommendations from the New South Wales Scientific Committee. This was about the same time that part 3A was passed by the Government with the support of the Coalition. Since then not one threat abatement plan has been prepared for a longwall mine, yet mines have been approved under part 3A and rivers have been undermined, especially in the Sydney and Illawarra water catchment areas. The Government has systematically ignored its own advice, and the mining approval processes of the planning and minerals departments have completely disregarded this important environmental ruling from the New South Wales Scientific Committee.

In October 2006 I moved a motion in Parliament to debate the damage being caused to rivers, creeks and wetlands in New South Wales as a result of subsidence from longwall mining and to place a one-kilometre buffer zone around at least 49 rivers threatened by mining damage in New South Wales. Both Labor and the Opposition refused to debate the issue or support the one-kilometre buffer zone. Mining has now damaged some of those rivers. It is such examples that make Mining Act amendments look so meagre. I have inspected rivers such as the Nepean River, the Goulburn River in the upper Hunter and the Coxs River, which are suffering from the impacts of mining. This review will do nothing to prevent that damage from continuing to occur.

In recent weeks we have learned that the disused Canyon Colliery near Lithgow has been discharging 500 times the safe levels of zinc into the Grose River for many years. Nothing has been done to manage the pollution risk of this old mine. The Government has not tested for this damage; an academic researcher discovered it. Surely the Environment Protection Authority should prosecute this company, but in view of the record of the Environment Protection Authority to date in prosecuting mining companies which breach their conditions of consent, it is doubtful whether anything will happen. The Environment Protection Authority is toothless and very rarely prosecutes mining companies. This is simply unacceptable at a time when our future water supplies are in crisis. These examples are further reminders that we needed a lot more from the review of our mining laws.

Native vegetation will not be better protected from mining as a result of the review. The site of the Anvil Hill coalmine near Denman, the largest intact stand of remnant vegetation on the central Hunter Valley floor, is home to 178 species of birds and animals, many of them threatened, like the grey-crowned babbler; 420 plant species—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: We only know they are there because the mining company did an impact statement.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of Ms Fazio telling us how good the mining company is for its studies. Once again she is wrong.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Don't paraphrase my interjections, if you don't mind.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledged it, so it will be on the record. Again Ms Fazio is wrong because maybe the mining company has done it, but it failed to find some of the rare endemic orchid species in this area that were found and documented by many of the locals who feel so strongly about protecting the area. There are 420 plant species, including three beautiful and rare endemic species of orchids, and 22 distinct vegetation communities, and the area is rich in indigenous heritage. The site will be utterly devastated by the massive open-cut mine if it goes ahead.

I have acknowledged the stronger rehabilitation provisions in this bill, but the very notion of rehabilitation of the Anvil Hill mine site is ludicrous, given the gross proportions of that mega mine and the sheer devastation it will bring to the countryside. The entire soil structure and seed bank of the Wybong woodlands will be eradicated and cannot be replaced. The reality is that the Government's and the company's version of rehabilitation does not restore native vegetation. It cannot. Few, if any, of the threatened species displaced by mining will ever return.

In 2006 I flew over the Upper Hunter mines from Muswellbrook to Singleton. Two coalminers who work closely with the Greens had suggested, "To understand the impact of coalmining in the Hunter, you need to see it from the air." I appreciate to this day the information and the briefings we obtained from the coalminers. What I witnessed from the air can only be described as a wasteland: a 30-kilometre to 40-kilometre stretch of continuous coalmines, so vast and so deeply gouged into the earth that they are beyond any hope of ever being rehabilitated. The entire soil structure has been obliterated. There is simply not enough soil available to repair them. Much of the Hunter Valley floor has been laid to waste and much of it is beyond repair—not just the woodlands and farming lands, but also many of the rivers and creeks. This Government has little credibility when it comes to strengthening rehabilitation laws. I remember the flight I took over the vast moonscape expanse of coalmines. When I hear the Minister speak about rehabilitation I see before me the Minister's press releases, which talk about how tough he is on cleaning up after mining operations, when in fact it is business as usual for the coal companies and many of the changes are just a cover to allow the companies to continue with their usual operations.

One of the biggest threats that remains unaddressed by this amending bill is pollution in mining communities. A number of Hunter residents have contacted my office in recent years to express their concern about the impact of heavy dust storms in their region. For example, many locals believe the large amount of dust that settles across Muswellbrook is due to the poor management of the open-cut coalmines in the area. I have witnessed huge dust clouds from the hill above the BHP Billiton Mount Arthur mine, not far from the town. Although the conditions of consent for the Mount Arthur mine state that the dust should not exceed the height of the trucks, it is regularly much higher and was about 10 times that height on the day I was there. These dust storms put at risk the health and safety of mine workers, local residents and townspeople.

This serious public health issue is a result of the Government's failure to enforce the environmental conditions that coalmines are supposed to follow. Heavy dust storms in the Upper Hunter are a result of poor regulation of mining companies. As I have said, I have flown over the Hunter Valley open-cut coalmines. Much of this area is now a dustbowl caused by poor coalmining practices. Rather than fund an Environment Protection Authority [EPA] office in the upper Hunter to investigate the pollution and prosecute the mining companies, this Government gives the mining companies awards for environmental excellence. That is just disgraceful.

It is nothing other than a con job! Mining companies are parading around our communities, going to our schools and making out that they are everybody's friends when the dust from those mines is causing serious pollution and health problems for many local people and, in particular, children. What an insult to those who have to breathe in that polluted air and expose their children to the increased risk of respiratory illnesses! In 2004 BHP Billiton was awarded the Hunter Catchment Management Trust Coal Industry Award in Environmental Management for its Mount Arthur coalmine in Muswellbrook—the same mine I spoke about earlier where I witnessed huge plumes of mine dust billowing across the district.

In 2005 BHP Billiton was a part finalist in a Banksia Foundation Award for Environmental Leadership in Protecting Bush, Land and Waterways and for funding research to develop sustainable techniques for rehabilitating the Upper Hunter River—an astonishing contradiction, given that Mount Arthur mine draws so much water from the river and generates massive amounts of dust pollution, which makes its way into the river. Companies such as BHP Billiton use these awards to create a public relations profile to demonstrate that they are responsible environmental managers when they are nothing other than environmental culprits. The New South Wales Government likes to run the line that mines are responsible corporate citizens governed by strict consent conditions that are closely monitored when in reality it is very different.

Last year the Greens analysed the coal industry's record of non-compliance with EPA pollution licences. Data from the EPA's website showed that during the period 2000 to 2006 there were 2,639 reported incidents across New South Wales in which 75 coalmining companies failed to comply with their EPA licences. Of the 488 prosecutions that were made by the EPA during 2000 to 2006 only a handful were against coalmining companies, with fines totalling a mere $95,000. I note that at present there are no interjections from or wailing by members on either side of the Chamber.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Charlie Lynn did not disappoint me. I am quoting Government figures.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Do you know the trouble you caused the communities up there? That is why.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the member's disappointing interjection. After all her work in the area of health services she should know about the difficulties and hardships that are being faced by coal communities because of noise, air and water pollution.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: I understand the science of epidemiology instead of hysterical imagination.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is insulting to many of the local people that Country Labor members should be representing. The member belittled me but I am quoting figures from the EPA's website. Disputing those figures places the member on weaker ground than she was when she first started interjecting.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Jobs.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Under this Government, jobs in the mining industry are going downhill because of industry mechanisation—an issue with which I will deal later. Hunter Valley and western coalfields were the areas with the worst record for breaking EPA conditions. Twenty-seven mines in the Upper Hunter region had a high rate of non-compliance. During the period 2000 to 2006 twenty-seven mines reported 1,041 incidents of non-compliance with their pollution licences. Eighty per cent of those reports related to a failure to conduct pollution monitoring, 10 per cent related to water pollution, 8 per cent related to noise pollution, and less than 1 per cent related to air and dust pollution, which represents 36 per cent of the State's total licence non-compliance.

The worst offenders were Hunter Valley Energy in Muswellbrook, which reported 143 incidents of a failure to carry out pollution monitoring, and Theiss Pty Ltd in Ravensworth, which reported 235 similar incidents. The bad record of Theiss Pty Ltd is not confined only to New South Wales; it has done some appalling things in Queensland. In 2005 it ended up in court and was fined a miserable amount of $50,000, which is typical when mining companies around the country ruin the environment and compromise people's health. In this case an embankment wall at the mine's facility collapsed, causing 400,000 cubic metres of coal slime to escape across areas on the mine site and in areas surrounding the mine site. Referring again to EPA incidents, Anglo Coal in Muswellbrook reported 27 incidents of water pollution breaches along with 24 other incidents of failure to conduct monitoring; Bengalla Mine in Muswellbrook reported 20 incidents of failure to carry out monitoring; and BHP Billiton's Mount Arthur mine in Muswellbrook reported 35 incidents.

These rates of failure to monitor are clearly unacceptable, particularly for mines located so close to towns. In the Lithgow region 60 mining companies had 921 incidents of non-compliance with their pollution licences. There were 796 non-compliance incidents of non-reporting and 178 incidents of water pollution. Springvale Coal failed to comply with its pollution licence a staggering 803 times without prosecution. That mine did not suffer many consequences for its callous disregard for residents who live near the mine and for the Lithgow environment. When I questioned the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the responsible Minister, about this he played down the seriousness of the pollution and its impact on human health, dismissed the breaches as "minor" and said that he had not heard of any serious breaches of the environmental protection arrangements in the Lithgow area or in the Hunter.

The Department of Primary Industries [DPI] certainly knew about this huge problem but it allowed the review process to overlook such a glaring weakness in the law. Surely the scope of the problem should have inspired the DPI to broaden its review to include tightening the management of planning conditions and the licence conditions that the EPA placed on coalmines. That is proof, if more proof is needed, that this Government is serving the needs of the mining industry at the expense of coal communities and the environment. For years the Greens and these coal communities have called for EPA offices to be opened in Lithgow, Mudgee, Muswellbrook, Wollongong and Mittagong to monitor, investigate and prosecute mining companies that breach their EPA pollution licences.

At present, coal communities have to rely on mining companies to conduct monitoring and report their environmental performance. Clearly, they are not upholding their responsibilities. Mining companies give ridiculous reasons for failing to carry out pollution monitoring or for discharging polluted water. Some of their excuses include guard dogs making it hard to access samples, feral animals chewing power cables, horses rubbing against gauges, and even excessive bird droppings on samples. If members read some of these EPA reports that is what they will establish. New South Wales coalmining companies pay over $2.3 million in annual licence administration fees to the EPA, with each company paying an average of $31,000 each year. That amount should be increased dramatically to fund the creation of new EPA offices in mining communities.

I again challenge conservative members on both sides of the House. Why can they not agree to such a proposition? If they are committed to the health of local people and to the protection of the environment—which is what they tell us all the time—why do they not back EPA officers in country centres? I am not talking about undermining mining companies that are going about their business and making mega-profits; I am talking about looking after the locals. Why do those members not tell us why they will not back such a clear and sensible proposition? Another stone that is left unturned is the devastating impact that coalmining is having on our agricultural communities.

Farmers around New South Wales are losing to coalmining interests precious agricultural land and water allocations. Much of the Hunter Valley's rich farming land has been lost to massive open-cut coalmines. Prime agricultural land is now under threat from coalmining applications in the Gunnedah Basin. I visited the regions of Gloucester and Gunnedah to meet with farmers who are opposed to local coal exploration and the threat of mining expansion in their regions. I forged a strong working relationship with some of those farmers and we keep in regular touch. Farmers in Gunnedah are deeply concerned that the coal expansion in their area will cripple their livelihoods, destroy their rivers, creeks and underground aquifers, and push them off the land that their families have farmed for many generations.

When BHP Billiton struck a secret deal with the New South Wales Government in August 2006 and paid up to $250 million in up-front fees and inducements to gain a coal exploration licence in the Gunnedah basin, it sent shockwaves through the community and environmental groups. Environmental assessment, climate change targets and community concerns in the Gunnedah basin were eclipsed by the lure of $250 million worth of up-front payments. The rich and fertile Liverpool Plains, the land of sweeping plains, that Dorothy Mackellar—

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Dorothea.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Dorothea; it is spelt here correctly. I apologise for my pronunciation.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: I love a sunburnt country.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: If the Hon. Christine Robertson did love her sunburnt country, surely she would work to protect it. Ms Mackellar immortalised in Australia's most famous poem My Country the area now set to be destroyed forever if BHP Billiton opens up coalmines. Some farmers have tried to stop coal exploration proceeding on their properties. They have a tough battle as the New South Wales Government is working closely with the coal industry to open up this area for rapid movement of coal down to Port Newcastle. The third coal loader in Newcastle is being fast-tracked and the Government is financing a new coal railway line across the Liverpool ranges to haul coal by rail to Newcastle.

The fast-tracking of this rail infrastructure must be compared with how the Government allocates and maintains rural rail branch lines in western New South Wales farming areas. The regional impact of mining expansion into the Gunnedah basin has not been assessed thoroughly. The Government should consider the cumulative impact of these mines on climate change, the extra demands placed on local water supply, the potential damage to rivers and underground water used for agriculture, and the threat to the future food security of New South Wales.

It is irresponsible for massive mining expansion to proceed in the Gunnedah basin without weighing the negative impacts against the profits of BHP Billiton. Already a massive coal expansion program is underway in the Gunnedah basin. In 2006 the Boggabri open-cut coalmine commenced production, the Tarrawonga coal project commenced production, Whitehaven Coal Limited lodged a major coalmining application for its Belmont open-cut coalmine proposal 25 kilometres north of Gunnedah, and Namoi Mining Pty Limited proposes a new open-cut coalmine 15 kilometres west of Gunnedah known as the Sunnyside coal project. In 2007 Narrabri Coal Pty Limited proposed a new underground coalmine in Narrabri.

BHP Billiton had its massive exploration licence approved with no cumulative impact assessment. No doubt the $250 million influenced the Government's decision more than the concerns of local farmers and environmentalists. I ask that the Minister in reply to explain the circumstances around the $250-million up-front fee and why the Government does not require the industry to consider the cumulative impacts of mines on communities when assessing their placement. The overall impacts of coalmining cannot be ignored, particularly in agricultural areas and those of high environmental sensitivity when new coalmines are coming online.

Systematic assessment of the cumulative impacts of coalmining on each region could have been introduced in this review if the Government had been genuine about delivering sustainable mining and better environmental outcomes. Farmers living alongside coalmines will be more disturbed when I share with them the Greens latest research into the impacts of coalmining pollution on agricultural communities. The National Pollutant Inventory reported on two local government areas—Gloucester, north-east of the Hunter Valley, and Liverpool Plains, between the Upper Hunter and Gunnedah—in which agricultural communities share their region with coalmines and experience coalmining-related pollution. We compared those areas with the Gunnedah council area, which has a similar agricultural community, where coalmining has only recently begun to expand and where coalmining pollution levels were still low in the 2005-06 reporting year.

Gloucester is a rich agricultural producing region with good soil and high rainfall that is being steadily overrun by coalmining. At present 84.6 per cent of all pollution measured in Gloucester by the National Pollutant Inventory comes from the coal industry. The impact of coalmining pollution on Gloucester is evidenced when compared with the Gunnedah council area, which has minimal coalmining pollution. Our research shows that the people of Gloucester experienced drastically increased pollution compared to the people of Gunnedah: a 39,167 times increase in beryllium levels, a 14,000-times increase in chromium levels, a 26,437-times increase in cobalt levels, a 7,948-times increase in lead levels, a 6,000-times increase in selenium levels and a 222-times increase in mercury levels. The National Pollutant Inventory credits this pollution in Gloucester directly to coalmining. The people of Gloucester are still coming to terms with the implication of this pollution level on their health and their community. An earlier interjection stated that the Greens are scaring people about the consequences of coalmining; we are alerting them.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is true.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Again I hear the interjection saying that it is true. The Greens are alerting the coal communities to figures available in the National Pollutant Inventory. The community should be alerted to these figures by any responsible government. A stark comparison may be made of the neighbouring council areas of Liverpool Plains and Gunnedah. Liverpool Plains experiences dramatically higher levels of coalmining pollution than its Gunnedah neighbours with over 15,000 times more beryllium and over 3,600 times more lead compounds. The coal industry is getting away with this terrible impact on human health and the environment. Drastic changes are needed. I shall refer now to the jobs myth. The Government's response to these environmental issues is always the same: it argues that we need the coal industry to uphold the New South Wales economy.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is true.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Government tells us that coal means jobs. I acknowledge the interjection, "It is true." Again these members do not explain why the number of jobs created by the coal industry has dropped so considerably in recent years. In her speech on this bill in the Legislative Assembly the member for Wollongong once again cited the 55,000 indirect jobs in the New South Wales mining industry. It is hard to accept the Government's continued citing of coal jobs figures as justification for mining expansion, given that the number of coal jobs started to decline 10 years ago. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, between 1996 and 2001 coalmining jobs in the Lower Hunter fell 27 per cent.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Yes, because of the Greens. You're putting miners out of work.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is good that the Treasurer has joined us. He is going on about the Greens causing the decrease and putting miners out of work. Once again we could not have a clearer indication of how wrong the Treasurer is. Why has the number of jobs in coalmining decreased so dramatically when productivity in this industry is going through the roof? It is because of technology.

The Hon. Michael Costa: The Greens would not know about technology.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Absolutely. The Treasurer suddenly realised he had made a bad mistake and he is trying to correct himself. I shall do him a service and get it on the record. The number of coalmining jobs in the Lower Hunter fell 27 per cent to 3,560.

The Hon. Michael Costa: How much coal? Coal output increased.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: If the Treasurer remains in the House, he will hear about that from us later. For the rest of the Hunter, coalmining jobs fell 18 per cent to 2,443. Mining makes up only 2 per cent of employment in the Lower Hunter, or just over 4,000 jobs, and 8 per cent in the rest of the Hunter, 2,717 jobs. The Government has perpetrated an enormous deceit that the transition from coal to renewable energy will cost the State jobs. It is part of the Government's strategy to deny, delay and deceive: it denies coal is causing harmful pollution, environmental damage or climate change; it delays the transition away from coal towards renewable energy by pumping money into speculative and unproven clean coal research; and it deceives the public with the mantra that jobs are at stake and the economy will collapse without coal. The truth is that investing in green energy solutions instead of coal will create jobs and boost our economy.

For example, a comparison of Australian coal industry and wind power industry jobs published in the International Journal of Environment, found that per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, wind power creates two to three times the number of Australian jobs as does coal. Investing in wind power would stimulate jobs growth and economic activity. The report found also that 20 per cent of Australia's electricity could be generated from wind power by 2040, the same percentage that was achieved in Denmark in 2003. During the early 1980s Denmark built a wind power industry, creating tens of thousands of new jobs globally. In 2002 Denmark obtained 18 per cent of its electricity from wind power. By 2004 the industry generated enough to power more than 10 million homes. Denmark plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by about 2030. The Greens are planning ahead for new jobs growth and increased economic activity with our no-new-coal policy. This is a strategic response to counter the coal industry's massive contribution to climate change.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.