Business of the House

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.18 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 142 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 regarding coalmining, be called on forthwith.

It is urgent that the House debates this matter today as the inquiry needs to be set up immediately given that there are a growing number of reports of people living in coalmining areas suffering health complications. The responsible action for this House to take would be to support this urgency motion. There are certain groups at risk from living in close proximity to coalmines—pregnant women, the young, the elderly and the chronically ill—and that is another reason why this is a matter of urgency. The urgency of this matter has been shown by a survey of the people in the Gloucester area living near coalmining areas. The survey contains compelling information that is relevant to this debate. It found that 48 per cent of people said their health had been adversely affected by mining, 39 per cent cited psychological problems and 18 per cent had physical problems. Fifty-four per cent of those surveyed complained of coal dust in the air.

This motion needs to be debated today because there is an urgent need to monitor the health status of communities before and after a mining project commences. This is a matter of urgency because preliminary data from Lithgow has revealed significantly high mortality and morbidity figures across a number of local areas, with double the State average admission rates for asthma. The motion is urgent as it would be highly irresponsible to delay consideration of a motion that would open up for investigation the fact that communities in coalmining areas may suffer higher incidences of various diseases.

This matter needs to be dealt with today so the House can determine whether an inquiry should be set up that would consider whether undue influence has been placed on area health services not to publicise the adverse health statistics that have been collected in some coalmining communities. Surely reports that residents in coalmining communities are at an increased risk of developing chronic heart, lung and kidney diseases highlights to members the need for this matter to be considered today. It is vital that the House today has the opportunity to debate the need for an inquiry into the health consequences for people living near coalmining areas given that the issue is under-researched, especially with respect to the role of heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead, and also with regard to the health consequences of noise from mining operations.

This matter needs to be considered today so the House can consider the merits of establishing an inquiry into mining and health that could consider the health consequences of uncovered rail wagons travelling through rural communities. There is an urgent need for the House to discuss the merits of establishing an inquiry that could investigate the health consequences for people living near coalmines, including disorders associated with exposure to low-frequency noise and infrasound—which are part of the noise pollution from open-cut coalmines but which are not recognised by the New South Wales industrial noise policy that allows industry and government to ignore the more harmful part of the noise spectrum.

There is an urgent need for the House to consider establishing an inquiry into the adequacy of regulations and legislation governing exposure to air, noise and water pollution associated with coalmining. The House also needs to consider the availability of accurate diagnoses and medical services for those whose health is adversely affected by coalmining. We need to have debate on this motion today so the House can consider the need to set up an inquiry into the financial and social burden when the health of people suffers as a result of coalmining practices. The House also needs to consider the availability of accurate records on the nature and extent of illness, disability and death caused by coalmining. There are increasing reports that such data has been collected over the years in coalmining communities around the State but that the data has been kept secret and is not available to the general public.

The motion needs to be debated today so the House can consider access to compensation, the limitations in seeking legal redress, and alternative models of financial support for affected individuals and their families. We need to have this debate today because coal companies are clearly reckless with people's health, and therefore the New South Wales Government has to accept much of the responsibility for the tonnes of dust that is dumped on coalmining communities, particularly in the Hunter and the western coalfields.

The motion needs to be debated today because no government studies have been conducted regarding people living in coalmining communities who are at most risk of adverse health effects caused by coalmining. The matter needs to be considered today because the consent conditions are laid down, which involve a level of health risk that is a low level of risk to the physical health of most people. This low-level of risk, however, can be too high for those whose physical state is already compromised, such as the chronically ill. The most damaging dust particles, the smallest ones, PM2.5, are not routinely measured, despite studies showing their direct association with increased asthma levels, increased cancer levels, decreased birth rates and a shorter life expectancy. All this information needs to be urgently considered by an inquiry. I urge members to consider supporting this urgency motion so the House can debate setting up such an inquiry.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.25 p.m.]: The Government does not support urgency in respect of this motion. Although Ms Lee Rhiannon makes a lot of claims about why there should be an inquiry into the issue, we are talking about urgency here. The motion is obviously not terribly urgent, because of 142 items listed as private members' business items it is No. 142. Clearly, the motion has only just gone on the Notice Paper. I contend that there are at least 141 private members' business items that some members of this House believe are more urgent. The Government will not support urgency.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 p.m.]: For the same reasons, the Opposition also will not support urgency.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.25 p.m.]: Mr President—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Just sit down and let someone else have a go!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are taking up everyone else's opportunity to speak! You are a so selfish! Don't expect any more support if you are going to behave like that!

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Interjections are clearly out of order. These are the people who last week supported the changes to the gun laws when there was not a word of protest—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will resume her seat. The standing orders provide that members are entitled to speak in debate. If Ms Sylvia Hale wishes to speak, she may do so, provided she addresses the issue of the suspension of standing orders.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.26 p.m.]: Mr President, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, but the words of the Hon. Tony Kelly have prompted me to do so. It is totally spurious to suggest that the motion is not urgent because it has just appeared on the Notice Paper. The Greens have continually spoken about the health impacts of coalmining. Indeed, on a number of occasions I have spoken about the issue, particularly when I was in Muswellbrook and I was talking to people whose children have been affected by rare forms of cancer which can be attributed only to the coal dust they are breathing in. The motion is incredibly urgent. Many people are suffering the ill effects of coalmining practices, and it is wrong to delay an inquiry into the issue any longer.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.