Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 4 June 2009, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

Private Members' Business item No. 195 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

1. That this House notes:

(a) that May 2009 is the 150th anniversary of the Great Hunger, a cycle of famine in Ireland caused by the potato blight,

(b) the terrible tragedy suffered by up to one million people who starved to death,

(c) the development of the great Irish diaspora, which saw millions of Irish families emigrate to countries such as the United States of America, Canada, England, Scotland and Australia, resulting in the population of Ireland being reduced by up to 25 per cent,

(d) the cause of this tragedy can be attributed to a series of political, environment and economic factors, and

(e) the devastating impact of the famine and the forced emigration on Ireland's traditional culture and language.

2. That this House commends the Irish nation and its people for their resilience and steadfastness in adversity and the enrichment they have given the development of the nations who benefited from their contribution.

Private Members' Business item No. 214 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 195, outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding Wallaga Lake, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 195 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.05 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 195, outside the Order of Precedence for today of which I have given notice by omitting the words "14 days" and inserting instead "21 days", and by inserting the words "created since January 1994" after the words "all documents".

Leave granted.

Accordingly I move:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution all documents created since January 1994 in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Industrial Relations, WorkCover NSW, the Department of Industrial Relations, the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Local Government, the Minister for Health, NSW Health, the Greater Southern Area Health Service, the Minister for Community Services, or the Department of Community Services, relating to asbestos waste on land owned by the Merrimans Aboriginal Land Council at Wallaga Lake, and any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

This motion concerns the failure of government agencies to properly respond by investigating and remediating contaminated land owned by Merrimans Aboriginal Land Council at Wallaga Lake near Bermagui on the New South Wales South Coast. Some 200 Aboriginal people live in the affected area. It appears there is a large distribution of asbestos underneath homes, in gardens and driveways, and atop and within two illegal landfill sites. A number of agencies have been aware of and involved in the issues since the contamination was first notified to the Environment Protection Authority in October 2007.

The issue came to my attention as a result of investigations by the Living Black program on SBS, which screened a special report entitled "Dust Mission" on 27 April 2009. To give the House the flavour of the report, I quote from the transcript, which features comment from Graham Cannon, a certified contractor for asbestos demolition and disposal, and Barry Robson, the President of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation:

VOICEOVER: It does not take long to find asbestos when you walk through this community.

GRAHAM CANNON: Little bits—here, there, everywhere.

VOICEOVER: Experts, including asbestos campaigner Barry Robson, say the problem here is nothing short of alarming. The dust is known to cause highly fatal diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis.

BARRY ROBSON, ASBESTOS DISEASES FOUNDATION: I have never seen anything like this in the years I have been doing it, and it is pretty grim. Wherever you go, on the footpaths and that, there's asbestos sheeting coming up. And even looking into a house over the fence where a dog has dug a hole for a bone, he's dug up asbestos sheeting. Under the building up there, there's a whole pile of it—it is never been removed. Now that is outrageous. Outrageous.

The footage that went to air of asbestos scattered through the community, in gardens, by the road, and in the tip is nothing short of astounding. It is available for all to see on the Living Black SBS website. I know many honourable members have taken the time to view it and all who see it are deeply disturbed. I raised the matter in the House on 7 May 2009 and the following day travelled to Moruya and Narooma. I was unable to visit Wallaga Village itself, due to a funeral of a local elder, although I did ensure that the Chairman of Merrimans Aboriginal Land Council was informed of my visit and intentions. I was able to meet with Mr Peter McLaughlin, the Wellbeing Officer at Eurabodalla council who is its principal liaison person with the Wallaga Lake community; Mr Damien Matcham of Kutungal, the local Aboriginal Medical Service; and Mr Graeme Canon, who featured on the SBS program and who is a local asbestos contractor who made serious allegations concerning illegal practices in the management of asbestos by the council.

I was also provided with documentation by the Aboriginal Medical Service, including meeting minutes and a 2008 report on activities by Mr John Moore, the Regional Illegal Dumping Officer. Mr Moore was subsequently removed from involvement in the issue and other council staff were allocated responsibility for the Wallaga Lake asbestos issue. All honourable members would be dismayed by the problem of contamination and I hope they would all expect the Government to make every effort to address the immediate and long-term health needs of the community; this, of course, includes cleaning up the contamination.

It is deeply concerning that the Environment Protection Authority in Queanbeyan was advised of a huge asbestos contamination event in a residential community in October 2007. The Government has integrated the Environment Protection Authority into the Department of Environment and Climate Change. Although officers from those organisations took initial steps to confirm the existence and the extent of contamination—including visiting the site in 2007—they failed to declare the site as contaminated and initiate investigations and remediation, as required under the Contaminated Lands Act. I am concerned that Eurobodalla Council staff may have been aware of the problems as early as 2003, and failed to take proper action to report the problem and minimise the health risk posed to the Wallaga Lake community. Mr Moore's 2008 briefing note suggests the council may have been involved in illegal collection and movement of the asbestos on site at Wallaga Lake in 2003. If that is the case, the Environment Protection Authority should consider the council as a target of the investigation into the illegal dumping. Instead, the authority has delegated its responsibilities to the council to lead on remediation of the site.

I believe the 2007 Environment Protection Authority decision to nominate Eurobodalla council as the lead agency was inappropriate, and potentially an unlawful abrogation of its responsibilities. As a direct result of this decision, no action was taken to formally investigate or collect evidence to establish the cause of contamination. This essential step must be taken to initiate cost recovery action to fund remediation. It appears that the council obtained advice from an asbestos consultant to make a funding application to clean up the site. However, the funding application took nearly a year to prepare and appears to have been rejected by the Department of Environment and Climate Change because it did not comply with the relevant guidelines.

I do not understand the initial or continuing failure of the Department of Environment and Climate Change or the Environment Protection Authority officers to fulfil their legislative responsibilities to investigate and ensure remediation of the asbestos contamination at Wallaga Lake. Several State agencies potentially share in culpability for the original problems, and possibly a deliberate cover-up that has resulted in 200 Aboriginal people being exposed to asbestos contamination for a period of at least 17 months, with no action being taken to mitigate the environmental risk to their health. There are many unanswered questions and a deafening silence by those responsible for dealing with the very legitimate concerns raised by the community and the media, and now by members of this House.

The motion lists a large number of agencies and outlines the reasons for each listing. In relation to the Premier and the Department of Premier and Cabinet, we anticipate that all relevant agencies will have submitted briefing notes summarising the issues and their position, at least following the airing of the SBS allegations. We are interested to know if the Premier has been properly advised on this matter. It is not at all an onerous request to include the Premier and his department in this call for papers. The Department of Environment and Climate Change, which now incorporates the Environment Protection Authority, has legislative responsibility for waste management and declaration of contaminated sites. Departmental officers inspected the site in 2007 and the department is supposed to be in charge of this issue.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is listed in the motion because it convened the meetings to coordinate a response to the waste issue, and because it is responsible for liaising and coordinating other departments. I would be interested in seeing its records of meetings and correspondence to find out who was contacted with requests for assistance and how they responded. WorkCover is listed because the workers employed to demolish the asbestos houses were Aboriginal residents of Wallaga. The Aboriginal Medical Health Service has repeatedly sought the assistance of WorkCover to screen former employees for respiratory conditions. The National Asbestos Foundation, which believes a program of testing and retesting is vital for their health and legal rights to establish any links between asbestos and ill health, described these screenings as essential.

The Office of Industrial Relations is listed in the motion because I am seeking to establish whether it advised the Minister for Industrial Relations on Wallaga employee difficulties dealing with WorkCover. The Office of Industrial Relations is also experienced in dealing with compensation. Obviously, the James Hardie case comes to mind. Hopefully that agency has undertaken at least some advocacy on behalf of the Wallaga employees. The Department of Local Government is listed because I have heard allegations from local contractors that Eurobodalla is nicknamed the "asbestos coast" due to routine failure to enforce laws relating to safe handling and disposal of asbestos. The allegations are very serious, including that council contractors were forced to treat asbestos as normal waste under threat of losing future contracts with the council. I have included the Department of Local Government to ascertain whether it has received any complaints or other documents referring to the council's management of the Wallaga issue.

New South Wales Health and the Greater Southern Area Health Service are listed in the motion. The Aboriginal Medical Service is incensed by the failure of health authorities to intervene, to respond positively to repeated requests for assistance and funding for screening of residents. Of course, WorkCover will not do any screening of non-employees. That is where those two health authorities are absolutely crucial to this call for papers. What is happening for the other 200 residents in that area? I would like to see how these requests from the Aboriginal Medical Service were handled within the department and the area health service. I also hope to learn how to proceed in engaging the urgent assistance of health authorities.

The Department of Community Services is listed because it has recently built the Little Yuin Family Centre at Wallaga Village, which is believed to be surrounded by asbestos. The Minister opened that facility in April 2009. I am interested to know what site assessments were done and what reference, if any, was made to the asbestos contamination on the site. It is amazing that such a significant facility could have been built without the builders and contractors concerned identifying the asbestos problem. The documentation requested relates only to asbestos waste, so if there was no report to the Department of Community Services there will be no need to return documents. This is not an onerous request. However, if the problem were identified, it is very important to know.

Since my visit, Mr Damian Matcham of Kutungal has visited Sydney and briefed several parliamentary colleagues in the Legislative Council, the Greens and the Shooters Party. I pay tribute to Mr Matcham and his colleagues in the Katungal Aboriginal Medical Service for their absolute persistence and determination to not leave this community in the lurch again. I know those gentlemen are under tremendous pressure to back off and to let this matter slide; but they cannot let it slide because the asbestos is still there. Those gentlemen are very honourable and determined in this matter. I pay great tribute to them. It is such people who bring these matters to light, that we have an absolute duty to support and respond to.

I have also received advice that suggests recent media attention has triggered more illegal movement of asbestos on and off the site and that there is a continuing failure to investigate that properly. I am convinced that there is a serious failure of local and State authorities to honour their responsibilities, to declare the area a contaminated site, to secure the waste and to arrange for its safe disposal. That failure has jeopardised the health of the 200 residents of that community. Also, there are credible allegations that an attempt to cover up evidence of illegal activity could well be making the problems worse; they would almost certainly hinder a proper investigation should the Environment Protection Authority ever decide to conduct one.

I believe the situation at Wallaga Lake is getting worse, but there is little I can do beyond drawing attention to the problems and gathering evidence to highlight the need for an urgent and independent investigation. It appears that nearly all the agencies responsible for dealing with the matter have bungled their responsibilities. I have lost confidence in the ability of the Government to deal with the issue expeditiously and in the interests of the community. For example, the Environment Protection Authority continues to fail to declare the area a contaminated site and WorkCover continues to fail to send a lung bus to test the community. The waste, which is the source of the problem, continues to lie there; it is not being dealt with.

I have referred this matter to the Ombudsman with a request for urgent investigation. It is my hope through this call for papers to shed more light on what has gone on, and what should happen next to assist this abandoned community. I urge all members to support the motion. I can think of no more serious duty of care than to Aboriginal children on a former mission unwittingly exposed to one of the deadliest known environmental health threats imaginable.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [11.19 a.m.]: This motion represents a massive fishing expedition and a diversion of on-the-ground resources that could otherwise be employed to assist people with present-day needs. Coming from a public health background I understand just how interesting these processes become when people perceive there are some political points to be made, and I know that it causes masses of problems. This is a historical search for records that the New South Wales Coalition seeks to limit to just before it lost government in 1995. Why would it begin its search at the beginning of 1994? Is the Coalition interested in the conduct of the Howard Government in this matter? It was largely responsible for actions undertaken on the site during the Coalition's time in office. What efforts will the Hon. Catherine Cusack make to secure the records of the Howard Government and any information about possible negligence during that period? Has she already taken action in this respect or is this simply a partisan effort to reveal only part of the story?

To be clear, up to 10 New South Wales Government agencies are being asked to trawl through 15 years of records to satisfy a curiously partisan request. What other work would the shadow Minister willingly jeopardise to satisfy this quest? Does she believe that producing each and every record from the period after the New South Wales Coalition lost government will aid our understanding of the issue? It simply will not. It will not aid our understanding because the issue is well on its way to being remedied to the satisfaction of the affected community. It will not aid our understanding because the role of the Federal Government of the day is of no interest to her. It will not aid our understanding because she is seemingly uninterested in what role her side of politics has played.

There is illegally dumped fibro at Wallaga Lake. The dumped material is fibrocement sheeting containing bonded asbestos. It is believed that some of the material was dumped following demolition of old houses in the village in the 1980s and 1990s. On 21 April 2009 fragments of fibrocement sheeting containing bonded asbestos were identified in the soil surrounding a number of houses within the Wallaga Lake village.

Recently the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Greater Southern Area Health Service have engaged experts, including an occupational hygienist, to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the extent of the problem. I remind honourable members that an occupational hygienist working for the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Greater Southern Area Health Service has been contracted to deliver a public health outcome. A health risk assessment has been included and a plan for the clean up of the land will be developed in conjunction with the landowner—the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council—and the Eurobodalla Shire Council. I am advised that the assessments on the extent of the problem and on the health risk are expected to be finalised this week and the clean-up report by 19 June 2009.

On 15 May 2009 a $50,000 Aboriginal land clean-up grant was granted to the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council for the clean-up of the tip site. The Department of Environment and Climate Change is working with Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Eurobodalla Shire Council to coordinate the clean-up. Preliminary advice has been received by the Greater Southern Area Health Service and was provided to the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council on 20 May. The preliminary advice is that no risky, or free—that is respirable—fibres of asbestos have been detected in either the air or the soil sampling. The next course of action will be taken once the final reports have been received and after close consultation with the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council.

In the Koori Mail yesterday the chief executive of the Wallaga Lake Koori village was quoted as appealing for calm on this issue. Government agencies are working with the community to solve the issues raised by the dumping of this material. Their efforts are best directed towards solving the problems rather than being tied up in this political fishing expedition. The Koori Mail article includes positive statements from land council people in relation to the community and Government activity that is occurring to fix the problem. No-one thinks it is okay; everyone thinks it is appalling, but the public health people in particular are working very hard with the community to remedy the situation. They are not popping down there to deliberately stir up issues that make resolution of the problem far more difficult. To start threatening that the community should leave the environment because of this issue, without addressing the problem, is appalling.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.25 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I was not going to speak on this matter and I will not speak for long, but I have serious concerns about the Government's defence of the situation. Information about the pernicious nature of asbestos is becoming increasingly public and when I hear comments to the effect that it is okay because it is bonded asbestos it sends a chill down my spine. I have had some experience with asbestos and I know that many members of this House will have far more experience than I have. I was in Sri Lanka after the tsunami; I watched the rebuilding and participated in the process. I saw a lot of shedding from fibro roofing that had bonded asbestos.

In the local situation some of this bonded material is under houses. I understand some of this so-called bonded asbestos building material was burnt in 2003. We do not know medically or scientifically how much asbestos that enters the lungs and embeds itself in the tissue can cause future terminal diseases such as asbestosis and others.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack has put forward a proposal of a precautionary nature and it is very important that it is not ridiculed. To say that this type of asbestos in the community, which is under houses and on walkways and footpaths, and on roads where it is being driven over, is somehow safe because it is bonded is selling the issue short. It is extremely important that we have a proper look at this issue. We should look past side issues such as the threat to move the community out of the area and research the situation adequately so a proper assurance of safety can be given to the people at Wallaga Lake. I support the motion.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.27 a.m.], in reply: I thank Ian Cohen for his remarks, particularly those about the nature of asbestos. I will respond briefly to some comments made by the Hon. Christine Robertson who asked why my request for papers goes back to 1994. The answer is that in talking to crossbench members I realised they were concerned that there was no cap on time in my original motion, which would have gone back indefinitely. I certainly was not seeking to protect anybody on the basis of a political period in time. The motion refers to 1 January 1994, which covers the last 18 months of the Coalition Government, so it is incorrect to suggest it covers only the period during which Labor was in office. Frankly, I am not at all interested in who was in government at the time. That is not what this motion is about. We have to move away from the idea that this is just a political point-scoring exercise. It is not; this is a very substantial issue in the Wallaga Lake community.

The reason I suggested to crossbench members that 1 January 1994 would be an appropriate date is that one of the allegations is that the houses were demolished in the mid 1990s. That is the only information we have on the documentation, so 1 January 1994 was about as far back as I could go. I wanted to go further back than that to get some insights. As regards the identity of the contractor who did the work, and the question raised about the Howard Government, I have no means of directing the Federal Government to produce papers on this matter. I certainly would welcome the State Labor Government talking to its Federal colleagues and organising for those archives to be investigated and the documents released.

Government members are far better placed to do that than I am. If that approach is to be made to the Federal Government I offer my complete support. The Hon. Christine Robertson suggested that I do not want to see those documents released. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want everything released so that we can have transparency and get to the bottom of this matter. The Hon. Christine Robertson assured the House that we do not need this motion because "the matter is well on its way to being remedied". She then told us in the next breath that the Greater Southern Area Health Service had investigated this matter and could not find any asbestos that it regarded as risky, which is extremely worrying.

What about the report of the environmental health officer from the Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] who is meant to be carrying out this investigation? Why can we not see that report? How can a staff member from the health service wander around the site and then advise us that there is no "risky asbestos" when that site contains a great deal of asbestos? Is it being suggested, therefore, that that is okay and that the community should be left in this situation? The member for Bega, Andrew Constance, has pursued this matter since it was first raised. He asked me some critical questions to which we can get answers only as a result of further inquiry: Who on earth will clean up this contamination?

How can we be confident that the matter is well on the way to being resolved when the Government cannot tell us what will be the cost of the clean-up? No scope has been done to clean up this site, let alone identify who will clean it up and when it will be cleaned up. We do not have confidence in this Government as we do not have that simple information 18 months after it was first informed of this matter. That is why this motion should be debated today. I urge all members of the Labor Party not to dismiss this motion and to think carefully about it. It is not a political point-scoring exercise—the standard line that is used to dismiss all sorts of matters. This is an incredibly important and appropriate matter for this form of inquiry. I urge all members to think carefully about this matter and to consider supporting my motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! So that we are crystal clear on what we are voting on I understand, and I ask the member to confirm, that her motion is Private Members' Business item No. 195 outside the Order of Precedence, by leave, as amended?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: By leave, as amended.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.41 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 178 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a condolence motion concerning Sergeant Brett Till, be called on forthwith.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.42 a.m.]: The motion the Hon. Michael Veitch wants to proceed is important and could have been moved on any of the past 14 sitting days. The motion relates to the death of one of our brave soldiers and should be given due reverence. It should not be used as a political tactic to delay debate on an important bill before the House. The Hon. Michael Veitch is a decent man. The Hon. Lynda Voltz, who gave notice of this condolence motion, has the best of motives. I give an undertaking from the Opposition to enable the House to sit the length of time required to allow members to pay proper tribute to this young man who tragically lost his life. The condolence motion should not be used as a political tool to delay debate on a motion that has followed the proper procedures of the House. Many people from regional New South Wales have travelled here to listen to the comments of the various players in debate on another important matter. I know the Hon. Michael Veitch is a decent bloke. I ask him to withdraw his motion and accept the Opposition's undertaking that it will allow proper reverence to be given to this brave young soldier at the appropriate time. The Opposition opposes the motion for urgency.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.43 a.m.]: I endorse the comments of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am a former professional soldier with 21 years of service. I am the only Vietnam veteran in any Parliament in Australia. I fully support the motion of the Hon. Lynda Voltz. However, to use such a motion as a political tool is disgraceful. Every ex-service man and woman in Australia would be absolutely disgusted, as I am, that such a motion was being used as a political tool.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is that the standing orders require visitors in the public gallery to not participate in debates, not clap and not call out. It is entirely inappropriate for people who are supposed to observe the proceedings in this Chamber to interrupt. I ask that you, Mr President, caution the people sitting in the gallery to observe the standing orders of this place or ask them to leave.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a Chamber for debate and members should observe its forms. I understand that members of the public in the gallery are concerned about a number of issues, but they too must observe the forms of the House.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.46 a.m.]: The Shooters Party concurs with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The matter raised by the Hon. Michael Veitch deserves suitable time for debate. We have important business for discussion today. The motion for urgency is not appropriate at this time.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.46 a.m.]: I understand the concerns of members in the House. I seek an undertaking from the Opposition that at the next opportunity the condolence motion will be debated. Sergeant Till is the tenth soldier we have lost in Afghanistan. Members are aware that I have moved numerous motions to enable this matter to be debated. It is an important issue for Australia and New South Wales because a tremendous number of soldiers have been lost to their regiments, their families and their children.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.47 a.m.]: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has given the undertaking to debate the condolence motion either today or in another form. Of course, the motion can be dealt with as formal business, which could have happened on any day in the past 14 days since notice was given. The undertaking certainly is given.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [11.47 a.m.]: The Government seeks to withdraw the motion now that appropriate undertakings have been given.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate resumed from 14 May 2009.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.49 a.m.]: I oppose the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. Mining in New South Wales already is subject to extensive approvals processes. When mining is approved it is subject to demanding ongoing requirements to protect the environment. The processes already take into account such matters as water resources. The requirements to take those matters into account were further strengthened in the amendments made to the Mining Act last year in this Parliament. In fact, the amendments made in 2008 provide an outstanding legislative framework to protect the environment.

Mining proponents are subject to approvals under the Mining Act as well as approvals processes under other legislation. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides for rigorous assessment before mining can proceed. Before a proposal for a mine even can be considered it must carry out extensive environmental studies. Studies are carried out during the period of an exploration licence and include, for example, gaining a good understanding of the hydrogeology of the area. Without such studies the Minister for Planning would not even look at an environmental impact statement that is submitted by a mining proponent in support of a proposal.

Companies considering a mining proposal also take into account the concerns of the community. They seek to address those concerns and to develop a way for the company and the community to work together. I draw to the attention of members, including the Hon. Trevor Khan, one particular proposal for mining, the Caroona coal project on the Liverpool Plains. The Liverpool Plains have high-value irrigated agricultural land—no-one could deny that. They also have very valuable underlying coal resources, and no-one could deny that.

The company has targeted its exploration area to minimise the potential impact on the agricultural community. The company also has announced that it is not considering longwall mining under the floodplains or the alluvial aquifers in the Caroona area. Furthermore, it has stated that it is not considering open-cut mining—another most important means of ensuring that the agricultural lands are affected to a minimum degree. The company also is already making clear some of the measures it will take to protect water resources if it is granted a mining licence.

The Government has asked that the proposed project undergo a rigorous, independent water study. A working group is well down the planning path for that study. To start the process stakeholder workshops were held. They had wide representation to ensure transparency and inclusiveness. It is clear that the legislative framework works effectively to safeguard water resources. It is also clear that every effort is being made to safeguard the water resources and the agricultural amenity of the Caroona project area.

Let me give another example of the responsible approach of New South Wales to managing the impact of underground coalmining. The Southern Coalfield Independent Expert Panel has undertaken a scientific review of the effects of subsidence in the coalfield. The panel endorsed the decision-making framework provided by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Mining Act. It also recognised the improvements brought about by the subsidence management planning process. As a result of the Southern Coalfields review the Department of Planning and the Department of Primary Industries have developed a broad action plan to further improve longwall mining and to reduce its impacts.

Where there are adjacent rivers or water supplies, approval for the project may be refused or the proposal may be modified to reduce potential impact. It is clear that the New South Wales Government already has excellent legislation and processes in place for mining proposals to ensure that our valuable water resources and agricultural lands are fully taken into account in proposals for mining that may impact on them. The bill before the House is unnecessary. On that basis, the Government will oppose the bill.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.52 a.m.]: We have just heard from the sorcerer's apprentice, but we have not yet heard from the sorcerer. We look forward to hearing from the Minister. On behalf of the Opposition I indicate support not only for the objects the bill that is before the House but, through negotiation, the bill that it will become. I think the legislation is laudable and that it has been needed for some time.

It has been an interesting period of negotiations. As Ms Lee Rhiannon indicated outside Parliament to the group at the meeting, we have been working to try to remove some of the concerns. While the objects of the bill are appropriate and proper, in many ways the bill, as it was introduced, is not acceptable; nor could it be acceptable to many community groups that comprise people from a mining background, people from towns and villages, and people from a farming background. As some people may have heard, I was interviewed by ABC Tamworth a few days ago. I was asked, "Do you agree with the bill?" I said, "I agree with the principles of the bill, but I have problems with parts of the bill." I was asked, "Can you negotiate with the Greens?" I said, "Well, yes. We're attempting to do that and, yes, we have been able to do that." The amendments to the bill I have formulated will make the bill take an important step along the way. It is interesting that two people who are so different in philosophy—Lee Rhiannon is from an inner-city background and I am from a four-generation farming background—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: I lived on a dairy farm too. You live at Redfern.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I acknowledge for the record that Ms Lee Rhiannon has dairy farming in her history. There we were in the negotiating room. She has the belief that intensive agriculture should not go ahead and I am of the view that we should have proper intensive agriculture. She has the belief that there should not be mining anywhere in the State and I hold the belief that mining is an important part of the State and should be included.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: You make a lovely couple.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes thinks we make a lovely couple. Given the differences in our backgrounds, philosophical perspectives and political directions, the meeting was cordial and productive. We have been able to reach the position of believing that the bill, while not perfect, will be a darned sight better with amendments and that it will be a step in the right direction for affected communities, such as communities around Caroona on the Liverpool Plains, communities around Gloucester, communities on the Central Coast, and other communities anywhere in New South Wales. The concerns related to definitions in an article on the classification of land in Agfacts. In my hometown of Crookwell we examined the definitions very carefully in relation to our concerns about—

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Wind farms.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As the Hon. Christine Robertson correctly said, we were concerned about wind farms and their interaction with the farming community in my local area. We examined the classification and, while it showed early promise, it was found not to be useful. As quite rightly pointed out by the New South Wales Farmers Association, concerns were expressed during my contact with the Minister's office, in particular with the Minister's chief of staff. I asked, "Where are the accurate maps? How much land is involved in class 1 or 2 as described in the bill?" My own research, the research carried out by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon, and the information given to me by the Minister's office indicate that we do not know how much land is involved. We are not sure where it stands. Furthermore, there are no accurate maps that replicate what the classification stands for.

The other concern that was raised by the New South Wales Farmers Association is that the document does not have a legislative basis. The document quite rightly was developed by departmental officers to address an issue. I point out for the benefit of people in the gallery and those who read Hansard that the other concern connected with the Caroona proposal is that if the BHP development were to go ahead, but not in the plains area, the definition would not be protective, as people expect it to be. Indeed, Breeza Plains is only in category 2 and, in fact, it precludes hills and rocky areas. That is why we needed to look for a better rationale, as Jock Laurie identified. Today is private members' day. At 12 noon we will have question time, and following question time the House will break for lunch until 2.30 p.m., when this bill will come back on. I am refreshing the minds of my colleagues.

The Hon. John Robertson: Their minds are so empty!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There are many empty vessels in this place, and none is noisier than the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Public Sector Reform, and Special Minister of State. So much potential and so few promises have been delivered!

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of ongoing concerns relating to the outsourcing of psychiatric services for the New South Wales Police Force, in particular the lack of a full-time, in-house psychiatric presence at the New South Wales Police Academy specialising in training New South Wales police recruits in the management of mental health patients? In light of recent events, will the Minister initiate a review of the outsourcing of psychiatric services, particularly by those conducting training at the academy?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The New South Wales Police Academy at Goulburn provides substantial support for New South Wales police officers. It provide police officers with training in dealing with people with mental health problems, and those services are available to the police on an ongoing basis throughout their career.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government is doing to improve ambulance paramedic services in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member for his ongoing interest in the important role our paramedics play both in the community and in our health system. Despite that critical role, research into ambulance practice is a largely unexplored area, unlike other areas of medicine including nursing and allied health practice. The new $3 million Ambulance Research Institute is developing online educational training programs for paramedics in evidence-based best practice. Research at the institute will be based on community needs and expectations to help the Ambulance Service plan for the future. The research will encompass ambulance clinical practice, including the areas of cardiac care, paediatrics, serious trauma, chronic disease, stroke, falls and mental health; medical retrieval, including the safe transfer of critical care, mental health and obese patients, and including the use of new vehicles and equipment; systems research, including ambulance performance compared to the other States and Territories; and workforce and educational research, including professional development opportunities for paramedics and associated volunteer staff.

With Ambulance New South Wales experiencing more than one million call-outs each year, our paramedics are extremely hardworking and play a vital role in supporting the health and wellbeing of our communities. It is important that we continue to improve our ambulance service where possible to ensure that patients benefit from the best care possible. Experts at the new Ambulance Research Institute are finalising a study into stroke cases to improve patient care and safety. Each year almost 10,000 people in New South Wales suffer a stroke and up to 25 per cent will die. The Ambulance Research Institute study involved 32,000 people who have already had a stroke across the State over a three-year period between 2004 and 2007. Researchers are looking at pre-hospital treatment so that we can use the information to better train paramedics in the identification of stroke, plan for the location of future stroke services and improve retrieval and transport arrangements.

Details being examined include the geographical location of people who have had a stroke, the type of symptoms they complain about, the time of day the incident occurred, the gender of the patient, the length of time after the onset of the stroke before an ambulance was called, and the ambulance response in assessing the patient and transporting them to an appropriate health facility for care. Health experts are increasingly finding that stroke treatment and recovery is time sensitive. If a stroke is caused by a clot, it is important to get the patient treatment within three hours so that they can receive so-called clot-busting drugs. It can mean that they will recover faster, spend less time rehabilitating and spend less time in an acute care ward.

That is why it is important to improve paramedic training so that we can identify more rapidly people who have had a stroke and establish where the nearest and most appropriate stroke units are located so that people can be transported there within the recommended time to get the appropriate treatment. New South Wales has among the best outcomes for stroke patients of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world across the board. Treating stroke patients more effectively and expediting their recovery will take pressure off hospital wards, provide our hardworking doctors, nurses and paramedics with greater job satisfaction in treating their patients and getting better outcomes, lead to better health outcomes for patients and take the pressure off our emergency departments and acute care beds.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the whereabouts of the New South Wales Fisheries boat that is based at Brooklyn? Is he aware that this boat, decked out with an engine reportedly worth $35,000, sank to the bottom of the Hawkesbury River at its mooring but that it took Fisheries staff more than a week to notice that the boat was no longer above water? Whether it is $10 million tunnel boring machines or expensive boats, how many other things does the Government have hiding beneath the surface at the expense of taxpayers?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not particularly aware of the circumstances of the boat at Brooklyn. I have not received that information; obviously, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has information about which I have not yet been advised. However, I am sure there is a proper and appropriate answer, and I will provide it to the member in due course.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister advise the House whether the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has issued Forests New South Wales with a stop work order under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act? Did the Minister have a meeting with Minister Wong more than 12 months ago, in which Minister Wong advised that logging of river red gums would need to be referred under Commonwealth legislation? If so, did the Commonwealth Minister advise of the consequences of not referring the matter? Does the Minister believe that upward of 1,000 jobs will be lost if logging is stopped in the 20,000 hectares of Ramsar-listed wetlands? If so, will the Minister provide the House with the document he relies on to support his assertion that cessation of logging in the Ramsar-listed wetlands will cause 1,000 job losses?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Dealing with the various aspects of Mr Ian Cohen's question, no, I have not had a meeting with the Federal Minister, Senator Penny Wong, about the matters he has raised relating to red gums. I have had discussions with Minister Wong over a long period on issues surrounding water, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and our Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, but I have not had discussions with her about river red gums. Red gum is quite properly contained within the Federal portfolios of environment, water and heritage, and it is the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett. I have also had discussions with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Tony Burke. Those are the only discussions I have had with Federal Ministers relating to any issues relevant to red gum.

As to the other part of the question, the job figures contained in the environmental impact statement are direct jobs. We apply an accepted industry multiplier to get the total number of jobs within the region, and that is quite clear. The figure in the environmental impact statements is 500 direct jobs, and the multiplier is approximately 1.7 per cent, or it can be debated up to 2 per cent, depending on local circumstances. That is how the figure was arrived at, of up to nearly 1,000 jobs associated with the industry in the red gum forests. What was the first element of the question?

Mr Ian Cohen: The stop-work order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In relation to the so-called stop-work order, on 4 May a letter was sent by one of the assistant secretaries of the Department of Environment and Water to the regional manager of Forests New South Wales. That letter indicated that on 31 May, if certain actions were not undertaken, the department would effectively take over the running of this particular issue. That means it would be referred to the Commonwealth. Under the terms of the Commonwealth Act, if a matter is referred, work ceases for 21 days minimum whilst it assessed whether there is a case, and indefinitely if it is decided to proceed with a case. I had fruitful discussions with the Minister for the Environment in Hobart two weeks ago during the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. The Commonwealth has withdrawn its 31 May deadline, which means there is no current stop-work order in place.

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given the significant number of reserves on the other side of the river in Victoria, does the Victorian Government have it wrong?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Victorian Government entered into a Victorian Environmental Assessment Council process and made commitments in the last election relating to red gums. Victoria has a very small red gum forestry industry within the order of 67 jobs based at Koondrook. It has closed most of its industry to various park-type constructions. Victoria's parks are very different to the current parks in New South Wales and permit a range of activities such as hunting, fishing, horseriding and so forth. Victoria had a very insignificant and smaller red gum industry compared with New South Wales. In fact, some Victorian timber is sourced from New South Wales. It is estimated that the New South Wales industry has an output mill gate at $60 million yearly, and therefore is far more significant. It has significant contracts to supply sleepers, for instance, in Victoria and other places totalling approximately 450,000 cubic metres and those contracts have to be honoured.

As I said, the size, shape and nature of the red gum industry in New South Wales is quite different to that in Victoria. It is very glib for the member to suggest that anyone has wrong policy approaches. New South Wales believes it has had sustainable harvesting of those forests for, in the order of, 150 years and if the member reads the environmental impact statements it makes it very clear that those practices have been sanctioned under solid standards and protocols, all of them ISO certified. Each compartment that is harvested has to undergo rigorous assessment, which involves the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I do not think they can be compared so easily. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What action is the Government taking on progressing an independent water study for the Namoi catchment?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for her continued interest in the Government's efforts to balance mining and agriculture in our State's rural areas. Farmers and mining interests need to work together for the good of each other and the State. I firmly believe farming and mining can co-exist. Mining is the lifeblood of many regional towns while at the same time agriculture obviously makes a significant contribution to both the State and national economy. It puts the food on our tables. Together the industries are worth well over $20 billion to New South Wales each year, that is, at a farm or mine gate value. It was in the interests of communities working together that I initiated discussions with both agricultural and coal exploration and mining interests to try to reach agreement on the scope and terms of reference of a possible initial water study in the Namoi catchment.
The Hon. Pam Allan, a former New South Wales Minister for the Environment, has headed up the working group I established in August last year to investigate these issues. I am pleased to tell the House today that the working group has finalised and agreed to draft terms of reference for an initial water study in the Namoi catchment. The purpose of the water study is to collate quality data to assist in identifying the risks, if any, associated with mining and coal development on water resources. The scope of the study is to be the entire Namoi catchment.

I also tell the House today that I am appointing Mr Mal Peters, former President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, to be the independent chair of the Ministerial Oversight Committee to progress the initial Namoi catchment water study. The committee will operate within the scope of the terms of reference for the study and will be responsible for the tendering of the project, appointment of an independent expert and ongoing administration of the study. It will conduct a progress review at the start of each phase and undertake a review prior to the release of any information. It will also closely liaise with the stakeholder advisory group, who will keep the community, informed of the progress of the study. There will be an ongoing comprehensive stakeholder engagement process conducted throughout the study.

Mr Peters will be a great asset, bringing his extensive farming background and experience with New South Wales Farmers Association to the committee. He is a passionate defender of the rural way of life and a strong advocate for developing innovative strategies to grow rural Australia. I might add that the Australian Government, through the National Water Commission, has also commenced a two-year project that will examine the potential local and cumulative impacts of mining on groundwater resources. I understand part of this project will involve a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of mining in the Liverpool Plains region. I should point out that an exploration licence is not an approval to develop a mine—any future mining proposal must obtain approval under the State's comprehensive and rigorous planning legislation.

I encourage landholders, the community and companies to work cooperatively together to facilitate the accumulation of sound geological and environmental data during the exploration phase of these two projects in the Gunnedah Basin. This data will clarify where potential coal resources occur and where it would not be geologically or environmentally feasible to mine. If the mines are approved it is estimated they will bring thousands of jobs and upgraded infrastructure to the Gunnedah area. It is important to remember sustainable mining provides jobs to rural communities, and helps keep people, especially young people, in rural areas. Wages and salaries in areas with a significant mining industry are on average—they have been revised—$7,000 higher than those without mining, according to an analysis conducted by Charles Sturt University's Western Research Institute. The appointment of Mal Peters as independent chair of the Ministerial Oversight Committee is an important step forward.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. I refer to the New South Wales Ombudsman's special report into the use of tasers by New South Wales police published in November 2008, which made a series of recommendations aimed at improving public and officer safety when tasers are deployed. Have the recommendations of the Ombudsman in relation to changes to the standard operating procedures governing taser use, changes to training for officers and improved record keeping been implemented? If not, why have they not been implemented?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The New South Wales Police Force has in place some very stringent standard operating procedures for the use of tasers. For example, they are very significant to the extent that, unlike any other State or probably, as far as I am aware, anywhere else in the world, New South Wales police are equipped with tasers that have video camera mounted on them. The moment the taser is taken from its holster and activated a video camera starts recording not only vision but also sound, which is then downloaded onto a computer each time. I understand that each time a taser is activated in this State a video record is made, and Deputy Commissioner Dave Owens reviews each video. My understanding is that tasers are being used. They have been drawn in excess of 100 times but actually used only 20 times. The standard operating procedures of the New South Wales Police Force for the use of tasers do not need changing. They are very stringent and the Police Force will continue to monitor their operation.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister elucidate his answer as to how changes to training will be implemented for officers and how record keeping will be improved? I am assuming from his response that he is rejecting the other recommendations of the Ombudsman.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: This is not elucidation: I would rather say a bit more anyway. Approximately 1,500 police officers have attended a special course where they were given a day's training on the use of tasers. That training is rolled out across the State, in all the local area commands. In relation to record keeping, what better record keeping could there be than what I have already said? Each time a taser is pulled out and activated, it records every word that is said and every vision. That is all recorded automatically. No-one has to fill out any paperwork afterwards.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall his answer in question time yesterday—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting on the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Does the Treasurer recall his answer in question time yesterday, when he was asked whether New South Wales was in a technical recession, that, "Whether or not we are in a technical recession is not the issue; we are feeling the impacts of the global recession". Is the Treasurer aware that the State final demand fell 0.4 per cent for the December 2008 quarter, and negative 0.2 per cent for the March 2009 quarter? Is the Treasurer aware also that the Premier agreed in January that two quarters of negative growth is the definition of a recession? Given that today's editions of the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald acknowledge that New South Wales is in recession, why is it so hard for him to acknowledge that New South Wales is in recession? [Time expired.]

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I appreciate the question asked by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox because this is a very important matter. Everyone in this Chamber would know someone who has lost his or her job or is facing mortgage pressure because of the global recession. The New South Wales Government is in the process of preparing a State budget that is designed to protect New South Wales from the impacts of the global recession. The budget, which will be delivered on 16 June 2009, ensures that the Government is doing everything in its power to support jobs in New South Wales. Already, New South Wales has the largest investment in job-supporting infrastructure of any State or Territory government. It is doing everything in its power to support jobs because we understand that unemployment will increase.

The forecasts are clear that there will be an increase in unemployment. As a responsible State Government we will, firstly, maintain our record infrastructure spend to support jobs in New South Wales and, at the same time, protect front-line jobs. That is what this Government is about; we are protecting front-line jobs and front-line services. The Government is ensuring that New South Wales has the building blocks for future economic growth so we can resist the impact of the global recession.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Lands. What is the latest information on the Government's action to utilise Crown land to secure jobs and deliver green energy to the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his continued interest in creating and securing jobs in rural and regional New South Wales. There is no doubt that currently we are experiencing very tough financial times, the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. The Premier has made it clear that the Government has no higher priority than protecting and supporting employment in New South Wales—protecting jobs now and securing new jobs for the future. And we are getting on with that task.

Yesterday the Premier announced that the Government had approved the first stage of the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere, which will involve the construction of 282 wind turbines. This $2.2 billion investment will create more than 800 jobs at Silverton, near Broken Hill. An important step in securing this development for New South Wales—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Is this a reannouncement?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No, it is not a reannouncement. I am about to remind the honourable member that yesterday the Premier announced that approval had been granted for the planning, and the leases have been signed, so it is not a reannouncement. An important step in securing this development for New South Wales is the signing of an agreement for lease over 32,000 hectares of Crown land. The Government has finalised negotiations to allow the execution of that agreement with the wind farm proponents, Silverton Wind Farm Developments Pty Limited. The agreement provides Silverton Wind Farm Developments Pty Limited with secure and guaranteed Crown leasehold title to the land it needs for the project to move forward.

Pastoralists who currently hold Western Division Crown land pastoral leases in the project area also have agreed to the terms of the consent deeds, which provide their approval for the wind farm to proceed in accordance with legislation passed by this House last year. That agreement by the pastoralists represents another important step for the project to proceed, while ensuring that they can continue with their grazing activities on the land.

As I said, the first stage of the wind farm will see the construction of 282 wind turbines, generating enough green energy to power about 200,000 households. Each turbine will generate enough energy to power up to 737 homes each year, and that is the equivalent of taking more than 1,100 cars off the road. This is the biggest wind farm project in New South Wales since a certain Crookwell resident took up a seat in this House. This project is great news for the environment, and it is even better news for the people of Silverton and Broken Hill. The project will deliver 700 jobs to the local area during the five-year construction period and 120 jobs during operation of the wind farm. That is more than 800 jobs where they are most needed—in rural New South Wales.

The project will also provide substantial direct and indirect benefits to the Broken Hill and Silverton communities and, indeed, to the whole of the Western Division. The project is expected to inject up to $490 million into the local economy and $700 million into the regional economy. The second stage of the proposal includes an additional 316 turbines, and a 305-kilometre power line linking the Silverton wind farm to Victoria's Red Cliffs substation. Once completed, it will be the largest onshore wind farm in the world. The project is great news for the people of New South Wales. It delivers more than 800 jobs for western New South Wales, a $2.2 billion investment, and green energy to three States.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it correct that the Department of Primary Industries has only one part-time bilingual officer working in the Sydney Basin with farmers from non-English speaking backgrounds? Is it correct that currently there are no Vietnamese and Cambodian farm liaison officers or extension staff in the Sydney Basin? If that is the case, what impact does that staffing shortfall have on non-English speaking farmers requiring chemical user reaccreditation, training and general understanding of the New South Wales pesticide legislation requirements?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Bilingual training and education for extension staff is an important facet, especially in the Sydney Basin, to cope with pesticide residues and other issues, particularly water-wise strategies. I am not aware that the staffing is down to one extension officer. If that is the case, I am not aware of the reason for it. I will have a quick look at it, and hopefully will be able to provide an answer by the end of question time.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are slashing extension services in the department.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no reduction in extension services across New South Wales.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister jointly responsible for establishing Albury-Wodonga Health? Is Albury-Wodonga Health being established under Victorian legislation with New South Wales staff seconded to the Victorian Human Services Department? Will Albury-Wodonga Health be governed by a board, half of the membership of which will be nominated by the Minister? Given the Minister's opposition to the Liberals and Nationals policy to replace Labor's mega area health services with board-governed district health services, why is it okay for Albury to have a board-governed health service but not other parts of the State? Is the Minister's support for a board-governed health service an endorsement of the Victorian Government's insistence that all of its health services be governed by boards?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The answers are yes, yes, yes and yes. Importantly, the member is picking out one particular case that is unique, a cross-border health facility in Albury Wodonga, and asking how we are going to govern that and through what structure. We are going to govern it through a bipartite structure. There will be a board governing the Albury-Wodonga Health service because two governments are involved. I could have been difficult—although my predecessor would have been involved, and she was not a difficult person at all—my predecessor could have been difficult, and the Premier of the day could have been difficult and insisted on doing it our way. But we did what New South Wales has always done: we were flexible about the arrangements to be put in place for this type of cross-border situation.

We have been the leader in just about every field of government service in putting in place appropriate cross-border arrangements. That inevitably and almost always has involved New South Wales making concessions. However, we never make concessions about fundamental points of principle. The point of principle that is very relevant to the set of analogies the member has used is the ideas that she and her leader have—ideas that the shadow spokesperson for Health, Jillian Skinner, has been championing. Instead of spending $485 million taking the paperwork away from clinicians, updating the technology available to them, putting in place innovative services such as clinical initiative nurses, increasing the number of clinical pharmacists across the system and making sure our health network works much more effectively because we are confronting some of the important challenges, she wants to spend $300 million on more bureaucrats.

That is what the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner thinks is important in the health system—and all so that some of her cronies and mates can make some money on the side while patients go untreated. That is the honourable member's idea, and it is the only idea that has come from Barry O'Farrell and Jillian Skinner about a health system confronted with a series of major problems. What do Jillian Skinner and Barry O'Farrell say about it? They say no, we do not need all the things that doctors, nurses and allied health workers have told the Government are needed in the system, and to which the Government has responded with its Caring Together plan. They say we do not need the things that doctors and nurses—those who actually know what is going on—say we need. No, they want more bureaucrats—$300 million dollars worth more of them. The answer to the last part of the member's question is a firm and absolute no.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Would the Minister please advise the House on changes to the operation of shop trading laws that will assist retailers and employees on public holidays?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for this important question, which coincidentally falls within my responsibilities. The community rightly expects to be able to commemorate days of significance such as Good Friday, Easter Sunday, the morning of Anzac Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day, whether that be through religious observance, reflection or spending time with family and friends. That is why the Government introduced the Shop Trading Act 2008 to restrict retail trading on these important days.

Under the Act, larger retailers need to apply for an exemption if they wish to trade. Small family businesses and shops selling essential goods, such as chemists and service stations, are exempted from the Act. Today I can announce that new guidelines are now in place to assist retailers, employees and other interested parties wishing either to apply for an exemption to trade or to provide a submission on an application on any one of those five restricted trading days. These guidelines have been produced as part of the New South Wales Government's commitment at the New South Wales Jobs Summit to streamline and simplify the trading exemption application process.

The guidelines reflect the criteria under section 10 (3) of the Act that the Director General of Commerce must address in determining applications under the Act. It is intended that these guidelines will make the approval process clearer and more efficient. Clarity has been provided about how to make an application and how the applications are assessed, including the consideration of public interest. Additionally, time frames have been established so that both retailers and other interested persons are provided with a clear indication about how long the application process takes and when to expect a decision.

The Government has also honoured another of its commitments to the participants of the Jobs Summit. On 22 May the Government abolished the $100 fee paid by retailers when making an exemption application. Businesses raised concerns that the fee placed an additional burden on retailers who were already feeling the effects of the global financial crisis, so we have acted to ease the burden and cut costs.
The guidelines were finalised following a public consultation process that involved discussions with business leaders, national retail organisations and employee representatives. While several organisations argued for the complete deregulation of trading, Australia's largest and oldest retailer organisation took an alternative view. The Australian Retailers Association stated in its submission that:

The Act reflects the position on restricted trading days that we put to the Government …

Three of these days are of religious significance for the majority of Australians …

Anzac Day has always been of great significance to ARA members …

Retailers at the end of a very lengthy trading period in the lead up to Christmas also sought to have Boxing Day included so they could at least spend some time with their families before the onset of the post Christmas sales …

If Boxing Day was not exempt many of the small and medium retailers would be forced to spend Christmas Day preparing their stores for Boxing Day …

Here is a cogent argument from a peak retail organisation recognising the impact of unrestricted trading on not just the workers in shops but also the owners of small businesses. The guidelines are now in place and are available on the website of the Office of Industrial Relations. The Act is intended to balance the interests of consumers, retailers and retail workers and we will continue to work with the various stakeholder groups to ensure that we get this balance right.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question is directed to the Minister For Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Community Services. Is the Minister aware that there are serious systemic problems that have contributed for many years to the abuse of children in foster care? Is the Minister aware that two children placed under the care of the Department of Community Services have been sexually abused by their foster carers? In particular, is the Minister aware that the Department of Community Services only alerted police to the assault a year after the incident? Given that New South Wales of all the States has the highest number of children in care, can the Minister indicate what stringent measures will be established to ensure that no child is physically or sexually abused by a foster carer; that children who have been abused by their foster carer receive appropriate counselling and treatment; and that contracted private companies do not allow people to be employed before full background police checks are made of the person concerned?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer it to the appropriate Minister for a speedy reply.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Why has the community of Lochinvar been left without a police presence since a resident officer moved out of the police residence several months ago? Is it true that no replacement officer has been appointed because significant repair work needs to be done to restore the police buildings? Why was this work not undertaken on a regular basis to prevent Lochinvar from losing a police presence in the first place? Does the Minister intend to put a police presence back into Lochinvar or will the buildings be sold?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am advised that the police station and residence in Lochinvar are currently vacant. I know that because I have been through it myself.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Were you booked?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I meant that I have been through the police station, not through Lochinvar—not past the red light between the two schools. Currently Lochinvar is serviced by Maitland police station, although the police officer attached to Lochinvar generally works out of Cessnock police station. I am also advised that the closure of Lochinvar police station has had no discernible impact on current police response times or the delivery of policing services to the local community.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Does the Minister really believe that?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I said that its closure had had no discernable impact on current police response times. The building is in need of major work. Currently we are reviewing the options available for this site, including the possibility of subdividing the land. As I said, I have been through that police station. I was told that it was a beautiful old sandstone building but when I had a look through the building I found that it was not made of sandstone. It is in fact a brick building that has badly cracked foundations.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Why did you not maintain it?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: This building has not been maintained during the period in office of this Government and the period in office of the last Coalition Government. That Coalition Government did nothing to maintain this building. I had a look at this police station because the member for Maitland, Frank Terenzini, asked me to do so. The local community is concerned that no police officer is living there. In fact, I do not think the police officer had been there for about six months. Normally a police officer and his wife stay there at night but work out of Cessnock police station. That is quite often the case in country police stations. Anyone who knows anything about country policing would know that in the 85 or so little towns and villages around country New South Wales that have a police station, a police officer stays at those stations overnight but in fact operates out of another station located in the surrounding area.

Mr Frank Terenzini, the member for Maitland, asked me to consider what we should do with the police station at Lochinvar. I understand that he has received a considerable number of requests from members of his local community and he has been pushing on their behalf to have a new facility built in the area. I will keep members informed about this matter.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. What action is the Government taking to rehabilitate offenders with the use of assistance dogs?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Recently I had the pleasure of attending the Assistance Dogs Australia graduation ceremony that was held in Martin Place. That ceremony marked the completion of the training of dogs that have gone on to become a valued companion to someone with a disability. I was attending the ceremony in my capacity as Minister for Corrective Services as a consequence of the assistance that the department provides to that fine organisation. Three of the dogs that graduated on the day spent 18 months of their early lives being raised and trained by inmates as part of the Department of Corrective Services Pups in Prison Program. The program, which is a joint initiative of the Department of Corrective Services and Assistance Dogs Australia, involves inmates taking responsibility for the care and training of pups before they are used in the community to assist people with disabilities.

The inaugural program began at Kirkconnell Correctional Centre in October 2002 and since then it has gone from strength to strength. My colleague the Attorney General was involved in initiating the program. Inmates at Kirkconnell are currently training their fifth set of pups. It takes two years to train each pup, and Kirkconnell has the pups for the first 18 months of their basic training. Assistance Dogs Australia completes the process with six months intensive training.

[Interruption]

These dogs are trained to be good—unlike the dogs that were trained by the mates of the Opposition for use on the docks! The role of the inmates at Kirkconnell is to provide training in basic obedience and to ensure that the pups are comfortable around people. Opposition members should think before talking about dogs, because their track record in that regard is well known. Each pup is also assigned a Corrective Services staff member who, particularly in the early months, supervises the care of the pups.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Maybe they are here to stay.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Absolutely! Inmate handlers are selected through a rigorous process and receive intensive training prior to taking responsibility for the pups. The pups receive daily training and accompany their handlers during their daily routines. I had the pleasure of meeting Simba, one of the graduating pups, when I visited Junee Correctional Centre in March. I spoke with his trainer and carer—a man who had been in prison for more than a decade. He was very appreciative of being given the chance—

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Point of order: I cannot hear what the Minister is saying about this incredibly valuable program because of the noise coming from members on the Opposition benches.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: He was very appreciative of being given a chance to raise a dog.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce will cease interjecting.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: This man spoke to me about the personal responsibility that he felt for Simba's wellbeing and that he felt privileged to have been given a chance to care for him. I have been told that this has been the common experience of all inmates selected for the program. It is pleasing to know that inmates display a greater level of responsibility, dedication and commitment as a result of training these pups. In exchange for inmates providing basic care and training, the puppies have rewarded their carers with emotional support. The skills learnt by their carers are unique and include emotional re-engagement—something that is difficult to create in traditional rehabilitation workshops or lessons.

The program has produced great results. Inmates who participate as pup trainers are more likely to enrol in other rehabilitation programs and are less likely to re-offend. As a result of our Pups in Prison Program, trainers are better prepared for life upon their release. I understand that the benefits extend also to inmates not directly participating in the program. Prison pups like Roscoe, Simba and Viva offer inmates unconditional loyalty and companionship—something that many inmates have never fully experienced in their lives. Of course, the most pleasing aspect of this program is the contribution of the department to the valuable work of Assistance Dogs Australia. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Health a question without notice. On 30 October 2008 he replied to my question relating to a ban on alcohol advertising in the following terms:

We need to go forward on alcohol advertising because of the serious harm to our young people.

Is it a fact that other States did not support the call for a ban on alcohol advertising at the State Health Ministers meeting? Will the Minister now give us a commitment that New South Wales will give the lead on a ban on alcohol advertising, in particular, a ban on a new teenage alcohol drink called "Cocaine" so that in due course other States will follow, as happened with the ban on tobacco advertising in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do not have in front of me the words that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile attributes to me, but I believe that he accurately quoted what I had to say. At the recent meeting of the Ministerial Council on Drugs and Alcohol the New South Wales Government was represented by my colleague the Minister for Police. The paper that I prepared for that meeting was considered. I advise that the Ministers did not reject the initiatives; they asked for a further and more detailed paper about the way in which an approach could be coordinated between the States and the Commonwealth because some areas of jurisdiction overlap. I think I foreshadowed in some of the comments to which the member referred that issues exist for the Commonwealth relating to the broadcasting Act and to the mandate. Obviously that will have huge implications for any such initiative. There will also be trading-type implications and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] type implications.

The Premier has been clear on this, and on a number of occasions I have stated that more needs to be done to curb alcohol abuse. The principal reason is that alcohol-related violence has a particular dimensional impact on our health system, with local hospital emergency departments reporting regrettable incidents of young people presenting either with injuries caused through violent trauma or sickness resulting from alcohol abuse and overdose. They are serious health effects. Of course, longer-term issues also surround alcohol binge drinking and related drinking cultures by influencing people's chronic illnesses and adversely affecting their health.

The answer to the member's question is that we are still persisting with important initiatives regarding this issue. No-one thinks this policy area is easy or without controversy. Of course, no-one thinks realistically that there are not powerful interests of concern with this policy or difficult issues concerning the different policy mandates with different levels of government. We are persisting in getting better initiatives to promote either a positive drinking culture or a healthier drinking culture. Where that is not possible we are looking to have clear prohibitions and/or guidelines regarding advertising. Serious research on this issue is underway and is funded by various State governments. I expect that will drive some decisions at the next ministerial council and other forums where this issue is discussed. It is clear that the Chief Ministers—the Council of Australian Governments' terminology for Prime Ministers and Premiers—have a strong interest in this matter, and I expect that the issue will also form part of their considerations on the next series of policy initiatives.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of statements made by the Fairfield local area commander on 26 May 2009 regarding a request made by the Labor Mayor of Fairfield City Council, the member for Cabramatta, to have police attend a council meeting in Fairfield? Is the Minister aware of the council ruling that members of a political party could not ask questions from the public gallery and that police were then used to escort members of the public gallery from the council meeting? What action has the Minister taken to ensure no political influence is exercised over members of the New South Wales Police Force in the carriage of their duties? Has the Minister counselled the member for Cabramatta concerning his request to use New South Wales police officers to aid his political agenda? You need to remind him that he is not the Führer of Fairfield.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is out of order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. What action is the Government taking to assess and repair important Crown land and assets in the wake of the recent damaging storms on the North Coast?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her continued interest in rural and regional New South Wales. Flood is one of the most heartbreaking natural disasters that affect communities across New South Wales. I have personal experience of such an event because my farms are flooded regularly. Damage to property, houses, possessions and livestock caused by flood can be immense. The carpet of mud left behind in flooded homes is a devastating reminder of the damage that can be caused—and only people with first-hand experience of that would know the real extent of that damage. And land is not immune to this damage. The Department of Lands is working hard in the assessment and recovery operations in the wake of the recent storms and floods on the North Coast. The department has completed a program of aerial photography, which records and collects valuable data on the impact of flooding on local towns and surrounding areas. This work is vital in providing a greater understanding of the extent of floods and in guiding restoration efforts.

The Department of Lands is the owner of most of the maritime infrastructure on the North Coast, including breakwaters, harbours and river entrances. These structures have a high exposure to storm effects and bear the full brunt of wave attack. The Department of Lands is currently undertaking systematic inspections of all these assets on the North Coast to determine the extent of the damage so that repairs can be made to ensure public safety and the ongoing functions of the structure. For instance, at Coffs Harbour parts of the breakwater armour were dislodged and some of it was even pushed up on to the crest of the breakwater by wave action. For those who have visited Coffs Harbour, and I expect many members have, you will know that at Coffs hHarbour the breakwater armour comprises large rocks and cubic metre slabs of concrete. One can only imagine the size and strength of the wave action that was able to push such large concrete cubes up on to the breakwater.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How much do they weigh?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: From my knowledge, a cube of water weighs a tonne, but I am not sure whether the same applies to concrete—I expect that the equation would be similar. Repairs have been made to make safe handrails, safety fences and overhead lighting that were damaged in the storms. The department also is fast-tracking sand dredging in the entrance channel of the inner harbour at Coffs Harbour. The storms caused damage to the northern end of Park Beach and sand dredged from the harbour will be used to restore the beach at an estimated cost of $500,000. The Department of Lands is responsible also for numerous Crown reserves located along the North Coast, including Coffs Coast State Park, the Bellinger Head State Park and Goolawah State Park. The department is supporting community trust boards to identify the extent of the damage to public assets on reserves under its trusteeship.

Under the Natural Disaster Funding Assistance Scheme reserve trusts have two years in which to lodge claims. Where required the Soil Conservation Service also will be made available to assist with these restoration works. The Department of Lands continues to play a major role in the response to major natural disasters such as flooding and storm damage on the North Coast. We are determined to restore vital Crown land and assets for the benefit of the community.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is the Minister aware of the significant concern amongst farmers and community members in the Gloucester region at the prospect that coal mining could be expanded in this area if three exploration licences for Gloucester Resources Limited are renewed? Does the Minister support the renewal of these licences, which will threaten food and water supplies in this iconic area? Will the Minister work to ensure that the interests of the coal industry are not put above the needs of the community in this area, above job security in local agricultural and tourism industries and above the long-term food security of New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for her question, which is yet another example of her senatorial campaign against the mining industry in New South Wales. Almost every substantive question the member has asked over the past few months has essentially opposed mining in each and every part of the State—and not only coal mining, but gold and copper mining also.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question. The question was quite direct and asked about bringing balance to the Gloucester area regarding mining and other industries. It was not about my own stand.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister must not debate the question, but he may debate the substance of the question.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I was referring specifically to the final part of the member's question, which again opposes mining in this particular area. I am pointing this out so that those opposite particularly can understand that the Greens, through Senator-to-be Rhiannon—she hopes—are pressuring the mining industry to develop conflict between farmers and miners not only in Caroona and Gloucester, but also in other areas in that State in which copper and gold are mined. It is the Greens pattern across this State.

In relation to Gloucester Resources, on a number of occasions I have met with stakeholders from all sides of the discussion for very lengthy sessions when all sides of the debate were put to me. The member misunderstands the process involved. The renewal of a licence is dealt with by departmental officers of the mineral resources section of the Department of Primary Industries. They go over the issues and examine the various conditions that may or may not have been placed on a licence when it is granted, and that was done some time ago. They examine those factors in making a decision about whether the licence should be renewed. At this point in time a formal recommendation from the department has not been received by me.

The point I make in general terms is that this debate will have to be dealt with properly and reasonably within the community rather than a situation emerge in which small political fires are set in every little area across the State in an attempt to whip up anti-mining sentiment. The fact of the matter is that we need mining in this State because during this financial year it will provide approximately $12 billion of mine gate income, if you like, to the State and $1.3 billion in royalties. It will also provide a total of 75,000 direct or indirect jobs. We must be very cautious about how we deal with the issue, but the approach of the Greens is to attack every mining proposal in the State.

What is mining? Mining is no more than the face of a lot of human activity. Every time people go into their homes, they see the results of mining. Virtually every implement in a household comes from mining. The fuel that mobilises our transport comes from mining. The cars we drive are a result of mining. Most of our packaging and everything that is involved in the logistics of getting food to people are the result of mining. Practically every item in a household is the result of mining. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 14 May 2009 the Hon. Melinda Pavey asked me a question regarding the Port Macquarie Palliative Care Volunteer Service. I advise that the Palliative Care Volunteer Service has been a successful and well-regarded addition to the Port Macquarie Community Health Palliative Care Service, which commenced in the Port Macquarie Community Nursing Service six years ago. Prior to that, volunteers from the non-government agency, Hastings Home Hospice, which has been in the Hastings area for more than 20 years, supported people who were palliating in the community.

I am advised that currently approximately 30 volunteers assist with the Palliative Care Volunteer Service from time to time, mainly for a morning or afternoon tea. However, at present about six to eight people only are actively volunteering. The Palliative Care Volunteer Service volunteers are coordinated by the generalist and palliative care nurse unit manager. While the palliative care volunteer coordinator position has been vacant for some time, the Palliative Care Volunteer Service has continued to provide an excellent service.

The North Coast Area Health Service is reviewing all its staffing with a view to reducing staffing levels to align them with its budget and make sure that we appropriately and wisely use taxpayers' dollars. The acting community nurse unit manager has met with the palliative care team and discussed strategies to keep the active volunteers involved and supported.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As I indicated to members in this place on Tuesday this week in response to a question asked by the Hon. Trevor Khan, tenders for the appointment of a Project Director, Planning, for the redevelopment of the Tamworth Hospital have been sought in accordance with New South Wales Government protocols through the Department of Commerce's e-Tender website. The tenders were called on 22 May 2009 in accordance with a pre-selected list of consultant organisations that are registered with the New South Wales Department of Commerce Project Director Panel.

Tenders for the important role of Project Director, Planning, are due to be returned for assessment during the week commencing 22 June 2009. The tender review process should be concluded within two weeks, which will be towards the end of the first week in July. It is anticipated that an appointment will be made very shortly afterwards, subject to the outcomes of the review process. Project development plans will commence once a service procurement plan is completed and endorsed.

At this stage it is anticipated that both the service procurement plan and the project development plan documentation will be completed and endorsed by the third quarter of 2010. Work will begin on the service procurement plan immediately after the Project Director, Planning, has been appointed. It is anticipated that works will begin in accordance with the Premier's previous announcements.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Earlier the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to a six-metre oyster punt owned by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. I am advised that the vessel is an open six-metre oyster punt. The department advises that the vessel has been refloated after sinking. The likely cause of that was the failure of an electronic bilge pump and the vessel filling with rainwater. There has been significant rainfall in the area over the past few days, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know. Officers from the Central Coast and Sydney North districts regularly conduct patrols and undertake oyster lease inspections on the Hawkesbury. Additionally, the statewide operations and investigations group mobile squad also conduct patrols within the district. The open vessel sank because of an electronic fault and significant rainfall in the district in recent days.

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor of the State:

Office of the governor
J. J. Spigelman Sydney 2000
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that he assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 3 June 2009.

3 June 2009

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Members of the public are most welcome in this Chamber. However, it is expected that visitors in the public gallery will observe the normal courtesies that the House demands and not attempt to participate in or disrupt proceedings. Various Presidents' rulings have prescribed the behaviour expected of visitors. It is disorderly for a person in the public gallery to interject or make comments, or to attempt to communicate directly with members in the Chamber. Furthermore, visitors may not applaud, use mobile phones or cameras, or pass messages to members in the Chamber. Anyone in the gallery who does not abide by the standards of behaviour expected or who seeks to interfere with proceedings in the Chamber will be asked or directed to leave the gallery.

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang, on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.33 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 214 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the CityRail Easy Access Program, be called on forthwith.

I will be as quick as possible as I appreciate that other debate needs to happen in this House today. My motion is urgent. Indeed, it is so urgent that earlier I was willing to delay debate on my private member's bill so that I could raise this matter in the Parliament. The situation has changed; nevertheless, I feel that it is imperative to move now on this matter. In the upcoming budget the Department of Transport will provide an outline of the train stations that will be included on the CityRail Easy Access Program upgrade schedule. Members of this House should have access to the upgrade schedule process during the same week the budget is delivered. I believe this matter is urgent, and I ask the House to support my motion.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [2.34 p.m.]: This is extraordinary, given the events earlier today when effectively new members of this House, the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Michael Veitch, sought to bring on debate on motions commemorating people who have died in the service of this country in Afghanistan and other places. Normally, this motion would have been dealt with—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call Dr John Kaye to order for the first time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: —in probably a 20-minute speech. However, the indignity of The Nationals resulted in their attacking and screaming at the Hon. Michael Veitch and the Hon. Lynda Voltz. Members opposite applauded and carried on when the two members spoke. Now The Nationals have done a deal with the Greens and will not oppose Mr Ian Cohen's motion. I would not have minded if Mr Ian Cohen had moved his motion this morning.

Mr Ian Cohen: I did try this morning and you blocked it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member could have waited until the next sitting day to move this motion.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call Mr Ian Cohen to order for the first time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am quite happy to have this debate—bring it on and we will sit until we finish! Having opposed a motion that would have been dealt with in a short debate, the Greens, together with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others, have somehow reversed the situation, enabling Mr Ian Cohen to move a motion that has nothing to do with a debate that members of the House and people in the gallery want to hear. That is the key element. It was all right for members opposite to dish it out this morning. They played to the audience and attacked a member for moving a motion that could have been dealt with in short order. Normally such motions are dealt with in short debates.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You did it for the wrong reasons.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not do anything. My point is that the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Michael Veitch wanted to exercise their right to move a motion and they were heavily criticised for that. Given the nature of the debate on the mining amendment bill and the public interest in it, it is immensely hypocritical for members now to agree for the debate on the bill to be held over while the House debates a transport issue.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: It's called democracy.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not talking about whether it is democracy. The plain fact is that everyone should have the opportunity to put their position. I am accusing the Opposition and the Greens of gross hypocrisy because this morning they attacked two new members who simply wanted a short discussion—everyone knows it would have been a short discussion—on the death of soldiers in Afghanistan. Yet in this case the Greens are delaying a debate simply to move an extraneous motion seeking papers relating to a transport issue. Every reasonable person would agree with me that the virulence of the attack against the two new members this morning was extraordinary. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite, as well as the Greens, attacked two new young members of our Chamber for moving motions. They are hypocrites! The Opposition is hypocritical because it is allowing the Greens to move a motion, which will delay debate on the mining amendment bill.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.47 p.m.]: The part of the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009 that was picked up almost immediately by the Opposition and, in particular, by the New South Wales Farmers Association was the land classification system. Jock Laurie, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, wrote:

Dear Mr Gay,

The NSW Farmers' Association … supports the object of the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill as it aims to protect prime agricultural land (and water sources that feed prime agricultural land) from mining operations.

The Association supports the general framework of the Bill but does not support the use of the existing Department of Primary Industry ('DPI') land classification system to define Primary Agricultural land. The DPI land classification system is based on analysis and mapping that lacks currency and which needs significant improvement.

I do not need to elaborate as that is certainly the finding of the Greens and the information provided by the Government to the Opposition. To that end the Opposition has worked with the New South Wales Farmers Association. The final, key paragraph of the letter states:

However the Association believes that a new classification system is required that is based on sound science and is developed in close consultation with the agricultural sector. This cannot be developed immediately and it is proposed therefore that the Bill be amended so that prime agricultural land (and land associated with water sources that feed prime agricultural land) can be defined by regulation at a future date.

That was an important leap of faith by the president of the New South Wales Farmers Association. His letter picked up some of the concerns that had been identified by others. That letter assisted the Coalition to propose an amendment to the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. That amendment has been prepared in consultation with the Greens and the New South Wales Farmers Association and, dare I say, the mining industry—this is a statewide issue. I will read from the proposed Greens amendment on sheet C2009-035E. I point out that this is the sixth version of the amendment, the first being on sheet C2009-035. Each version was an improvement on the earlier version. The proposed amendment reads:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 6 to 8. Omit all words on those lines.

Proposed amendment No. 2 deals with classification. It reads:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 17 to 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

prime agricultural land means land identified as such under a scientifically based land classification system prescribed by the regulations, but does not include any land of a kind excluded by the regulations.

That amendment is a fair way of classifying prime agricultural land. It is a huge leap of faith because it puts the decision and the onus on the Minister for Primary Industries, who is at the table. If the people of the State were to rely on his performance in the House today I suspect that, frankly, most would be appalled. Thankfully, many people, including those from the New South Wales Farmers Association, have seen the Minister behave properly and fulfil his duties under the Westminster system. The amendment is an important leap in protection as it removes the rush to put something in place that may be incorrect. That concern was identified by the Hon. Robert Hunter, QC, in his early perusal of the bill. I know that I, along with farmers and others, am very thankful for his advice regarding problems that need to be addressed.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of a ruling of President Willis on 31 March 1993 that members speaking should not address remarks to persons in the gallery, who have no right of reply. Members should address their remarks to the Chair. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President, for your learned and sensible words once again.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the people in the gallery of the statement I read out earlier.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This amending bill is important, and we thank the Greens for accepting our input on the amendments. Greens proposed amendment No. 3 reads:

No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 30 to 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(b) such land as is identified in accordance with the regulations as land that is critical for the supply of water to prime agricultural land.

That is a definitive change to the identification of that land. Currently the bill reads:

(b) land on which, or within 1 kilometre of which, is situated a river or aquifer that feeds prime agricultural land.

New section 11B in schedule 1 to the bill reads:

(1) In this section:

aquifer means a geological structure or formation that is permeated with water or is capable of being permeated with water.

It was way, way too wide. Many people concerned to protect prime agricultural land would not support that definition. It was pointed out by way of comparison that with the Darling River at full water that description would apply to any of that land. In fact, it probably means any gully in New South Wales. That prompted the New South Wales Minerals Council to write to the Coalition. Dr Nicky Williams, from the Minerals Council, put her case forthrightly—and so she should. She represents an industry, people who work in that industry, and families. She pointed out that the real concern is that the bill increases the State's sovereign risk and negatively impacts on investment. She wrote:

The amended Bill will prevent planning approval being given for new projects and also for existing projects to be modified or expanded. These restrictions apply regardless of whether there would be any impact of the proposed project/modification on "protected land".

She is quite correct. That stand-alone section affected the whole of the State, not just prime or protected land. The concern was that the bill supposedly protected prime land, but it would have stopped mining right across New South Wales. We accept that that was probably unforseen, but it caused a problem. Nicky Williams pointed out that that provision had the potential to affect $13 million of investment and 9,422 jobs. Projects affected would include the upgrade of the coal loader, the upgrade of the line through the Hunter Valley, and other areas way beyond the scope of the Liverpool Plains or Gloucester. The Greens accepted that concern and amended their proposed amended. The Coalition believes that we need go one step further to address another concern, a concern that is jointly shared by farmers and miners; that is, third-party appeal rights. Proposed section 11B(8) states:

Disputes in relation to protected land

If any dispute arises as to whether or not any particular land is protected land, any party to the dispute may apply to the Land and Environment Court for a determination of the matter (in which case the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter).

The key part of our concern are the words "any party". Whether one is a farmer at Nyngan concerned about woody weeds, or a farmer near Dubbo concerned about being able to crop properly, those concerns are exacerbated by the words "third-party appeal rights". That does not mean the two parties that are directly—[Time expired]

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.59 p.m.]: I support with great enthusiasm the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009 and in doing so I congratulate my colleague Lee Rhiannon for tackling one of the hardest issues in land use management in the age of climate change. I also want to join with my colleague Lee Rhiannon in congratulating Tim Duddy, the Caroona Coal Action Group, the Gloucester-Stroud-Barrington Preservation Alliance and others in the Gloucester area, the New South Wales Coal Communities Network and the New South Wales Farmers Association for what has been a remarkable campaign to protect agricultural land from mining. I also want to congratulate all those people for the protest outside Parliament House today, which was a cogent statement of the issues. In many ways whatever we do here today can only vaguely reflect the hard work of the communities who have strived for so long to protect their farmland from the onslaught of coalmining.

I want to make it clear that there is more to this legislation than just protecting a farm here or a community there, although that is very important. This bill is about securing a future for food production in New South Wales in the face of an increasingly hostile environment. Much has been said by my Greens colleagues and me about coal and coalmining issues. We have talked a lot about the impact of the production of coal in Australia on climate change and we have talked about the impact on local communities, particularly in respect of community health and local economies. These are matters that are ever more germane to debate over the future, but they are not the subject of this bill. This bill is at heart about one very large question: Which is more important—coal and other minerals obtained by mining, or food? The answer ought to be very simple. There is absolutely no substitute for food other than hunger, malnutrition, starvation and famine. There are substitutes for coal and other minerals.

In the case of coal, there are highly cost-effective substitutes in the form of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Whatever your opinion of greenhouse—and in this Chamber sadly there seems to be a variety of opinions on the effects of 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere every year from the combustion of coal—it is clear that the climate is becoming increasingly hostile for agriculture. Stress on agriculture from biofuels and droughts is pushing up food prices around the world. We have already seen the price of tortillas double in Mexico over the past year, causing malnutrition. We are seeing significant increases in the cost of grains in China and increasing pressure on food prices around the world largely because of widespread drought.

It is significant that these issues will likely come to a head over the next three decades and with the sorts of climate predictions that are accepted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Research and Economics we could be facing significant and prolonged droughts in south-east Australia over those years. That will challenge our capacity to produce food. The worst thing we could do now is to stand by and watch the removal of prime agricultural land, particularly agricultural land that has a reliable and drought tolerant source of water. That is precisely what coalmining is doing throughout New South Wales, particularly in the Liverpool Plains area. It is simply unacceptable to say that we can bring into conflict the future capacity of this State to produce food and the need of a few large multinational corporations to make massive profits.

The capacity for farms and mining to coexist is highly limited. It is not only about the destruction of land itself either from longwall mining underneath causing subsidence or from open-cut mining. I admit, as I have before, that I was involved in open-cut mining in Victoria. It is a highly destructive process that leaves behind land that is not appropriate or suitable for agriculture. It is more than that and more than just the dust and pollution that comes from coalmining that makes many agricultural activities impossible. It is about interference with the water supply—and not just the aqueducts and rivers and the way in which underground coalmining, particularly longwall mining, ruptures aqueducts and cracks rivers causing a loss of water, but also the saline and other pollution that comes from coalmines.

If members do not believe me, they should go for a walk around rivers that are downstream from coalmines and have a look at the salt licks that are developing on so many rivers around New South Wales specifically because of coalmines and the huge volumes of highly saline water that are taken out of the mines and dumped into rivers, poisoning them and making them inappropriate for agriculture and town water supply. It is insane that we would put at risk the key ingredient for success in agriculture, a reliable water supply, in order to continue to provide minerals for which there are alternatives. At a time when farmers around Australia are focusing increasingly on sustainability and handing on their farms in sound working order to the next generation and the generation after that, the Government is deserting the project of sustainable agriculture in Australia.

It is very straightforward. The coal corporations, particularly on the Liverpool Plains, have access to the decision makers, and that access is superior to that which farmers have. It is a case of an imbalance of power between a small number of heavily cashed-up, very savvy coalmining corporations and a large number of communities that are not heard in the political process when there is money on the table and large corporations are shouting loudly.

In New South Wales the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Minister at the table holds three key portfolios—Primary Industries, Mineral Resources and Energy. Having those three portfolios wrapped up in one person creates a monumental conflict of interest. I am not making any adverse remarks, nor do I intend to do so, about the Minister himself. I may well delay that until another day. I do say that at a Cabinet table in a modern society there needs to be a separate and independent voice for agriculture. It needs to be separate from the pressures of primary industries, mineral resources and mining companies, and energy production. Where those important portfolios are wrapped up into one body, there is no separate independent voice within the Cabinet. There is no voice that says, "That is crazy. You cannot allow that mine to go ahead because the farmers that I work with and the primary production I am involved with stand to lose dramatically if that goes ahead."

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: What about Country Labor?

Dr JOHN KAYE: What about Country Labor indeed. That is an exceptionally good question. The real problem lies with the economic and political power inherent in the large multinational mining corporations. They have a capacity to be heard that is not surpassed by anybody in our society, save and except for possibly real estate developers. Yet, if we are to make decisions about the next generation and recognise that tomorrow really matters, we have to listen to farmers and those who till the land and work the land, and who know the stresses that agriculture is under. They are the people who are responsible for food production, not only now but in future generations.

I am pleased to hear from the shadow Minister that a table has been created on which we can share common ground on this legislation. Why is that important? Imagine how future generations will judge us if we get this wrong. Imagine what will happen if this legislation does not go through and the Liverpool Plains are torn apart, its water supply polluted and its capacity to produce food degraded, and our capacity as a State to produce food is degraded. Imagine what will happen in 15, 20 or 25 years time when the next large drought hits, which has the potential to be much worse than the current drought. One of the few areas that can withstand drought will have been lost because its water supply is polluted and the land is gone. There can be no agriculture in those sorts of situations.

We must not stumble on the definition of "prime agricultural land". If it becomes a stumbling block, that will prevent the passage of this bill through its second reading stage and we will never be able to debate and finally resolve what we believe to be more important—food and agriculture. Future generations will judge our management of this State and its resources not on the basis of the finer points of a definition or a regulation but on the outcomes. If those outcomes do not include securing critical drought-resistant and drought-tolerant lands with reliable access to water from the ravages of coalmining, the judgement will be hard, as it ought to be. I urge all members to support this legislation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.10 p.m.]: On behalf of the Shooters Party I speak in debate on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water from Mining) Bill 2009—a lie in itself—which was introduced by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I state at the outset that this bill is a cruel hoax being perpetrated by the Greens on well-meaning and hard-working farmers. It is more of the Greens utopia—a reasonable sounding idea that will receive support in some areas but that will not receive full support. In the real world it cannot happen in that way. Let us be clear about this legislation. This is a bill to shut down coalmining, which is one of the Greens' stated aims. At the same time the Greens have chosen to use farmers as pawns in their political stunt. The object of this bill is "to amend the Mining Act 1992 to protect prime agricultural Land (and water sources that feed prime agricultural land) from mining operations".

We have heard arguments about how weak this bill is and we are aware that the amendments that will be proposed to it have been through five iterations. In the past I have been part of the rapid negotiations that have taken place in this Chamber to achieve suitable outcomes and the best results for the people of New South Wales. I know how difficult it is to put these things together at the last minute, and that principal reason why this bill should not be supported. On the surface it appears to be a reasonable and sensible piece of legislation, but that is how the Greens always dress up their stalking horses. If we look more closely at the bill, we find that aquifers extend across much of the State. The effect of this bill—and I understand that we are trying to amend it to ensure that it will not have this effect—is to inhibit exploration and mining across most of New South Wales. The Greens should have done their homework and drafted and crafted their bill properly in the first place.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call Dr John Kaye to order.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: The Greens' bill has the support of the Farmers Association. A few minutes before I came into the House I received the same letter that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke of receiving. I spoke to Jock Laurie and to his general manager about the position of the Shooters Party on this bill—an issue to which I wish to refer at the conclusion of my contribution when I might be able to offer a genuine solution.

Dr John Kaye: It is called a deal, not a solution.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I am afraid that the Greens' bill is not a solution. Mining in the Hunter and Gunnedah regions directly employs nearly 9,000 people—statistics that have been referred to by other speakers—and the figures for indirect employment are many times that number. In 2007-08 the royalties from mining in these regions amounted to $573 million an d for 2008-09 they are expected to be $1.3 billion. That money helps to fund infrastructure and to keep alive towns such as Gunnedah. The Greens are a great party for process. However, there has been no apparent assessment of this bill to establish its social and economic consequences for New South Wales.

The aim of protecting land and water is already provided for under existing legislation. However, whether or not that legislation is strong enough and robust enough to protect the interests of farmers is another matter. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 any decision makers must consider the objects of the Act that specifically mention "the proper development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land", which, of course, would include water. Perhaps the question that should be asked today is whether the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is robust enough in its protection. If it is not, perhaps we can do something about that, but not through this bill.

The bill is based on the assumption that mining and agriculture cannot coexist. Dr John Kaye, in his contribution to debate on this bill, talked about that issue. I do not believe that to be the case. Let us look at the Hunter Valley, which is the home to coalfields, is a world-famous winegrowing region, has a leading thoroughbred horse stud industry, and attracts more than 2.5 million visitors a year. While mining and agriculture do co-exist, sometimes with palpable tensions—and no-one has argued about that—they also work cooperatively to address the issues that affect them. That is the way in which things should be done. I do not believe this bill is necessary and I do not believe that it was presented to this House in good faith.

I understand that some farmers who might be affected are of the opinion that, if this bill is passed today, it will become law. That is not the way it works in the Parliament of New South Wales. The Government has the numbers in the lower House and the Government will decide whether this bill becomes law. Clearly, Ms Lee Rhiannon has misinformed those people. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition admitted that this bill was not perfect and he said that it would be amended to make it fit. However, any attempt to try to amend this bill is not the way to go. Peter Draper, the member for Tamworth, made representations—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Peter Draper, the member for Tamworth in the other place. He is keen for the Shooters Party to support this bill so that it goes to the lower House and so that members, once again, can engage in a political one-on-one with The Nationals. People on the Liverpool Plains and in the Gloucester area are political pawns in a petty little game.

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I direct the attendants to remove the person who is interjecting from the public gallery.

[The person interjecting was removed by the Usher of the Black Rod.]

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: This bill is not about saving farmland. The person who has just been removed from the public gallery must be the guy who rang me up and would not leave his name. This bill is a stunt—a ploy by the Greens to dupe farmers into believing that they are friends of the farmers. Their record states otherwise. They do not want rice growers and cotton growers in New South Wales, and they do not want dairy farmers because cows cause methane. They do not want forestry operations in New South Wales—

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Following the two interjections from the gallery I remind members of the statement I read earlier about the requirement for people sitting in the public gallery to observe the courtesies that the House demands. If there are any further interjections, I will have no option but to clear the whole public gallery. I do not particularly want to do that, so I implore people in the gallery to maintain the standards of behaviour that are required of members of the public sitting listening to the proceedings in the visitors gallery.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I have large shoulders, Madam Deputy President; I can take it. The list goes on. New South Wales cannot afford the Greens. The Greens in Tasmania blocked the expansion of hydro dams to such an extent that Tasmania now has to use an extension lead from Victoria to power its industries. If genuine farmers who are being so cruelly used by the Greens in this exercise believe that they are not also a target, they should think again. This issue has been raised before. Irrigators with native vegetation on their property should be wary. Today the Greens are targeting coalmining, but farming will not be far behind. I say again that this bill is a cruel hoax by Ms Lee Rhiannon. Obviously farmers have a right to farm, a right to protest, and a right to have their objections and concerns addressed.

I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this bill is not perfect. Even with the proposed last-minute amendments, it is still not what is needed. Adding a zipper to a sow's ear will not make a silk purse, and this is poorly crafted legislation. Why should this House pass a bill that even now is being described as less than adequate? If we are to do it, let us get it right the first time. In an effort to deliver something meaningful to genuine farmers on the Liverpool Plains and in the Gloucester area, over the next few months the Shooters Party will undertake to work with The Nationals—if they want to be part of the solution and sort this out properly—with the Government and with key stakeholders to develop a properly crafted bill that will have the support of all parties to address the issue of safeguarding agricultural land and water. That is a far better solution than some political stunt. It will not be an anti-mining bill; it will be a bill that meaningfully addresses the agricultural land and water issue.

The people of the Liverpool Plains and Gloucester deserve more than to be subjected to the political game playing that occurs in this place. I am sorry that some people listening to this debate are not happy with my comments, but I believe that we have got it right. People may not like what we have to say, but we are not playing political games. The Shooters Party is interested in achieving a genuine long-term resolution, not just being part of some political stunt.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.20 p.m.]: I attended the first meeting of the Caroona Coal Action Group after the BHP Billiton exploration licence was announced. I signed for and paid my membership. I have not been contacted as a member since that time. However, despite masses of misinformation, some important issues came to light at that meeting, not the least of which was the importance of local people having access to employment opportunities. Living within the Caroona region at Walhollow are members of the important Gamilaroi Aboriginal community. Work opportunities for the people of Walhollow, Quirindi, Werris Creek and Gunnedah are important for the wellbeing of our communities. Following that meeting I returned to this place and discussed the issue with Minister Macdonald.

As a result of a suggestion by the Minister the Northern Inland Development Board is working with TAFE and the Aboriginal community to ensure that local Aboriginal people will be qualified to compete for work if the lease is let. The program is funded from BHP Billiton's community funds for the exploration licence. This sort of important and valuable community issue gets lost in the one-sided political campaigning to which we, as members of Parliament, often are subjected and participate in. The Government opposes the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. Although well meaning in its intention, the bill purports to protect agricultural land and water from mining operations through a range of narrowly focussed and unsuitable measures. We have in place already a carefully developed framework of legislation that safeguards against the impacts of mining. This bill is inconsistent with the existing framework.

Provisions in the Mining Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the Water Act and the Water Management Act already provide for the effective management of environmental impacts caused by mining in New South Wales. This legislative framework uses merit-based assessment processes that weigh up the competing values of land. This allows mineral development values, agricultural values and environmental values to be brought into the right balance on a case-by-case basis. The debate on this issue today has not contained much balance. The bill seeks to override this process by introducing a blanket prohibition on mining on protected land. This is out of step with the approach of the current framework. Mining proposals should be considered on their individual merits—as is the case at present—so that all factors are considered, including the benefits to the people of New South Wales.

Furthermore, the bill seeks to impose limits on the approval processes under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act through the Mining Act. This is contrary to the direction of the 2005 planning reforms, which made that Act the primary approval process. The bill's proposal to define prime agricultural land as class 1 or class 2 land in accordance with Agricultural Land Classification is inappropriate. Although class 1 and class 2 lands are valuable, other land classes can be equally significant in supporting highly productive agricultural enterprises. This debate would be interesting if we were to say that class 1 and class 2 land was not to produce cotton or other type of agriculture that did not suit the popular issues of the time. For example, greenhouses do not require high-quality land, and fine micron wool often is produced from poor soils. In our region we have some valuable greenhouse industries, particularly on the tablelands, on land that I am sure would not be regarded as class 1 and class 2 land. Furthermore, the agricultural land classifications and the mapping that underpins them were created for strategic planning purposes only. The data was never intended for use as a property scale, as this bill proposes.

Any prohibition on land on which, or within one kilometre of which, rivers or aquifers are situated will have a devastating effect on mining. Aquifers extend across significant areas, and the terms of the bill could preclude exploration and mining from much of the State. Such a prohibition would have particularly serious impacts in the Gunnedah and Hunter regions. In June 2008 over 8,700 people were directly employed in coalfields in those regions, as we have heard already, and many times that number worked in mining and related service industries. I want to make sure that any future development provides opportunities for country people. We always hear about coalmines coming in and not employing local people, and only taking tradesmen. This program, which is one of a number in the region, will train and resource local individuals so that if companies are given leases, employment opportunities will come to fruition and individuals from the local community will be able to compete for the available jobs. By preventing new mines and any extensions to existing mines the bill will jeopardise at least 2,500 jobs in these important coalfields.

No scientific evidence supports the need for a fixed one-kilometre buffer zone. Currently, the Government develops buffer zones on a case-by-case basis taking into account a number of factors, such as the significance of water sources and the consequences of potential impacts on them. This approach provides a far more flexible and comprehensive way of protecting water sources. The bill proposes that the Department of Primary Industries will maintain an inventory of protected land. However, protected land cannot be effectively identified using current mapping and data. The land suitability mapping was prepared by the former Department of Agriculture between 10 and 30 years ago; it is inconsistent and needs updating. Statewide data on aquifers does not exist and would have to be developed. Earlier today the Minister announced some important information regarding the Namoi catchment. Unfortunately, others were not present to hear that announcement. Considerable resources would be needed to provide the consistent high-quality mapping and data required to enable the department to fulfil this function.

The bill will stop exploration and mining only on agricultural land and water. It will not apply to extractive industries, such as quarrying—which can have similar impacts on land and water—or any other activities. Despite the value of the mining industry, mining takes place on less than half of 1 per cent of the total land area in New South Wales. Ms Lee Rhiannon stated in her second reading speech that 8 per cent of land in New South Wales was used for cropping in 2006-07. Clearly, although some class 1 and class 2 agricultural land may be affected by mining, much agricultural land is not. The proposed blanket protection of agricultural land and water needs to be considered against the impacts of the bill on the economy of New South Wales. Given that the bill potentially will cost regional New South Wales millions of dollars in lost jobs, lost investment and lost services, I would have thought it prudent to have done more careful analyses of the issues involved. This would have shown that the objects of this bill already are well regulated in New South Wales by the Mining Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and other legislation. It would have shown also that the proposed mechanisms set out in this bill are flawed. Today we heard some appalling examples of political grandstanding. Some of the concerns expressed are legitimate, but others are fed by political opportunism. Destructive one-sided politics does not serve our country communities at all. On this basis, I oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.28 p.m.]: I support the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. Indeed, it is a timely piece of legislation. Its purpose is to protect our prime agricultural land and water from mining. The Liverpool Plains and other food-producing regions are essential in the supply of food not only to Australia, but also to countries that rely in part on Australian agricultural imports. Too much of our fertile agricultural land has been devastated by mining, with the Hunter Valley particularly suffering from its ravages. I am conscious of that whenever I visit Muswellbrook when I see what is happening in that area, and how that impacts on the health of local residents. There are instances of respiratory disease and children are experiencing rare forms of cancer as a direct result of breathing in coal dust.

I acknowledge the people in the gallery whose behaviour has been exemplary. Many of them have travelled for hours to attend Parliament today. They left home early and they have long return journeys. They have sat quietly and, in some cases, have listened to drivel. If someone intends to write them off as dupes or people who have been cruelly hoaxed by the Greens and, presumably, also by The Nationals, it is really important that we at least listen to what they, as members of the community, have to say. I have received numerous letters and emails about the bill. For example, Martine Traill of the SOS Liverpool Plains organisation writes:

According to ABARE, crop yields on the Liverpool Plains are consistently 40% above the national average. Not only does this area produce more tonnage, it grows a wide variety of crops, due to the reliable summer and winter rainfall it receives. As the climate and soils are so versatile we produce wheat, barley, sorghum, beef, cotton, maize, canola, chickpeas, soybeans, mungbeans, pigs/lamb/turkey and wool to name a few!

Not only does this region boast such diversity of food production it also provides food security. Whilst Australia suffered one of the worst droughts in history, (and much of NSW is still in drought), the Liverpool Plains was still able to produce grain and meat. This is due to high water holding capacity of the soils, the region receiving effective rainfall and the area's high quality underground water aquifers for irrigation.

Australia only has 6% arable land, we simply cannot afford to lose prime agricultural lands to mining highly polluting, outdated energy sources such as coal and coal seam gas.

Peta Craig is another person who wrote to me. She states:

I am writing to secure support for the Bill proposed by Lee Rhiannon to protect prime agricultural land from mining.

My family & I farm 10,000 acres on the rich Liverpool Plains at Breeza.

Our family has been farming in this area for over 100 years.

Our farming enterprise is currently under threat by mining exploration licences granted to BHP at Caroona & Shenhua with the Watermark Licence.

In an average year we produce 10,000 tonnes of top quality wheat, sorghum, sunflowers & canola & 250 head of prime Shorthorn cattle. We are a family farm with our two sons, their wives & children. We are dryland farmers & every part of our operation is managed in the most sustainable way possible. We like to think that it is possible for these plains to be feeding people for centuries to come.

This Bill is possibly the most important piece of legislation to come before the NSW Parliament for many years.

Please take time to consider the long term repercussions of the coal mining industry. If it is at all possible take time to visit our area & see first hand the importance of this issue.

I understand that the Minister has received hundreds of copies of the postcard prepared by the Gloucester Residents in Partnership [GRIP]. However, it is one thing for the Minister to receive things, but it is another thing for him to deign to read them. In case these postcards slipped his attention, I take this opportunity to acquaint him with the contents. He might like to listen now.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: He is not in the grip of your thrall.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: No. He is more in the thrall of my GRIP. That is true. The postcard states:

This postcard is being sent to you by residents and friends of Gloucester NSW who are being represented by GRIP Inc. (Gloucester Residents in Partnership). GRIP's goal is to ensure that coal exploration licences 6523, 6524 and 6563 are permanently removed so that no coal mining occurs in those areas. EVER.

We believe that we must act together as a community to:

Protect our quality of life—now and for our children
Protect our existing rural, agricultural and food producing land
Protect our growing tourism industry and promote Gloucester as the gateway to the Barrington Tops World Heritage Area
Protect and preserve Gloucester's unique beauty (rivers, mountains, bushland, wildlife) for future generations
Drive a change in government thinking.

That is a tall order. Indeed, that is a big ask. But they want the Minister to drive a change in State Government thinking. The postcard continues:

The State Government advocates that if a "resource is there it should be harvested". This proposition ignores the wider reaching social, economic and environmental implications.

We seek a sustainable balance which supports our community's wider need.

That postcard represents the opinions of people in the community—the people who purportedly have been duped and cruelly hoaxed about the intentions of this bill. However, this bill is very straightforward. Its purpose is to amend the Mining Act 1992 to make provision for protecting agricultural land and water from mining. It does not say that we are going to stop all mining. It merely wants to protect elements in our community and our State that are essential for the wellbeing not only of the farmers and people who produce food but also of the rest of the community who depend upon the produce of farming communities.

I must say that, as the Green's spokesperson on Planning, I am particularly pleased that the bill will override the operations of part 3A. Part 3A must be the most hated planning legislation that has passed through this Parliament in many, many years. So outraged are people by the operations of part 3A of the planning Act that elements of the community who ordinarily would not have a lot in common are forced to unite. It is terribly disturbing to see on the department's website the list of applications that have been approved—it shows application after application for mining operations that are being dealt with by the department. There seems to be no net or hindrance when it comes to the promotion of mining in this State. It is incredibly important for communities to stand up and say enough is enough. After all, it is the very staff of our life that is at stake. This bill will preserve important agricultural land. It will ensure that the mapping of that land and information about it is publicly available.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind Ms Hale that she should not be directing her comments to the public gallery, but through the Chair and to other members in the Chamber.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I apologise to members of the public in the gallery for turning my back on them, but I am required to do so. This bill will preserve important agricultural land. It will ensure that maps and information are publicly available. It will protect areas such as the Liverpool Plains from most types of mining. Equally importantly, it will protect the water and aquifers that feed those rich farming lands. I commend the bill to the House. I congratulate my Greens colleague Lee Rhiannon on introducing it. I congratulate The Nationals on their cooperation in ensuring that the bill is acceptable to as many elements in the community as is possible. I regret that the Minister is so determinately refusing to listen to what is being said.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.38 p.m.]: In joining in debate on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009, I congratulate the Greens on introducing this bill, which is a perfect example of wedge politics. The bill is designed to carry out Greens ideology and the Greens objectives. The Greens political party, which has backed a great deal of anti-farming legislation, now wants to present itself as the farmer's friend. Sadly, in the gallery are many sincere people who have come here to watch this debate. Some of them have a farming background. Some have visited my office and spoken to me, urging me to vote for the bill. Some have expressed concern about possible damage to the Liverpool Plains area, the aquifers and so on. I understand the farmers' concerns. However, they have been misled into thinking that if the Legislative Council, which is a House of review, passes a private member's bill it becomes law. No bill can become law unless it is supported by the Labor Government.

Dr John Kaye: That's not true.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: This legislation is totally opposed by the Government.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind Dr John Kaye that he is on two calls to order.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Government has indicated that it will not support this bill. The Greens have played a hoax: they gave the impression that if the bill is passed today it will take effect in New South Wales. It will not take effect. The bill must go to the other place, the lower House. We already know that. A few months ago we debated at length a bill, which I supported, that would have provided for the election of a new Port Macquarie council. That bill was debated and passed by this House, and then it went to the lower House. What happened to the bill in the other place? It is stone dead. The Government did not support that bill.

Mr Ian Cohen: So what did you do—nothing?

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: My point is that, sadly, the Greens have misled the people in the public gallery for their own political purposes. I am sorry that the people in the gallery have been misled by the Greens. No doubt their legislation and other matters will arise in due course from the water resources inquiry announced by the Minister today. The terms of reference for that inquiry have been established. That inquiry will clarify the areas in the Liverpool Plains that need to be protected. The matter will gradually unfold through the water resources inquiry, not through the Greens agenda. This bill is a perfect example of the strategy that was adopted in the 1980s by extremist socialist parties, communist parties and Maoist parties that realised they were making no political progress or gaining political influence in New South Wales and Australia. At a secret conference—I have seen some papers from that conference—they agreed to change their strategy, abolish the Australian Communist Party and other organisations, and deliberately infiltrate other organisations.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I cannot see how some kind of conspiracy theory that Reverend Nile seems to be entertaining has any relevance to coalmining—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I ask the member to direct his comments to the point of order.

Dr John Kaye: I am. I am asking you to rule on the issue of relevance. The speaker is exercising a conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with coalmining or the substance of this legislation.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Other members have spoken unchallenged of their belief of the motivations behind the introduction of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is debating a similar point. There is no point of order.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am explaining the objectives of the bill, as did other members. These organisations realised that they could not make progress if they were clearly identified. Therefore their objective was to find out what issues they could exploit to gain political support. They looked at a number of issues. Can we continue to use the feminist issue? Can we continue to use the homosexual issue?

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind members of the public in the gallery that they are not to interject on proceedings in the Chamber.

Mr Ian Cohen: It wasn't the gallery.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members of the public in the gallery were interjecting also.

Ms Sylvia Hale: How can people in the gallery stop themselves from laughing?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! It is difficult for people in the gallery to behave in a proper manner and observe the rules of the House if members do not set a good example.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: After examining all those issues, these organisations focussed on the environment, which led to the birth of the Greens. They used the Greens and the environment as a political weapon to gain power and influence in the political world. That is why I nicknamed the Greens the watermelon party: green on the outside and red on the inside with a pink lining. The Greens have cleverly exploited environmental issues. It is interesting that the nations whose people had the most extreme socialist views and socialist governments, whether it be the Soviet Union or other countries, were causing the most pollution in the environment. Indeed, those nations produced acid rain, which destroyed the forests in Europe and so on.

It was simply a political objective. The Greens have used environmental issues as a political pathway. They worked out how to exploit small groups, whether it be the farmers on the Liverpool Plains or residents in other communities. Over the years I have watched the Greens—all this can be documented—fasten onto a local issue and use it for their own purposes: they have used the sincere citizens of this State for their political agenda. The Greens jump on a bandwagon and exploit an issue for their own political purposes. Sadly, their strategy is working. I congratulate the Greens on their success in linking up hundreds of environmental groups, many of which do not realise they are supporting a political machine. Because of the political influence the Greens have gained, the Federal Labor Government led by Prime Minister Rudd must now negotiate with the Greens to try to get his carbon emissions legislation through the Parliament. That is the danger we face when the Greens gain political power and influence.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. We have now gone from a conspiracy theory in the 1980s through to the trials and tribulations of the Prime Minister with regard to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to the subject of this legislation.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As I ruled earlier, other members have spoken about their belief of the intentions behind the introduction of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is doing just that. I ask the member to be generally relevant and not to stray from the subject matter of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: These are the reasons the House should not pass the bill. The passage of the bill—

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I direct the attendants to remove from the public gallery the people who are interjecting.

[The people interjecting were removed by the Usher of the Black Rod.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As I was saying, passing the bill will give further political mileage to the Greens, and I do not believe this House should do that, even if it were to satisfy the concerns of the people in the gallery. We saw—other speakers have referred to this—what happened when the Tasmanian Labor Government tried to work with the Greens: it found that their demands were impossible. That is why I cannot support this bill. It is not because of the content; it is because the bill will give the Greens greater ability to blow their trumpets and claim a great victory in this State, and give them further political oxygen. During my time in this Parliament I have been working hard to deny political oxygen to the Greens. The Nationals, the Liberals and the Labor Party should cut off the oxygen supply to the Greens because they are helping to create a political monster, which we will see take more effect at the 2011 State election if they gain control of the upper House.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Let us have a close look at this. We have gone from a conspiracy in 1998 to the trials and tribulations of Kevin Rudd, and now we are at the 2011 election.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! What is the point of order?

Dr John Kaye: The issue is relevancy. Nothing of what has been said today—it is a very fine attack on the Greens and I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on that—is relevant to coalmining, water and land.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I rule against the point of order for the same reason I stated earlier. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is talking about his belief of the intention behind the introduction of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am giving reasons why I cannot vote for the bill, which is the point of what I am presenting to the House. For the benefit of Dr John Kaye, after the next election it could be that, because of an obstructive upper House, both major parties believe they cannot function and get legislation through the upper House, so they conclude it is time to agree on the abolition of the upper House. If the upper House becomes obstructive, which it could under a move led by the Greens, it would undermine the future of this House, and that is another reason why I do not support this legislation.

Other speakers have said, and the Greens have admitted, that this bill is poorly drafted and major amendments are needed because if it were ever law it would have a dramatic impact on the economy of this State. It is amazing to see the Greens, when they want to, give all discretionary powers over the extension of mining activities to the Minister. I can remember the Greens arguing day after day, "Don't give powers to the Minister", "Take the power away from the Minister" but now, when it suits them, the Greens play a different game with this legislation because they want to give power to the Minister.

Does anyone in their right mind want to give any more political power to the Greens so they can force governments to adopt their policies, which cover a range of moral, social and economic issues? I will not go into detail because I am sure all honourable members are well aware of them. We must look at the big picture when voting for this bill today. We should not look at it as just a Greens bill with one Greens amendment, but at the long-term political impacts. The Minister announced the terms of reference of the inquiry for the water studies, which, as I said earlier, would lead to the necessary protection of sensitive areas.

The Greens often raise their concerns about the amount of bore water farmers use. I wonder whether the people in the public gallery from the Liverpool Plains know what step the Greens will take next if this bill is passed. Perhaps the Greens will try to stop farmers from using bore water to protect it. Do the farmers in the gallery today realise that that is part of the Greens agenda? We should remember the native vegetation and threatened species legislation that governments have introduced, but that have been strongly driven by the Greens and the environment movement. All the farmers that I meet complain about such legislation, which the Greens regard as the best in the world. The farming community should be suspicious when the Greens want to be their friend and help them. For those reasons, the Christian Democratic Party does not support this politically motivated legislation of the Greens.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.54 p.m.]: I had a long speech prepared, as have a number of other people, to speak on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. I do not think I will bother. Let me deal, therefore, with a number of relatively brief points because I think all who are in this House want this debate concluded today. They want to see the vote taken rather than hear a long flapping of the gums. Let me first deal with people being duped. Amongst those who are in the public gallery today is a former Supreme Court Justice, who, one would think, is far more legally qualified than anyone else who sits in this House. No doubt he may see some basic problems with the bill, but he understands the intent and purpose of the legislation and its very importance. Are we to consider him to be a dupe of the Greens? I do not think so.

There are businessmen from Tamworth, including my father-in-law, a not unintelligent man, a former mayor of Tamworth and still a very successful businessman. On Sunday evening at drinks—although I only had soda water again—I was left in no doubt as to his view. This was not about the Greens, although he might have views about the Greens; this was about prime agricultural land and about ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ensuring that our landscape is not so destroyed that nothing would be left for future generations of farmers that farm the Liverpool Plain. That is not a position he has reached because he has been duped by Lee Rhiannon, John Kaye, Sylvia Hale or Ian Cohen; it is a view he has developed as an intelligent businessman because he knows the importance of that land. I am sure that is the same with the Supreme Court Justice and I am sure it is the same with all the other people who have travelled for five, six and seven hours to get here today. They are not motivated by stupidity. They are not motivated by trinkets handed out by Lee Rhiannon. They are motivated by a basic understanding and knowledge of the importance of that land.

The Hon. Christine Robertson referred to prudent analysis. What she essentially seeks to argue is that we have all missed the point, everything has been done so well in the past, proper planning regimes are in place and everything will go well—a line out of Yes Minister, one would think. Prudent analysis, one might think. Nobody can doubt that exploration leases have been granted over hilly ridge country, certainly, and also over prime agricultural land without discretion over huge tracts of land. Part of the impact of that, of course, is that it acts essentially as a caveat on the land.

It impacts on that land in a way that affects its transferability, the ability of people to make decisions as to what investments they are going to put into that land and their feeling of security in the land. Prudent analysis? It is just a broadacre application of a mining lease. Exploration leases were granted at a time when we know the Government was aware of problems with longwall mining in New South Wales. How do I know that? I can go to a document entitled "Impacts of Underground Coal Mining on Natural Features in the Southern Coalfield—Strategic Review", dated July 2008. What do we know from that document? I will read the introduction:

Context

On 6 December 2006, the NSW Government established an independent inquiry into underground coal mining in the Southern Coalfield and appointed an Independent Expert Panel to conduct the inquiry.

This was in December 2006; it was not, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, an announcement of some inquiry today about the southern coalfields. The document continues:

The Inquiry was established by the Minister for Planning, the Hon Frank Sartor MP, and the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Ian Macdonald MLC.

In December 2006 the southern coalfields were entitled to have a study undertaken. Why did they need the study? The article continued:

The Inquiry was established because of concerns held by the Government over both past and potential future impacts of mining-induced ground movements on significant natural features in the Southern Coalfield. These concerns first surfaced in the community—

when?—

in 1994 when the bed of the Cataract River suffered cracking and other impacts caused by mine-related subsidence from the underlying Tower Colliery.

I could go on, but the reality is that since the Government first came to power it has been alive to the fact that there are impacts upon mining in the southern coalfields. The Hon. Christine Robertson said there had been "prudent analysis". The Government knew that there was a problem, and yet exploration licences are issued over broad tracts of land without a by your leave and, more importantly, without prudent analysis, without the undertaking of a study, without even an assurance of appropriate studies being undertaken. This whole problem has caused people to travel half way across the State because the Government made a decision—a decision that it wanted the money that it could obtain from the issue of exploration licences.

This problem is created by the State Labor Government's need for money; it is not based upon prudent analysis, on doing what is best for the people of New South Wales or upon creating employment. It is based upon a fundamental need to try to do something about the budget holes that the Government itself has created. In that regard, we cannot ignore parts of our electorates and, in essence, imply that the people are complete idiots. They are not; they are intelligent people who deserve to be listened to. They deserve to be treated with appropriate respect. Today we saw time and again that they had not been accorded that respect or regard. They have been treated as an embarrassment to the State Labor Government.

We in the Liberal-Nationals Coalition are not interested in playing political games. If we were, we would have played the games that others have done with regard to the Greens. We have to deal with all the people in this Chamber, and be prepared to show appropriate and due regard to the different points of view. Whether that be by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, with whom on many occasions I share similar views, or whether it be with the members of the Shooters Party, or whether it be with the Greens members, we have to be prepared to negotiate fairly and appropriately. On this occasion Coalition members have attempted to do that to the best of our ability.

Amendments have been negotiated to produce a fair and reasonable bill. To be fair, would we do things a little differently? Of course we would. However, every day of the week in Parliament the State Labor Government introduces legislation—and bits of it we can agree with, and bits of it we cannot. Every Coalition, every Opposition, every Labor Party that is not in government is forced to make a reasoned and considered judgement about whether to support the legislation. We make those decisions in a reasoned and practical way. That is why the Coalition supports the proposed amendments. That is why we fundamentally support the underlying premise upon which the bill is based: there is a necessity to ensure that prime agricultural land in New South Wales is protected and at the end of the day a balance must be developed. That includes recognition that prudent analysis must be undertaken before the family farm is sold.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.04 p.m.]: The object of the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009 is to amend the Mining Act 1992 to protect from mining exploration and operations the State's prime agricultural land and its water sources. As a result of the proposed section to be inserted in the Mining Act 1992 an exploration licence, assessment lease or mining lease cannot be granted under that Act in relation to any such protected land; and planning approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, such as development consents or part 3A project approvals, cannot be given for the purposes of mining operations on that land.

Much of Australia, including the State of New South Wales, is barren, dry, desert or scrubland—and too harshly inhospitable to support life. Only a small percentage of the 800,642 square kilometres of land in this State has sufficient good soil, abundant water and the right weather to allow life to flourish—and allowing life to flourish is what we should be doing with this land. We should not allow destruction of precious land that has all the requisites for growing food; nor should we sell it, loan it, or give access to other people to destroy it with wasteful and damaging technologies.

Let us consider an activity that is known to be harmful—for instance, the long-established, unfettered mining exploration permitted by the State Government, this tearing up of the very fabric of life, with resulting despoliation of groundwater, and human and animal ecosystems and habitats, leaving them unusable afterwards, and taking all the financial profits offshore to foreign shareholders, so that it is not even we who get a benefit from this devil's bargain. That is an obscene scenario, but that is what is happening right now, as we speak. According to the 2006 census the vast majority of people in New South Wales, 93 per cent, live in urban areas and tend not to have had any experience of the basic truth that we are utterly dependent on the land for our very lives. It would be news to many city people that food does not just arrive fully formed, clean and packaged, in our shops.

However, past generations were still living on the land and knew these things, observed the effect of the passing seasons, saw the interrelationship of weather and growth, worked in harmony with the life cycle of the animals and birds, and understood the primacy of soil and water. Despite modern people's technological savvy, they have no idea how this basic earthy reality works—they are more caught up in the virtual world of their electronic gadgets and have experienced nothing of the food chain. That disconnect from the reality of food growing, and our dependence on systems of water, soil, weather, and the labour of our fellow human beings, has led to the blindness that lets the mining industry ride roughshod over those few people remaining on the land.

Not all land is created equal, and not all land can grow food—it takes many different factors to make good agricultural land. The wilful destruction of our prime New South Wales agricultural land is genuinely wicked—in the original sense of the word, meaning evil. The claim that halting mining of agricultural land will impact on mining jobs is true, but if we do not halt mining it will impact on the wellbeing and livelihood of countless people, the inviolability of their homes, the value of their farms, the aesthetic attraction of the rural setting which sustains tourism and, most importantly, destroy an important part of the food supply for our population now and in the future. Exactly whose interests are paramount in this situation? Certainly not the mining industry's!

Surely it is obvious that these prime lands must be preserved—at all costs—for the feeding of our people. That is not a Green political ploy; it is a logical, a Christian, and a democratic desire. The State Government needs to take steps now to protect the population from the effects of climate change, the current and expected future fluctuations in world economies, resulting changes in global and local markets, and the tumultuous changes that are inevitable with peak oil. What is critical to our future food security is our wonderful New South Wales farmland, such as is found in the 7,000 square kilometres of fertile black soils in the Liverpool Plains. According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, crop yields on the Liverpool Plains are consistently 40 per cent above the national average. This is due to the high water-holding capacity of the soils, the region receiving dependable rainfall, and the excellent underground aquifers for irrigation. We should let nothing endanger them.

Dr Susan Thompson, from the Planning and Urban Development Program at the University of New South Wales Faculty of the Built Environment, recently expressed at a conference her view that policy regarding long-range food sufficiency should be included in State and local government planning, and should take into account all aspects of land use, health and equity, and I agree with her.

The impact of climate change and decreasing rainfall in New South Wales makes it all the more critical to retain agricultural areas where the conditions are good, such as the Liverpool Plains and the upper Hunter. These areas are the State's food bowls and they grow enormous quantities of grain and seed crops, including wheat, canola, sunflower and sorghum, in wonderful abundance. The flat farmlands are dependent on underground aquifers and surface drainage, both of which would be contaminated and otherwise physically damaged by the various forms of mining proposed by the industry. Mining contaminants include heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, as well as carcinogenic and radioactive compounds, which should not be allowed into the environment and water tables. There should be a strenuous effort to strengthen the laws protecting our precious arable land and the water that it requires for safe, uncontaminated crops.

The Government claims that it is committed to ecologically sustainable development of all industries, including the mining industry. How then is it that the Mining Act, as it stands, destroys livelihoods, heritage value, groundwater and streams, and leaves behind ecological disasters, with the proceeds going into the pockets of overseas investors, not even our national coffers? This is madness and it surely is not evidence of ecologically sustainable development. It is, rather, ruinous development and terribly harmful to the people trying to make a living on the land. The "right" to have your land "remediated" after it has been violated and destroyed in the first place is meaningless. So-called remediation cannot bring back the exquisitely complex fabric of life that was there before it was obliterated.

There has been much admirable action by community members in protesting against current policy. Farming families in the Caroona area have banded together to blockade, on a roster basis, any workers from BHP from accessing property that had been granted to them for exploration by the State Government. Friends and neighbours and local citizens have supported the farmers for many months now in keeping BHP Billiton from getting onto their properties. People who want to live their lives on the land, and who want a future there, whether their families have been there for five generations or they have just recently shifted there from a city, should be supported to do so. We need these people on the land to grow the food that city people depend on. It is inspiring to see such communities sticking together against the rich multinational corporations whose economic interests are given preference over those of the people who live there. The frame of mind that allows governments to sell access to minerals out from under people in their homes and farms is from another age, and is anything but enlightened. This profligate world view is not one that has any regard for social justice, and seriously needs to be urgently re-examined by us today.

The Mining Act came into effect before the term "climate change" was ever heard of, when the outback seemed to go on forever and the Australian population was small. We no longer live in that age; we live in a time when every square metre of rich ground with good running water needs to be recognised for the amazing blessing that it is, and must be cherished and protected. I would like to emphasise that point: our scarce food-bowl country in New South Wales must be recognised as such by the Government, and cherished and protected by the Government. I have received hundreds of messages from people who have telephoned, written and emailed me. I will not go through even the best and the wisest of them but the people who live in these areas understand and they make sense. Not one person who contacted me supports mining, or exploration for potential mining, on agricultural land. As Edward James of Umina put it:

The politicians are apathetic, but everyone else in the community is completely against mining of the agricultural lands—the farmers, the towns people, the Councils. In fact, the only people who are for it are the ones who are on their knees to the banks and have no other choice but to give in to mining.

The Liverpool Plains agricultural area relies partly on groundwater for irrigation purposes. Irrigation licence allocations have been cut back severely under the Water Management Act—up to 90 per cent for some individuals—and local people are very aware of their water allocation. Mining exploration processes would take even more water away, which would also permanently contaminate it, rendering it unusable for any other purpose. I understand that the New South Wales Farmers Association does not support the use of the existing Department of Primary Industries land classification system for defining prime agricultural land because it is based on obsolete data. The association believes that a new classification system should be developed, and that will be dealt with in a foreshadowed amendment. Agriculture is mankind's most important activity, as we all have to eat to survive. Paul Ehrlich, in his book One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption and the Human Future, posits that:

Modern civilisation's most important challenge is the provision of an adequate diet to everyone; in a world where people in many other parts of the world are starving everyday it is an abomination for us to allow the destruction of arable land. Resources such as agricultural lands and sources of fresh water are elements of natural capital that are being lost or degraded at an alarming rate and being turned into non-renewable resources.

This problem of the destruction of land is not new. I remember from my studies of the classics, in particular philosophy in classical Greek, the philosopher Plato in his Critias described land deforestation and agricultural deterioration in the Greece of 650 BC with words that could be used today when looking at the aftermath of mining exploration:

What now remains compared with what then existed is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.

Plato's warnings went unheeded, as our warnings today are not being heeded by the Government, because throughout history the rich and powerful have taken, used up and spat out whatever they wanted in order to please themselves. I hope the future will be very different. I will quote only one other person, a remarkable German scholar of mining and metallurgy. I ask members to listen to these words and I will then mention when he wrote them:

The strongest argument of the detractors is that the fields are devastated by mining operations … Also, they argue that the woods and groves are cut down, for there is need of an endless amount of wood for timbers, machines, and the smelting of metals. And when the woods and groves are felled, then the beasts and birds are exterminated, very many of which … are pleasant and agreeable. Further, when the ores are washed, the water which has been used poisons the brooks and streams, and either destroys the fish or drives them away. Therefore, the inhabitants of these regions, on account of the devastation of their fields, woods groves, brooks and rivers find great difficulty in procuring the necessaries of life. Thus it is said, it is clear to all that there is greater detriment from mining than the value of the metals which the mining produces.

That was written by Georgius Agricola in 1556, nearly 500 years ago, and the description of mining's destruction of the environment is still perfectly apt, is it not? The protection of our prime farmland and its water resources is long overdue, and I am pleased to support this important bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.18 p.m.]: I support the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. I take this opportunity to respond to statements made earlier and thank the Reverend Fred Nile for his comments on the Greens. I will wear those comments as a badge of honour in the future. I feel very comfortable to be totally disassociated from Reverend Fred Nile's inquisitional politics. The necessity for a bill of this nature arises from a lack of vision that does not appreciate how to secure our food supply, our environment and our very livelihoods. This Government remains indoctrinated in natural resource dogmas that are quickly eroding and consequently approaches to natural resource management in this State are becoming devastatingly malign.

This approach is a blinkered strategy in an unrestrained exploitation of extractive non-renewable resources at the hands of the Minister for Primary Industries. Earlier speakers referred to the conflict of interest between mining, State development and agriculture, which is putting too much power in the hands of one member of Parliament, and that power is being abused. Once again we see a migration of power and money, whether it be in the city or in other areas of this State. This Government is focusing on the big end of town; it is not focusing on our communities. The Minister's vision for natural resource management is trapped in this dying paradigm.

The Minister's strategy is to ramp up and expand mining, pour more royalties into the State's coffers, and contribute a measly and nominal funding increase to environmental programs. In the Minister's eyes, to deliver an environmentally healthy New South Wales we must mine more so that we can have more royalties to pay for environmental programs. That is the Minister's breathtaking vision for managing natural resources and the natural environment. A perfect slogan for the Minister would be: Mining our way to a greener future—a type of green wash of the most diabolical order. I put it to the Minister that the need to increase government funding for environment and conservation programs has an important correlation to environmental degradation and ecosystem depletion associated with inappropriate mining development.

Destroying ecosystems that support agricultural production to pay for their pastoral repair is about as short-sighted as one can get. Time and again I have raised the need for the agricultural sector to turn the challenges of climate change into economic and environmental opportunities through different approaches to agricultural production. Soil carbon sequestration, minimum and zero tillage farming, and alternative grazing regimes represent just the surface of the opportunities for agriculture in this State. Investment in and improvement of agricultural ecosystems and ecosystem services that reverse escalating ecosystem depletion—in part, a result of climate change—will be directly undermined if the total supremacy of the extractive resources is continued.

This Government has established mechanisms, with highly varying degrees of success, that recognise the value of ecosystem services. Whether we are talking about water trading, salinity trading schemes or biobanking, there is an implicit acknowledgement that, beyond underscoring human subsistence, ecosystem services deliver real and tangible economic benefits to society. The natural machines, in the form of nutrient-rich soils that provide the foundation for agricultural production, must also be protected and their value recognised. Our environmental planning framework has been so irreparably manipulated that it provides no mechanism to quantify properly the value of prime agricultural land.

The Minister has left this House with no choice other than to put in place mechanisms that stop the issuance of exploration licences over prime agricultural land. The Minister's failure to take account of the ecosystem depletion costs and the implications for food security on the Liverpool Plains resulting from mining exploration is manifestly unreasonable. Developments in ecological economics, ecosystem service markets and agricultural environmental management systems have forged ahead of the archaic understanding of natural resource management displayed by the Minister and the Labor Government. They are missing the boat as new generations of environmental and agricultural managers are embracing a holistic conceptualisation of natural resource management rather than simply focusing on non-renewable mineral, gas and petroleum resources.

There is an undeniable disparity and inconsistency in how we conceive of and manage natural resources. In traditional approaches, all natural resources are not made equal. Our legal system has always displayed a tendency to encase the right to minerals, petroleum and gas in an impenetrable armour aided and abetted by politicians wedded to the service of the extractive industries. But the tectonic plates are shifting and our understanding of natural assistance is becoming more sophisticated. At best, this Minister remains oblivious to that and in some cases is antagonistic to this transition. The long-term answer to protecting agricultural lands, inclusive of the ecosystem services that support food productivity, must focus on acknowledging the fundamental value of soil health and conservation, viable water systems and sustainable agriculture. We must look not, as so many political parties and governments do, towards the next election; we need to leave a legacy for future generations. I believe that this bill, which has the support of many members, is an attempt to do just that. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.24 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak in debate on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. I state at the outset that I am not opposed to the mining industry; in fact, I strongly support the mining industry in New South Wales and Australia. I have lived for many years in a town called Inverell—a town that has a long mining history, with tin, diamonds, silver, lead, zinc, gold, sapphires and aluminium all being mined in that district over the past 150 years. It is an industry that brings great wealth to our nation but mining needs to be done in balance with agriculture, its sister wealth-creating industry.

As a farmer, soil conservationist, agricultural consultant and someone who has worked on the Liverpool Plains in previous years, I have held the view for many years that the deep, black soils of the plains are arguably the best agricultural soils anywhere in the world. I say that with some authority as I have worked with my hands in the dirt all my life as the son of a farmer and grazier; as a student of agriculture and as a tertiary student of agriculture who studied soil science, soil and water engineering, pasture and crop agronomy; as a soil conservationist developing conservation farming techniques on the Liverpool Plains and other areas of northern New South Wales during the 1980s; and, more recently, prior to my entrance into this House, as an agricultural consultant specialising in soil nutrient management.

It is with this experience that I know that the soils of the Liverpool Plains and, more particularly, those of the upper plains in the Caroona-Spring Ridge area are some of the soils most suited to long-term agriculture that I have ever had the honour of working with. These soils have the capacity to produce food and fibre for generations to come. We cannot sit back and say that so many millions of dollars worth of coal are under the soil that it is worth far more than just a few years of agricultural production from that land. This land will still be producing food and fibre crops indefinitely into the future—not for 100 years, 1,000 years or 10,000 years, but for as long as humans remain on this earth.

Recently I had the honour of visiting some of the most ancient farming land in the world—the Loess Plateau of the Shaanxi Province in China. These soils have been farmed for 5,000 years. They have suffered their fair share of land degradation in that time, particularly massive gully erosion, organic matter decline and fertility decline. Chinese authorities are now addressing those problems, but the land is still being farmed profitably and it is still providing much-needed food for the Chinese population. Who could imagine that the Liverpool Plains would still be farmed in 5,000 years? I certainly can, and I would like to see that occurring.

Large-scale farming on the plains did not really commence in earnest until the middle of the last century. Before that they were largely treeless plains, grass country that was used for sheep and cattle grazing. The soil on the Liverpool Plains is a black, self-mulching clay soil, quite heavy in nature, and was difficult to cultivate with the small horsepower tractors that were available in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Most of the early farming in that area was limited to the lighter-textured soils on the ridges rather than the heavier-textured soils on the plains themselves. With the advent of higher horsepower tractors in the 1950s and 1960s, they were able to cultivate the plains grass country and it very quickly became obvious how valuable these soils were for intensive agriculture.

Large-scale farming operations expanded quickly, much of it irrigated, and the farmers on the plains were some of the most innovative and progressive farmers in Australia. They quickly recognised the potential for damage to their soil, not so much from the traditional soil erosion with which they were familiar on their sloping land but from the severe sheet erosion during flood events when large sheets of water covered the plains as floods came down from the main catchments of the Warrah Creek, Big Jacks and Little Jacks creeks, Coomoo Coomoo Creek and Yarraman Creek. Where the sloping areas of the catchments meet the low-sloping areas of the plains themselves the water simply spreads out across the plain.

These farmers soon adopted changed land management practices to cope with these large, but relatively shallow and slow-moving, flows of water. Strip cropping, where the crops are planted in narrow strips at right angles to the direction of water flow, was widely adopted, followed by reduced tillage and zero tillage cropping, thereby reducing soil erosion to the minimum amount possible.

Many farmers worked closely with departmental advisers and researchers to develop these systems, which were adopted quickly by the majority of farmers on the plains. The farmers of the Liverpool Plains have a long history of protecting their most valuable asset: their land. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that when their land once again is threatened by another form of land degradation they are quick to move to control that threat. Gross margins on the plains have a much higher average than most other farming regions in Australia. I have received many emails on the subject, as have other members. I paid particular notice to one such email from the Grant family as it set the scene for the issue with which we are dealing. They point out that their dry land grain production for the past 18 months has been in excess of 15 tonnes per hectare of grain from a mixed variety of crops, with some farms in that region producing up to 20 tonnes of grain in 18 months.

This is to be compared to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics [ABARE] Australian grains report dated May 2009 showing the average Australian production on 0.9 tonnes per hectare in 2006-07 and 1.2 tonnes per hectare in 2007-08. This exemplifies the importance of the area as the premier grain producing area of Australia. Should this land be farmed for another 5,000 years—and there is no reason to suggest it cannot be farmed for that length of time—at an average yield of 10 tonnes per hectare per year, calculated on the example of 15 tonnes over the past 18 months, each hectare will have produced 50,000 tonnes of grain over that time. At today's average price of $350 per tonne for prime wheat, that equates to $17.5 million worth of food for the world per hectare from the Liverpool Plains. We should amortise the value of coal that may be produced from under those plains over the next 5,000 years and see how that stacks up. Of course, one problem is that post-mining agricultural production is an unknown factor.

I turn now to refer to some of the provisions of the bill. When Ms Lee Rhiannon concluded her second reading speech I advised her immediately of my philosophical support for the bill, but also pointed out to her some of its flaws. I shall now refer the House to those flaws. Firstly, the definition of "aquifer" is flawed as it includes any geological structure capable of being permeated with water. All geological structures are capable of being permeated with water. Some of the most valuable aquifers in the upland areas are fractured rock aquifers, with the amount of water stored in them dependent on the degree of fracturing. All soils are capable of being permeated with water. That is how rainfall enters the soil profile to allow us to grow crops. That definition alone, if agreed to, would mean that virtually all land in New South Wales would be alienated from mining.

The second flaw is the definition of "prime agricultural land", which has been discussed in depth. The term "prime agricultural land" is a relative term, not an absolute term, and it has never been defined appropriately. When I worked in the department many years ago, the term "prime agricultural land" was thrown around at every conference and meeting I attended in an attempt to get people to work out what on earth it was. It is a relative term in that what is regarded as prime agricultural land at Caroona will differ remarkably from what is regarded as prime agricultural land at Cooma or Cobar. I suggest that if you told a Cobar farmer that his land was not prime agricultural land, you would get shot to pieces. Statewide agreement has never been reached on exactly what is prime agricultural land, and in my view such agreement is unlikely ever to be reached.

The third flaw is to be found in clause 11B (3) (b), which states that an authority cannot be granted on "land on which, or within one kilometre of which, is situated a river or aquifer that feeds prime agricultural land". Does that mean the high watermark? As I said earlier, when the catchment creeks above the Liverpool Plains flood, water spreads across the plains and covers virtually all of the plains up to the foothills of the islands on the plain. If we were to restrict use to a kilometre on each side of those flooded catchment creeks, we would have virtually no capacity to do any mining, quarrying or anything else on any site. Extending the analogy further west to the Lake Cowal goldmine, the bill will prevent that mine from operating because the mine is within one kilometre of a body of water. The restriction will apply to any of the western river systems. For example, when the Darling River floods it can be between 50 kilometres and 60 kilometres wide. Therefore, if a restriction were to apply to land a further kilometre on each side of that river, essentially most areas already being mined in that region would be restricted from mining.

I commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for negotiating his way through a number of amendments, which he foreshadowed, to try to overcome some of these flaws. The first amendment he proposed will remove the flawed definition of "aquifer". I will be pleased to see that definition removed. The amendment will remove also the simplistic Department of Primary Industries definition of "prime agricultural land" to allow for a land classification system that has a far more scientific basis. While the bill leaves this aspect open, it will be subject to further review by this House when the relevant regulation comes before this Parliament. Another amendment will remove the problem associated with the one-kilometre buffer zone, and will rightly allow for proper evaluation of aquifers and geological structures essential for the supply of water to agricultural land. The final amendment will remove also the right of a third party appeal, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition explained clearly in his contribution.

If these amendments are adopted, the bill will protect the Liverpool Plains and other similar highly valuable agricultural land in New South Wales, without placing unworkable restrictions on the important mining industry in New South Wales. The Coalition's policy is that any exploration of the plains should be preceded by an independently funded, full hydro-geological study. I emphasise the words "independently funded". If that study were to show a potential for damage to aquifers in a particular area, no mining would be approved in that area. In the Minister's announcement during question time today that Mr Mal Peters will chair the study he did not mention how the study will be funded. Yesterday during question time the Minister clearly said that he would not pay for any such study. Of course, that raises the issue of probity and the independence of any results. Why would a mining company fund a study that may eventually prevent one of its projects from proceeding—unless it already knows the results of the study?

Let us examine briefly the risks of coalmining under the Liverpool Plains. As I see it, longwall mining operations under the Liverpool Plains have two potentially serious and deleterious impacts. Firstly, longwall mining removes large slabs of coal that can be hundreds of metres wide and several kilometres long. Post-mining, which can happen progressively as mining proceeds, can result in subsidence over a wide area. The degree of subsidence will not directly reflect the depth of the coal removed as much fracturing occurs, and the amount of surface settlement is a fraction of the full thickness of the coal seam removed. However, realistically, the removal of a five-metre coal seam could settle at least half a metre or more on the surface. On sloping land that is not so much a problem, as the area can drain and some minor land planing can resurrect the slope.

In the Gunnedah basin underground mining over the years has caused much subsidence already. When I worked in the department we had to address, from a soil conservation point of view, how to rehabilitate subsidence areas, particularly where farmers had paid for the installation of graded banks and waterways to protect their land from erosion. Of course, when land subsides problems result because riverbanks no longer follow the contour of the land. However, on the Liverpool Plains, a half-metre settlement would create a pond that could not drain because of the low slope of the country. For the same reason it could not be land planed. For a start, where would we get the dirt from?

To fill a hole you first have to dig a hole, and that would be absolutely ridiculous. The result would be—and members may recall that a few moments ago I referred to the plains being completely covered with water during a flood—that half a metre of subsidence would create a lake on the plains, and that could take months or perhaps years to dry up. One of the real issues that the people of the Liverpool Plains face in the event of subsidence is how they will manage the land from then on.

The second problem I foresee is that there can be no definitive assessment of what will happen to geological formations following subsidence. If relatively impermeable rock structures that may, and in some cases do, confine the aquifers on the plains are fractured as a result of subsidence, the integrity of those aquifers may be compromised and the reliable supply of irrigation water may evaporate. I know that that is another issue that the people of the Liverpool Plains are really concerned about. For those reasons, I will support the bill. I will support also the amendments that are proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [4.40 p.m.]: I oppose the bill. It is a bill that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, by his own admission, describes as imperfect. According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, the whole legislative package is imperfect, yet The Nationals and the Liberal Party are prepared to support it. Is this a sign of a government in waiting? No, it is not, and that is quite clear.

To take such radical action without full consultation with industry and affected communities shows extremely poor judgement. This nation is not in recession, and that is because of the strength of our exports, especially exports from the mineral sector, which has been demonised in this House this afternoon. The bill, which was introduced by the Greens, and amendments that are supported by The Nationals, will serve only to further erode the ability of this sector to meet our economic needs over time. Over the past three years I have been meeting stakeholders on a regular basis about the issues arising out of a grant of an exploration licence to BHP Billiton in the Gunnedah Basin. All those meetings were fruitful and productive. They are testament to the importance of all sides being willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith. The result is that the water study that was submitted to me last week, and which I referred to in question time today, will go ahead under the chairmanship of Mr Mal Peters.

This is a bill that trades on fear and innuendo. It is a bill that attempts to cash in on the myth that farming and mining cannot coexist in this State. Today we have witnessed the absolute demonising of the mining industry by a number of members who participated in the debate. That is very regrettable indeed, basically because the long-term future of farming and mining and of regional communities can be assured only if we find ways of working together—not by one side demonising the other side, exaggerating the potential consequences, and denying that very thorough processes are in place to assess each and every issue that has been raised by every speaker in today's debate.

Over time processes have been informed by both the Coalition, when it was in government, and by Labor in government. They do not constitute a procedure that has been conjured out of thin air. The procedure is very detailed and requires something like 40 to 45 major studies to be conducted by a proponent—any proponent. That the Greens are now trying to cast themselves as the defenders of farmers is nothing short of reprehensible. It was not long ago that Greens members of the House were calling farmers criminals—all because farmers wanted to clear woody weeds off their own lands. How quickly things change! So for the benefit of the Greens and their friends The Nationals and those who are not aware of the Greens history I will take some time to inject reality into this debate. This will show what the Greens really think about farmers. In this House on 6 May 2005, Mr Ian Cohen stated:

The Greens do not support intensive farming practices, and would like to see this form of farming phased out.

This of course would mean the end of feedlot, pork, dairy and poultry industry activities.

Those industries would be eliminated in regional New South Wales.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: No. He said they would be phased out.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In the end, "phased out" means finished. Again in this House, on 14 November 2007 Mr Ian Cohen stated:

People and the health of rivers must be put ahead of the profits of agribusinesses … Crops such as cotton and rice are too water intensive …

His comments imply that those industries would join the list of intensive industries that will be put out of business. I might add that those industries are worth in the order of $2 billion to the New South Wales economy each year. I remind Mr Ian Cohen that farm businesses of all sizes feed our nation and other countries across the world. How about Ms Lee Rhiannon's call for extra taxation on farmers in the Greens e-brief on 27 March 2005? She said:

The Greens were unsuccessful in attempting to retain the existing land tax rates and arrangements for wealthy landowners …

The use of the term "wealthy landowners" demonises successful farmers. But I think the clearest picture of the Greens attitude towards rural communities can be found in their own policies, which are stated on the Greens website. I suggest that people have a look at them to inform themselves of what we are dealing with in this context. I will summarise the policies. Farmers would be horrified if they read Greens policies. They hit hard at the heart of water availability for agricultural production. They would hit intensive farming systems hard and would put an end to furrow irrigation practices in the Namoi. They would make farmers pay for the capital costs of major dams, and end irrigation during low-flow periods. That would destroy another category of agriculture in our country—horticulture.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you not doing a country land buyback?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not talking about country land buyback. Horticulture requires water for permanent plantings in low-flow periods—in other words, summer. I do not know what would happen to the Riverina if the Greens policies were enacted. The Greens policies are clear-cut, and I think the Greens are probably proud of them. And what would New South Wales receive in exchange? If Greens policies were enacted, we would receive a loss of jobs, broken communities and wasted export opportunities. This bill aims to prevent mining on protected land, which is defined as prime agricultural land, or class 1 and class 2 land. I am pleased that the Hon. Rick Colless made such an important contribution when he said, "That's like saying, 'How long is a piece of string?'" What are the definitional criteria that a Minister, if we accept the amendments moved by The Nationals, would have to use to work out what that is over the next year? What an absolutely incredible contribution.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We were obviously giving you too much credit.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Rick Colless knows it cannot be done.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have sat here and listened to everyone without interjecting, so the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should give me a bit of a go. This bill would effectively end mining in the State by providing for huge buffer zones. I am interested to see which way the Greens vote when it comes to the issue of buffers. What Ms Lee Rhiannon is intending to do today will end the Greens policy for one kilometre of land each side of a stream. I am looking forward to that vote.

In essence, this provision will devastate the entire mining industry and seriously harm the economic fortunes of regional New South Wales. The Hunter and Gunnedah regions are perfect examples. As has been pointed out, mining in those two regions employs more than 8,700 people directly, and the multiplier employment effect is in the order of 3.5 per cent. The Opposition should work that out. It represents a lot of jobs for a lot of people.

Both the amendments and the bill could also jeopardise immediately at least 2,500 future direct employment opportunities in the region, if the amended bill satisfies rigorous environmental analysis. If the mining applications are approved and the mines go ahead, the combined Caroona and Watermark projects could generate over the life of the mines for the State royalty revenue exceeding $8 billion based on current values. Both projects are worth approximately $230 billion to our economy. However, we should remember that a rigorous, transparent and comprehensive approvals process is mandatory before any mining lease is granted. To make the position very clear, I also point out that the Charles Sturt University conducted a large study and found that local government areas with significant mining activity have an income across all individuals that is $7,000 above incomes in local government areas that do not have a mining sector.

We must remember that in many areas experiencing drought, it has been the mining sector that has employed the sons and daughters of the bush and has kept the farms working throughout the drought period. I know that to be fact because I have spoken with many farmers in the Orange area who have survived the drought by working at Cadia—a mine that is attacked regularly by the Greens. We must remember that both mining and agriculture have made huge contributions to the economic future of this State. Agriculture alone is worth $5.6 billion, and it is estimated that mining will contribute $13.4 billion to the State's economy this year. These are significant figures and they must be protected. The Government is not about not protecting agricultural land and it is not about destroying aquifers or anything else.

For instance, the Hon. Trevor Khan, in his contribution, mentioned the southern coalfields water study—yes, we did a study on longwall mining there—but he did not mention what it found. The comprehensive study, done with agreed experts, found that longwall mining can be managed environmentally and that the Mining Act and the four other Acts that inform the situation in this State, acting together, can protect the environment and minimise harm. The member did not mention that tail in his contribution. Given a chance, and leaving aside the rhetoric that people will bring to it, the water study will be able to ascertain the limitations to land usage in that area.

As I said, the mining industry contributes significant royalties directly to the State, and those royalties go towards building public housing, hospitals and schools. Last time I looked, the Greens supported that; obviously they are not rejecting that revenue for the State. Mining has been particularly important for regional New South Wales as the State continues to endure the worst drought in history, and it will continue to play a vital role in regional economies in the current economic situation. Any proposal to ban mining from agricultural lands would have significant impacts on regional investment and jobs. As for defining those lands, I have seen some of the maps, and some of the proposed mine areas within that region are classified well below that of prime agricultural land, so pinning hopes on that—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is the definition that you said was undefinable.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not believe it can be defined, but I have seen maps that suggest that it can—such maps have been produced in the past. The Greens do not seem to understand that mining is responsible for the building blocks of everyday life. We forget that it is used in agricultural machinery, fuel, power transmission, transport and rail lines through to the most basic of kitchen and homewares. We cannot live without the fruits of mining. We must have, and continue to have, mining, but it must be done in a proper way.

The Hon. Rick Colless: We still need agriculture.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Of course we still need agriculture. Yet The Nationals are prepared to support an extreme bill that creates disharmony between farmers and miners and seeks to destroy an industry that supports many regional communities. People are being warned that this bill will devastate the industry—that can be found in correspondence. I turn to the environment. Despite the size of the mining industry, the diversity of minerals and the location of resources, mining operations are conducted on less than half of 1 per cent of the total land area of New South Wales. Mining uses approximately 60 gigalitres of water—a tiny fraction of the 6,000 gigalitres allocated for consumptive purposes in our State. About 1 per cent of water is allocated to mining. We should get a few things in perspective. Mining does not use massive amounts of water, as some people have suggested. So much for this affecting agricultural production!

The Greens water policy would have a bigger impact on agriculture than mining proposals do in this State. We are well aware that, while the area of activity might be small, mining can require the intense use of land, even although for a limited time. But mining and agriculture can and must co-exist. This Government recognises that it is vital to protect agricultural land and water during and after mining operations. Because of this intensity of land use, one of our most important responsibilities is to regulate mining in such a way as to minimise environmental impacts. This means encouraging mining methods that have the least impact on the environment. The Hon. Rick Colless, in his contribution, mentioned the deep black soil of the Liverpool Plains. I do not know of any proposal to mine under those plains. Indeed, I think the proponents have said publicly that they will not be mining under those plains.

The Government has developed rigorous environmental management standards for the mining industry. There is a strong legislative framework in place to ensure that the impacts of mining activities on the environment are minimised. That is another mistake that people make when dealing with this issue. I do not have the responsibility to deal with either a development application or the granting of a development application; that is the responsibility of the Minister of Planning. As such, my role in relation to this issue effectively ended when the licence was granted. From now on it is a planning matter, working out the date to deal with it in a proper way under the planning instruments of this State.

The legislative framework for the environment is made up of five main Acts: the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Mining Act, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the Water Management Act and the Water Act 1912. Together these Acts provide a comprehensive framework for the management of the impacts of mining on the environment. They do that now. The five Acts work to protect the mining environment in different ways. Time does not permit me to deal with each one in detail. In this process, all relevant values will be assessed to achieve an appropriate balance between mineral development values, agricultural values and environmental values. All proposals, from very small projects to multimillion- dollar projects, are assessed through this framework.

The Minister for Planning is the approval authority for all coalmining projects and major mining proposals, while local councils and shires are the consent authorities for other mining projects. If a project is approved under any of these processes, conditions can be imposed on the project to ensure that the environment is protected. The operation of this legislation gives us great coverage now, and agricultural land is considered within that framework. Make no mistake, this bill will destroy mining in New South Wales. The $14 billion that mining contributes to New South Wales would be lost, thousands of jobs could be lost and billions of dollars in royalties could be gone. That is because the bill will prohibit mining approvals within one kilometre of water sources, and it will ban mining on class 1 and class 2 agricultural lands, the cost of which will sterilise massive volumes of coal.

I am interested to hear what the Leader of the Opposition in the other place will have to say about this policy, and what he will say to the many stakeholders who visit him. The proposed amendments by The Nationals would make things worse. They would increase the uncertainty surrounding the process of assessing mining proposals in a proper and effective way. Instead of referring to a one-kilometre buffer, the proposed amendments refer to "land as is defined in accordance with the regulations as land that is critical for the supply of water to prime agricultural land". Try to work that out! I am sure that even the Hon. Trevor Khan, who is one of the brilliant lawyers in this Parliament, would struggle to work out what that means. And he knows it! Also, large areas of the State could be sterilised, depending on the regulations adopted by the Minister of the day. This bill gives the Minister a lot more power, and that would constitute a massive sovereign risk for mines in this State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It would if you take our amendments on board.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am talking about your amendments. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not listening to me. Also, at least "aquifer" has a defined meaning in the original wording of the bill. Reliable, transparent processes are out and discretion and uncertainty are in. That is the proposed amendments in a nutshell. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been jammed so hard at one end that he is screaming at the other end. He cannot work out which way to go on this bill. On one hand he has been pressured by those who have taken a rather strident attitude towards this issue and who have not participated in consultations and the process of working through the issues together.

He has also been pressured by organisations that have other reasons to push a difficult process. The consequence is that he recognises it is imperfect but he wants to go with it at this point because of those political pressures. This is not the way to govern in this instance. We need to take a rational approach and work through this system cooperatively with farmers in line with our environmental and planning legislation, and allow the water study to address some of the other issues before we proceed.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Like you've done!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not forced anything. I have been discussing the issues cooperatively with everyone. I note that throughout this debate the Shooters Party has been very clear: it wants to look at the potential for some form of a proper bill. In due course the Government will cooperate in discussions with the Shooters Party. It is sensible that the bill and the amendments be thrown out. They are too destructive to this State. They undermine this State and in the end they will undermine regional communities dramatically by reducing their gross product.

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

The House continued to sit.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 and Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.02 p.m.], in reply: On behalf of the Greens I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009. While many members presented extreme comments that distorted the intent of the bill I believe this has been a useful debate, one that has clearly put on the agenda the need for the protection of prime agricultural land. I pay tribute to the hundreds of farmers and their supporters who have gathered at Parliament House today. This issue is now well and truly before the Government and the Opposition, and it is clear that something has to be done, despite the distortions and untruths that have been told by a number of speakers. It is disappointing that some members, in particular Mick Veitch, Christine Robertson, Robert Brown, Fred Nile and Ian Macdonald could barely acknowledge the principle behind the bill: we should not sacrifice our prime food producing land for the sake of short-term mining interests.

The Hon. Robert Brown: You didn't listen to my speech.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I most definitely listened to Mr Brown's speech. He distorted the intent of this bill, the work of the Greens and the interests of farming communities time and time again. He has shot himself in the foot so well, and it is in Hansard for everybody far and wide to read. The Minister and other Government speakers have said that this bill is unnecessary. Once again the Minister used his favourite words, "rigorous" and "rigour" being applied to the process to determine mining in this State. He said that mining is already subject to extensive approvals and ongoing environmental assessment. How many times have we heard that? Our colleagues in the Chamber and in the public gallery know the reality: there is no protection and that is why some form of legislative change is required.

Mr Mick Veitch said that the Government already had excellent legislation and processes. Once exploration for coalmining starts it is the first stage in full-scale mining, yet the protection for prime agricultural land, which is our responsibility, is not in place. So many examples have shown that the protection should be in legislation. The current planning and assessment process is clearly not working. Both Mr Veitch and the Minister sang the praises of BHP Billiton at Liverpool Plains and said that BHP Billiton is not going to mine under that incredibly valuable land. I will set the record straight: on 28 May on ABC New England, Phil Clark, Vice President of Resource Development for BHP Billiton, admitted that if the technology improved then BHP Billiton may consider mining under the aquifers. It is little wonder that the assurances of BHP Billiton do not hold much weight for the local farming community, particularly when the Minister sings the praises and does the work of BHP Billiton, and says everything is okay and that mining will not go ahead.

Mr Veitch also referred to the Southern Coalfields Mining Inquiry. The New South Wales Government should not hide behind the so-called independence of that inquiry. Professor Bruce Hebblewhite, chair of the inquiry, has a close working relationship with mining companies and last year worked with representatives from mining companies, including Rio Tinto, Orica and Xstrata on an international future mining conference. I have put that on the record because it shows the deception of members against this bill. Time and time again they have attempted to distort the true intent of the legislation.

I welcome the support of The Nationals for the bill. I have worked closely with Mr Gay and the New South Wales Farmers Association on the final stages of the bill. On a day when we are hopefully working towards bipartisan support of an important principle, I put on the record that I was disappointed when Mr Gay could not resist drawing out and exaggerating some of the differences between The Nationals and the Greens. I thought we had quite a good working relationship on this legislation.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is a working relationship, but we are different in lots of ways.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, of course, we always acknowledge that but it was petty, and matters were exaggerated. The Greens agree that the definition of "prime agricultural land" presents many challenges. It was incredibly difficult for the Greens to draw up this bill. We wrestled with how to define "prime agricultural land". It is disappointing there is no clear and comprehensive system of identifying and mapping agricultural land in New South Wales. I have had useful discussions with Mr Gay and the New South Wales Farmers Association in relation to that aspect of the bill. The Greens did not pluck the definition of "prime agricultural land" out of the air. Prior to the drafting of the bill, we consulted with the New South Wales Farmers Association about the definition and sent it our proposed definition before the bill was introduced. We also consulted with farming communities on the Liverpool Plains, councillors throughout New South Wales, and people in western New South Wales and in the Riverina. In the end the bill was drafted using the land classification system that the Government uses.

It was interesting that the Minister went into a tirade about our definition, but we used the Government's own land classification system. We have certainly become aware of the problem with that system that needs to be improved. It is clear that the Government's current land classification system is sorely lacking. For reasons unknown, the Government does not want the land classification system on the public record. If the Minister had any decency he would do that. The Minister makes out that he is doing his job properly, but he will not put the system on the record. The website of the Department of Primary Industries clearly states that the department prepares land classification maps for local councils but, despite extensive research, including approaching local councillors, these maps remain elusive. The Greens have been clear all along that we are willing to negotiate support for the bill. We have heard from the speakers for the Government, the lone Christian Democratic Party member and the Shooters Party that this bill probably will be lost by one vote. But some very important matters have been put on the record: the need for protections to be put in place and also the tactics used by those opposing it.

Most members in this debate indicated that they support the principle of the bill. That supporting principle should be translated into a vote for the bill. Any obstacle about a definition of agricultural land has been removed but, as can be gleaned from the speeches of some members, it seems that the vote will be lost. I emphasise that the bill is not just a State matter. My colleague in the Federal Parliament, Bob Brown, spoke about this issue yesterday and called on The Nationals to back the bill. I am pleased that that has played out. I acknowledge the work of Tony Windsor, the Federal member for New England, through the Federal Parliament on recognising the need to get that protection in law.

In the face of climate change and a chorus of predictions about a worldwide food security crisis, we must act to protect our best food-producing lands. With the impact of climate change predicted to become more severe, surely that should be a government priority. The object of the bill is essentially to quarantine from mining the best food-producing land in New South Wales and the water sources that feed that land. The bill applies to mining exploration licences and mining operations. We were always clear about that. The bill is not about shutting down the industry. Nothing in the bill can be described as attempting to shut down the industry. The bill is about balance. The bill is not about destroying the economy. If we do not protect prime agricultural land the economy will be destroyed, and jobs will be lost.

The bill is about bringing back balance, something that has been lost. Under both successive Labor and Coalition governments in the past two decades, the mining industry has got what it wants. If it wants more infrastructure to get its minerals, particularly coal, to port more quickly that is delivered. The subsidies are massive; they run into billions of dollars. The bill is purely about safeguarding a small area of land in New South Wales for prime agricultural purposes. That is all it seeks to do. No member who undertook a dirty scare campaign can point to anything in the bill that seeks to do anything else.

The bill is not an ambit claim; it is commonsense. It was developed in close consultation with many of the people who are present in the gallery today; people who work hard, people whom the Christian Democratic Party, the Shooters Party and the Government claim they work with and respect. Members certainly did not show that respect today.

Some issues raised by members who spoke in opposition to the bill were extreme, and I will address some of them. The language was certainly excessive. The scare tactics included words such as "demonise", "hoax", "disharmony" and "duped". At times when Minister Macdonald spoke I felt that I was listening to his job application for the New South Wales Minerals Council, or maybe the Australian Minerals Council, because they are all in collaboration for whatever tactical reason. The Minister has taken a leaf out of Nicky Williams' book on how to say whatever it takes to win a point: truth does not come into the equation when it comes to how Minister Macdonald conducts himself.

The extreme issues included the Minister saying that the bill would result in farming and mining not being able to coexist. Again, that is just ridiculous. The bill is all about protecting prime agricultural land; it is not about closing down the industry in any way. The Minister said that we should find a way for mining and farming to work together. Again, that is precisely why the bill was introduced, because that is not happening at the moment in New South Wales. We need legislation to get that balance so that mining and farming can exist together, something that is not being achieved at the moment.

The Minister also made his usual comments about water. He tried to say that mining is such an innocent party and really does not use much water at all: it is really not a problem. Again, he has fiddled the facts, as he does time and time again. Yet, when one looks across New South Wales and Australia, figures can be interpreted to say anything: mining is not a huge water user. But, we have to look at specific areas. Clearly, Liverpool Plains is one affected area and that is why the water study was needed so urgently. I congratulate everyone who worked so hard to push the Minister to state his position on that today.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I set it up.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection. The Minister always likes to take credit for everything. I will let him get his comment on the record. The mining industry is an excessive water user. Again, the bill is not about shutting down the mining industry; but it is a heavy water user, to the point that in many parts of western New South Wales cities are doing it tough because local mines take a lot of water. In 2007, the city of Orange was asked to put itself on water restrictions in order to supply the local goldmine with water. That sacrifice was made. The underground water level near Barrack Gold's Lake Cowal goldmine has fallen to 35 metres in 2½ years. Farmers in that area have water shortages because of the water taken out of the area.

Another area that reminds us of the damage caused by longwall coalmining to water systems—and this is interesting information in the light of longwall coalmining that is proposed for Liverpool Plains—is the area around the Georges River south of Sydney where longwall coalmining has broken and cracked the sedimentary layers. Huge amounts of water have been lost.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: That is not right. What is the evidence?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Minister, did you say that that is not true?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Yes. It is untrue.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: What do you want to say?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I am saying that that is totally untrue. Go and read the water study.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister. Each day the equivalent of an Olympic-size swimming pool is pumped from the Cataract River into the upper Georges River to restore its flow because so much water has been lost through the cracked river bed. The Minister is shaking his head. That is extraordinary! That situation has been filmed, documented and debated.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: There is a drought on, Lee.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Come on, Minister. You are digging yourself further and further into it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will address her remarks through the Chair.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, Minister, for putting your deceptive comments again into Hansard. BHP Billiton uses an unsubstantiated amount of water to dilute mine pumping into the Georges River, believed to be in the order of two million litres a day. I have placed that on the record because it is a very different area from Liverpool Plains and Gloucester, but it establishes what happens with longwall coalmining. The comments of Reverend Fred Nile and Robert Brown were so extreme that they have exposed themselves, through their own desperation, to oppose the Greens. They attempted to distort the true intent of the bill.

The contributions of Reverend Fred Nile and Mr Brown are recorded in Hansard for all to read. They are descriptive of how the Christian Democrat Party and the Shooters Party operate. The Greens have not misled people by saying that, if passed, the bill would become law and save their land. The bill is part of a long process, and members know that it would have to go to the lower House. That was just a ridiculous scare tactic. Mr Brown did a masterful job, as I said, in shooting himself in the foot in his desperation to insult the Greens. His extreme language held up a mirror to his desperation, because the Greens are working with farming communities. Of course we do not agree on everything; no-one agrees on everything. But where there is common purpose the Greens are ready to work together, as we have cooperated on rural rail branch lines and many transport issues and farming.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Bridges?

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Native vegetation and native species legislation?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. Farmers actually stand for us in elections, and stand proudly on our policies. That cooperation is nothing new. Mr Brown lied about the Greens' position and what Dr Kaye and I said in debate. Mr Brown lied about the Greens' position on mining, as he lies about the Greens' position on firearms. We are not calling—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: We have all been listening very carefully to the contribution by Ms Lee Rhiannon but to call the honourable member a liar—

Dr John Kaye: She didn't do that.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: She did. She said he lied. That is completely out of order and that statement should be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While the language is clearly unparliamentary, previous Presidents have consistently ruled that objection must be taken by the member at whom the remark is directed. There is no point of order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We are not calling for the coal industry to be shut down, just as we are not trying to ban all firearms. We are calling for balance between mining and farming. Successive Federal and State governments have failed to achieve this. We are faced with an interesting situation. We have heard many fine words from members of other parties about the need for farming in this State, and many have spoken about the need for protection. I challenge all members to bring forward that protection. Nobody has acted on this yet. The call for protection has been around for a long time. It is not as if the Greens suddenly thought of this. We acknowledge that. We have been lobbied, as have all members, and we acted on it. I believe the challenge is well and truly before all members to provide this protection for prime agricultural land.

A lot of fine words have been spoken, but there has been a failure to come forward with a commitment to go into Committee and debate the bill to produce solutions that would have moved matters forward. It would not have produced a result here because regulations would have to be created and the definition of "prime agricultural land" would have to be worked on. We had a way to move forward but it has been blocked because—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We were going to ask the Minister to be part of the solution.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. I acknowledge that interjection. We had a way forward and because of narrow sectional politics involving the Christian Democratic Party, the Shooters Party and the Government, what we were about to achieve looks as though it will be lost, probably by one vote. That is tragic. The fight is certainly not over. The campaign continues. The farmers I met today and their supporters, including many people from Sydney, are really inspired and know something has to change. That work will continue.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not read a second time.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio tabled, on behalf of the Chair, a report entitled "Annual Review 2007-2008", dated 4 June 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.30 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 16 June 2009 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled, pursuant to the Law Reform Commission Act 1967, the following reports of the Law Reform Commission:

Report No. 96 entitled "Sentencing: Aboriginal Offenders", dated October 2000
Report No. 102 entitled "Sentencing: Corporate Offenders", dated June 2003
Report No. 113 entitled "Relationships", dated June 2006
Report No. 116 entitled "Uniform Succession Laws: Intestacy", dated April 2007
Report No. 117 entitled "Jury Selection", dated September 2007.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.32 p.m.]: These reports have all been published previously by the Law Reform Commission and are publicly available on the website of the commission. Pursuant to section 13 (7) of the Law Reform Commission Act 1967 the publication of these reports with the consent in writing of the Attorney General means that they are deemed to have been published under the authority of either House of Parliament. There has been significant discussion of these reports already and in some cases the recommendations have been implemented through legislative action or by other means. However, for the sake of completeness I have tabled those reports today.

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Coroners Bill 2009. Coroners perform a unique and vital role within the legal system. They are responsible for ensuring that deaths arising in suspicious, violent, unnatural and unknown circumstances are properly investigated. They also have authority to investigate the cause and origins of fires and explosions. Unlike most other judicial proceedings, which are adversarial in nature, coroners conduct inquisitorial proceedings in which they are responsible for directing medical and police investigations and gathering evidence. In relation to deaths, the objective of coronial investigations is to reveal the circumstances surrounding the death, including the identity of the deceased, the time and date of death, and the cause and manner of death.

Coronial inquests and inquiries can uncover evidence of criminal conduct and can result in coronial recommendations and improved public health and safety. Coroners assist grieving families by providing them with an understanding of the circumstances in which a loved one died. The office of coroner has a history that dates back to the twelfth century in England. The office was inherited as part of the common law of the colony of New South Wales. Legislation was passed in New South Wales to consolidate the powers of coroners in 1912. This Act was superseded by a new Act in 1960 and this, in turn, was replaced by the current Act, which came into being in 1980. Over the past 29 years the current Act has been the subject of numerous developments, including the creation of the office of State Coroner in 1988 and assistant coroners. It is timely then to take the opportunity to rewrite the Act and provide a modern and cohesive legislative framework to support coroners.

The new bill also contains a number of reforms that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the coronial jurisdiction. These reforms emanate from a review undertaken by the Attorney General's Department in consultation with the State Coroner and the Chief Magistrate. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the State Coroner and the Chief Magistrate for their assistance in developing this bill and the reforms contained within it. Consultation was also undertaken with the following stakeholders: the Royal College of Forensic Pathologists of Australasia, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, the New South Wales Police Force, NSW Health, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, the New South Wales Council on the Ageing, the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, the New South Wales Society of Jewish Jurists and Lawyers, the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, the New South Wales Council for Pacific Communities, the Nan Tien Temple, the Buddhist Council of New South Wales and the Homicide Victims Support Group.

I would like to thank all those groups for the feedback and assistance they have provided in helping the Government to develop this bill. In particular, I would like to extend my thanks to Dr Tamsin Waterhouse and Dr Joe Duflou who met with me on several occasions on behalf of the Royal College of Pathologists to discuss the bill. Pathologists are at the front line of delivering coronial services in this State and they perform their difficult and important work with passion and dedication. Through my discussions with Dr Waterhouse and Dr Duflou we were able to make several important changes to the bill to strike an appropriate balance in ensuring that deaths reported to the Coroner are investigated both thoroughly and in a timely matter. However, I appreciate that some reforms in this bill represent a change in the way that deaths are reported to and investigated by the Coroner.

I would like to thank the college for its openness in accepting these reforms and for its willingness to work with the State Coroner to ensure that these reforms do not unnecessarily impact on the quality of coronial services in this State. I again extend to the college, as I have already done in our meetings, an open invitation to bring concerns or issues that may arise in the implementation of the Coroners Act to my attention. The reforms in this bill broadly deal with four areas of coronial law: governance structure of the coronial jurisdiction; the categories of death that are within the jurisdiction of coroners; the conduct of post-mortems; and the case management of coronial proceedings.

I will deal with the first of these changes to the governance structure. The most significant change in this area is that clause 12 provides that only magistrates and Australian lawyers will be eligible for appointment as coroners under the new Act. The role of the coroner is complex and demanding. Coroners are required to oversee investigations and assess whether evidence might be sufficient to warrant the referral of a matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for serious criminal charges to be laid. Coroners review the conduct of individuals, companies and government agencies to ensure that there are no systemic failures that contributed to a person's death.

Magistrates and lawyers have the legal skill and knowledge to assess these evidentiary issues. Historically, registrars of the Local Court in country areas were appointed as coroners. Registrars may not necessarily have legal qualifications or the capacity to deal with more complex cases in conjunction with their normal duties. In recent years inquests and inquiries have been conducted almost exclusively by magistrates and registrar coroners have dealt with less complex matters where an inquest or inquiry is dispensed with. Accordingly, the change in eligibility for appointment will not substantially affect the workloads of magistrates. The reform will enhance the role of coroner and ensure that only legally trained officers with the requisite professional skill are called upon to perform the role.

Under the savings provisions registrar coroners who are not Australian lawyers will be reappointed as assistant coroners. This change to the eligibility for appointment is consistent with coronial practice in other States and territories and will promote a professional and high-quality coronial service. The hierarchy of the coronial jurisdiction also has been amended. At present, the State Coroner is supported by a Senior Deputy State Coroner, up to four Deputy State Coroners, as well as coroners and assistant coroners. The coronial jurisdiction operates within the framework of the Local Court and is overseen by the Chief Magistrate. This complex structure has been streamlined by abolishing the position of Senior Deputy State Coroner. Currently no magistrate is appointed to this position.

The State Coroner will be supported by Deputy State Coroners and one of the Deputy State Coroners may be appointed to relieve the State Coroner during any period of temporary leave or vacancy. The structure has been made more flexible also by removing the restriction on the number of Deputy State Coroners that may be appointed. The Act originally allowed for two Deputy State Coroners and subsequently this was increased by legislative amendment to three and then four. Although there is no plan to appoint additional Deputy State Coroners at this time, it is cumbersome and unnecessary to continually require legislative amendment to alter the number of Deputy State Coroners that may be appointed. The process is not conducive to responsive coronial services. The number of Deputy State Coroners should be determined by reference to workloads. I have undertaken to consult with the Minister for Police about any proposal to increase the number of appointments that might impact on coronial support services provided by police.

Clause 7 makes it clear that the State Coroner operates under the supervision of the Chief Magistrate and is deemed to have the status of a Deputy Chief Magistrate. The State Coroner is a magistrate of the Local Court. It is incongruous that the State Coroner potentially could give directions to coroners, including to the Chief Magistrate in his capacity as a coroner, when the State Coroner is subordinate to the Chief Magistrate. The second area of reform relates to the jurisdiction of coroners. The Coroners Act 1980 provides that coroners have jurisdiction to investigate violent, sudden or unnatural deaths, or deaths where the cause appears to be unknown. Currently the coroner has jurisdiction to investigate deaths that occur either during or within 24 hours of the administration of an anaesthetic, or if a death occurs within a year and a day of an accident. The State Coroner and Deputy State Coroners also have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate deaths occurring in custody or during police operations, deaths of children possibly subject to abuse or neglect, or deaths of disabled persons in care within the meaning of the Disability Services Act 1993.

The jurisdiction of the coroner generally captures deaths that are either suspicious or where the circumstances surrounding the death are unclear. An examination of the categories of reportable deaths identified areas where the jurisdiction needed refinement to ensure that matters were not reported to the coroner unless there were unresolved issues that needed investigation. Close to 95 per cent of all deaths in New South Wales are from natural causes. Every year around 6,000 deaths are reported to the coroner. Based on information available from the National Coronial Information System, typically more than half these deaths are due to natural causes. It is the Government's view that in most cases grieving families should not have to await the outcome of coronial processes where the cause of their loved one's death is known or apparent. At the very least, those family members should be able to have a greater say, in appropriate circumstances, as to whether or not the precise cause of death needs to be ascertained where it is apparent that a person died from natural causes.

Furthermore, coroners and medical investigators should be able to focus their attention on cases where a person dies of unknown causes or in suspicious or violent circumstances. Therefore, the bill includes a number of changes to prevent non-suspicious natural deaths from being unnecessarily reported to coroners. A number of these reforms also bring New South Wales into line with other jurisdictions in Australia. Chapter 3 of the bill outlines the jurisdiction of coroners. It largely restates the current jurisdictional requirements with some modification. Coroners have jurisdiction to investigate reportable deaths that are defined in clause 6 of the bill. It is worth noting that clause 20 now makes it clear that the jurisdiction of coroners is not dependent on the death being formally reported to the coroner and jurisdiction may be seized whenever the coroner becomes aware of a reportable death. The requirement to report a death that occurs during or within 24 hours of the administration of an anaesthetic has been replaced with a more general category of health-related deaths.

The New South Wales Regional Committee of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists suggested this change due to concerns that the current reporting criteria causes confusion when a sedative is used instead of an anaesthetic. The requirement to report anaesthetic-related deaths to the coroner also may lead to confusion when anaesthesia is not a contributory factor to the cause of death. The arbitrary time frame of 24 hours means that the decision to report a death to a coroner often is based on the timing of death rather than any concerns regarding the medical treatment provided. In view of these concerns, the category of reportable deaths has been changed to require deaths to be reported to a coroner if the death is not the reasonably expected outcome of a health-related procedure. This category more accurately identifies deaths arising from medical misadventure.

The term "health-related procedure" has been defined to mean a medical, surgical, dental or other health-related procedure including the administration of an anaesthetic, sedative or other drug. The definition also expressly excludes, by regulation, certain health procedures that are undertaken in response to impending death, for example, cardiac resuscitation and palliative care measures, to ensure that matters are not unnecessarily reported to the coroner. The category of health-related procedure deaths is consistent with the approach taken in the coronial jurisdictions of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Section 14C of the Coroners Act 1980 provides that an inquest must be held if a death occurs during or within 24 hours of the administration of an anaesthetic and an interested person requests, within 28 days of the death, that an inquest hearing be held. No other State mandates inquest hearings in relation to anaesthetic or health-related deaths.

In the majority of cases the decision to hold an inquest hearing will be determined by the coroner after the conclusion of the investigation and having regard to the information available and the wishes of the family. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to mandate the holding of an inquest in these cases, particularly when there may be no concerns regarding the medical treatment that was provided. The new bill omits the reference to mandatory inquests in these circumstances and allows a coroner to determine whether or not an inquest is desirable. Medical practitioners may issue death certificates if a death is not reportable to a coroner and they are satisfied that the cause of death is known. Currently a death certificate may be issued only if the medical practitioner has attended the person during the previous three months prior to the death.

The current three-month period is restrictive where a medical practitioner may have been treating the person for a known health problem and may have an opinion on the cause of death. New South Wales is currently one of only two jurisdictions that still mandates a coroner referral where a medical practitioner had not attended the deceased in the three months prior to death. The underlying principle of the Coroners Bill is that coroners and investigating medical officers should be able to focus their attention on those cases where a person dies of unknown causes or in suspicious or violent circumstances. The current restriction means deaths are reported to the coroner where the person died from known and non-suspicious natural causes. This provides no tangible benefit to the family of the deceased or to the wider community.

New South Wales Health has advised that the majority of prescriptions for chronic, managed conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease, are written for a six-month period, and a patient may not need to consult their medical practitioner between prescriptions. Six months is therefore a more logical period in which a medical practitioner must have seen a deceased person prior to their death in order to issue a death certificate. It also better reflects current medical practice. Clause 6 of the bill therefore extends the period in which the medical practitioner attended the person from three to six months.

The bill omits the requirement in the current Coroners Act 1980 that a death be reported to a coroner if the person died within a year and a day after the date of any accident to which the cause of death is attributed. This provision was based on an antiquated legal rule that a person could be held responsible for the death of a person only if the death occurred within a year and a day of the incident. The rule has its origin at the beginning of the last century in response to limitations in medical science in identifying a connection between the medical cause of death and an event occurring at a much earlier time. The rule was abolished as part of the criminal law in 1991 by section 17A of the Crimes Act 1900.

The bill makes it clear that the Coroner has jurisdiction to investigate deaths caused by accidents or criminal conduct, no matter when death actually occurs. This approach is consistent with coronial law in all other States and territories. Clause 38 relates to the exception to the requirement to report deaths to the coroner when an elderly person dies as a result of an accidental fall, which is an accident attributable to the age of that person and not due to an act or omission by another person. One of the underlying principles of this bill is that Coroners and investigating medical officers should be able to focus their attention on those cases in which a person dies of unknown causes or in suspicious or violent circumstances.

It is an unfortunate reality that accidental falls are common among older people and often result in fractures or other serious injuries that require hospitalisation. In many instances an accidental fall may result in complications, such as pneumonia. It is estimated that each year in Australia more than 1,000 people over the age of 65 die from complications caused by a fall. The current Coroners Act provides that these deaths need not be reported to a coroner if the person was aged more than 65 years and died after sustaining an injury from an accident, which was an accident that was attributable to the age of that person, contributed substantially to the death of the person, and was not caused by an act or omission by any other person. There is currently an exception to this provision if the person died in a hospital or nursing home.

The requirement to report a death to a coroner in such circumstances and when there are no apparent concerns unnecessarily can cause further distress to family members who may not understand why the death needs to be reported and who may assume that something of which they were not aware previously is suspicious and requires the death to be reported to the coroner. The bill therefore alters the requirement to provide that such deaths need not be reported to a coroner, unless a relative objects to a medical practitioner issuing a death certificate. If an objection is raised, the medical practitioner will be obliged to report the death to a coroner. This will ensure that if the family of the deceased person has any concerns that the accidental fall should have been prevented, or that it was caused by the act or omission of another person, a coroner will be able to investigate those concerns. The bill increases the age group to which this exception applies from 65 years or more to 72 years or more to reflect the improved health standards since the introduction of this provision.

It is important to note once again that the Government has consulted widely in developing this bill, including consultation with the New South Wales Council on the Ageing, COTA, which is the peak body for older persons in New South Wales and draws its membership from seniors clubs and groups, service providers, and older individuals. COTA's legal response group has examined in detail the provisions of this bill. They have indicated their support for the various reforms it provides, including the changes in clause 38.

I will now turn to reforms relating to the conduct of post-mortem examinations. As I indicated earlier, typically more than half of the deaths reported to Coroners prove to be due to natural causes. Each year Coroners in New South Wales order post-mortems to be conducted in approximately 5,000 cases. The caseloads of Coroners have a direct impact on the workloads of forensic pathologists. While post-mortems are often necessary, they can also often be a source of distress to families as they may offend religious, cultural and personal beliefs or cause delay in finalising investigations. The bill therefore includes a number of reforms to protect the dignity of deceased persons, involve family members in decisions about post-mortem investigations and ensure that such investigations are completed in a timely manner.

One of the objectives of the reforms in this bill is to ensure that post-mortems are not undertaken unless it is necessary to establish the identity, time of death, or cause and manner of death. This is consistent with the principle enshrined in clause 88—that the dignity of the deceased person is to be respected. Under section 48 of the current Act coroners are not obliged to make orders for a full post-mortem. The discretionary power is such that they may make an order for the purpose of identifying the deceased, date and place of death, and cause and manner of death. I am advised that at Glebe post-mortems are ordered in approximately three-quarters of the cases that are admitted into the morgue. I understand that for the remainder the State Coroner and Deputy State Coroners at Glebe already adopt the approach of examining any available medical records and considering whether the cause of death can be determined without the need for a post-mortem examination. The new bill will give a legislative basis for coroners taking this approach.

Clause 88 of the bill introduces an obligation on medical officers carrying out post-mortem examinations to establish the cause and manner of death by using the least invasive procedure that is appropriate in the circumstances. Prior to making an order for an invasive post-mortem examination the coroner should consider whether it is possible to sufficiently establish the cause of death through non-invasive investigative means, such as arranging a review of medical records and consulting with treating doctors. On occasions, it will be sufficient to establish the cause of death through limited examinations, such as external examination, taking samples for toxicology or partial internal examinations. Clause 88 of the bill expressly refers to these more limited examinations.

The benefits of this approach are two-fold. Firstly, it will ensure that forensic pathologists are not required to overservice by conducting post-mortems where they are not necessary, or by conducting full post-mortem examinations when a more limited examination would suffice. This will ensure that forensic pathologists are not overburdened. Removing unnecessary demands also will enable forensic pathologists to expedite post-mortem investigations in relation to homicides and other suspicious deaths so that criminal proceedings relating to a death are not delayed. To this extent, I note that Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims Support Group has given her endorsement to the reforms provided in this bill.

As honourable members would be aware, Ms Jabour does a tremendous amount of good work supporting the families of persons who have died as a result of homicide. Through this work, she is constantly in contact with the coronial jurisdiction. A perhaps lesser known fact is that Martha worked as part of a team in the grief counselling section at the Glebe morgue. Therefore she has a great understanding of how the coronial jurisdiction operates in this State.

Coronial inquiries and investigations sometimes uncover evidence that leads to the prosecution of an offender. At the very least, coronial investigations are a necessary part of any broader investigation into a homicide death. Accordingly, it is important that the coronial jurisdiction operates effectively and swiftly when it comes to homicide deaths. This is not just to ensure that offenders are quickly brought to justice, but also so that victims' families may obtain closure and will be able to commence the difficult task of getting their lives back together again. I therefore place on the record the support that Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims Support Group has given to this bill, particularly the provisions which enable coroners and medical investigators to focus their attention on those deaths that warrant detailed and forensic investigation including, most notably, homicide-related deaths.

The second benefit of this approach to conducting post-mortem examinations is that it is consistent with community expectations that deceased persons are to be treated with dignity. Relatives expect that tests and examinations will not be carried out unnecessarily on their loved one. The bill makes it clear that examinations are carried out only to the extent necessary to establish the cause, manner and other circumstances surrounding death. As I noted earlier, in developing this bill the Government has consulted with the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, which represents the hundreds of funeral practitioners across this State and whose members help families through the grieving process. I place on the record what Mr Ken Chapman, the executive secretary of the New South Wales Funeral Directors Association, stated in a letter to me dated 24 April 2009 in relation to the reforms in this bill:

… authorising the coroner to direct certain medical investigators to conduct a review of the medical records of a deceased person and report to the coroner on the cause of death based on such a review will greatly shorten the time currently taken for the conduct of post mortems. Presently, long delays occur and funeral directors are frustrated in their attempts to facilitate funerals to meet the requirements of the deceased's family.

Clause 89 (6) of the bill introduces a new provision which allows the coroner the discretion to dispense with a post-mortem if, after obtaining advice from police officers and medical practitioners, he is satisfied that the person died from natural causes and the senior next of kin indicates that the family does not wish to have a post-mortem conducted to ascertain the precise cause of the person's death. Clause 25 (2) allows the coroner to dispense with an inquest in circumstances where he has not directed a post-mortem examination on a person who has died from natural causes and where he has obtained advice from police, medical practitioners and the deceased person's family.

The conduct of a post-mortem examination when the death is due to unsuspicious natural causes has little public benefit. The real benefit of conducting a post-mortem would be for family members who may wish to obtain information on how their relative died. The post-mortem can provide information on co-existing conditions, including inheritable conditions where early detection may be advantageous for the future treatment of a family member. Families should therefore have a greater involvement in the decision of whether to have a post-mortem examination when a relative dies of natural causes, and the only purpose of the post-mortem is to distinguish between more than one possible natural cause of death.

In some instances the conduct of a post-mortem will provide family members with certainty, closure and peace of mind. In other instances families will feel that the death of a sick relative should not require a full post-mortem examination. The bill recognises that greater weight should be given to the views of the family on the issue of conducting post-mortems. The coronial process should not be a source of greater distress to the families of people who have died. Giving a greater role to families in the decision-making process in these circumstances will ensure that coroners act in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of grieving families. I will provide the House with a real life example of how this new provision could benefit people who have lost a relative or loved one.

Earlier this year the member for Newcastle, the Hon. Jodi McKay, MP, wrote to me on behalf of a constituent, Mr Allan Charlesworth. Sadly, Mr Charlesworth's mother, Joyce, had died at the age of 86 years. She had not been in good health and it was apparent that she had died from natural causes. Accordingly, Mr Charlesworth did not want his mother's remains to be the subject of a post-mortem examination. He, like everyone, knew that Joyce passed away due to natural causes and her old age. However, under current law the coroner felt obliged to order an autopsy to establish the exact cause of death. The autopsy revealed that Ms Charlesworth had indeed died from natural causes. It turned out that her death was, to be precise, caused by aspiration in the lungs related to chronic pulmonary heart disease.

Mr Charlesworth was forced to delay his mother's funeral for several weeks, causing additional distress and uncertainty for family and friends, who were confused that a death notice had appeared in the paper with no details of the funeral. The delay in holding the funeral also made it more difficult for everyone to grieve and to deal with Joyce's death. Under new clause 89 in the bill, it will be clear that the coroner could decline to order an autopsy as it was apparent that Mrs Charlesworth had died from natural causes and her son did not desire a post-mortem examination. Clause 90 of the bill deals with the sensitive issue of organ retention. This clause provides that a direction for a post-mortem examination does not permit the retention of whole organs without further order of the coroner. In addition, a new right is created in clause 96 to allow a relative to object to an order permitting retention of a whole organ.

There are occasions when retention of body organs is necessary following a post-mortem in order to allow a detailed microscopic examination to be carried out to ascertain the cause of death. Microscopic examination of soft tissue such as the brain requires the organ to be fixed in formulin before it can be properly examined. This process may take several weeks. Organ retention is a sensitive issue. Relatives expect that when the body of a deceased is returned to them the whole body will be returned. Since the Walker report into post-mortem practices in 1993 it has been the practice of coroners to inform relatives if organ retention is necessary. Relatives may then elect to have the body returned without an organ for funeral arrangements or delay funeral arrangements until the body can be returned with the organ.

One concern about the current process is that unless an objection was made to the conduct of the post-mortem examination by relatives, there is no provision to allow a relative to object to the retention of organs following a post-mortem examination. A number of families may wish to object to organ retention on the basis of cultural, religious or other personal beliefs. The bill will allow those objections to be raised with the coroner, and if the matter is not satisfactorily resolved the objection can be made to the Supreme Court. The bill increases the rights of relatives and empowers them to interact with coroners on issues that affect them.

I will now outline changes in the new bill that relate to case management of coronial cases. Case management is a well-established practice that allows courts to control the preliminary stages of proceedings to ensure that cases are determined quickly and with minimal cost. A number of reforms will enhance the case management powers of coroners to assist them meeting national time standards. Clause 52 allows the State Coroner to issue practice notes and give guidance to coroners generally on the appropriate manner for dealing with cases. This bill will promote consistent and best practice by all coroners. Clause 46 introduces the concept of coronial proceedings. The Coroners Act 1980 does not permit a coroner to hold a hearing in open court unless he commences an inquest or inquiry. Clause 46 introduces the concept of coronial proceedings. Coronial proceedings include the holding of an inquest or inquiry, conducting proceedings to determine whether or not to hold or to continue to hold an inquest or inquiry, or proceedings of an interlocutory or similar nature, including proceedings to deal with evidential matters or case management issues.

The effect of clause 46 is to confer on coroners the power to hold preliminary hearings in open court for the purposes of assisting their investigations or preparing the matter for inquest or inquiry. At present there is no provision allowing the coroner to conduct a preliminary hearing with the parties to determine issues such as the likely length of an inquest or inquiry, who will be appearing in the proceedings and the number of witnesses who are required to attend. The new provision will allow the coroner the option to determine any preliminary questions in open court, such as whether they have jurisdiction to deal with a particular death or whether or not an inquest or inquiry is necessary or desirable.

Clause 46 does not expand the powers of coroners. However, it will enable them to exercise their powers in open court instead of having to make preliminary decisions in chambers without the opportunity for interested parties to make submissions. The provision promotes the principle of open justice and has the potential to reduce the length of investigations and inquests and inquiries by identifying the scope of the matters to be investigated or limiting the need for witnesses to attend inquests and inquiries if their evidence is uncontested. Several coroners have indicated that they have been frustrated with limitations in the current Act that allow a witness to decline to provide any information to a coroner prior to an inquest or inquiry. The only way the information may be obtained is by commencing an inquest or inquiry and compelling the witness to give evidence.

If this information was available to the coroner prior to the inquest or inquiry, it might avoid the necessity of conducting an inquest or inquiry or might have provided information that could lead to further investigations. Clause 46 will allow a coroner to conduct coronial proceedings for the purposes of obtaining information from a witness prior to an inquest or inquiry. Clause 61 provides the coroner with the power to deal with claims of self-incrimination. If a witness declines to give evidence based on a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, the coroner may assess whether it is in the interests of justice that the evidence be given. If a person is compelled to give evidence the coroner shall provide a certificate indemnifying the use of the evidence in other proceedings.

The new provision allows a coroner to issue a certificate to protect against evidence given in coronial proceedings being used in other proceedings. Clause 61 increases the scope of protection from the current Act. A certificate issued under section 33AA of the Coroners Act 1980 prohibits the use of evidence in proceedings before any other proceedings before a New South Wales court. Clause 61 extends the protection afforded by a certificate so that it prohibits the use of evidence in proceedings before a New South Wales court, as well as any other proceedings where a person is empowered to take evidence.

The bill also restricts the availability of a coronial inquest or inquiry to be held before a jury. Clause 48 provides that a coronial inquest or inquiry may only be conducted with a jury if the State Coroner decides that a jury is required and that an inquest or inquiry before a jury may only be conducted by the State Coroner. Since 1960 coronial juries have been used on only a handful of occasions. The use of coronial juries can add a layer of cost and complexity to coronial proceedings. Notwithstanding this, there are limited circumstances in which the retention of a coronial jury may be useful. Clause 48 of the bill provides that a jury may be used for an inquest or inquiry only if the State Coroner directs it. The State Coroner will be able to give such a direction only if the State Coroner is to act as the coroner for the inquest or inquiry. Juries will not be permissible in any other coronial proceedings.

Clause 51 deals with the power of coroners to give directions to police officers in relation to coronial investigations. Clause 51 replaces sections 17B and 17C of the current Act. Although coroners oversee the conduct of investigations, police officers are the coroner's agents in the field gathering evidence on behalf of coroners. Where a death is suspicious or the circumstances surrounding the death are unclear, the coroner will direct the police officer in charge of the investigation to prepare a brief of evidence. Concerns have been raised by the New South Wales Police Force that the power to direct police officers can include directions to engage private experts which may involve significant costs. Clause 51 will allow the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of the Attorney General's Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding to regulate these costs.

Clause 82 of the bill deals with the power of coroners to make recommendations. The capacity to make recommendations is one of the most significant powers conferred on coroners. The importance of this power is highlighted in clause 3, which, for the first time, identifies the power of coroners to make recommendations in connection with an inquest or inquiry as one of the main objects of the bill. The power to make recommendations provides coroners with the opportunity to identify any systemic failures in the health, law enforcement or other services to prevent similar deaths occurring in the future. The role of the coroner is not only to review the circumstances surrounding death; it is also to protect the living.

The power to make recommendations means nothing unless governments and agencies give careful and serious consideration to their implementation. That is not to say that all coronial recommendations should be implemented, and there may be substantial reasons why it is not appropriate to implement particular recommendations. However, there must be an appropriate framework to ensure that all recommendations are brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister or public official so that they are given proper consideration. At present the Coroners Act 1980 does not contain any guidance on the communication of recommendations. Clause 82 now provides that a coroner making a recommendation shall, as soon as practicable, forward a copy of the recommendation to the State Coroner, to any person or body to which the recommendation is directed, and to the Minister who administers legislation or who is responsible for the person or body to which a recommendation in the record relates.

Clause 82 addresses concerns that were recently raised in a report published in the Australian Indigenous Law Review titled, "Coronial Recommendations and the Prevention of Indigenous Death", by Ray Watterson, Penny Brown and John McKenzie. That report concluded that based on a sample of recommendations made in 2004 only 48 per cent had been implemented. In a number of instances it was clear that recommendations were not effectively communicated to the bodies to whom they were directed. Clause 82 will ensure that copies of coronial recommendations are forwarded by the State Coroner. The State Coroner has primary responsibility under the Act to oversee coronial services in the State. That function will include the monitoring of coronial recommendations and ensuring that agencies respond to recommendations. Clause 82 will ensure that copies of coronial recommendations are also forwarded to the Minister responsible for the legislation or agencies to whom the recommendation is directed.

It is consistent with principles of ministerial responsibility that Ministers ensure that recommendations affecting their portfolio are given serious consideration and that a response is provided to the coroner. In line with this new provision, and as per a commitment made by the Government in March, the Premier has this week issued a memorandum to all Ministers and agencies setting out a new process for responding to coronial recommendations. Under the memorandum, Ministers and agencies who receive recommendations are required to advise the Attorney General within six months whether they will be adopted. Summaries of coroners' recommendations and responses from Ministers and public officials will then be posted on the website of the Attorney General's Department, which will be updated and track progressed every six months.

It should be remembered that recommendations from coroners are not directives. Any system which enabled a coroner, who is a judicial officer, to direct or determine government policy would not only be a serious breach of the separation of powers, but would also be contrary to the principles of democratic governance. However, coroners do have an important and historic role to play in making recommendations to government to help prevent fires and deaths. The Government values and respects this role and is committed to giving recommendations appropriate consideration and, where appropriate, implementing them. Coronial recommendations are sometimes not implemented, or only partly implemented. This may be because action has already been taken, or because it is not possible to implement the recommendation in the way that is suggested.

When the Government determines its response to coronial recommendations it is accountable for that decision. The Government's new open and transparent system for monitoring and reporting on recommendations will ensure the Government not only informs coroners of those decisions but also informs the community on a continuing basis. This matter will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in August, and the Government will consider any further proposals that flow from that meeting. Coroners have an important role to play in preventing future deaths through coronial recommendations. Coronial recommendations can bring important changes to health and safety regulation.

By way of example, coronial recommendations have led to regulations being introduced that require the compulsory wearing of life jackets in small recreational boats. Design changes to the making of window blinds to remove looped cords that can create hazards to children were a result of coronial recommendations. The requirement to fence swimming pools was a direct result of coronial recommendations relating to children drowning in backyard swimming pools. Clause 82 of the bill provides an effective framework for Government Ministers and agencies and others to respond to coronial recommendations. The State Coroner and the Attorney General will be able to monitor recommendations as well as the responses.

Coroners play a unique and important role in the judicial system. They focus on the circumstances surrounding death so that we can understand why and how a person died. Coroners investigate death so that they can protect the living. The investigations undertaken by coroners can detect hidden homicides and reveal evidence that can bring people responsible to justice. The capacity for coroners to identify the reasons why somebody died can lead to important changes that can prevent those circumstances from recurring. The way in which coroners achieve these ends must be sensitive to the needs of families and friends of the deceased. Coroners must seek the truth surrounding deaths in a way that acknowledges the cultural and religious beliefs surrounding death and deals with grieving family and friends in a way that demonstrates compassion and understanding.

The Coroners Bill 2009 represents important reform by providing a modern framework within which coroners may achieve these altruistic goals. It refines the jurisdiction of coroners by ensuring that unsuspicious deaths are not unnecessarily reported to coroners, and it enhances the investigative powers of coroners and allows coroners to case manage proceedings so that the circumstances surrounding death can be revealed as quickly as possible. The bill will ensure that the conduct of post-mortems will be managed with sensitivity and regard for the dignity of deceased persons.

In developing this legislation the Government has worked closely with the State Coroner and Chief Magistrate as well as a number of key stakeholders, both inside and outside of the Government, including most notably the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. As a result, in addition to the government agencies that work in and with the coronial jurisdiction each day this bill has been endorsed by various external organisations representing a diversity of interests, including the New South Wales Law Society, the Homicide Victims Support Group, the New South Wales Council on the Ageing and the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales. Coroners undertake an important role on behalf of the community investigating deaths, fires and explosions. The bill will ensure that they are able to investigate these matters effectively, sensitively and in a timely manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Debated adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.19 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.19 p.m.]: Recently I had the honour of representing the Premier and a number of Ministers at some important community functions. On 5 April 2009 I represented the Premier in celebrating this year's traditional Holi Mahotsav, the Festival of Colours, Friendship and Harmony, at Tumbalong Park at Darling Harbour. That was the second Holi Festival that I have attended and on both occasions I have really enjoyed myself. Since the first festival held in Tumbalong Park in 2004 the event has gone from strength to strength and is now incredibly popular and held over three days. Holi has Hindu religious origins and is said to represent the victory of righteous forces. Holi is an exuberant occasion full of colour, friendship, and harmony, and celebrates the Hindu mythology of the love of Krishna and Radha. The Festival of Colours, Friendship and Harmony provides people of Indian ancestry with an opportunity to celebrate their common beliefs and become a united community.

A traditional festival such as the Holi Mahotsav not only brings together Indian communities in Australia; it also serves as an opportunity for them to reach out to the wider Australian community. We should acknowledge that followers of the Hindu faith in Australia are culturally diverse and come from many birthplaces. The Indian community is long-established, well-regarded and has earned a prominent place in this State. It is well known for its contributions in the business, academic and cultural spheres. The Indian community has made a powerful contribution to the development of our State and community. The skills, education and dedication of Australians of Indian background will make us a more dynamic and outward looking country in years to come. I commend Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Australia, and in particular its President Gambhir Watts, for bringing the Indian community together through its many annual events, which strengthen our community and add to the rich cultural diversity we enjoy in New South Wales.

On 11 May 2009, 15-year-old Isobel Nutt of Woodburn was announced as the New South Wales winner of a Government anti-problem gambling competition with her Draw the Line on Problem Gambling coaster design artwork being judged as the best in the State. I travelled to Bangalow to present Isobel with her prizes, an Olympus SLR digital camera and a new iPod touch. Isobel's design is a remarkably clever coaster with its strong "Stop Problem Gambling!" message that asks gamblers whether they are heavily in debt, anxious, sleepless, depressed or have relationship breakdowns. It is a very clever design, reminiscent of pop art, with a bold and powerfully simple message that is very eye catching.

That image was printed on approximately 750,000 drink coasters that were used in licensed venues across New South Wales during Gambling Awareness Week. John Kerr from the Northern Rivers Gambling Counselling Service said that it was great that a local student beat out all the other 14- to 16-years-olds in New South Wales and that, as the local Gambling Help Service provider, the service was very happy that a local had won and sincerely thanked Isobel and her family for her participation. Isobel is a talented young girl who, I am sure, will have a very successful future in the creative arts if she chooses that path.

On 16 May 2009 I represented the New South Wales Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon. Kevin Greene, MP, at the official opening of the Bangalow Sports Fields. This project was the result of Byron Shire Council and Bangalow Sports Association identifying the need for the upgrade of this sporting facility and putting in place a plan to see their vision achieved. I particularly recognise the great work of former Councillor Ray Kestle in bringing this project to fruition. A special mention should be made of the local schools, sporting clubs and other community organisations that supported the project. I was pleased to be able to acknowledge that a significant amount of volunteer labour and community support made this project possible.

Funding for the project came from Byron Shire Council, New South Wales Sport and Recreation and the local community. New works include the construction of sporting fields to accommodate numerous sports as well as a walking track around the new and existing fields to encourage recreational users to the facility. Sports undertaken at that facility are reliant on volunteers. They are the lifeblood of community sport; without their commitment, generosity and endurance our children would not have the opportunity to be physically active through sport. The council and Mayor Jan Barham are to be congratulated on providing a facility of such a high standard. It has the potential to draw higher-level fixtures from a regional level. Importantly, this facility will open up opportunities for new and regular participation in sport and physical activity.

On Monday 1 June 2009 I represented the State member for Strathfield, the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Virginia Judge, MP, at the Rotary Club of Burwood Community Giving Event. I thank the organisers for the warm and friendly reception that I was given and for the enjoyable evening they provided. Rotary's main aim is giving to their community and supporting those in need in Australia and throughout the world. The Rotary Club of Burwood is one of 1,183 Rotary clubs located across Australia. At that dinner Rotary cheques were presented to the following organisations that do so much for the local community: the Leukaemia Foundation, ShelterBox, Claffy House, Samaritan Accommodation (Salvation Army), Australian Rotary Health, Burwood Police Citizens Youth Club, the MS Society, and LifeStart Cooperative. For over a century, Rotary has extended a hand to those that need it the most, either directly or by assisting charitable organisations and projects.

The Rotary Club of Burwood's Community Giving Event is a celebration of Rotary's role in supporting those groups and also of Rotary's ongoing involvement in the local community. Since its inception in 1939 the Rotary Club of Burwood has always actively raised funds and been generous in its community giving programs. As well as conducting regular community funding drives the club runs the national Community Chest and Christmas Treasure Trove raffles in collaboration with many other community organisations. Since 1992 those funding drives have raised in excess of $12 million—a phenomenal effort. The Rotary Club of Burwood deserves to be congratulated for the enduring contribution it makes to the lives of so many in our community.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.24 p.m.]: I speak in opposition to the proposal for a bill of rights, or a charter of rights. Recently some very strong statements have been made in opposition to that proposition, one particularly by the Hon. Bob Carr, the former Labor Premier of New South Wales. In an article published in the Australian on 9 May 2009 entitled "Bill of rights is the wrong call" he was reported to say:

If Australians were asked whether they wanted non-elected judges to enjoy the final say on all public policy, it is pretty clear how they would vote. A modest increase in judicial review was proposed in 1988. … The referendum lost in every state and territory by votes of up to 75 per cent.

Now the federal Government has an inquiry into how rights can best be protected in Australia. The advocates of a bill of rights have watered down their proposal to a charter based on legislation and not added to the constitution, and which parliaments can in theory overrule.

This faces a bigger hurdle than more public disdain: there is now close to a consensus that it would be unconstitutional.

In referring to the Bill of Rights in the United States of America Mr Carr wrote:

The US, as late as 1857, confirmed slavery was valid, notwithstanding its constitutional Bill of Rights.

Indeed, America had a Bill of Rights for 150 years before Black Americans in the south could vote. And they didn't get it through the Supreme Court—

They got it through Congress. He wrote further:

I am surprised at the naiveté and gullibility that leads some people—

those who support a bill of rights or charter of rights—

to think a charter of rights means that, for the ages, courts will facilitate a left-liberal or reform agenda. They imagine it's only the rights they want that will be enshrined in judge-made law. Who disagrees with freedom of speech? In 1994 in Canada, the Supreme Court interpreted that right—expressed in the charter adopted in 1982—to mean tobacco advertising—

which had been banned—

could be resumed, even near schools.

The right to freedom of movement: again, who could disagree? In 1999 judges relied on this right to strike down British Columbia's policy requiring incoming doctors from other provinces to work in rural and remote areas.

Advocates respond by saying that with a charter of rights—not a bill of rights—parliament will still have the final say … So when a court issues an opinion the government has breached rights, parliament has the opportunity to fix things up with another act of parliament.

But we now know that at the federal level this model is unconstitutional. Two former high court judges, Michael McHugh and Gerard Brennan, have said as much.

They believe requiring the High Court to play an advisory role to parliament, rather than make decisions binding on parties to a lawsuit, is outside the court's power. In any case, governments are reluctant to overrule judges.

This then opens up a process of judicial creep in which judges get their way more and more, especially in the Australian system.

In another section of the article Mr Carr wrote:

Advocates talk as if we have a consensus on what goes in a charter ... draft bill includes the rights of children. Fine, but how, in schools, for example, does it get applied in practice? Before long the exercise of classroom discipline by teachers or principals will run the risk of litigation. This will then force changes to school practice in anticipation of which way a court may jump.

Consider Britain, where the whole bureaucracy—including the police—is now making decisions shaped by a fear of being overruled by court actions on human rights grounds.

Britain now has a similar bill. I am pleased Mr Carr has given leadership in opposing this legislation. I also refer members to an article by the Attorney General in the Australian on 15 May. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.29 p.m.]: The Kings Cross injecting centre has been in operation for eight years, and that has been eight years too many. The truth is that it should never have been opened in the first place. It has soaked up millions of dollars, which could have been better spent on rehabilitating those who have succumbed to illegal drug addiction, rather than feed the addiction of its victims as it has in fact served to do. It is a facility based on a flawed ideological objective of harm minimisation rather than one of rehabilitating addicts. Contrary to the claims of its proselytisers, the centre has saved a negligible number of lives and certainly a lot fewer lives than would have been saved had the same resources been directed to genuine life-saving strategies. It is a facility that sends a confused message to young people that the use of illicit drugs is, in some situations, countenanced by the law.

For years this Labor Government has deceived the people of New South Wales by falsely declaring that the Kings Cross injecting centre is a trial only. For how many more years is it to be called a trial? Presumably the answer to that question is until the Government can produce verifiable evidence that the injecting centre is serving the purpose for which it was established. That is why it remains what the Government misleadingly calls a "trial", because to date the evidence required to justify its permanency does not exist.

We were told that the injecting centre would reduce the overdose rate, but the figures produced by the centre show that the centre's overdose rate is 36 times higher than that in the streets of Kings Cross. We were told that the heroin-injecting centre would decrease overdose deaths, but the evidence shows that it has had virtually no impact. Earlier this year in a Daily Telegraph article headed "Kings Cross injecting rooms fail to reduce overdose death rates", it was disclosed that recently released statistics for a five-year period showed that death rates from drug overdose in the vicinity of the injecting rooms were similar to those in other areas throughout the State.

Any drop in the number of deaths in the vicinity of the injecting rooms was no greater than in other areas and more likely to result from a fall in heroin availability and more effective policing. We were told that the injecting centre would assist in directing the centre's users towards treatment, yet only 1 per cent were referred for rehabilitation, with no evidence as to any follow-up on those referred. We were told that the injecting centre would reduce the problem of discarded needles. The truth is, however, that over the past eight years temporary reductions in discarded needles in the centre's vicinity were followed by a similar drop in other areas and was in line with a general drop in heroin availability.

However, in recent times discarded needles in the Kings Cross area has again flared up as reported in a Sydney Morning Herald article headed "Needle-stick injury risk to motorists", which appeared in January this year. It reported that signs warning people to be aware of syringes had to be installed near the Cross City Tunnel entrance. As Andrew Stoner, the shadow Minister for Roads, said, "This proves the Kings Cross injecting rooms are failing to take people off the streets, which is what they are supposed to." The centre has been, and always was going to be, an unmitigated disaster. No wonder the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board, which oversees implementation of the United Nations drug conventions, has so vociferously condemned its establishment. In its 2001 annual report it said:

The Board regrets that local authorities in the Australian state of New South Wales have permitted the establishment of a drug injecting room, setting aside concerns expressed by the Board that the operation of such facilities, where addicts inject themselves with illicit substances, condones illicit drug use and drug trafficking and runs counter to the provisions of the international drug control treaties.

Mounting evidence from around the world shows that harm-minimisation programs, as pursued by New South Wales Labor, have been a monumental failure. Whilst Norway has closed its only drug injecting room, finding it ineffective in preventing drug deaths, both Federal and State Labor governments are hell-bent on continuing to go down the discredited harm minimisation road.

A 2007 House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into the impact of illicit drugs, which recommends withdrawal of funding for programs promoting harm minimisation, has already been ditched by the Federal Labor Government. Earlier this year at the United Nations' Convention on Narcotic Drugs, held in Vienna, Australia made a complete U-turn on policy and committed itself to failed harm-reduction strategies. Whilst Labor's Federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, lamely pleaded that this did not mean a change in Australia's "tough on drugs" stand, the Australian newspaper was not fooled and headlined it for what it was—"Labor softens heroin stance".

The $2.5 million that State Labor pumps yearly into the Kings Cross injecting rooms is equivalent to an extra hundred and more drug rehabilitation beds. It should stop pouring taxpayers' money down the drain. It should stop promoting the use of illicit drugs. It should stop pandering to its elitist, trendy and know-all inner-city branch members. It should close down the Kings Cross injecting centre.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.34 p.m.]: I learned about the factory farming of meat chickens while reading the publication "From Nest to Nugget: An Exposé of Australia's Chicken Factories" published by Voiceless, an organisation working for farm animal welfare. Chicken meat was expensive when I was young but today it is the cheapest meat available, and it is the use of factory farming methods that has led to it being cheap. Every year vast numbers of chickens are raised and killed: 500 million chickens are slaughtered in Australia alone. These birds are treated as commodities on a production line rather than as living creatures.

I have chooks at home and I have observed their strong emotional ties to their chickens, their complex social life and the pecking order with their fellows. I have noted that they have different personalities. Because of my knowledge of my chooks I know they deserve better treatment than they would get when factory farmed, where 50,000 of them are put into a shed as one-day-old chicks. Meat chickens are bred to grow as quickly as possible. Regular chickens have a life span of about seven years, and some may live longer, but the chickens from the supermarkets that people eat are six weeks old. They have artificially giant bodies and the birds pay a very high price for growing so fast. Their underdeveloped legs cannot support their disproportionately heavy weight so thousands of them perish from thirst or starvation even when water and food are close by because they are unable to get to it.

Thousands more perish from stress, heart failure, being trampled, or from the overcrowding when being crammed with 19 others in one-square-metre. Over the next six weeks, as the manure accumulates from multiple thousands of birds, the unventilated air becomes thick with dust. Germs from the decaying chicks are not removed, plus an increasingly toxic level of ammonia burns the chickens' eyes while the manure burns their feet and legs. Meat chicken may be cheap for us to buy but it is very expensive in other ways, for it is a massively polluting industry. Cheap chicken meat means that someone else, or something else, is paying the real costs involved, such as the rivers that are polluted with the contaminants that run off from the sheds, or the neighbours whose property values have fallen and who are made ill due to the unrelenting stench, or the workers who pay a high price because they get respiratory diseases from the ammonia, bacteria, excrement and inhaled dust.

A report by the Public Health Association of Australia emphasised that every stage of the food chain needs to be considered when assessing the impact of our food choices because heavily polluting industries such as factory farming are not sustainable. It is also expensive in terms of degrading ourselves by treating living creatures this way. What is the Christian point of view on this? In the Bible we read that God is concerned even when a sparrow falls from the air and that He intended human beings to be good stewards of His creation. William Wilberforce, in addition to opposing slavery for fellow human beings, observed that many conditions similar to slavery were inflicted on animals. He was one of the prime movers behind the establishment of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Although God gave humankind dominion over animals we should exercise it with compassion. The Pope has commented on factory farming, saying that:

Animals are God's creatures and human beings owe animals kindness. It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly.

I believe that if ordinary Australians knew what was being done so they could eat cheap chicken they would be horrified and insist on changes being made. They would prefer to pay more for their chicken to ensure that these creatures were treated with some basic decency, as has been happening in the United Kingdom. Members will be aware that people in the United Kingdom have learned about the suffering of farm animals and have called for parliamentary reforms and regulations.

In 2007 the European Union set minimum standards for the treatment of meat chickens, addressing the worst aspects of factory farming, all of which continue unabated in Australia. The time has come for Australian parliaments to enact minimum standards for the treatment of meat chickens in much the same way as has now been done in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Therefore, I support setting minimum standards in New South Wales for the treatment of meat chickens and I encourage every member of this House who has ever eaten chicken to read the Voiceless report, which is entitled "From Nest to Nugget: An Exposé of Australia's Chicken Factories".

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [6.39 p.m.]: The New England region public education system recently displayed the excellence and depth of talent that make it a pillar of the local community. During May I represented the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Verity Firth, MP, at two important awards presentations events recognising the achievements of New England students and staff. The 2008 TAFE NSW New England Institute awards presentation showcased excellence in vocational education and training in the region. The New England education region presents several challenges to the provision of education and training due to its dispersed population, isolated settlements and a large number of small business enterprises supporting a predominantly agriculture-based economy.

A commitment to quality education and training is met by four TAFE teaching facilities and is delivered through 11 campuses, as well as through flexible, distance and online education. The institute is widely recognised and acclaimed for the quality of its training. The 2006 National Centre for Vocational Education Research student outcomes survey revealed that 80 per cent of graduates of the New England Institute were employed post training, 89 per cent were satisfied with the overall quality of training, and 88 per cent fully or partially achieved their main reason for doing the training. More than 470 courses are offered by the New England Institute, for a total enrolment of more than 20,000 students. The awards presentation was an opportunity to celebrate ambition, achievement and even transformation, because that is what TAFE does.

With the support of industry and the community, TAFE assists our students to make the most of their lives by completing an apprenticeship, finding a job, building, or even changing their careers. None of the students' achievements could have been gained without the support of TAFE staff—both teachers and support staff. Too many awards were presented on the evening to list tonight, but the categories of awards were industry sponsored, faculty, Aboriginal Student of the Year, institute staff and statewide awards. Among the awards presented on the night were the TAFE NSW State medals to students who attained the highest average mark in New South Wales in an approved course.

I congratulate the following State medal recipients: Sally Clarke, who completed a diploma of community welfare; Jacqueline D'Hudson, who completed a certificate IV in veterinary nursing; Susan Fisher, who completed a certificate IV in beauty therapy; Justin Palmer, who completed an advanced diploma of electrical engineering; Craig Ratcliffe, who completed a certificate IV in building studies, residential; and Matthew Walker, who completed a certificate III in automotive mechanical technology, heavy vehicle road transport. These medallists represent a range of industries across the region and show how much TAFE can do in the community. Stories of individuals engaging with education to make the most of their lives and to contribute to our society are always compelling, and TAFE lies behind so many stories like these.

I congratulate all the staff and students in TAFE New England on continuing to provide excellent education in our community. The second awards ceremony that the Hon. Trevor Khan and I attended last month was the Department of Education and Training New England Region Excellence in Education Awards 2009. The purpose of this ceremony was to celebrate excellence in public education with the presentation of awards to schools, teachers, students, support staff and members of the school community who have demonstrated exemplary achievement and professional practices. Many schools received awards that covered a number of categories. I will mention a few fine examples. Tamworth West Public School received the Excellence in Teaching and Learning award for an accelerated literacy approach to the teaching of literacy across the school.

This teaching approach allows improved literacy outcomes to be used from kindergarten and onwards, which the New South Wales Government has been working hard to implement in recent years. My local school, Duri Public School, won the Excellence in Environmental Awareness award for a number of projects, including a frog pond designed and built by students, and a tree planting and waste watchers composting, mulching and recycling program, amongst others. Further afield, Wee Waa High School won the Excellence in Aboriginal Education award for its support of indigenous students and the development of annual plans for indigenous student education. These plans include the active involvement of Aboriginal workers and parents in all aspects of school life, as well as a clear focus on literacy, numeracy, retention and attendance.

Again, these programs build on the excellent base of Aboriginal education programs that the New South Wales Labor Government has implemented, and about which I have spoken at length in a recent private member's motion. Numerous worthy individuals were also recognised, though one that I would like to mention particularly is Mitchell Dahlstrom from Moree Secondary College, winner of the Excellence in Student Leadership award. Mitchell is a student with leadership qualities, is an excellent communicator, and has been active in student representation. As a mentor for younger students and as a well-rounded human being I congratulate Mitchell Dahlstrom on his award and for being an excellent inspiration to all indigenous and non-indigenous students. This is just a taste of what excellence exists in the New England public education system, which provides students and staff with lifelong learning of great meaning and value every day. I congratulate all the recipients of awards.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [6.44 p.m.]: Freedom of speech is a basic tenet of a democratic society. We might not always agree with what we hear or what we read, but we must always respect the right of a speaker or a writer to express his or her views without fear of retribution. I therefore express my concern over recent decisions by the Mayor of Fairfield and member for Cabramatta, Nick Lalich, to restrict the democratic rights of citizens within the Fairfield City Council area by banning people with political affiliations from speaking at council public forums. Mayor Lalich has been a big fish in a small political pond for many years. This has enabled him to escape scrutiny for decisions that impinge on people's democratic rights.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Charlie Lynn that standing orders and precedents from various Presiding Officers state that imputations against members of either House are disorderly. The member should bear my ruling in mind as he continues.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: The business community of Cabramatta, which is one of the most vibrant in the area, has suffered for decades under State Labor's neglect, which is fairly common knowledge. At the last election a young Vietnamese refugee decided that she had had enough and she decided to take a stand for her community. Armed with nothing other than a strong conviction for the welfare of her people and an abundance of raw energy, Dai Le achieved the second largest swing in the history of New South Wales and transformed Labor's safest seat into a marginal electorate. Since then she has continued her campaign to make Cabramatta a better place for her people.

Most people would have thought that this was a wake-up call to stop taking people for granted. Not so Fairfield City Council! Rather than change its modus operandi and seek to re-engage with its constituents, it has reverted to its old form. When the Cabramatta business community planned a peaceful demonstration against a plan to build a car park on the eastern side of the railway line instead of in the central business district, where it is required, Fairfield City Council dispatched council rangers to enter private shops and to remove rally protest signs. Shopkeepers who protested were told to be quiet or face a $1,500 council fine. This struck fear into the hearts of many of these shopkeepers who had fled persecution in communist countries and were terrified by these jackboot tactics.

The posters were later returned after Dai Le exposed these intimidatory tactics in the local media. The core of the problem in the Fairfield-Cabramatta area is that a small and shadowy group of Labor powerbrokers have dominated local politics and are far too used to having their own way, free of scrutiny, transparency, criticism and opposition. This has led to a climate of arrogance, autocracy and disdain for the right to freedom of speech. Now, thanks to Dai Le's scrutiny, there is growing opposition to these undemocratic antics, and council is now being held accountable for the decisions that it makes. The Cabramatta community is grateful for the courageous commitment of Dai Le and a small band of local Liberal members, such as Emmanuel Brikha and Frank Oliveri, and Australian Business Party president, Joseph Adams.

Fairfield city is home to residents from 133 countries. For many residents, English is a second language. Being represented by a third party at council has been an important tool in enabling these residents with poor English skills to participate in the democratic process. At a recent council meeting Dai Le requested that the mayor give her an opportunity to ask a question in the public forum. He refused. When she attempted to tell him that she was asking the question on behalf of constituents who could not speak English he retorted that he was the mayor and he could do anything he wanted in his chamber. He ruled that members of a political party and lobbyists would be banned from speaking at council meetings. This is a bloke who used his role as a councillor to get elected to this Parliament. He then advised that the police had been called to the meeting.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: You gave some direction to assist the member in his presentation this evening, but he is now again in breach of Standing Order 91 (3). I am referring specifically to his reference "his use of influence to get elected to this Parliament". Clearly, that imputation was directed towards a member of the other place. Notwithstanding the fact that you gave him clear assistance to frame his speech this evening, he deliberately chose to ignore that. I believe you should direct him back to the need to follow standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Hon. Charlie Lynn to bear in mind the provisions of Standing Order 91.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: He should be reminded that he is the Mayor of Fairfield, not the Führer of Fairfield.

The PRESIDENT: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for listening to my ruling.

[Time for debate expired.]

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.