Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.30 p.m.]: When debate was interrupted I had listed a number of the abject failures of the environmental impact statement relating to the development. I had expressed my concern that although the Government and the Opposition are agreed that the people of Port Kembla will now be safe, that is in fact far from the truth. It may be a possibility - although I doubt it, given our experience with, and the widespread opposition in recent times to, the high-temperature incinerator at Waterloo. The Government touted the idea of such an incinerator around the country, but a so-called state-of-the-art, high-temperature incinerator is not wanted at Waterloo, Cowra or any region.

With such incineration processes there are always some elements that escape; they are not completely burned. There is doubt that a high- temperature incinerator or the proposed copper smelter will, at all times, achieve the standard that has been claimed - a 90 per cent improvement in the outfall of toxic materials and gases in the atmosphere. That is precisely the issue we are debating today. The environmental impact statement failed to identify and analyse the likely environmental interactions between the proposed development and the contamination, which was said to be in breach of clause 34(d) of the regulation.

The EIS failed to analyse the likely environmental impacts or consequences of carrying out the said development - that is, the impacts of the contamination on the development and of the development on the contamination - in breach of clause 34(e) of the regulation. It failed to include measures to decontaminate the site and to assess the effectiveness of the measures, in breach of clause 34(g) of the regulation. With regard to the premises the consent is invalid, or a nullity, because the development application was not accompanied by an EIS that satisfied the provisions of section 77(3)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and therefore the application was not in a form prescribed by section 77(3)(b) of the Act.

The development caused the emission of air pollutants, including toxic contaminants, from the smelter and the stack to fall in the suburbs of Port Kembla, Kemblawarra, Warrawong, Primbee, Coniston, Lake Heights, Cringila, Berkeley, Mangerton, Wollongong West, Warilla and Barrack Heights. The first respondent did not, pursuant to section 84 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, notify the owners or occupiers of land in the said suburbs, other than Port Kembla and Primbee, of the development application. The first respondent only notified the owners of the lots stated in schedule A, which was annexed to the development application, but failed to notify the occupiers of the said lots or the owners or occupiers of other land in Port Kembla and the other suburbs referred to.

It would seem quite clear that the process has been somewhat inadequate. It has failed to follow through with proper community consultation and public participation. That is obviously why members of the community are so concerned at present. The evidence given in court on the first day of the hearing was that, firstly, only 12 local residents and 30 local businesses were informed of the proposal although 7,000 residents will be affected by the smelter. Secondly, the proposed smelter will be the largest emitter of lead and sulphur dioxide in New South Wales. Even if it is the most technologically advanced system, it will still be the largest emitter of lead and sulphur dioxide in New South Wales.

I have seen photographs in the local newspaper that depict children on their way to school with the smelter in the background. I recall seeing a photograph of the so-called improved smelter with a much higher smokestack emitting the same level of industrial pollution as it has for many years. It is a sad indictment of the Government and an indication of how little it cares about people living in the immediate area of the smelter. The Director-General of the Environment Protection Authority described the Minister’s decision to proceed with the development as "madness". The acid particulate fallout, or acid rain, causes damage to motor vehicles, homes, laundry, adults and children, and contaminates the surrounding soils.

The Illawarra Residents Against Toxic Environments, IRATE, had some tests carried out on fruit and vegetables grown in the area. Australian Standard A12 sets the maximum permitted concentration of metals in food at 0.5 parts per million for lead and at 0.05 parts per million for cadmium. Those tests revealed, for example, that carrots contained 280 per cent more than the maximum permitted concentration of lead and 140 per cent more than the maximum permitted
Page 10851
concentration of cadmium; potatoes contained 120 per cent more than the maximum permitted concentration of lead and 20 per cent more than the maximum permitted concentration of cadmium; passionfruit contained less than 40 per cent of the maximum permitted concentration of lead, but 600 per cent more than the maximum permitted concentration of cadmium; leeks contained less than 40 per cent of the maximum permitted concentration of lead, but 300 per cent more than the maximum permitted concentration of cadmium.

The average lead in the soil for a distance of up to one kilometre from the stack is 344 parts per million. Hundreds of people in Port Kembla could be eating contaminated fruit and vegetables as backyard fruit and vegetable gardens are very common in that area. That reflects the ethnic diversity of the area and the very modest dreams of ordinary Australians for a better quality of life. It reflects their very modest desires: a home in suburbia, to live a clean life, to breathe clean air, to bring up their children and to let them attend the local school, and to be able to grow vegetables in their gardens and not suffer from a variety of complaints because of a smelter constructed under the guise of job creation.

I ask: at what price? Children are at risk. They absorb lead and cadmium from the soil as they play in backyards and parks. Lead and cadmium have become trapped in the roofs of houses underneath the smelter. The Government has not even considered cleaning up that pollution. Perhaps it should do so. Those houses have not been decontaminated. Officials from the Department of Health are avoiding the issue; they are not giving a straight answer to people in the area. The known effects of lead were recently identified in an article written by Melissa Sweet in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 April 1997, which states:

Lead brought wealth to Broken Hill . . . but with an alarming damage to health. Young children with high levels of lead are at risk of irreversible intelligence loss, behavioural and learning problems, anaemia and headaches.

It is known that 20 per cent of children in the southern Illawarra area have been diagnosed with asthma and that children in this area have high levels of lead in their blood. Jobs in the Illawarra region are important, but we also want clean industry. The sort of inquiry that is being conducted in the Hunter region could be conducted in the Illawarra region. We want to see people productively employed. I have received from residents in the Illawarra area a continuous stream of information about the way in which the Department of Health is dodging this issue. Officials from the Department of Health have said, "It is all right to eat vegetables grown in your backyard, but do not do it every day of the week." High levels of contaminants have been found in those vegetables. It is obvious that there is a major problem in this area.

The Government wishes this development to proceed but it has not cleaned up the pollution caused by this dirty, filthy industry. It has not even cleaned up the backyards of people involved in this issue the last time around. Will it miraculously now clean up its act? These problems are similar to the problems created by the ICI Australia plant near the Olympic site. There are contaminants in the ground at that site. Industry should clean up the area and give it a clean bill of health before it proceeds to the next stage of this development. How can we equate the productivity of industry with the health of children in this area? There is documented evidence about cancer clusters and extremely ill young children in the area.

Some children have suffered intellectual disabilities because of lead poisoning. Mealy-mouthed bureaucrats are avoiding this issue in an attempt to keep their jobs, while people in the Illawarra region are being totally screwed. I suggest that that is because the Illawarra is the second safest Labor seat in this State. Both the Opposition and the Government have done nothing for people in this area. What an indictment of the political system in this State! What a sad state of affairs! As I said earlier, there is documented evidence of leukaemia clusters in the copper smelter area. Not one young child deserves to get leukaemia - a disease directly attributable to the smelter. People who work in the school directly beneath the smelter - the cleaners, the teachers and the headmaster - have contracted cancer.

A court case would have revealed that the environmental impact statement accompanying the development application was fundamentally flawed. The applicant, Mrs Hamilton, would have revealed that there was a massive underestimation of lead by factors of 4:6 and that 20 to 40 tonnes of lead would have been emitted every year. The environmental impact statement failed to address the important issue of soil contamination, even though its writers had access to two reports on this issue written in 1989 and 1983. Those reports were not taken into consideration when that environmental impact statement was written. The issues to which I have referred are more than a technical breach, which is what the Minister would have us believe.

Page 10852

The social and environmental problems arising from the upgrading of the copper smelter are serious. Allegations of breaches of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by the Minister, which are not technical, are also serious. The Greens believe that this bill should be withdrawn and that the court case should be allowed to proceed. What is the Government scared of? This small group of people, who do not have any knowledge of the law, have formed groups such as IRATE and have stood up for something in which they believe. They are attempting to protect the livelihoods of their neighbours and children. This legislation will remove the one avenue available to these people - access to a court of law.

This bill is designed to prevent important evidence coming to light. The Minister must have something to hide. The bill breaches the separation of powers doctrine and it dictates to Justice Bignold, the judge hearing the case, what the end result of the case should be. This bill makes a mockery of the judicial process and the powers given to judges under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I have received a lot of correspondence and heard some damning evidence in relation to this case. The Minister for the Environment wrote in a letter to me:

While it is true that the average air quality in Port Kembla is good especially when compared to other industrialised cities, the EPA, industry and the local community all recognise that several localised air pollution issues still remain.

I am glad that the Minister admitted that. She also wrote:

The retrofitting of pollution control equipment within these industries to meet both current legislative requirements and community expectations is a complex, slow and expensive process.

Honourable members would be aware that the retrofitting of equipment has not worked in many other areas. The Minister wrote further:

During the period 1989 to 1991 approximately $155 million was spent in developing and improving the plant. The environmental performance of the new plant, although improved compared to pre-development, did not meet the expectations of SCL, EPA or the local community . . .

In 1993 the EPA directed Southern Copper to improve the environmental performance of its Port Kembla Smelter. For economic reasons, the smelter ceased operation in January 1995 and has since been idle.

Following a Commission of Inquiry . . . The EPA has negotiated proposed pollution control licence conditions which include stricter environmental goals. The proponents applied to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning for a variation to the Development Consent relating to the environmental upgrade and expansion of the smelter. This consent was granted on 25 November 1996.

The current proposal includes new technology which differs significantly in some operational and design aspects from the proposal put to the Commission of Inquiry, and differs markedly from the existing smelter. These changes will significantly improve the environmental performance of the smelter by reducing sulfur dioxide, lead and other heavy metal emissions.

It is far from clear just how effective those reductions will be. Given the history of this smelter and the suffering that has occurred, it is doubtful whether it will be successful. How can we guarantee the health of people in the local area? A report from Tim Robertson, the barrister appearing for those involved in the court process, stated:

In his Second Reading Speech, Minister Knowles said that:

"The appeal is not about the merit of the proposal, but on a technical issue about, in simple terms, whether or not enough people were notified of the development application . . . This appeal is occurring despite the fact that the application has been through an exhaustive participation process since 1994 . . .

The following are the facts:

It is completely false to describe Mrs Hamilton’s application to the Land and Environment Court as a technical issue about whether enough people were notified of the development application.

She challenged the validity of the EIS prepared for the smelter DA on the ground that it completely omitted any consideration of the impact of the development on land and water contamination. Mrs Hamilton alleged that the smelter site was contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic compounds. The development involved the excavation of the site. Not a word about site contamination appeared in the EIS.

The Government’s contamination policy was flouted. The directions by the Planning Department about the preparation of the EIS were ignored. No member of the public was informed about the extent of site contamination or the serious risks to human health and the safety of the natural environment.

Mrs Hamilton also alleged that there was a denial of due process by the failure to notify over 7000 local residents -

that is, 7,000 local voters -

who would have been adversely affected by the development, of their right to object and to appeal to the Court or appeal at the Commission of Inquiry. Only 14 residential premises were notified of the DA.

The effect of this breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was to deny public participation rights to a whole community. Many members of that community had been paid compensation by Southern Copper Ltd, the site owners, for damage to their cars, clothes, houses and persons by acid rain from the smelter. The smelter EIS made no claim that the project changes would eliminate the acid rain . . .

Page 10853

The earlier upgrade was a failure. From 1991-1994, the smelter probably breached pollution control standards every day of its operation.

The current ultimate owners of the smelter are two Japanese companies. Both companies were part owners of the smelter in the early 1990s when the pollution record of the smelter was woeful.

. . . 20% of children in the surrounding suburbs have asthma and another 5% are probably undiagnosed asthmatics . . .

The Japanese co-owners of the smelter then proposed an amendment to the development involving the replacement of one of the three furnaces with a Mitsubishi furnace. Contrary to statements by Government Ministers, the smelter did not adopt the Mitsubishi copper smelting system. Only one-third of that system was adopted. Other alterations to the pollution control system proposed in 1996 involved ventilation changes similar to those which had been promised but failed after the 1988 upgrade.

In November 1996, Minister Knowles modified his earlier development application. He imposed a pollution standard of 12 exceedances of 17.5 pphm sulphur dioxide in residential areas. This standard was much weaker than the EPA standard fixed in 1992 . . .

Condition 8 only requires the Director General to be satisfied that the plant is "capable" of operation without exceeding the standard. Once the Director General is satisfied of this, Condition 8 has no further function to perform. It is exhausted.

It is quite clear that these half-baked conditions will not do the job and, if put to the test of proper investigation, will fail. A letter to me dated 16 June from New South Wales Young Lawyers states that residents in the Port Kembla area already have disturbingly high levels of asthma and leukemia. It stated further:

The Port Kembla Bill is a fundamental attack on the rights of the community to be informed about, and to participate in, important decisions about the environment which have the potential to directly impact on them and their families health. It is a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers which requires that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary be able to exercise their respective powers without interference from the other.

A letter from IRATE signed by the chairman, David Gilmour, stated:

[The bill] we believe is an outright attack on democracy and social justice by the Government. We believe the Government has only introduced this bill to silence and cover up evidence that would show that this government has acted inappropriately and have not taken duty of care in protecting the communities surrounding this development.

Surely the timing of the introduction of this Bill and its quick passage through the lower house on the eve of Helen Hamilton’s challenge to the Development Consent, can only set alarm bells ringing as to what evidence had Helen’s legal team gathered that the Government had to have it silenced. In doing so they have denied Helen Hamilton’s right to have her day in court . . .

Tim Robertson, the barrister conducting Helen Hamilton’s case, advised the Public Meeting that if the Bill is made law the public would not be able to gain access to the evidence that they had gathered . . .

He indicated that the expert opinion he has sought has found errors in the calculation of the emissions of lead and sulphur dioxide from this plant if it is to reopen. These errors were indicated as being anywhere between 4 to 6 times as much lead emitted than what is claimed in the development proposal. May I point out to you that a recent Child Blood Lead study conducted by the Illawarra Public Health Unit determined Port Kembla to be a community at risk from lead contamination.

. . . We have, for many years, been expressing our concerns about the past operation of this smelter and the historical contamination it has left . . .

We now have to contend with what is causing a cancer cluster in our area. What is going to be done about the high levels of heavy metal contamination of the dust in our roofs. We are discovering evidence of soil contamination which maybe transferring to contamination of home grown produce. There is, we believe, contamination of the ground water table, the harbour foreshores and the sediments in the outer harbour bed . . .

We know all about the main argument the government is using to promote this development. That is the employment and economic stability for the state. We do not dispute this as being important but it is not and should not be more important than the health and wellbeing of the community and its environment. It is obvious that this government’s agenda is to promote the generation of investment and employment at any cost. It is also more obvious that we will be the ones to pay that cost. Protection of everyone’s basic human right to live in a clean and healthy environment should be paramount in any government’s agenda.

A media release issued by Ms Helen Hamilton, who commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, stated:

I now firmly believe the Carr Government has betrayed me. His Government is a Clayton’s Labour Government. I say to him that this case will not die. I will fight the good fight . . .

That sounds like old Labor rhetoric. It is a terrible shame that the Government has lost touch with the very people who for many years, dare I say for generations, have supported Labor. In a letter to the editor of the Illawarra Mercury on Tuesday, 17 June, Olive Rodwell wrote:

Premier Carr killed democracy in NSW when he introduced the "Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Bill 1997" on Thursday, May 29.

He knew that Helen Hamilton would win her court case against the smelter approval. His legal advisers told him so. The fact that only 12 residents were informed of the proposal when at least 7000 should have been notified is not a mere technicality - it is secrecy and stealth.

Page 10854

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: And 30 businesses.

The Hon. I. COHEN: If the Hon. Patricia Forsythe wants to dispute the number of people who have been properly informed about this development, I suggest she take time out to speak to the people from the local community who are sitting in the Chamber today. They are the ones who are suffering. The letter continued:

Bob Carr did not kill democracy by himself. All Labor and Liberal members of the Lower House voted for the draconian legislation. Clover Moore and one other member voted against it, to their credit.

All other members approved it with little discussion and no debate; and no realisation of the impact or the fact that it literally makes Carr a dictator. Carr and Knowles want the power to push through any development they wish with no opposition from the people, the courts or the Parliament.

But why did Carr act on the eve of the court case?

He could not allow the damning evidence against the new smelter and the contamination of past smelters to become public knowledge. Port Kembla is Australia’s Chernobyl.

I agree with Olive Rodwell that Port Kembla is Australia’s Chernobyl. I have made that point in this House on many occasions, often to the jeering of other members. Living within a few kilometres of the smelter, whether before or after the expansion, would be the same as living in Chernobyl. Olive Rodwell’s letter to the editor continued:

I don’t make that statement lightly. The contamination of soil, air, ground, water, harbour, lake, buildings, homes, gardens and produce is unacceptable. Port Kembla is Australia’s Chernobyl!

Carr has put an end to the disclosure and the cover-ups will continue. The results of the investigations into the leukemia cluster, cancer clusters, and birth defects are all destined to be hidden away like all other evidence.

Watch out citizens of N.S.W., you are in for a torrid time unless the Upper House realises the power they are about to give Bob Carr and vote against this evil legislation.

I conclude my contribution by reading a letter written to me by Olive Rodwell. The letter, which is dated 6 June, stated:

I am a grandmother. I lost my husband to cancer when he was 42. He grew up in Port Kembla and taught for 12 years at the school under the stack. My neighbours both sides died with cancer and my best friend died with cancer. My children were tested for lead about 25 years ago. Parents were never given the results. Now 25 years later the worry is for the grandchildren. Both primary schools have had lead contamination. Even Kemblawarra school 1.5 km away has some readings above the investigation level.

I am writing to implore you to vote against this bill.

1) It deprives Helen Hamilton of the right to present her case in the court. This is a basic right for free people to have.

2) It gives dictatorial power to a few people with absolutely no right for others to oppose.

3) It is undemocratic.

4) The second reading of the bill stated "there was an exhaustive public participation". This I know to be incorrect. Only 12 residents were notified but 7000 residents will be affected.

5) The second reading of the bill stated, "The consent was issued after rigorous environmental assessment." There was NO impact on health study done. The Port Kembla residents have been calling for a health study for years. We have 20% of the community asthma sufferers. Cancer clusters are everywhere. No thorough investigation into a series of birth defects. The investigation into the recent leukemia cluster is not yet complete. No decision should have been made without the full consideration of the health and well being of the people.

6) Experts have told us the new smelter will pollute as much as the previous one - and that was 10 X the W.H.O. levels for SO₂ and lead emissions. The people suffered terribly.

7) Port Kembla is contaminated. Our homes have toxic roof dust. Our soil has high levels of heavy metals, our lake, our harbour, our gardens and produce are contaminated. To add more contamination would make the situation worse.

You, as a representative of the people have an obligation, above all, to protect the health and well being of the people. Port Kembla people deserve the same quality of life that all other Australians deserve - no better and definitely no worse . . .

Olive Rodwell concluded her letter with the following words:

We all deserve our right to justice.

I agree. The Greens have been consistent in their bitter opposition to the bill. However, I propose to move amendments in Committee to try to alleviate some of the problems that have been identified in the bill. The amendments will be moved in my name, but they are strongly supported by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: And Call to Australia.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I am glad to hear that the amendments are supported also by Call to Australia. It is clear who is representing the people in these matters. The Labor Government and the Opposition, who have been firmly entrenched in power for many years, have lost contact with the people of the community. Obviously they believe that industrial development of this type is a shortcut to success at the next election. People who live
Page 10855
outside the area of direct contamination do not realise the impact of these developments. People believe what they are told. The mantra "Jobs and employment" is repeated time and again. What about jobs with dignity, and employment in a clean environment?

What about the rights of people to live without contracting industrially induced cancer? The bill is an indictment of the Government. Craig Knowles should be ashamed of himself; he should step down from the ministry. He is certainly earning himself quite a reputation during this term of government. I only hope that the people of New South Wales will rise up at the next election and vote for anyone other than those who support the legislation. Members on both sides of the House have a great deal to explain. I have visited the area. I suggest to all members of the House that we arrange a day to visit the area and they will be able to run their fingers along the ceiling line of the houses down there.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: If you come up to Tenterfield and look at the wilderness areas and the farmers who have to get off the land -

The Hon. I. COHEN: I have. I have been addressing those issues for many years. If you read the records, instead of indulging in superficial rhetoric, you would see how the green movement has bent over backwards to get the money from the environmental trust funds to restructure the timber industry and to do something worthy for this State. If you did as much for the people of this State who are being poisoned as the Greens have done for the workers of the State, you would be able to hold your head high. You are a hypocrite!

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho.): Order! I implore the Hon. I. Cohen to address the Chair.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Those remarks show that perhaps debate in this House on this issue is worthless. The comments of the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn about people’s rights and the health of the environment in rural and metropolitan areas clearly show that he has missed the point. What I hear in this House day in and day out is the ultimate in stinking hypocrisy. The information will get out that this House is failing the people of New South Wales. The bill clearly proves that.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.07 p.m]: I agree with the comments of the Hon. I. Cohen. It is perfectly correct that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party are letting the people down. I hope that the people who live in the Port Kembla area who are being poisoned as a result of the Government’s decision and the compliance of the Opposition will never again vote for the major parties. Perhaps what has happened in relation to this smelter will teach them a lesson. I hope the people realise that for as long as they continue to vote Labor or Liberal, nothing will improve. Only the crossbench will make major improvements. Call to Australia, the Australian Democrats, A Better Future for our Children and other Independents support the stance taken by the Hon. I. Cohen and me. What future is there for our children under the Liberal and Labor governments? There is very little, especially down in Port Kembla.

The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the bill is simply about certainty and jobs. It is not. It is about the democratic, constitutional and legal right of residents of New South Wales to continue legal proceedings before the courts. The bill validates the development consent issued by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Craig Knowles, for the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Port Kembla copper smelter. The bill validates the development consent despite any pending legal proceedings in any court, namely, Hamilton v The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Ors, which is currently before the Land and Environment Court.

Ms Helen Hamilton, a 52-year-old grandmother and invalid pensioner who lives with and cares for her 87-year-old mother, Mrs Emma Tonagh, has bravely challenged, on a modest amount of funding from Legal Aid New South Wales, the development consent issued by Craig Knowles. Ms Hamilton challenged the development consent on the ground that the environmental impact statement for the smelter development application completely omitted any consideration of the impact of the development on land and water contamination, and not on the ground of whether she was notified of the development application. Mind you, had Ms Hamilton been notified, she would have opposed the development application. After all, her relatives experienced skin burns and breathing difficulties when the smelter was in production in the past; the roof of her mother’s house contains lead and arsenic deposits due to the smelter’s past operations; and acid rain from the smelter stack - a mere 300 metres from her fibro home - has killed her plants, corroded her car and once burned a hole in her baby granddaughter’s scalp.

Ms Hamilton is not the only resident of Port Kembla living near the smelter who was not notified of the development application for the smelter’s
Page 10856
upgrade and expansion, and her relatives and possessions are not the only ones to have been adversely affected by its past operations. Only about 30 or so people - maybe as few as 12 - received notification of the development application, and only a handful of those people actually reside in the area; most of them are proprietors whose businesses are located across the road from the smelter. Considering that some 7,000 residents are likely to be affected by the proposed upgrade and expansion, notification of so few people represents an outrageous breach of the public notification requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

As the Hon. I. Cohen rightly pointed out when referring to an opinion from a barrister, that residents were not notified was a denial of due process of their right to object and to appeal to the court or appear at the commission of inquiry. Effectively, the commission of inquiry was a farce, because the people affected were not given the opportunity to appear before it. Mrs Olive Rodwell of 65 Reservoir Street, Port Kembla, has informed me that her neighbours on both sides and her best friend have died of cancer and she lost her husband, who grew up in Port Kembla and taught at the public school there for 12 years, to cancer when he was only 42. The Hon. I. Cohen mentioned that a few moments ago.

The Port Kembla primary school, which is in the shadow of the copper smelter, is being moved and a new school is to be built nearby to house its 200 students, due to fears that the children could contract cancer. Lead levels three times higher than those recommended by the World Health Organisation were found in the soil there at three different sites last year. Firefighters who have lodged compensation claims over sulphur fumes from the stack - which can cause bronchial problems and nausea - have been permanently moved out of their fire station just across the road from the smelter and the school. Studies carried out by the Illawarra public health unit indicate that lead has been found in garden produce.

The previous operator of the copper smelter, Southern Copper Ltd, has had to pay residents compensation for brown spots on lawns and houses and holes in washing left hanging on the line. The Illawarra public health unit is also investigating a possible link between factory emissions and a cancer cluster of high levels of leukemia among young people, especially around Warrawong and Port Kembla. Students at Warrawong High School made up four of the 11 people under 40 years of age diagnosed in a spate of leukemia cases since 1989 that prompted the Department of Health investigations. No more than two cases would normally be expected during that time. Unfortunately, seven of those diagnosed are now dead.

The April 1995 commission of inquiry report to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Craig Knowles, on the environmental upgrade and expansion of a copper smelter at Port Kembla as proposed Southern Copper Ltd states that the results of epidemiological studies indicate that significant decreases in intellectual development are linked with blood-lead levels that were formerly thought to be safe. The effect of lead in young children is an expected two to three IQ points deficit for each 10 micrograms per decilitre increase in blood-lead levels. Blood-lead level studies undertaken in Port Kembla by the Illawarra child blood-lead study show that 11 per cent of the children aged between one and four in the area have blood-lead levels above 10 micrograms per decilitre and 5 per cent have blood-lead levels above 15 micrograms per decilitre.

According to the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, a population can be considered at risk from lead exposure if 5 per cent or more of its children aged between one and four years have blood-lead levels above 15 micrograms per decilitre. In consideration of the evidence, then, it would appear that, while the Government may not be prepared to risk losing jobs, capital investment, economic output and exports if Ms Hamilton should win her case, it is more than willing to forgo the human right of residents of Port Kembla to a clean environment and protection from the adverse effects of pollution.

The suburbs around the smelter may have Wollongong’s highest percentage of welfare recipients, its greatest concentration of families living below the poverty line and more than one-third of the city’s non-English speaking migrants, but that does not mean that those people do not deserve the same quality of life as everyone else. The upgraded and expanded copper smelter, which will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and pump out pollutants such as lead, nickel, arsenic, cadmium, iron, zinc, copper, chromium and particulate matter in its stack exhaust and fugitive emissions, should not be forced on the people of Port Kembla. Much of the material I intended to put on the record of the House has already been provided by the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. In the course of Ms Hamilton preparing her case against the Minister’s grant of consent to the development she has obtained a great
Page 10857
deal of information on the levels of pollution caused by the smelter and the incidence of illnesses attributable to this pollution.

Much of the information has been obtained under subpoena, and in introducing this bill the Government is clearly attempting to gag the applicant and prevent the information from being made publicly available. That is one of the reasons the Government wants the bill to be passed through the House today. In fact, we are not allowed to go home this evening until the legislation is passed - and the coalition will make sure that it is passed. It would appear that there is more concern for the Japanese company involved than for the people of Wollongong. Extremely serious health impacts are associated with the smelter. If the development proceeds, it will be the State’s largest source of lead, at 20-30 tonnes per annum, and sulphur dioxide, at 6,700 tonnes per annum. The Government knew that its case was weak, that it was likely to lose, and it prepared legislation with no intention of informing the applicant prior to her Land and Environment Court hearing.

The Government’s actions are a flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of the separation of powers of the Executive, the Legislature and the judiciary. The Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Bill is an outright attack on democracy and social justice by this so-called Labor Government. The Government has introduced the bill only to silence and cover up evidence that would show that it has acted inappropriately and has not taken duty of care in protecting communities surrounding the development. The Government has silenced whatever evidence Ms Hamilton’s legal team has gathered, and in so doing it has denied Ms Hamilton her day in court. Tim Robertson, the barrister conducting Ms Hamilton’s case, advised a public meeting at Warrawong on Sunday, 1 June 1997, that if the bill were made law the public would not be able to gain access to the evidence that he had gathered.

Although Mr Robertson could not give details of the evidence, he indicated that there were many areas of concern throughout the whole process of the development. He indicated that the expert opinion he has sought has found errors in the calculation of emissions of lead and sulphur dioxide from the plant if it is to reopen. It found there would be anywhere between four to six times as much lead emitted than is claimed in the development proposal. The residents are not fighting a rearguard action in this matter. They have for many years been expressing their concerns about the past operation of the smelter and the historical contamination it has left. Since the residents became aware of the development consent being issued and the plans to reopen the smelter they have been fighting to get the Government to listen to their concerns, but this so-called Labor Government will not listen to the people.

About this time last year a local resident wrote directly to the Premier on behalf of the community requesting him to commission a full health impact study prior to any further approvals being given. The appeal fell on deaf ears, and modification to the original consent was given in November. The residents do not dispute the importance of the main argument the Government is using to promote this development, employment and economic stability for the State; they just do not believe that it should be more important than the health and wellbeing of the community and its environment. It is obvious that the Government’s agenda is to promote the generation of investment and employment at any cost. It is more obvious that the residents of Port Kembla will be the ones who pay the cost. I therefore urge honourable members to oppose this legislation.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.18 p.m.]: In speaking to the Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Bill I record the concern of local residents. It is sad that the people who live in the area of this development are suffering yet their voices are not heard. My husband and I lived in the Ryde area a number of years ago. Very early in the mornings, from about one o’clock to three o’clock, when one used to put the milk bottles out in those days, there was a strong, acrid, sickening odour coming from the direction of Strathfield. I once asked the local doctor about his reaction to the odour. He told me that doctors in the Strathfield area had the highest rate of chest complaints in Sydney, and it was all due to what was happening in that area. On 19 September 1996 I asked a question without notice of the Minister for Health about the incidence of leukaemia in the Port Kembla region. On 14 November 1996 the Minister for Health gave the following answer:

The Illawarra Area Health Service advises that an investigation has identified that 11 residents of the Warrawong, Cringila, Lake Heights and Berkeley area aged less than 40 years have been diagnosed with leukaemia since 1989. Of these people, two were aged less than 10 years, six were teenagers (including the four former Warrawong High School students), and two were aged more than 30 years.

One of those people, a former teacher at the school at Gerringong - which is only three minutes from Gerroa, where I live - has since died. The Minister also said:

Page 10858

Advice is that preliminary investigations to date have not indicated a link between the cases, nor risk factors which represent a plausible common causative exposure, excluding the fact that most had lived all or most of their lives in the area.

A detailed and intensive investigation by the Illawarra Public Health Unit in collaboration with the NSW Department of Health is continuing. This includes a thorough search for additional cases; a detailed analysis of the patterns and trends in the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in Warrawong and surrounding areas; a detailed evaluation related to environmental exposures in the area during the last two decades; and a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. In addition, the Area Health Service advises that the Environment Protection Authority has commenced the monitoring of air toxics, including benzene, in the area.

The NSW Department of Health has committed two additional people to work on the investigation fulltime, as well as other resource contributions, as required.

Local residents have written to me to express their concerns. To the Government this debate may seem like water dripping on a rock. Statements have been repeated over and over again in this Chamber, but I hope to God that somewhere along the line they have an effect on both the Government and the Opposition. In reply to a question without notice about the Port Kembla copper smelter, the Minister for Health gave the following answer on 22 May:

The Illawarra Area Health Service has advised that it expects that, with compliance to appropriate license conditions, the community health impact of the smelter’s operation would be minimised.

In relation to general health status, the Area has advised that an epidemiological profile of the health of Illawarra residents, undertaken in 1996, found that the rate of hospitalisation of local residents was 10% lower than the rest of New South Wales. The life expectancy at birth, which was 74 years for males and 80 years for females, was the same for New South Wales as a whole. The standardised mortality ratio for premature death for Illawarra residents was approximately 15% higher than the New South Wales average.

The profile found that there was a slight excess of bladder cancer among males from throughout the Illawarra area and lung cancer rates were higher than the State average in the Warilla area. There were no other differences in cancer rates between this population and the rest of New South Wales. Injury was the most common cause of death among young people, cancer among middle aged people and cardio-vascular disease among older people.

This pattern of injury and disease is common in Australia and not unique to the Illawarra area.

Following the discovery of a leukaemia cluster in the Area in 1996 a descriptive epidemiological study of cancer was undertaken. The study, which covered Cringila, Lake Heights, Port Kembla, and Warrawong, found that the leukaemia rate among young people from the Warrawong area had been unusually high in recent years. This is currently the subject of a detailed investigation.

Mrs Shirley Shead of Primbee is now a former lifelong Labor voter. In her letter to us dated 6 June she stated:

What a sad day for all Australians! We have had our democratic, constitutional and legal rights legislated away by the dirty tactics of an uncaring Labor Government.

She also said:

The people of Port Kembla and surrounding suburbs are fighting for the health, lives and well-being of their families and the right to clean air and a decent quality of life. This despicable Bill has pulled the rug from under the Illawarra community.

The people to whom Shirley Shead refers are asking for their health and their lives to be given back to them. Call to Australia has also received a letter from Mrs Olive Rodwell of Port Kembla. In a heart-moving letter dated 6 June she wrote:

I am a grandmother. I lost my husband to cancer when he was 42. He grew up in Port Kembla and taught for 12 years at the school under the stack. My neighbours both sides died with cancer and my best friend died with cancer. My children were tested for lead about 25 years ago. Parents were never given the results. Now 25 years later the worry is for the grandchildren. Both primary schools have had lead contamination. Even Kemblawarra school 1.5 km away has some readings above the investigation level.

If the Premier or his Ministers lived in the area and members of their family had died from cancer, they would feel exactly the same way as Mrs Rodwell does. In her letter she also said:

The second reading of the bill stated "there was an exhaustive public participation". This I know to be incorrect. Only 12 residents were notified but 7000 residents will be affected.

The second reading of the bill stated, "The consent was issued after rigorous environmental assessment." There was NO impact on health study done. The Port Kembla residents have been calling for a health study for years. We have 20% of the community asthma sufferers. Cancer clusters are everywhere. No thorough investigation into a series of birth defects. The investigation into the recent leukemia cluster is not yet complete. No decision should have been made without the full consideration of the health and well being of the people.

Mrs Rodwell also said:

Port Kembla is contaminated. Our homes have toxic roof dust, our soil has high levels of heavy metals, our lake, our harbour, our gardens and produce are contaminated. To add more contamination would make the situation worse.

She added:

We have high migrant numbers in our community, people who because of language difficulties have trouble fighting for their rights. We all deserve our right to justice.

Page 10859
From the time I was about eight years of age I went camping with my family at Lake Illawarra. One of the previous speakers in the debate spoke about her holidays there as a child. Much has happened over the past 50-odd years. The place has changed; it is completely different. A letter written to the editor of the Illawarra Mercury by Olive Rodwell was headed "Democracy falls to Port smelter law". It has already been referred to in the debate, but I will refer to it again in the hope that somewhere along the line it may impact upon members of the House. As the Hon. I. Cohen said, the Government and the Opposition will have to live with the bill. The problem is that the people of the area will not live with it, they will die from it. In her letter to the editor Mrs Rodwell said:

Premier Carr killed democracy in NSW when he introduced the "Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Bill 1997" on Thursday, May 29.

He knew that Helen Hamilton would win her court case against the smelter approval. His legal advisers told him so. The fact that only 12 residents were informed of the proposal when at least 7000 should have been notified is not a mere technicality - it is secrecy and stealth.

Bob Carr did not kill democracy by himself. All Labor and Liberal members of the Lower House voted for the draconian legislation . . .

All other members approved it with little discussion and no debate; and no realisation of the impact or the fact that it literally makes Carr a dictator. Carr and Knowles want the power to push through any development they wish with no opposition from the people, the courts or the Parliament.

As Illawarra is a Labor seat, this development will have an effect on the Government in the future. The problem is that once the upgraded smelter is operational, more people will suffer. On 17 June the Illawarra Mercury published an interesting article headed "Pt Kembla the Chernobyl of Australian residents". In part it reads:

"The whole area is contaminated", said Olive Rodwell . . . "One girl a few years ago just dropped in the street and had to be rushed to hospital when the fumes came over."

"Other people have collapsed in their backyards. We’ve got acid rain destroying hundreds of buildings. Yards are contaminated."

She said there was evidence Port Kembla had high asthma and leukaemia rates.

"It’s beautiful at the moment because the smelter is closed but (when the smelter is working) the fumes get you, it just grabs you in the throat. You just cannot breathe", she said.

The last sentence of the article reads:

The NSW Government believes more than 600 jobs will be created by reopening the smelter.

What of the hundreds of people who will be affected by asthma and leukaemia and who will eventually die? It is a high price to pay when talking about the lives of men, women and children. We have the court case of Ms Helen Hamilton. In the hope that water dripping on rock eventually has an effect, I shall quote in part the legal opinion of Tim Robertson, her barrister. He said:

It is completely false to describe Mrs Hamilton’s application to the Land and Environment Court as a technical issue about whether enough people were notified of the development application.

She challenged the validity of the EIS prepared for the smelter DA on the ground that it completely omitted any consideration of the impact of the development on land and water contamination. Mrs Hamilton alleged that the smelter site was contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic compounds. The development involved the excavation of the site. Not a word about site contamination appeared in the EIS.

The Government’s contamination policy was flouted. The directions by the Planning Department about the preparation of the EIS were ignored. No member of the public was informed about the extent of site contamination or the serious risks to human health and the safety of the natural environment.

As honourable members know, Call to Australia members are not radical greens but they do care about the environment. However, more importantly, they care about the lives of men, women and children. When I have driven to Wollongong and seen the smog and pollution over Port Kembla I have wondered - and I do not say this irreverently - how in God’s name people could live through it. The problem is, they are not living through it and it will be worse when the upgraded smelter becomes operational. Call to Australia has looked at this issue. We know the problems of asthma, cancer and leukaemia in our own family and I feel for the people who have had to come to this Chamber today to put their case. Call to Australia supports the people here today and opposes the bill.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.33 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly to the bill to express my concern and the concern of so many people in the Port Kembla area about the two sides of this argument. This debate reminds me very much of the lengthy forestry debate honourable members had when for many years they tried to juggle the issue of jobs for timber workers, the survival of the industry, and concerns about the environment. The environmental impact of the development of the new smelter has been a matter of great concern and has involved a high level of participation from a number of residents. The original level of environmental protection was rigorously assessed and has been increased.

Page 10860

Though a number of concerns remain, the level of environmental protection at present has certainly advanced considerably since the closure of the smelter with its terrible effects. On the other hand, I am impressed with the figures relating to the number of jobs to be created - some 350 during the construction of the smelter and an estimated 270 once it is operational. As I said, this issue reminds me of the forestry debate and the need to deal with both aspects. Similarly, the Illawarra area is very like the Hunter in that there has been a decline in traditional manufacturing jobs. There is a high level of unemployment among people with trades qualifications and also among unskilled people.

In recent weeks we have heard a lot of concern expressed about the Hunter, and I share the concern but I also share the concern about the Illawarra. The Government is called on to make a difficult decision. The only other comment I wish to make is to pay tribute to the work of Gerry Sullivan, the honourable member for Wollongong, and the work he has put into this whole issue. As the local member representing those seeking jobs, the trade unions in the area and the people with environmental concerns, Gerry Sullivan has worked hard to try to resolve those tensions. Certainly I am aware of the extent to which he has heavily lobbied Minister Craig Knowles and others to attempt to reach a resolution that meets those competing interests.

The Hon. Ann SYMONDS [3.37 p.m.]: I do not wish to delay debate on this bill because I understand several members have already spoken at length about elements of concern, but I do wish to place on the record my deep concern about the impact this legislation will have on the health of the people on the south coast. I understand there is a conflict between employment, health and environmental safety in this issue, but from my perspective priority should be given to the health of the citizens of that area and to the environmental safety required. Surely employment can be found in other ways with creativity and imagination. Employment should not be the sole object of this legislation. The alarming evidence from speakers in this debate about cancer and the cluster of diseases in the Port Kembla area should not be ignored by people in authority. It is clear that people have suffered. so how can I not express my opposition to any action that would lead to the continuation of suffering in this area? I am not in agreement with this bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [3.40 p.m.]: This is a difficult and complex issue. We are attempting to balance environmental considerations with the need to create employment in, and strengthen the industrial base of, the Illawarra. For many years I have been concerned about intervention in cases that are proceeding before the courts of this State. I have been concerned when governments have sought legislative refuge and stopped various cases, for whatever purpose - whether they be cases before the Land and Environment Court or cases in any other jurisdiction. The Attorney General is concerned about the separation of powers in relation to the judicial independence of the State and about the importance of these issues to the good governance of the State. I have looked at all the issues and my main concern - other than my concern about the health risks to people - is the intervention in proceedings before a court. In dealing with any of these issues we have to look at what role the Parliament wants when it intervenes in a court case on behalf of citizens to seek redress in relation to various issues. We must carefully consider what attitudes we should adopt in the future.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [3.42 p.m.]: I am concerned about the health and environmental aspects of the development at Port Kembla. We are often faced with the situation of jobs versus health. If we can not safeguard people’s health, we should not proceed with development. I do not support the bill, nor do I support changing laws midstream - a matter referred to by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations [3.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate, particularly those who support the bill - although some were less enthusiastic in their support than would be desirable in an ideal world. There has been good and robust debate on the bill and I commend it to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Primrose
Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Dr Burgmann Ms Saffin
Ms Burnswoods Mr Samios
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Sham-Ho
Mrs Forsythe Mr Shaw
Mr Gallacher Ms Staunton
Miss Gardiner Mrs Symonds
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Obeid Mrs Isaksen
Dr Pezzutti Mr Moppett

Page 10861

Mrs Nile
Rev. Nile
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Jones

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. I. Cohen agreed to:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it have power to consider amendments relating to:

(a) restrictions on modified consent;

(b) Environment Protection Authority to make pollution reports and environmental audits publicly available;

(c) review of air emission monitoring; and

(d) pollution control licences and pollution reduction program.

Clause 6

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.53 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, clause 6. Insert after line 27:

(3) The modified consent (including any later modification to it) is taken to be subject to the following condition:

The development shall be operated in accordance with the air and water pollution control standards (including criteria, goals and objectives) set out in the development consent.

This amendment will ensure that proper standards are adhered to in the operation of the development in order that the health of the community is protected.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.53 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. The requirement to carry out the development in accordance with the conditions of consent already exists under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This amendment is an unnecessary duplication.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.54 p.m.]: The Opposition acknowledges and agrees with the response of the Attorney General. Effectively this amendment seeks to restate the law. It serves no additional purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

New clauses 8 to 10

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.54 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment 2:

No. 2 Page 4. Insert after line 4:

8 EPA to make pollution reports and environmental audits publicly available

The Environment Protection Authority must cause copies of:

(a) any reports relating to waste water discharges or air emissions, and

(b) any annual environmental audits, received by it pursuant to the conditions of the development consent to be kept available during normal office hours at its Wollongong office for inspection and copying, free of charge, by members of the public.

9 Review of air emission monitoring

(1) Within 3 months after the commencement of this Act, the Monitoring Committee:

(a) must review the locations of each of the Company’s air emission monitoring stations for the purpose of deciding whether or not to recommend other locations as being more suitable for them, and

(b) must carry out investigations for the purpose of deciding whether or not to recommend the adoption of a mobile monitoring program to augment those air emission monitoring stations, having regard to the need to optimise the procedures for the measurement of human and environmental exposure to air emissions from the copper smelter and refinery.

(2) In this section:

Company means the person entitled to act on the development consent.

copper refinery and smelter means the copper refinery and smelter to which the development consent relates.

Monitoring Committee means the committee of that name established in accordance with the conditions of the development consent.

Page 10862

10 Pollution control licences and pollution reduction program

(1) The Environment Protection Authority must cause notice to be given to members of the public of:

(a) any application for a pollution control licence, and any application for the revocation or variation of any conditions of a pollution control licence, and

(b) any proposed operational plan, and any proposed amendment or revocation of an operational plan,

received by it from the Company.

(2) The notice must be published in:

(a) at least one daily newspaper circulating throughout the State, and

(b) at least one local newspaper circulating within Port Kembla.

(3) The notice must indicate where copies of any application or proposal may be inspected by members of the public and must specify a date, being a date occurring no less than 30 days after the date of the notice, during which members of the public may make submissions to the Environment Protection Authority about the application or proposal.

(4) In considering any action to take in connection with any such application or proposal, the Environment Protection Authority must have regard to any submissions duly made by members of the public.

(5) In this section:

Company means the person entitled to act on the development consent.

operational plan means any plan containing details of design, specification or operating procedures, any plan of management, any selenium reduction plan, any environmental monitoring plan, any waste management strategy, any site rehabilitation plan and any dust management plan, being a plan prepared by the Company pursuant to the conditions of the development consent.

pollution control licence means a licence under the Pollution Control Act 1970.

This amendment adds additional clauses to ensure community confidence in the development and operation of the smelter. It is vital that the community has rights to readily accessible information. In relation to the controversial nature of the smelter, the right to know is a crucial part of the consent. The Greens consider that the Government would support clause 8, especially considering the purported confidence the Government has in the operation of this development. An Australian Labor Party pre-election commitment related to the community’s right to know. Again I remind the Government of its commitment to the people of New South Wales in relation to community power to stop pollution. In a media release dated 5 March 1995, on the letterhead of the Hon. Bob Carr, Leader of the Opposition at the time, entitled "Community power to stop pollution", Mr Carr said:

Landmark community "Right to Know" legislation will be passed by a Carr Labor Government to inform the public about the true extent of pollution discharges into the environment.

. . . "This legislation - the first of its kind in Australia - will enshrine the right of the public to have direct access to all information concerning pollution licences.

"It will be an important aid for local communities in their fight to reduce water and air pollution.

"Moreover it will be matched with a renewed and upgraded commitment from the Environment Protection Authority to fight the generation of pollution at all levels.

"One of the reasons why the public does not have faith in the EPA or Sydney Water is because of their obsessive secrecy about pollution and its source.

In light of the Government’s inaction on this aspect of the legislation, clause 8 seeks to make information accessible to the public. Clause 9 seeks to ensure that monitoring stations have a significant effect on what data is collected and thus the ability to assess environmental and health aspects. Clause 10 seeks to provide transparency. Applications to modify consents are often not revealed on the basis that they are technical, but they can have substantial effects on the community. This provision allows a public audit. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.57 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. The consent already has adequate provisions that address pollution monitoring, reporting issues and air emission monitoring. The amendment is unnecessary.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.58 p.m.]: The Greens amendment seeks under clause 8 to make certain that reports are publicly available relating to waste water discharges or air emissions and any annual environmental audits. These matters should be covered by environmental protection legislation. As the
Page 10863
honourable member stated, the Government gave a commitment in 1995 that it would make more broadly available information about the operations of the Environment Protection Authority. The Opposition does not disagree with that direction, but opposes the amendment.

The Opposition believes the matter should be dealt with under either the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or the freedom of information legislation so that the same rules apply to all approvals and the law is consistent across the State. The Port Kembla development application and approval should be dealt with in accordance with general law. The Opposition is not prepared to support this specific amendment but indicates that the direction being advocated by the Greens, which, as the Hon. I. Cohen indicated, was advocated by the Government, ought to be addressed in general legislation and not in this bill.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Nile
Rev. Nile
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Jones

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Mr Ryan
Mrs Chadwick Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mrs Sham-Ho
Mrs Forsythe Mr Shaw
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Miss Gardiner Ms Staunton
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Symonds
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Obeid Mr Moppett

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

New clauses negatived.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

Third Reading

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Mr Ryan
Mrs Chadwick Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mrs Sham-Ho
Mrs Forsythe Mr Shaw
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Miss Gardiner Ms Staunton
Mr Gay Mrs Symonds
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Obeid Mr Moppett
Mrs Nile
Rev. Nile
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Jones

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.