Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.02 p.m.]: As I was saying earlier, the Greens have called on the Government to stop approving new coalmines and new coal infrastructure projects. We need a transition away from coal whereby workers currently employed in the coal industry may undertake retraining to gain employment in new clean energy industries funded by government, such as manufacturing solar, wind, energy and water efficient technologies and public transport infrastructure. It would be a bold and crucial step to prepare the New South Wales economy to operate under the new set of rules that climate change is ushering in.

Instead of remaining hopelessly addicted to coal royalties, the Government should be expanding its trade opportunities with China. China is bound by law to take 15 per cent of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020, and that rate will soon increase to 20 per cent. China is committed to invest $180 billion in renewable energy over that period. New South Wales should try to reverse its trade deficit with China by exporting renewable energy technology, but because Chinese companies have invested so heavily in New South Wales coalmines, much of our export coal is sold to China at the production cost of about $30 per tonne rather than the export value of $180 per tonne.

The economic contribution of coalmining to the New South Wales economy is grossly overstated. I will share with the House some financial advice I received to help the Treasurer and members consider the point I am making. The figures are drawn from the New South Wales Mineral Industry Profile and from data produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The total production figure for the New South Wales coal industry in 2005-2006 was $8.5 billion. The coal industry directly employs just over 12,000 people out of a total State employment figure of 3.3 million, and that represents 0.37 per cent of the State's jobs. When the Government's indirect employment figure of 55,000 is taken into account, coalmining still accounts for only 1.6 per cent of total employment. In the same period, coal export values totalled $6.7 billion, which represents 13.6 per cent of total exports of goods and services from New South Wales.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 2005-06 list the total exports of goods and services from New South Wales at $49.1 billion. However, that is a gross export figure. Coalmining companies are substantial importers in three areas. With the demise of manufacturing in Australia, the majority of mining equipment is purchased from overseas suppliers, either directly or indirectly. New capital equipment purchases are from overseas specialist manufacturers, with local value added limited to local installation and final assembly labour. With many coalmines being funded by overseas investors and shareholders, a large proportion of the substantial profits made by those companies is remitted overseas. As there is very little industry information available on import costs, we can only assume that these three import costs would substantially reduce the export income received from coal. Given that total international imports into New South Wales total $82.9 billion, compared to total exports of $49.1 billion, it is reasonable to question whether coal is delivering the huge benefit to our State's balance of trade that the Government suggests. The Government refuses to come clean and publish the actual figures.

The Greens stand by their position that the economic contribution of coalmining to the New South Wales economy is being grossly overstated, and that if the externalised cost of environmental damage and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions caused by coalmining are internalised, then any further expansion of the coal industry in New South Wales would simply not add up. The economist Sir Nicholas Stern argued that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20 per cent. New South Wales cannot afford that level of economic damage. We need strong leadership as we approach an uncertain future.

Premier Iemma and Treasurer Costa cannot lead New South Wales into the new economic era of climate change because they are pinned down to somewhere in the twentieth century when destroying the environment to exploit coal reserves made sense for those with an economic rationalist view of the world. The Stern report shows us that a price can be placed on the damage wrought by climate change, and that price must be factored into any perceived economic benefit that the expansion of the coal industry may bring. And let us make no mistake—this bill is about business as usual for the coal industry. It says to the coal industry "We will create only the most minor obstacles to your business dealings in New South Wales". That is the message from the Coalition and the Labor Government today.

The Government's support for the third coal export terminal at Newcastle Harbour is a prime example of backward thinking in a new age where everyone else is asking how can we best avert global warming? This is illogical at a time when Australia faces increased extreme weather patterns of drought and flood, declining crop yields and rising temperatures, accelerated species extinction and water shortages. So why is it happening? It is because the New South Wales Government, along with the previous Federal Government, has made us beholden to the coal industry. Liberal ex-staffer and industry lobbyist Guy Pearse wrote a stunning exposé of the Howard Government. The book is titled High and Dry. The following quote applies equally to this Labor Government and all those members of Parliament and staffers who help push this line. He wrote:

I started to think the unthinkable—that the Liberal Party was taking the country in precisely the wrong direction on climate change. It had been captured by a small cabal of powerful greenhouse polluters, and had no intention of reducing Australia’s greenhouse pollution, ever.

My party was complicit in an unforgivable negligence against the planet, and their actions were leaving Australia exposed to even greater risk. As other countries in the world moved down a clean energy path, we were on track to become a greenhouse ghetto—the place where the world’s dirtiest industries would choose to do business.

New South Wales has become a greenhouse ghetto. Currently the Department of Planning website shows that in the greater metropolitan Sydney area there are 11 projects for big resource industry polluters awaiting approval, in western New South Wales there are 12 new projects awaiting approval, and in the Hunter there are 18 polluting projects waiting for the go-ahead. Goldmines, gas mines, coalmines and aluminium smelters employ fewer and fewer people, import huge amounts of machinery, send their profits offshore, cause enormous damage to our environment, and make a significant contribution to our greenhouse gas emissions. In the near future the economic benefits of these projects may no longer outweigh the costs involved.

I will reiterate the Greens position. We are calling for balance. At the moment there is no balance. The bill does not ensure balance between the needs of the mining industry, the needs of the environment, and the health of communities. Clearly, policy in New South Wales is still loaded in favour of the big coal companies and other mining interests. In March this year the Queensland Government announced that from 1 July 2008 all relevant Cabinet proposals will be required to include an assessment of the climate change impacts of the submission. The Queensland Government said:

The requirement to prepare a climate change impact statement is in response to the cross-cutting nature of climate change and the need for a whole-of-government response to this critical challenge. The economics of climate change in Australia, currently under consideration by the Garnaut review, show that the cost of acting too late is greater than the cost of acting now.

As each sector of the economy contributes greenhouse gas emissions, so must each government agency consider policies and measures to avoid or reduce emissions and prepare for climate change impacts. A climate change impact statement in relevant cabinet submissions will assist all government agencies and cabinet to evaluate immediate and longer term climate change issues prior to the implementation stage of any proposal, thus saving potentially costly adjustments at later stages.

That is an outstanding initiative. I would be proud if the Greens had said that. The initiative comes from Andrew McNamara, the Queensland Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation—a Labor Minister. What a stark and depressing contrast with our climate sceptic-in-residence, Treasurer Michael Costa, who to this day continues to make outrageous remarks. For example, on 8 March 2008 the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the Treasurer as saying, "We must be open minded to evidence that might well show human beings are not contributing to climate change."

On 25 October last year the Treasurer said in this House, "Al Gore is wrong: the science is not in." On another occasion in this House the Treasurer said, "The climate change issue is subject to a great deal of debate and there are reputable scientists who disagree with the premise." The Treasurer also stated that New South Wales has "been the lead State jurisdiction in terms of dealing with purported, alleged or real climate change—depending on one's view of the subject." When my colleague Ian Cohen suggested to the Treasurer that he build a solar power plant, the Treasurer replied:

Putting a light bulb in my mouth would be a much more reliable source of energy than what Mr Ian Cohen has proposed. At least people will get refrigeration and ice cream.

It would be interesting to know what the Treasurer thinks comes out of his mouth. As usual, he is not in the Chamber. Those statements come from a man who is steering the New South Wales economy into the uncharted waters of global climate change. The Greens' concerns with the shortcomings of the bill are not restricted to the coalmining industry. Goldmining in New South Wales also has had a destructive impact on the environment. The environmental assessment of cyanide-leach goldmines, the regulation of shipping cyanide across the State to goldmines, and containing cyanide tailings ponds at the mine sites should have been tightened under this review. The Lake Cowal goldmine project owned by Barrick Gold has been riddled with problems since it began. It is a fundamentally ill-conceived mine that should never have been granted approval. The mine places at risk the Lake Cowal-Wilbertroy wetlands aquatic environment, the quality of drinking water, the fishing industry, endangered flora and fauna, sacred indigenous sites, farm stock, as well as migratory birds.

I note that the puff seems to have gone out of some of the conservative members of the House. Usually when I speak about Lake Cowal they go on about jobs. As I have said before, only a handful of jobs have been created at that mine. If a spill from the tailings dams occurs, the loss of productivity at the farming level would be so huge that farming jobs in that area would be decimated for a long time. Once again I ask: Where is the balance coming from conservative members on the Labor and Coalition benches? The Lake Cowal goldmine uses cyanide to leach gold from ore stock, creating the risk of spills and leaks both at the site and during transportation, and poses the real danger of arsenic and other heavy metals entering the water system.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: So do you want to close it?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, in this case. That mine should not be there. I thank the member for his interjection. There is sufficient gold available in the world today for industry purposes. The bulk of the gold being mined at Lake Cowal is used for jewellery and similar purposes. In this era, when sustainability should be our chief concern, we do not believe that mine is justified because it is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. In 2008 our laws should be able to prevent such a wholly inappropriate mining project from ever making it past the drawing board.

Over the years the Greens have raised with the Government a number of significant concerns about the environmental impact of opal mining as well as its cultural impact on local indigenous communities, particularly in the Narran-Warrambool areas of Lightning Ridge and more recently in Walgett. The major concerns have been weak standards of environmental assessment, the lack of testing for contamination in the mullock material that is created as a result of opal mining, uncontrolled clearing of native vegetation with negative impacts on local fauna, and inadequate rehabilitation of mine sites with poor accountability. Also of concern to residents is the impact of opal mining on water resources, air quality, noise pollution and vibrations, and waste management.

We acknowledge that the bill's amendments have brought opal mining more into line with other forms of mining, with better regulation of the compensation agreements at Lightning Ridge. However, we have grave concerns that other problems being faced by these communities have not been addressed. The issue of rehabilitation is simply a joke. if one visits these areas and sees white mullock spread out like a moonscape across many of these opal mining areas, it makes all the Minister's fine statements not worth the paper they appear on. The rehabilitation levy is an embarrassment.

Recently Danny Hatcher, who is the President of the Lightning Ridge Miners Association, phoned me to discuss these matters. I appreciate the phone call and much of the information he gave me. I congratulate the people of Lightning Ridge on approaching UNESCO about their area becoming a geopark. There is a great deal of heritage in that area, and I wholeheartedly acknowledge that, but we also need to be doing something about the environmental issues. Currently the rehabilitation levy per miner is $30 per claim. That is an absolute embarrassment. That levy should have been left in the twentieth century. Again, this bill has failed, and failed miserably.

Perhaps the greatest failure of the review and these amendments is the failure to improve the quality of community consultation in the mining assessment and approval process. The Greens regularly speak with community and environment groups who devote countless hours to researching environmental and health issues affecting their community and preparing submissions to community consultation committees and inquiries, only to feel extreme frustration and disappointment when their concerns go unheard and unheeded. Only last week a group of people from coalmining communities met outside Parliament and tore up the submissions they had put in to inquiries and coal consultation committees. Year after year they have suffered absolute insult as they have been ignored and their hard work has not been taken into consideration. Many people from coalmining communities are now treating submissions they have prepared in that way: they do not think it is worth their hard work any longer.

The industry has the community consultation process stitched up and the Government is in its pocket. Compared with the level of public participation in the environmental assessment and planning process in other jurisdictions around the world, such as the United States and Europe, New South Wales's is bordering on farcical; it is simply becoming a rubberstamp to justify the business-as-usual approach that the Government has worked out with the mining industry. In the United States, the more controversial a project's impact on the environment, the greater is the public involvement in the process. It is by no means perfect but at least the public can say their piece and put pressure on the government of the day.

In New South Wales the most controversial projects are placed straight on the desk of the Minister for Planning. On the rare occasions when the public contributes its ideas and concerns, its views are disregarded. As we know, the Minister, with the powers he has today, has no responsibility even to consider public input. The public wants greater participation in the assessment process, access to information, such as environmental monitoring, and the results of pollution testing. I have met many people from mining communities who feel frustrated that their concerns, which they have expressed in carefully researched and written letters and submissions, are ignored by the Government.

In a community I have visited several times, the town of Wilpinjong not far from Mudgee, local residents have had horrendous problems with noise pollution and vibration coming from mining operations. Many of those people moved to Wilpinjong to escape the bustle of the city and to enjoy the offer of a clean country lifestyle that their families so looked forward to. When a resident dared to complain about 24-hour mining operations, the seriousness of distress caused by low frequency sound resulting in severe sleep deprivation as well as other health problems for locals, such as associated dust and noise levels, the giant mining company Peabody harassed him and took him to court. The Government did nothing to help that man. The environment and mining departments gave him the run-around and would not help him to establish an evidence-based case to force Peabody to reduce the noise and dust from its mining operations.

The Greens work with many local people who do not call for mines to be closed down and they often do not agree with the policy of the Greens of no new coalmines. However, they want the impacts that they are suffering to be acknowledged and they want the Government to give them support. They ask me to prevent mines from operating 24 hours a day. While local residents understand that in many, not all, cases mining operations run all night, it is often impossible for them to sleep. Mining companies should not be allowed to operate round the clock when the impact on the community is so great. But when the community tries to get involved they are stymied, sidelined or even sued.

In an earlier incident in 2007 residents of Wilpinjong learned that their town water had high levels of lead and other contaminants. The community called for regular monitoring by an independent authority, such as the Environment and Protection Authority, but again their calls went unheeded. Where is the support and concern from the conservative members of this House about the impacts on health of the mining industry? I have approached some colleagues in the Coalition about having an inquiry into the impacts on health of the mining industry, but again it seems to be a no-go area. I call on the Opposition to revisit that health issue in isolation, not from the point of view of closing down the industry.

By failing to properly monitor compliance with mining conditions of approval and by not taking enforcement action against breaches, the Iemma Government is acting negligently. I receive many complaints from residents living near mines who are convinced that coal companies are breaking consent conditions. Access to regular environmental monitoring information is vital for people living alongside mines. The Greens are disappointed that the Government will not fund Environment Protection Authority offices in mining communities. The Greens also are disappointed that audits carried out by mining companies will be protected documents and will not be available to people who breathe the air and drink the water polluted by mining operations. The bill has passed up a crucial opportunity to increase public participation in environmental assessment and the monitoring of mining projects.

On balance, the Government’s review of the Mining Act has been a piecemeal gesture in the face of enormous environmental challenges presented by mining to local communities, the natural environment and our planet's future climate. The Government has spent seven years tinkering with minor amendments to the Mining Act while the rest of the world has been scrambling to respond to the insurmountable challenges of climate change. For years the coal industry has bullied New South Wales governments to feed the expansion of its carbon-rich polluting empire. The time has come to stand up to the bullies, but major political parties are cowering. The Government's deliberate inaction and the Opposition's failure to offer alternatives will be judged harshly by the next generation. As future students of climate change policy read today's debate in Hansard they will see that the Government had the knowledge, the opportunity and the community support to take real action, to make lasting changes, but lacked the conviction to cut its historical ties with the coal industry and take the bold step forward of protecting our environment and future generations from the damaging impacts of mining in New South Wales. The bill is a disappointment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. The bill, as extensively discussed, will update the provisions of the Mining Act so that they are consistent with contemporary environmental standards and community expectations. The bill provides a comprehensive and transparent framework for managing environmental impacts and rehabilitation for exploration and mining activities. The bill provides for more effective enforcement of the Act, with a greater range of enforcement options to enable a more flexible enforcement strategy. The bill also improves administration of the Act, reducing unnecessary red tape and streamlining requirements for the industry and government. In addition to this legislation, every effort will be made to reduce duplication of administrative requirements by government agencies.

I have already outlined the Government's commitment to working with other agencies to streamline processes. The Minister for Mineral Resources is committed to the Department of Primary Industries development of guidelines and other supporting materials in consultation with industry and other key stakeholders by the end of this year. I will address a number of issues raised in the debate. The Greens are concerned about rehabilitation, but the simple fact is that it works. A number of former mine sites are now occupied by farms, bushland, housing and industrial developments. The Government requires rehabilitation security deposits to cover the full rehabilitation costs of activities on exploration, mining and petroleum titles. This ensures that liabilities are not transferred to the New South Wales Government. The full security amount is released only after successful rehabilitation has been demonstrated.

The bill strengthens the Government's powers to regulate off-title impacts, such as cracking of riverbeds. The subsidence management planning process requires a subsidence management plan to be prepared and approved whenever underground mining is likely to lead to subsidence. Broad public and interagency consultation processes apply to approval of those plans. The subsidence management plan will be a required element of the rehabilitation and environmental management plan for all underground coalmines. To enhance the requirements for monitoring and risk management, the Government is currently undertaking a review of the subsidence management plan policy and process.

The Government notes Ms Lee Rhiannon's concerns about pollution, which were comprehensively presented today. Obviously, those issues are captured by the integrated regulatory framework for mining, but are not regulated under the Mining Act and therefore are not relevant to debate on this bill. Ms Lee Rhiannon asked for specific comment in relation to Caroona. Provisions for payments for the Caroona exploration licence are detailed in the special conditions to address probity issues and provide a high level of transparency in the process. I refer her to those provisions. In relation to opal mining, Lightning Ridge opal mining district is characterised by many small mineral claims over large Western Lands leases.

An administrative scheme has been set up to manage compensation for landholders affected by mining operations. Amendments to the Mining Act will clarify operation of the scheme by establishing a statutory process and minerals claims district compensation fund that will manage collection and payment of compensation. In addition, mining at Lightning Ridge will be subject to the same environment management requirements as those applying to the rest of the State. The Department of Primary Industries will work with miners at Lightning Ridge to address and meet those new requirements.

I want to make two further comments in relation to the speech by Ms Lee Rhiannon. If members listened to what she said they would think the Government was doing nothing to combat climate change or that we did not take this issue seriously. Nothing could be further from the case. As a result I wish to again document to the House and let people know the range of activities that the Government has undertaken to combat climate change—activities that demonstrate not only our commitment but also our determination to deal with greenhouse gases.

The New South Wales Government has been a national leader in combating climate change. In June 2005, New South Wales became the first Australian jurisdiction to commit to a long-term target of a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. New South Wales is also a world leader in combating greenhouse gas, notably through the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the world's first mandatory emissions trading scheme. The New South Wales Greenhouse Plan sets out action for the Government for 2005-08 to reduce emissions from its own activities and to work with other stakeholders to reduce emissions from their activities. One of the many initiatives in the New South Wales Greenhouse Plan is the $200 million Energy Savings Fund. The State Plan includes progress on greenhouse gas reductions as one of its key priorities.

In December 2007, the New South Wales Government announced the Clean Energy Fund to support renewable energy and clean coal research. One hundred million dollars will go directly into a Clean Coal Fund to focus on the commercialisation of clean coal technologies and $60 million will go towards a substantial boost of the Government's $40 million Renewable Energy Development Fund. The Government is making a substantial investment but is also committed to getting on top of greenhouse gases.

Finally, I want to make a point about the role of the coal industry in New South Wales. If one listened to the Greens one would think it is not of great importance and does not actually provide jobs. The reality is that exploration is occurring in a number of areas across the State. The coal industry is a significant part of our State's economy. It provides regional development and job creation and generates export revenue. At the end of June 2006, the coal mining industry directly employed almost 13,000 people across the State. The industry produced 124.7 million tonnes of saleable coal in 2005-06 worth $8.5 billion. This is 73 per cent of the total value of the mining sector. The member outlined a number of areas where exploration is happening. If the areas that are being explored are found to be suitable, the applications will be required to go through stringent environmental assessment and regulation. The communities in some of these areas are in desperate need of long-term jobs and mining will assist greatly in providing them. We simply cannot ignore the importance of the industry to places such as Boggabri. We are about to deal with a number of Greens amendments and I indicate now that the Government will not support them. I will deal with those in detail in committee.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.34 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in globo.

No. 1 Page 12, schedule 1 [27], proposed section 29. Insert after line 28:

(4) The decision-maker must cause to be made publicly available on the Department's website on the internet any assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed variation of the licence provided to the decision-maker by the applicant for the purposes of the application.

No. 2 Page 19, schedule 1 [41], proposed section 47. Insert after line 32:

(4) The decision-maker must cause to be made publicly available on the Department's website on the internet any assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed variation of the lease provided to the decision-maker by the applicant for the purposes of the application.

No. 4 Page 28, schedule 1 [69]. Insert after line 2:

(6) The decision-maker must cause to be made publicly available on the Department's website on the internet any assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed variation of the lease provided to the decision-maker by the applicant for the purposes of the application.

This should be a simple amendment. It is about putting material on the web and making material about mining more accessible to communities. When an exploration licence, a variation to that licence or an assessment of lease was applied for, the department would publish any environmental assessment of the effects of the proposed licence on its website. That is extremely reasonable. If the Parliamentary Secretary disagrees with that I would be surprised and I would be interested to hear her arguments. Surely we should be informing the community about the environmental impact of exploration and any changes to do with a lease. We know there is a great level of interest in the environmental impact assessment of exploration licences and at the moment there are few opportunities for the public to stay informed. They really have to battle to get hold of this information and process it. Exploration can cause environmental damage and people clearly should be kept informed. I think it would be a good way to improve relationships between many communities near mines or in areas where there could be mines with the relevant government departments and mining companies. Surely the default should be that this material be on the web.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.36 p.m.]: The Government is opposed to these amendments. Basically what has been described is an administrative process that is already captured by the department's policy on public access to information.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.37 p.m.]: Similarly the Opposition will oppose these amendments. One of the primary issues that we raised earlier is the necessity of avoiding red tape and duplication. Plainly this style of amendment is directed towards encouraging even greater red tape and duplication and to that extent it is entirely inappropriate.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.38 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3, 5, 6 and 7 in globo.

No. 3 Page 22, schedule 1 [43], proposed section 51 (5). Insert after line 3:

(f) a statement as to the likely greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of activities proposed under the mining lease (including the predicted volumes of annual greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the activities),

No. 5 Page 31, schedule 1 [80], proposed section 113 (3), line 11. Omit "and any information". Insert instead ", a statement as to the likely greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of activities proposed under the mining lease (including the predicted volumes of annual greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the activities) and any other information".

No. 6 Page 32, schedule 1 [85], proposed section 120 (2). Insert after line 30:

(d) in the case of a transfer of a mining lease, a statement as to the likely greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of activities under the mining lease (including the predicted volumes of annual greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the activities),

No. 7 Page 59, schedule 1 [204], proposed section 238. Insert after line 24:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1) (a), in making a decision about whether or not to grant, renew, transfer, suspend or cancel a mining lease the decision-maker is to take into account any likely greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of activities authorised by the mining lease (including the predicted volumes of annual greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the activities).

The essence of the amendment is that an applicant for a mining lease or variation of a mining lease must provide a climate change impact statement. This amendment is consistent with the principles of environmentally sustainable development [ESD], which have been updated in this bill. One of my concerns when I spoke in the second reading debate was that environmentally sustainable development is included but it is not fleshed out. We do not know its objects or the details of how it will work. This amendment would help deal with that problem to some extent.

The Department of Primary Industries has taken steps to include environmentally sustainable development principles in the Mining Act and should take this one further step and include measures in the Act that encourage environmentally sustainable development in the mining approval process. It should be the goal of the Government to include the assessment of climate change impacts in every major planning decision it makes. Given that the coal industry is a main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in this country, it is important that assessment of greenhouse gas emissions be a prominent factor in all decision making about coal projects.

The Government, despite the Treasurer's statements, is on the record as saying that it takes climate change seriously. These amendments will help the Government's policy on climate change become real by finding ways to address these problems and wind back greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change policy is not just a statement on a piece of paper that does not change how mining and other significant industries operate.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.40 p.m.]: The Government opposes these amendments because it believes that they are unnecessary. Prior to undertaking any activities the proponent must obtain appropriate approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Government believes that is the appropriate place for these issues to be dealt with. If adopted, the amendments would increase duplication, which is exactly what the bill is not about.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.40 p.m.]: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 3, 5, 6 and 7 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 3, 5, 6 and 7 negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.31 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 8:

No. 8 Page 62, schedule 1 [204], proposed section 239B. Insert after line 20:

(6) Before imposing a condition under this section, the decision maker must:

(a) give not less than 14 days notice of the proposed condition in a newspaper circulating generally in the area of the proposed condition and also cause it to be made publicly available on the Department's website on the internet, and

(b) take into account any submissions received in relation to the proposed condition within 14 days of the publication.

When imposing any conditions of consent on a rehabilitation authorisation the public must be notified of the proposed conditions and be given the chance to comment on those conditions. That is what would change if this amendment went through. We believe there does need to be greater public participation in the rehabilitation approval process.

We heard the Minister say in reply that rehabilitation is working. If the Government is so confident, surely it should agree with the amendment. This is one of the few places in the Mining Act where public participation can be increased. People living in the vicinity of mines, and people with environmental expertise who have carried out bush care and conservation activities in these areas, have a strong desire to be informed and to contribute ideas and suggestions for consideration. Surely the Government would readily agree to that; if not, why not? Why is the Government so concerned to lock out people from having a say? We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government will not agree. The Government's opposition to the amendment underlines how it is just business as usual for the mining companies, and this legislation will be barely noticed in the boardrooms of mining companies in this country.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.42 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment on the basis that, if approved, it will delay the imposition and implementation of conditions requiring improved environmental management. We want these processes in place as soon as possible.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.42 p.m.]: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 8 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 8 negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.43 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 in globo.

No. 9 Page 74, schedule 1 [213], proposed section 246G. Insert after line 34:

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the Director-General may, in a condition under this section or at any other time, require the rehabilitation and environmental management plan prepared by a holder of an authorisation to include provision for an appropriate mining buffer zone (of not less than 1 kilometre) for the protection of:

(a) environmentally sensitive land, rivers, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas, or

(b) places or things of significant social or heritage value.

No. 10 Page 75, schedule 1 [213], proposed section 246H (3) (c), line 16. Insert "and any requirements under section 246G (3)" after "authorisation".

These amendments, if adopted, would allow the Director General to place a mining buffer zone around rivers and wetlands that are deemed environmentally sensitive to protect them from mining impacts. The community and environmental groups have lobbied strongly for many years for mining buffer zones to prevent mining damage. Some mining damage can never be rehabilitated or adequately managed and so should be prevented. Buffer zones would go a long way towards achieving prevention. This simple measure would do an enormous amount to protect the environment while leaving only the tiniest dent in the mining industry's gigantic profits. Mining companies would have to leave some coal in place—they would not be able to get all the coal under all the rivers where they want to mine. BHP Billiton, which posted a $16.68 billion profit last year, and similar mining companies are clearly not struggling.

There is no justification to crack riverbeds and damage this State's water supply to obtain more coal and further boost profits. The Government's responsibility should be to say no to these practices. It is the responsibility of this Government and all governments to safeguard our waterways, not sacrifice them to a mining company that could disappear in a few years if the price of coal drops. That will certainly happen in 10, 20 or 30 years when the coal is exhausted. Surely companies such as BHP Billiton can afford to leave a few coal seams untouched to protect our water resources. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.46 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The bill deals with these issues through environmental assessment and conditioning powers. It is the Government's view that a simple one-size-fits-all provision for every area is not appropriate and that each site should be looked at. Careful environmental assessment of each site, not a one-size-fits-all approach, is more appropriate and will have better outcomes.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.46 p.m.]: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.46 p.m.]: Once again another necessary amendment will be lost. I am disappointed to lose all the amendments, but this one is extremely important. Just last week a number of groups came here to watch Rivers of Shame, a film which documents the number of riverbeds that have cracked so that the river actually disappears. The mining companies get the water flow back by taking water from dams. That is what BHP has been doing with the Georges River. The river disappears through the cracks, then BHP gets the river flowing with water from surrounding dams. At Marhnyes Waterhole in the Georges River the cracks have been filled with grout—it is like filling a crack in a bathroom tile. It would break your heart to go there. What was once a beautiful waterhole has been severely damaged, and that has happened to many rivers.

The Coalition's hypocrisy on this issue should be on the record. On the Central Coast, where we have a marginal seat, Coalition members talk about their opposition to underground coalmining because of the damage that it will do to the waterways, but when we bring the issue to Parliament the Opposition votes against it. We did it once before with a motion listing all the affected rivers, but it voted against it and would not even allow the debate to come on. Now they will not entertain an amendment that will give some protection.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is a bad amendment—that is the problem.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection that it is a bad amendment. You could have brought forward your own amendment. You are out there. Coalition members are just trying to cover themselves. They could have brought amendments forward to provide protection for local communities. I have stood on the stage and listened, with people from those communities, to Liberal and Nationals members talking about how passionate they feel about the rivers and waterways, and how wrong the mining companies are. Kores, a big Korean company, wants to mine on the Central Coast, and I have stood with Coalition members saying they were opposed to such mining. But when we come to this place and move amendments, their support vaporises. Their concern does not even get on the record. We have real problem. It is disappointing that members will not vote for this amendment. If they do not it will mean more cracked rivers and more broken aquifers. At a time when water is so precious that is simply unacceptable.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.49 p.m.]: I listened closely to debate on this matter and to the contribution of the Hon. Trevor Khan, and I sought advice from him in relation to this amendment. I agree that the amendment, which is poorly worded, is a one-size-fits-all amendment. It is unfortunate that the Greens have gone down this path. I wished to contribute to debate on this amendment because I did not want Ms Lee Rhiannon to suggest that Opposition members were captive to one industry or to one group. My home is located right in the middle of the mining area about which she is talking.

I am one of the residents to whom she was referring earlier and I would have more to lose than she would in this matter. Any inference that somehow Opposition members are party to a conspiracy that will be played out on the people of Wyong offends me. If Ms Lee Rhiannon had moved a well-worded amendment that addressed this issue rather than sought to play politics so that she can again get up on the stage at Wyong, she would have some support. However, she is playing politics on an extremely important issue. Her amendment is poorly worded.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.51 p.m.]: The Leader of the Opposition, who just demonstrated why he has experienced problems as Leader of the Opposition, said that my amendment is badly worded. It is his job, as Leader of the Opposition, to change the wording of amendments that are moved in Committee. The Leader of the Opposition again demonstrated that he is not doing his job. We can improve on everything: life is all about change. The Leader of the Opposition, who said that he lived in the middle of this area, is spruiking concerns about this issue rather than changing the wording of my amendment so that we can vote on it together.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is poorly worded; you know that.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Leader of the Opposition is using this amendment as a cover. I am always happy to accept any amendment that he foreshadows in this Chamber.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.52 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon is intent on playing politics. It would have been better for residents in that area if she had moved a series of amendments that achieved the solutions she wants to achieve. She is putting forward her party's position so that she can claim at some future meeting that she attempted to resolve these issues.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.52 p.m.]: Members are often faced with detailed amendments that are completely beyond them. This complex amendment quite clearly states:

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the Director-General may, in a condition under this section or at any other time, require the rehabilitation and environmental management plan prepared by a holder of an authorisation to include provision for an appropriate mining buffer zone (of not less than 1 kilometre) for the protection of:

(a) environmentally sensitive land, rivers, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas, or

(b) places or things of significant social or heritage value.

It does not matter whether or not that amendment is well worded; we now have an opportunity in Committee to state what words will work. As an environmentalist and someone who has been interested in these issues for many years, I recognise that Ms Lee Rhiannon, as spokesperson for the Greens, has put a lot of effort into this mining issue. I challenge those Opposition members who said that this amendment was badly worded to work, as they do in other situations, towards achieving some decent wording. I believe that this is simply a smokescreen.

Opposition members who agree with the Government do not want to be bothered with this amendment. The Leader of the Opposition, who is living in this area, might well be affected by it, but that is an indictment of his lack of attention to detail. I challenge Opposition members to give us some wording on which we can all agree. The intent of this amendment is clear: we must take care of environmental areas impacted on significantly by mining. On many occasions in the past Opposition members have changed the wording of amendments in this Chamber.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.55 p.m.]: I am confused, as is my colleague Mr Ian Cohen, about why Opposition members have suggested that something is fundamentally wrong with the structure or wording of this amendment. This amendment will create a power for the director general. It will not require or force the director general to do anything and it does not even state that the director general ought to do anything. The amendment will simply create a power for the director general to put in place some waterway protections. In 2008 amazing problems are associated with waterways. In rural and regional New South Wales we are totally dependent on the health of our rivers not just for the delivery of water but also for the ecosystem services that they deliver.

This amendment will create a power for the director general to require some protection for waterways from longwall mining. My colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon outlined accurately and in graphic detail the horrendous damage that longwall mining can do when it gets close to rivers. Under those circumstances it would be a grave error not to do something in this regard. As Mr Ian Cohen said, what is wrong with creating a power? Which word is wrong? Which word in this amendment caused Opposition members to say to Ms Lee Rhiannon that it was poorly worded? This amendment will create a power for the director general to require the rehabilitation environmental management plan to include a buffer zone.

We are not saying that there has to be a buffer zone, but it is an issue about which we should be talking. The amendment states that in circumstances where the director general sees fit he or she may require—not must require or ought to require but may require—the preparation of a buffer zone. I challenge Opposition members to explain in clear and simple terms what is wrong with the wording of amendment No. 9.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.57 p.m.]: I do not believe that a lengthy discussion on this amendment is necessary and I do not believe it is appropriate for me to be teaching the Greens how to draft an amendment. However, I wish to make some observations. We were given these amendments at the last moment and we received a second draft of them when we were debating this issue. I think it is fair to say that the Greens' concern, which is not feigned, should have led to a degree of interaction with other members in this Chamber prior to the commencement of debate on the bill, which in itself might have enabled discussion on some of the issues that have been raised. However, that did not occur.

Proposed section 246G provides for a system of authorisation and for conditions to be imposed. It is not a case of the bill being silent or preventing the imposition of such conditions: the bill provides for those changes. In essence, this amendment becomes surplusage. It looks good to move the amendment and to try, in a sense, to squeeze both the Government and the Opposition. But does it add anything? Quite frankly, no. Of course, if it is to be given substance and mean something, it limits what the director general can do if the triggers are enacted.

The amendment proposes that if the director general imposes conditions, there must be a buffer zone of not less than a kilometre. In those circumstances it may discourage the director general from doing anything because a one-kilometre buffer may be completely inappropriate. In that sense, it makes it more difficult for the director general to meld a set of conditions to be imposed and perhaps limits the opportunity for the director general to impose a set of conditions appropriately. It may cause the director general to walk away from imposing a condition because the amendment makes it too difficult to do so. It is not my job, nor is it the job of the Opposition, to teach anyone how to suck eggs, but as it has been invited: Grandma can go and suck one!

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.01 p.m.]: The contribution of the Hon. Trevor Khan was most illuminating. We agree. It is surplusage.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.01 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his contribution, although I note that if this were a court of law, the first criticism of what he said would be that he has changed his tune. Just a moment ago there was something wrong with the wording of the amendment. Now, all of a sudden, there is nothing wrong with the wording; the problem is that we imposed the amendment on him at the last moment and he did not have time to prepare for it. I suspect that the word "surplusage" is a neologism, but leaving that aside, I take on board the concerns the Hon. Trevor Khan has with the words "of not less than one kilometre." Accordingly, in the spirit of addressing the lesson the member delivered to the Greens—and we appreciate that lesson—I move:

That the words "of not less than one kilometre" be deleted from amendment No. 9 moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

In doing so I believe that we have addressed the major and only substantive concern the Hon. Trevor Khan raised: that the power created for the director general under subclause (3) would somehow or other be restricted by the one-kilometre minimum stand-off distance proposed by amendment No. 9. From what the Hon. Trevor Khan said, this amendment has addressed his key concern. We hope therefore that he accepts the amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon subject to the passage of the amendment I proposed.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.03 p.m.]: There has been some discussion between the Opposition and the Greens about this amendment. I reinforce that this bill strengthens the ability of the Government to deal with off-site impacts, such as concerns about rivers. The Minister actually has the power to put conditions and buffer zones in place as appropriate to the site and after careful environmental assessment. The Government believes that regardless of the wording, these amendments are unnecessary.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.04 p.m.]: I invite the Coalition to speak to the amendment of Dr John Kaye because the member Mr Kahn expressed concern about the wording of amendment No. 9, and we are endeavouring to reach some agreement on the position. The Liberals and The Nationals raise similar concerns at times and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition supported my point. Leaving aside concerns about the amendment being changed as the debate has ensued, we have a clear proposition that addresses many of the concerns of the member Mr Khan, who has carriage of this bill for the Opposition. It would be most disappointing if we did not hear a response and hopefully find a resolution to this point. After all, that is what the Committee stage is all about.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.05 p.m.]: I can only repeat, as briefly as possible, part of what I said: the amendment in its entirety is surplusage; it is unnecessary.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.05 p.m.]: I understand with the deletion of the words "of not less than one kilometre," which the Hon. Trevor Khan raised as being restrictive by the unnecessary amendment—

[Interruption]

Having spent 14 months with the Hon. Trevor Khan I have come to understand that he can speak for himself—possibly too much and too often on occasion. The Opposition argues that the amendment is unnecessary, that is, that somewhere else in the legislation, either in the bill or in the Act, a power such as this exists and the director general may, as a condition, require the rehabilitation and environmental management plan to include a mining buffer zone for the protection of lands, rivers, wetlands or things of social or heritage value. The Hon. Trevor Khan used the word "surplusage"—it is a nice word; I have learnt something tonight—but the challenge lies with him to show us exactly chapter and verse—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: No it doesn't.

Dr JOHN KAYE: If the accusation is made by the member that the matter is surplus to the requirements—that it is unnecessary or redundant—then the challenge lies with him to show us exactly where that power is in the bill or Act.

The Hon. Rick Colless: He already has.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Where?

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It's in the provision.

Question—That the amendment to Greens amendment No. 9 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Amendment to Greens amendment No. 9 negatived.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 be agreed to—put.Question—That Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from committee without amendment.


Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.


Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.