Current and potential impacts of gold, silver, lead and zinc mining on human health, land, air and water quality in NSW.
Ms Cate Faehrmann: I will be the second member—and the second Greens member—to speak on the report entitled Current and potential impacts of gold, silver, lead and zinc mining on human health, land, air and water quality in New South Wales. We will get to what I think is the reason behind that. When the inquiry was established, it was an opportunity to get the balance right between the mining of heavy metals—specifically lead, silver, gold and zinc—and the potentially dangerous and destructive impacts that mining those metals has on human health and the environment.
The inquiry arose after residents living near the Newmont Cadia goldmine near Orange in the Central West became alarmed at visible dust pollution from the mine and had the water in their rainwater tanks independently tested by Western Sydney University and water scientist Associate Professor Ian Wright. The results were shocking and made national headlines. At that time other communities in the Central West were trying to stop several heavy metal mines in their areas. The small farming community at Lue were up against the Bowdens lead and silver mine in the Mudgee region, and another farming community near Blayney, also near Orange, were fighting to protect the Belubula River from the McPhillamys goldmine. It was agreed that the inquiry would examine all three projects and also examine, among other things, whether the regulatory framework for heavy metals mining is fit for purpose and able to ensure that the impacts of heavy metals on local communities, economies and the environment are appropriately balanced.
I say from the outset how sorry I am to residents from the Mudgee and Orange regions, from Blayney, from Captains Flat and from across the State, who were right to expect more from the inquiry. This final report in no way reflects the vast majority of evidence received throughout the course of the inquiry. It was railroaded; the chair's draft report was totally gutted, largely by Government members who were ably supported by the Opposition. I said in the report that substantial evidence and committee comment was removed, including about the following:
- The potentially significant impacts that the Bowdens mine will have on water quality and supply, including references to acid mine drainage.
- The results of a koala survey undertaken near the Bowdens mine site which found significant koala activity within the proposed operational areas of the mine site and less in the proposed biodiversity offset areas.
- Evidence from tourism and wine industries of the potential impact that the Bowdens mine would have on their businesses, including extra virgin olive oil producers and wine growers.
- Criticism of Cadia's Environmental Protection Licence by independent water scientist, Associate Professor Ian Wright, including that it contained inadequate provisions for monitoring and controlling dust emissions from the mine.
- The fact that gold, silver, lead and zinc do not appear in the federal Government's Critical Minerals list.
- Evidence that the open cut pit for the McPhillamys mine is proposed to be 450m deep and will not be rehabilitated, meaning water will continue to drain from aquifers and connected surface water into the pit for at least the next 500 years.
I remind members that this is fact evidence that was removed upon motion by Government members. The list of what was removed continues:
- Evidence that the McPhillamys tailings dam will be constructed in the headwaters of the Belubula River and will hold approximately 46,700ML of tailings and span an area of 273 hectares, at capacity.
- Evidence that a population of platypus of high conservation significance live in the Belubula River.
- Evidence from multiple witnesses from local communities that the IPC assessment process ignored their concerns and was a waste of time.
- Calls by impacted communities, and a recommendation, for a buffer zone around mines.
- Evidence that regardless of major lead deposits in Australia, there are no operating lead mines anywhere near the east coast or a highly populated area.
- Evidence from an emeritus consultant neurosurgeon and a Lue landholder of the enduring health impacts that lead can have for humans, especially children, and that there is no safe level of lead for humans.
- Compelling evidence that the response by the EPA to ongoing pollution issues experienced by residents who live near Cadia's Newcrest mine was inadequate.
- Multiple calls by the community for changes to the law to allow merit-based appeals to be brought in the NSW Land and Environment Court following a determination by the Independent Planning Commission on a project that has been declared State Significant Development, and where a public hearing has occurred.
- Committee comments expressing concern regarding the Aboriginal cultural significance of the areas to be impacted by the McPhillamys mine.
The findings and recommendations in the draft report were not radical. They were not pie in the sky. They were not unachievable. In fact, they appeared to be carefully drafted by the chair, my Greens colleague Dr Amanda Cohn, with the aim of achieving support across the political divide. For example, take this draft finding:
The Environment Protection Authority operates under a regulatory framework which generally includes a strong toolkit with which to regulate pollution incidents, however the lack of enforcement let the Cadia community down.
Nope, Government members could not even stomach that. What about the draft recommendation for the Government to commission an independent review of the resources and energy State environmental planning policy to consider how the need for critical minerals to reach clean energy targets should be weighed against the health, economic and environmental impacts of mining in making such assessments and providing such approvals? Removed. What about a draft recommendation regarding health impact assessments? Also removed. The chair's dissenting statement covers this in more detail.
It is particularly galling that Government members moved for a new finding that the regulatory bodies responsible for mining projects, and the detailed frameworks they administer, are fundamentally sound. This finding is a kick in the guts to the witnesses and impacted communities who told us repeatedly that the regulatory framework was letting them as well as the environment down. One of the inquiry's terms of reference was to inquire into the effectiveness of current decommissioning and rehabilitation practices in safeguarding human health and the environment. But the Hon. Greg Donnelly on the committee moved to remove the entire chapter dealing with that issue. That meant the removal of paragraphs in the report summarising the evidence of Lue resident and young mum Jade Miskle, who appeared at the Mudgee hearing. It is unprecedented that evidence received during an inquiry—something witnesses said—was removed from a report. We do not do that. You have to wonder why that happened. The following was omitted:
Regarding other measures parents could take to protect their children from lead, Ms Miskle also noted that the EPA had issued a fact sheet for people who live near lead industries, entitledLead – your health around the home. She indicated that this factsheet referred to a number of expensive and burdensome steps people can take around the house to protect their families. This included washing front steps and verandahs at least once a week, mopping floors using a three bucket system, using a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter, and removing old carpets. Ms Miskle also noted that the fact sheet stated that animal coats can catch a considerable amount of dust and stated, "So there goes our family dog; he needs to leave''.
This paragraph about Lue residents was also removed:
However, Ms White claimed that the expert advice on acid mine drainage was ignored by DPE and the IPC in approving the Bowdens Silver Project. Likewise, Mr White stated that there were a number of unresolved issues with regard to water quality, notwithstanding the project's approval:
There was a lack of clear due process, with very clear dot points set out in the SEARs such as site water balance, water quality impacts and trigger action plans not addressed at all but rather added as dot points to the conditions of consent. Experts such as Earth Systems, commissioned by the DPE themselves, were not asking for the designs to be finessed but rather to be entirely redone.
All of that was removed. Again, that was evidence. The extraordinary behaviour of Government members on the committee, which even I must admit I believe made Coalition members uncomfortable, raises many questions. Why did Government members move to gut the report? In budget estimates I asked what the Minister for Natural Resources knew about the report. Her response? Nothing. The Minister for Natural Resources did not see the report. I also questioned departmental officials about whether they had anything to do with the draft recommendations and, lo and behold, the executive director of the Resources Regulator had seen some of the draft recommendations. People within the public service had seen the draft recommendations.
The people of Lue, the Cadia Community Sustainability Network, the Mudgee Region Action Group and the Belubula Headwaters Protection Group have been let down by some of the members in this place, particularly Government members. They have had such courage, passion and commitment to stand up for their local community and their local environment. They deserve answers as to what has happened to this report. Why did those Government members come in and do that to a good, balanced process that was run fairly, without even the Minister's knowledge? This is a shocking precedent in this place that I certainly hope is never repeated. The community needs answers.