Home
Search results “New south wales mining legislation”
[Legislative Council] QWN - AusGold Mining Group
 
02:25
15 November 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - AusGold Mining Group The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:30 ): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Resources. Given the recent collapse of the AusGold mining project in Tibooburra, is the Government investigating its activities and, if so, will the Minister update the House on the status of any investigation? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:31 ): Ms Sally Zou owns a small goldmine of 17 hectares in Tibooburra in the far north-west of New South Wales. Development consent for the Good Friday Mine was approved in August 2016. The Tibooburra goldmine, which is yet to begin production, is anticipated to provide direct employment for 16 people, inject more than $40 million into the local economy over the life of the mine and generate a total of $7.8 million in royalties for New South Wales. Recent media coverage has raised questions about Ms Zou's AusGold operations. The takes the capability and responsibility of resource title holders very seriously. I encourage anyone who becomes aware of any breaches of conditions of title or the law or of other offences to report them to the relevant authorities. The resources regulator has confirmed that it has completed its investigation into AusGold Mining Group for alleged breaches of the Mining Act and documentation supplied as part of an application. The investigation found no breaches of the Act. However, the resources regulator also confirmed that it has received another complaint on an unrelated issue. That matter is now being assessed. As that assessment is ongoing, further details will not be released at this time and I therefore will not make any further comment on AusGold. I repeat, I encourage anyone who becomes aware of any breaches of conditions of title or the law or of other offences to report them to the relevant authorities.
Views: 49 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] 2R - Mining Amendment (Climate Protection—No New Coal Mines) Bill 2017
 
20:06
30 March 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Mining Amendment (Climate Protection—No New Coal Mines) Bill 2017 The Hon. ADAM SEARL E ( 12:06 ): I speak for the Labor Opposition on the Mining Amendment (Climate Protection—No New Coal Mines) Bill 2016. I do so as the Leader of the Opposition in this place and as the shadow Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy. Labor's position on this bill is very clear: we do not support the bill before the House. We think that this is too blunt an instrument and it will be highly destructive for the industry, the economy of New South Wales and indeed all of those who depend upon the industry for economic support. But that should not be confused with being an uncritical urger or booster of mining or coalmining generally. The Labor Party, given its history rooted in coalmining communities and other working communities over more than a century, has historically been very supportive of the development of the resources industry, including coalmining. We remain supportive of coalminers and their communities. We are very conscious of the important economic activity that comes from coalmining in this State. For example, we know that New South Wales mines produced 260 million tonnes of raw coal and 196 million tonnes of saleable coal in 2013. We know that the mining industry was worth over $21 billion, including nearly $18 billion worth of coal. We know that around 85 per cent of the coal dug out of the ground in New South Wales is exported, and the rest is used to generate electricity. Even the Government's most recent Renewable Energy Action Plan, which was 18 months late, and I will come back to that, says that about 79 per cent of the electricity upon which we depend daily still comes from coal-fired power. The 136 million tonnes of coal exported was worth about $15.2 billion. Coal accounted for about 31 per cent of all merchandise leaving New South Wales, making it the State's single most valuable export commodity. The minerals industry pays about $1.6 billion to the New South Wales Government. About $1.3 billion of that is paid in royalties, the overwhelming majority of which comes from the coal industry. Nearly $135 million has been paid in payroll tax and nearly $146 million in land tax. The mining industry also pays nearly $1.5 billion to the Commonwealth Government, and that is overwhelmingly paid by the coal industry. In 2013, the value of employment and other value-added aspects of investment in the coal industry was nearly $10 billion. It contributes $1.4 billion to the Central West economy, nearly $1 billion to the Illawarra economy, $6.3 billion to the Hunter economy, and more than $300 million to the New England and north-west economies. The mining sector, and predominantly the coalmining sector, generates about 20 per cent of the economic activity and 10 per cent of the jobs in the Central West and 7 per cent of jobs in the Hunter region. The coal industry historically has been, and it remains, very significant in this State. It pays $1.3 billion in royalties, although the New South Wales Treasury can never get the royalty figure right—it always overestimates it. That money provides more than 11,000 teachers for our schools. More than 30,000 people work in this State's mining industry, but that figure fluctuates between 30,000 and 44,000. Of course, it has other impacts across supply chains; it impacts not only mining directly— The Hon. Robert Brown: It has impacts across whole industries. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. The Labor Party is extremely conscious of the economic importance of the industry. It is also conscious of the importance of employment to people; it gives them a sense of purpose and economic security, which enables them to raise their families and to go about their lives. However, the Labor Party is also aware of the reality of climate change. I disagree with the previous speaker. People on my side of politics understand that climate change is real and that it is being accelerated by human activity. We do not shy away from that. We also acknowledge that Australia's carbon emissions are led by coal-fired power. We know that fossil fuel, primarily coal, comprises up to 80 per cent of our emissions. We also know that more needs to be done because we have only one planet on which to live. It sustains all of us, and if we destroy it we have nowhere else to go.... FULL TRANSCRIPT at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-72882/link/95
Views: 6 Adam Searle MLC
Coal Mining Long Service Leave scheme protected by Gillard Govt
 
02:12
Prime Minister Julia Gillard congratulates CFMEU Mining & Energy members on the protection of their Long Service Leave entitlements after the introduction of new legislation.
Views: 192 CFMEUMINING
[Legislative Council] 2R - Coal Industry Amendment Bill 2018
 
09:32
1 May 2018 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Coal Industry Amendment Bill 2018 FULL TRANSCRIPT AT http://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/coal-industry-amendment-bill-2018/ The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 15:41 ): I lead for the Labor Opposition in debate on the Coal Industry Amendment Bill 2018. I am pleased to inform the House that we will be supporting the legislation. The Coal Industry Act provides for approved companies to carry out statutory functions under the legislation, including delivering workers compensation insurance, health surveillance, occupational health and rehabilitation services, the collection of statistics, monitoring of dust and other airborne contaminants, as well as supplying mines rescue emergency services and training to the New South Wales coal industry. The companies approved to conduct these functions are Coal Services and its subsidiaries, Coal Mines Insurance and Mines Rescue. The companies are jointly owned by the NSW Minerals Council and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The approved companies together provide a comprehensive health and safety scheme for the coalmining industry in New South Wales under arrangements that are unique in Australia and the world. The current scheme was a legacy of the Carr Labor Government. To achieve the objectives of the legislation the approved company, Coal Mines Insurance, exercises a workers compensation insurance monopoly over employers in the coal industry. Coal Services also provides a specialist health and safety scheme for the New South Wales coal industry with very robust controls and monitoring, as the Minister outlined in his second reading speech. This enables employers who insure through the approved company to access health monitoring for their workers free of any additional charge. This monitoring assists mine operators to identify high-risk areas and activities and to drive further improvements in workplace health and safety in the coalmines. Importantly, these arrangements together have helped to effectively eliminate many conditions and illnesses that were for decades a feature of coalmining, not only in this State but also in other jurisdictions. For example, black lung disease, or pneumoconiosis as it is correctly known, has effectively been eliminated in this State. There have been some instances of it but it is much better than in other jurisdictions and this is as a result of the health screening function provided under this regime. The work of these important services is met not by the State budget but by funds generated through workers compensation premiums paid to Coal Mines Insurance, the Mine Safety Levy investment returns and, of course, from commercially sourced revenue. As a result of two decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court the monopoly over workers compensation insurance in the coalmining industry has for a number of years been under threat, which in turn threatens the ongoing provision of these vital health and rescue services that I outlined earlier. In the case of Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court concluded that in order for the special insurer of employers in the coal industry to be liable for an injured employee's claim, the employer must be an employer "in" the coalmining industry. In its reasoning the court confirmed the earlier ruling by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Central West Group apprentices Ltd v Coal Mines Insurance Ltd in 2008, that the phrase "employer in the coal industry" requires a substantive connection between the entity and the coal industry to satisfy the relationship required by the preposition "in" beyond merely being the employer of a person who works in and about a mine. Working in and about a mine is the statutory test for workers to access workers compensation payments in the coal industry in this State. There were two different definitions of employer and employee in related but different pieces of legislation, which led to the court taking what I think was an unduly narrow and technical approach, which I will develop in a moment. The practical effect of the two decisions is that an entity that provides services that are integral to the coalmining industry does not necessarily lead to a finding that it is in the coalmining industry. To determine whether or not an employer is in the coalmining industry the courts found it was necessary to assess the substantive character of the industrial enterprise in which the employer is engaged and its connection with the coal industry. It sounds fair enough, but in the case of Kuypers the company at issue provided services such as exploration drilling, drilling service holes and drilling to enable dewatering of a site.... FULL TRANSCRIPT AT http://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/coal-industry-amendment-bill-2018/
Views: 65 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] Adani Carmichael Coalmine Proposal Impact
 
05:13
2 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Adjournment Debate - Adani Carmichael Coalmine Proposal Impact The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 17:41 ): The Adani coal mine proposal in Queensland's Galilee Basin should not proceed. It should not proceed if we support the coal industry in New South Wales and the many jobs and economic support it provides to the regions and the State as a whole. Based on publicly available information, we know that the proposed Adani mine in Queensland does not stack up environmentally or even economically. If it such a great idea why is it seeking a $1 billion Federal loan? It is now a matter of record that the big four banks will not fund the Adani mine. This is a pretty clear indication that it is completely bananas economically. Banks are not known to be philanthropic or to have a social conscience, but they do know how to make a buck. If they are not willing to invest in a project it is probably not going to earn a profit. It is clear that the Adani mine proposal represents a clear and present threat to the New South Wales economy and to the State budget. Increasing the global supply of thermal coal by the 6 per cent represented by Adani will place downward pressure on prices received by New South Wales coal exporters and slash mining royalties paid to the State Government by tens and possibly hundreds of millions per year. That would undermine the integrity of the New South Wales budget and its capacity to deliver basic services. It would put existing mine operations and jobs in New South Wales at risk. That is the evidence given by Adani to the Queensland land court in connection with the mine approvals. It acknowledged that its mine proposal would have a negative impact on mines in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia. The world thermal coal market is flat and likely to contract. No-one is predicting any real growth. There is a debate among economists about whether the change in demand for thermal coal is cyclical or structural—a significant increase in production of thermal coal will not lead to higher overall sales and prices. In a statement this week Mr Jonathan van Rooyen, General Manager, Investments for the Port of Newcastle's half-share owner Gardior, said the Adani mine would unarguably reduce world coal prices and the volume of coal mined in the Hunter. He further stated that the Federal Government would "distort competition and create sovereign risk" by subsidising Adani in a "shrinking world coal market". Further he said: There is n o avoiding the simple mathematics that if Turnbull succeeds in pushing between 25 million and 60 million tonnes of subsidised new coal into a flat world market the volume of coal mined and exported from the Hunter and Illawarra will decline. As will royalt ies collected by the New South Wales Government and the number of coal jobs in the Hunter and Illawarra. It echoes comments made in 2015 by senior Glencore coal division executive Peter Freyberg who criticised proposed Federal Government subsidies to Adani. He stated, "Bringing on additional tonnes with the aid of taxpayer money would materially increase the risk to existing coal operations" and would "distort competition and create sovereign risk" by subsidising Adani in a "shrinking world coal market. In a report issued last week by the Australia Institute, titled "Royalty Flush—the risks to NSW coal royalty revenue from Adani subsidy", economist Rod Campbell stated: The subsidised development of the Adani mine represents a threat not just to Newcastle Port but to all mines in the Hunter. With flat world demand, subsidising a large amount of new supply is economic madness. To place this in perspective: the Saudis have around 14 per cent of the traded world market in oil. Did they get rich by flooding the market with oil or by carefully rationing the supply to international markets? Australia has around 20 per cent of the traded world market in thermal coal. In contrast to the Saudi approach, it has approved as many mines as companies want to build. In my view, future approval processes need to be mindful not only of the cumulative impact on land and water but also of the level of supply and likely demand and price to be obtained by the resource. After all, the resource—contrary to the views of coalmining companies—does not belong to any mining company but to the wider community and government has a responsibility to ensure that if the resource is developed or extracted that the best price is obtained. FULL TRANSCRIPT at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-73122/link/95
Views: 67 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Shenhua Watermark Exploration Licence
 
02:24
5 June 2018 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament SPEECH TYPE - Shenhua Watermark Exploration Licence The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts. In light of the Government's agreement to provide $262 million to Shenhua on the expiration of its mining exploration licence on the Liverpool Plains and for the permanent surrender of half that exploration licence, has the Government yet paid the funds to Shenhua and, if so, when did that payment occur? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) (16:01): I will come back to the date on which payment was made to Shenhua. In 2008 Shenhua won a competitive tender for the area now covered by exploration licence 7223 that included paying the New South Wales Government around $300 million. On 12 July 2017 the New South Wales Government reached agreement with Shenhua to excise 51.4 per cent of its exploration licence 7223 that encroached on the flat fertile Liverpool Plains. The agreement included a refund, as the Hon. Adam Searle noted in his question, of $262 million. The refund of $262 million represents 51.4 per cent of the original $300 million received, adjusted for today's value commensurate with the 51.4 per cent of the title area recovered by the Government. I apologise for the pause; I do not have the date. I will give the member an answer at the end of question time.
Views: 57 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Goldmining Industry
 
04:14
25 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Goldmining Industry The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:30 ): My question is directed to the Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts. How is the New South Wales Government supporting the creation of responsible development and jobs in the New South Wales goldmining sector, and is the Minister confident that the State Government is adequately pursuing all investment opportunities? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:30 ): What a surprising question from the Leader of the Opposition on a day like today. There is plenty that is going on in the goldmining industry across New South Wales. It is one of the strongest mining activities, particularly in the western part of the State. Recently I had great pleasure in visiting the Northparkes copper and goldmine, which is doing a spectacular job. The Cadia mine, of course, has also been doing a spectacular job. It has had some difficulties, as I am sure members would know, as a result of an earth tremor at that mine. Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The mine fell in on itself, you mean. The Hon. DON HARWIN: When there is an earth tremor or some other geotechnical issue, sometimes these things happen. I am surprised that Mr Jeremy Buckingham is not aware of that. It is an important mine. Lake Cowal has mines and further mining activity is occurring in the Far West of the State. A small mine called the Good Friday mine opened recently at Tibooburra, north of Broken Hill. The PRESIDENT: Order! There are far too many interjections. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Good Friday mine is providing employment for 16 workers. It is providing considerable value-add into the community of the Far West. An amount of $40 million is being injected into the local economy with royalties of approximately $7.8 million for the State, so it is quite a significant investment. Gold is an important and growing industry for New South Wales. In fact, New South Wales is the second-largest goldmining State after Western Australia. Those projects are important for New South Wales. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will come to order. If Opposition members do not want to have question time, I will allow them to continue interjecting. I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.
Views: 6 Adam Searle MLC
First anti-consorting jail term overturned
 
03:06
The first person jailed under New South Wales' anti-bikie laws is set to be released because of flaws in the police case.
[Legislative Council] QWN - Mining Protest Laws
 
00:43
8 March 2016 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Mining Protest Laws The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government and Vice-President of the Executive Council. As Leader of the Government, what is his response to community concerns that his Government's proposed mining protest laws will interfere with peaceful community activists like the knitting nannas, farmers, teachers and clergy at sites such as Bentley, the Liverpool Plains, the Pilliga and the Southern Highlands? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. Anyone who wishes to conduct a peaceful, law-abiding protest has nothing to fear from our legislation.
Views: 4 Adam Searle MLC
Police Harassment and Getting screwed when obeying the law...!!!
 
03:37
Do everything by the law of the land and it comes down to revenue raising - the almighty dollar is more important than serving your community. It's that plain and simple, harassment by the New South Wales Police Force Highway Patrol in Northern New South Wales to make a quick buck... LIKE, COMMENT AND SUBSCRIBE
Views: 61287 RM K
AusGold Mining Group Introduction
 
01:14
http://ausgoldmining.com AusGold Mining Group is a Chinese-funded mining group that currently holds a mining licence in New South Wales. AusGold is investing heavily in the New South Wales economy by way of future mining developments and recognises the importance of the friendship between China, Australia and the Precious Metals industry.
Views: 1685 Click Forward Clients
Shenhua Watermark Mining License in Liverpool Plains: Purchased Again by NSW Government.
 
01:09
Shenhua Watermark Mining License in Liverpool Plains: Purchased Again by NSW Government. It is acting to protect the agricultural future of the plains of Liverpool, in the northwest of the state. Resources Minister Don Harwin said the deal expected the government to recover 51.4 percent of the company's exploration license at a cost of $ 262 million. While the previous Labor Government granted the original exploration license, this Government has determined that there should be no mining on the fertile black soils of the Liverpoo Plains. Any future mining activity will now be restricted to ridge lands, with a start still subject to additional management plans and continuous monitoring of already established stringent conditions. For over a decade, farmers have been fighting the coal war against mining in the plains an area of ​​prime agricultural land. Last year, the State Government announced a repurchase of BHP's license for the Caroona mine on the Liverpool plains. Careful consideration determined that the mine posed too great a risk to the future of the good vessel and its sources. Groundwater. #LicenseMining #ShenhuaWatermark #LiverpoolPlains #NSWGovernment #miningactivity #ymasciencia
Views: 34 Science and more
Introducing the Greens' NSW Climate Change Bill
 
27:45
Jan Barham introduces legislation to ensure all NSW governments deliver leadership on climate action, with a target of net zero emissions by 2040, four-year plans for emission reductions and climate change adaptation, and public accountability by allowing court proceedings to prevent decisions that would undermine action on climate change. From the NSW Legislative Council, Thursday 22 October 2015. Video is subject to Parliament's Copyright Notice, Conditions of Use and Disclaimer: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/SiteLegalNotice
Views: 55 Jan Barham
[Legislative Council] 2R - Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Package of Bills 2015
 
32:04
21 October 2015 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading - Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Package of Bills 2015 The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.40 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Grant of Coal and Petroleum Prospecting Titles) Bill 2015, the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access Arbitration) Bill 2015, the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2015, the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum) Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2015 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Enforcement of Gas and Other Petroleum Legislation) Bill 2015. I state at the outset that the Opposition will not be opposing the bills but we will be proposing constructive improvements. This package of five bills contains what can fairly be described as significant changes to the law and the administration of the mining and petroleum industries of this State. This package will significantly overhaul the laws that regulate mining and exploration licences, the assessment of mining leases, workplace health and safety regulation, and the enforcement of land access arbitration in the mining of petroleum industries. It will legislate to make the environmental protection authority responsible for investigating and instituting proceedings for petroleum offences and other offences under other environmental legislation as a step towards making the NSW Environment Protection Authority [EPA] the single regulator for all environmental offences in this State. The Government will no doubt claim that the bills taken together implement the recommendations made by the Chief Scientist and Engineer in her September 2014 report titled "Final Report of the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW". The legislation in relation to the granting of coal and prospecting titles and the harmonisation provisions modernises and updates many of the provisions that deal with the allocation and administration of various titles. Indeed, it ensures a consistent approach across the resources sector so that petroleum is essentially brought into the same regulatory regime. It also implements a range of other new measures and brings the petroleum sector under the same occupational health and safety regime as currently applies in the minerals and other resources sector. The enforcement bill provides for the EPA to take on more directly the regulatory functions it now performs under delegations. The Chief Scientist and Engineer made 16 recommendations in her September 2014 report, and 12 or 13 of those recommendations were of such a nature as to be appropriate to be implemented through legislation. What is notable about the legislative package before the House is not only its content but also, more notably, what it lacks. No action has been taken on 10 of the 13 recommendations made by the Chief Scientist and Engineer which we think, for more abundant caution and safety, need legislative underpinning in order to make effective any administrative action that is taken. I will now briefly enumerate those recommendations where, as we see it, there has been no action..... FULL TRANSCRIPT AT http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20151021033?open&refNavID=HA8_1
Views: 35 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Coal Industry Workers Compensation
 
02:46
22 November 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Coal Industry Workers Compensation The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 15:17 ): My question without notice is directed to the Leader for the Government and Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts. Earlier this year the Opposition asked about the impact on workers compensation insurance arrangements in the New South Wales coalmining industry of the Supreme Court decision of Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations. Given his deferred answer of 8 August, 106 days ago, when will the Government develop what he described as an "appropriate response to maintain suitable workers compensation arrangements and a health and safety scheme that protects workers"? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 15:18 ): I thank the honourable member for his question. I certainly have not forgotten the answer that I gave or the issue, which is an important one. The ongoing arrangements for workers whose coverage under current legislation is affected by that particular decision is a very significant issue indeed. For the information of the House, Coal Services is an industry-owned organisation that has statutory functions, as outlined within the New South Wales Coal Industry Act 2001. These functions include, but are not limited to, providing workers compensation, occupational health and rehabilitation services, collecting statistics and providing mine rescue emergency services and training to the New South Wales coal industry. Section 31 of the Coal Industry Act 2001 allows Coal Services to require an employer in the coal industry to effect workers compensation for its employees through Coal Mines Insurance. Coal Services and Coal Mines Insurance have submitted a proposal to consider amendments to the Coal Industry Act 2001 to further clarify the definition of an employer in the coal industry. Coal Services has raised concerns about the definition of an employer in the coal industry following the decision of the court in the case of Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd—referred to by the Hon. Adam Searle in his question—where the definition was specifically considered. I have asked the department to progress consideration of the policy and legal implications of the Coal Services proposal. They are at an advanced stage and I am hoping to make an announcement shortly.
Views: 10 Adam Searle MLC
A Year to Remember 1949: Miners' Strike, New South Wales, Australia
 
01:20
The 1949 Australian coal strike was the first time that Australian military forces were used during peacetime to break a trade union strike. The strike by 23,000 coal miners lasted for seven weeks, from 27 June 1949 to 15 August 1949, with troops being sent in by the Ben Chifley Federal Labor government to the open cut coal mines in New South Wales, The miners' federation was heavily influenced at the time by the Communist Party of Australia. Strikers holding signs “Better wages and conditions for Miners, means better wages and conditions for all workers”. The Labor government passed legislation that made it illegal to give strikers and their families financial support (including credit from shops). On 5 July, union officials were ordered to hand over union funds to the industrial registrar. On the following day, union officials were arrested and the respective union and CPA headquarters raided. Lager crowds, protesters in streets. ***** License this footage at Framepool: https://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/981697252 ***** Check out the Year to Remember Collection by Cinesound-Movietone: https://footage.framepool.com/en/collections/A-Year-To-Remember/
Views: 21 Timeline
[Legislative Council] 2R - Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
 
04:12
31 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 16:57 ): I lead for the Opposition on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. The object of the bill is to amend the Mining Act 1992, the Mining Regulation 2016 and the Petroleum (Onshore Act 1991 to clarify how those activities that are now known as mining purposes, to be called "ancillary mining activities" in the future, are carried out in connection with mining leases and regulated under the Mining Act. For example, this bill will permit the consolidation of multiple ancillary mining activities into a single mining title. At present there might be a primary mining title and then multiple and separate titles regulating each individual ancillary mining activity taking place in conjunction with the primary mining operation. These are typically to do with tailings, dams, stockpiles of displaced soils and other works. This is to make sure that they can all be consolidated into the one title and regulated more simply. The bill also makes further provision in relation to the giving of enforceable undertakings under the Mining Act and Petroleum (Online) Act and the enforcement of those instruments. For example, it requires those undertakings, including any variations made to them, to be published publicly. It will enable the secretary of the department to apply to the NSW Land and Environment Court rather than the District Court for an order if a person contravenes an enforceable undertaking under the mining and petroleum acts, whether or not proceedings have been instituted for an offence for the contravention of the enforceable undertaking. At present if the court is satisfied that the person who made the enforceable undertaking has contravened the undertaking of the court, in addition to imposing any penalty it may also make orders directing the person to comply with the undertaking, an order discharging the undertaking and any other order the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. This includes orders directing the person to pay to the State the costs of the proceedings and the reasonable costs of the secretary in monitoring compliance with the enforceable undertaking in the future. This bill adds to that and makes it clear that those applications can now take place in the Land and Environment Court, not just the District Court. This is a rare example perhaps of this Government taking a jurisdiction from a generalist court of a lower stature, such as the District Court, and giving it to a superior court of record equivalent to the Supreme Court and the Land and Environment Court and giving it specialist jurisdiction. It is a bit like the reverse of the work, health and safety jurisdiction being taken out of the industrial court and sent down to the District Court. There is a little irony there. The legislation also permits proceedings to deal with breaches of enforceable undertakings to be dealt with summarily in the Land and Environment Court. That is a sensible provision to make clear. The legislation makes further provision in relation to offences under the Mining Act and the Petroleum Act regarding the furnishing of false or misleading information. It significantly increases the penalties and makes them consistent with offences under the Mining Act, the Petroleum Act, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Biodiversity Conservation Act. Penalties are increased from $55,000 to $220,000 for individuals and from $110,000 to $1.1 million as a maximum penalty for corporations. We welcome that aspect of the legislation. The legislation makes other miscellaneous amendments regarding the administration and enforcement of the Mining Act and the Petroleum Act. I note that all relevant stakeholders in the sector appear to have been consulted including the Minerals Council and the mining division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Minerals Council is not happy with aspects of the legislation but not so unhappy that it would oppose it. We have no difficulties with the legislation before the House.
Views: 8 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Hunter Region Coal Mining
 
04:08
23 February 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Hunter Region Coal Mining The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 15:12 ): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and also as representing the Minister for Planning. Given that the Planning and Assessment Commission has now rejected the proposed Drayton South Mine expansion for the fourth time, will your Government now support Labor's policy of minimum setbacks to protect critical industry clusters such as thoroughbred horse breeding and the viticulture industry in the Hunter Valley, as promised by your party in 2011? And will the Minister now rule out allowing further planning applications in respect of the same project? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 15:13 ): Unlike those opposite, this Government supports a strong and transparent mining sector. We expect a mining sector that complies with our high social and environmental expectations. That is why we are implementing a strategic release framework to front end those valuations on any future areas for potential release. We have also brought rigour back to our independent planning assessment framework for any mining proposals. This has been in conjunction with bringing clarity and consistency to our frameworks. The Government is committed to halving the time taken to assess State significant development applications, including mining projects. I can inform members that the Independent Planning and Assessment Commission has indeed refused consent for the Drayton South project. In its determination, the Commission recognised that the mining industry delivers significant economic benefits in its own right and flow-on benefits to a number of associated industries. However, the commission determined that the project is not unique, nor is it the primary contributor to the wider coal industry in the Hunter Valley. The commission considers that a unique set of circumstances exists due to the proximity between the project and the thoroughbred operations of the Coolmore and Godolphin studs. The commission found there would be key effects relating to air quality, blast noise and reputation on the studs. The commission also found that approval of the project would be contrary to the coexistence and diversification principles found in the Hunter Regional Plan 2036, the Upper Hunter Strategic Land Use Policy and local council strategies. In response to concerns raised during this and other approval processes for State significant developments, the Minister for Planning has asked his department to develop options for consultation that will provide guidance on how many times and how frequently a project that is not substantially different can be submitted to government for approval. We have a strong and robust approach to regulation and planning approvals for the mining sector. It is clear that is required to protect the mining sector, which is not only important for the State but also to ensure communities are protected and that lives are not disrupted. I am satisfied that going forward we have a robust approach to those issues.
Views: 2 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Shenhua Watermark Project
 
03:01
21 February 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Shenhua Watermark Project The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 16:0 0 ): My question without notice is to the Leader of the Government, the Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts. Given that Shenhua's Watermark mine exploration licence—issued in 2008 and renewed in 2012—provides that if substantial development of a mine does not occur within eight years of the granting of the original exploration licence, the Minister has the power to cancel the licence, what is your response to Shenhua’s application to your Government for an exemption from the compliance date, which was 22 October last year? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 16:00 ): On 11 August 2016 the New South Wales Government announced that negotiations with Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Ltd had commenced to secure the excising of the parts of its title that encroached onto the strategic agricultural land of the Liverpool plains. The Shenhua Watermark project was approved by the Planning Assessment Commission on 28 January 2015. The project also required approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The then Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, announced conditional approval on 8 July 2015, seeking the advice of the expert scientific committee prior to approving the water management plan. The plan, along with 24 other management plans, must also be submitted and approved by the Minister before construction could commence. As of January 2017, Shenhua has completed some, but not all, of the 24 plans required in order to commence construction. Further questions in that respect, as I am sure the member would appreciate, are largely matters that should be directed to the Federal Government. I might also add that on 19 February 2016 the Land and Environment Court dismissed the New South Wales Environmental Defender’s Office challenge against the Watermark project, which argued the project was too great a threat to local koala populations. A mining lease application has not yet been lodged over the area; however, when it is, it will be rigorously assessed in line with the legislation and current government policies, guidelines and procedures. The company submitted an application for renewal of its exploration licence, EL7223, on 5 February 2016. This will be assessed by my department before a recommendation is made to me to consider in due course in accordance with normal protocols.
Views: 10 Adam Searle MLC
Coal Mining Documentary - The Most Dangerous Job On Earth - Classic History
 
42:27
Coal Mining Documentary - The Most Dangerous Job On Earth - Classic History Coal mining is the process of extracting coal from the ground. Coal is valued for its energy content, and, since the 1880s, has been widely used to generate electricity. Steel and cement industries use coal as a fuel for extraction of iron from iron ore and for cement production. In the United Kingdom and South Africa a coal mine and its structures are a colliery, a coal mine a pit, and the above-ground structures the pit head. In Australia, "colliery" generally refers to an underground coal mine. In the United States "colliery" has been used to describe a coal mine operation but nowadays the word is not commonly used. Coal mining has had many developments over the recent years, from the early days of men tunnelling, digging and manually extracting the coal on carts, to large open cut and long wall mines. Mining at this scale requires the use of draglines, trucks, conveyors, hydraulic jacks and shearers. Small-scale mining of surface deposits dates back thousands of years. For example, in Roman Britain, the Romans were exploiting most of the major coalfields by the late 2nd century AD. Read More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining
Views: 10893 Classic History
A Year to Remember 1949: Miners' Strike, New South Wales, Australia
 
00:41
BHP, coal, call train, NSW mines stand still,The 1949 Australian coal strike was the first time that Australian military forces were used during peacetime to break a trade union strike. ***** License this footage at Framepool: https://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/810300675 ***** Check out the Year to Remember Collection by Cinesound-Movietone: https://footage.framepool.com/en/collections/A-Year-To-Remember/
Views: 10 Timeline
A Year to Remember 1949: Miners' Strike, New South Wales, Australia
 
00:53
The 1949 Australian coal strike was the first time that Australian military forces were used during peacetime to break a trade union strike. The strike by 23,000 coal miners lasted for seven weeks, from 27 June 1949 to 15 August 1949, with troops being sent in by the Ben Chifley Federal Labor government to the open cut coal mines in New South Wales, The miners' federation was heavily influenced at the time by the Communist Party of Australia. The Labor government passed legislation that made it illegal to give strikers and their families financial support (including credit from shops). On 5 July, union officials were ordered to hand over union funds to the industrial registrar. On the following day, union officials were arrested and the respective union and CPA headquarters raided. ***** License this footage at Framepool: https://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/623337947 ***** Check out the Year to Remember Collection by Cinesound-Movietone: https://footage.framepool.com/en/collections/A-Year-To-Remember/
Views: 16 Timeline
A Year to Remember 1949: Miners' Strike, New South Wales, Australia
 
00:35
The 1949 Australian coal strike was the first time that Australian military forces were used during peacetime to break a trade union strike. The strike by 23,000 coal miners lasted for seven weeks, from 27 June 1949 to 15 August 1949, with troops being sent in by the Ben Chifley Federal Labor government to the open cut coal mines in New South Wales, The miners' federation was heavily influenced at the time by the Communist Party of Australia. The Labor government passed legislation that made it illegal to give strikers and their families financial support (including credit from shops). On 5 July, union officials were ordered to hand over union funds to the industrial registrar. On the following day, union officials were arrested and the respective union and CPA headquarters raided. ***** License this footage at Framepool: https://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/462831824 ***** Check out the Year to Remember Collection by Cinesound-Movietone: https://footage.framepool.com/en/collections/A-Year-To-Remember/
Views: 9 Timeline
[Legislative Council] QWN - Adani Carmichael Coalmine Proposal Impact
 
06:49
3 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Adani Carmichael Coalmine Proposal Impact The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:29 ): My question is directed to the Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities. The recent report of the Australia Institute stated that if all the Galilee Basin in Queensland were developed New South Wales royalty revenue would be cut by amounts of up to $349 million and that "the New South Wales Government should strongly oppose taxpayer subsidy of Adani's infrastructure". What is the Government's response to the concerns of the New South Wales community and business about the Turnbull Government's proposed $1 billion loan to the Adani Carmichael coalmine? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:30 ): The Australia Institute has questioned the impact of the approved Queensland Adani coalmine on, among other things, royalty returns to New South Wales. The Adani Carmichael coalmine proposes to produce 60 million tonnes per annum of thermal coal from a combined open cut and underground mine. In 2015-16 coal production in New South Wales was approximately 190 million tonnes, of which 170 million tonnes was exported primarily to the Asian market. The high quality of export thermal coal from New South Wales commands a higher price on account of having lower ash and fewer emissions than other inferior quality products. The coal within the Adani Carmichael coalmine has targeted production of approximately 25 per cent ash content, representing a much lower value coal than that of New South Wales export quality thermal coal, with less than 15 per cent ash content. The quality of coal from the Adani Carmichael coalmine represents a market segment that generally constitutes less than 3 to 5 per cent of exports of coal from New South Wales. The Government recognises the important contribution that mining this high-quality product makes to the New South Wales Government, particularly in regional areas. I am aware of suggestions that the northern Australia infrastructure facility, which is a Commonwealth initiative offering up to $5 billion in concessional loans, is led by an independent board with representation from a variety of States. Obviously decisions as to how that facility is used are best directed to the Federal Minister by the Hon. Adam Searle's Federal colleagues. Referring to the coal and its quality—a critical element of this question—the New South Wales Government is confident that its coal industry is robust and will continue to provide the royalty stream that underlines much of the Government's activities relating to hospitals, schools and roads. The New South Wales Government is confident of the viability of this industry, regardless of proposals elsewhere, and is committed to it, given its importance to regional communities and regional jobs. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:34 ): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate that part of his answer relating to the 170 million tonnes of coal from New South Wales being exported with reference to what this Government is doing to avoid the potential displacement of those coal exports by the Adani Carmichael coalmine? The Hon. Scott Farlow: Point of order: That obviously was not a supplementary question but a new question. The Hon. Adam Searle sought elucidation but he asked a further question that did not seek elucidation. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: To the point of order: The Hon. Adam Searle clearly sought elucidation of an aspect of the Minister's answer. In my view the question is in order. The PRESIDENT: When members have finished giving their rulings, I will give mine. The supplementary question was in order. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:35 ): From what I said in my earlier answer I thought it was clear that the New South Wales Government is comfortable and is not concerned about ongoing coal exports. I am surprised that the Opposition is placing so much emphases on a report from the Australia Institute that also said in a report titled "Never going to dig you up" that phasing out the New South Wales coal industry would have no effect on the New South Wales economy. How much weight can be placed on any Australia Institution report on this matter? As to the other aspects of the Hon. Adam Searle's question, I refer him to my earlier answer.
Views: 14 Adam Searle MLC
Alkane Resources' financing and offtake talks on Dubbo Project helped by new US law
 
07:49
Alkane Resources Ltd (ASX:ALK) managing director Nic Earner tells Proactive Investors that the new US Defense ban preventing the purchase of rare earth magnets from China, which currently produces 85-90% of the world’s supply, could mark a windfall for the NSW-focused company. Alkane's construction-ready Dubbo Project features a polymetallic ore body capable of producing a number of commodities including magnet materials, and is now in the financing and offtake stage. The impending supply crunch stemming from this new US legislation increases interest in the development of the mining operations. The project's pre-tax net present value (NPV) has been forecast at between $909 million and $1.297 billion, depending on the development route. Earner also touches on the latest works at the Tomingley Gold Mine project, from which significant news is expected to flow in the coming months.
Coal seam gas mining - can the Premier stop this? Professor Anne Twomey explains.
 
04:23
Anne Twomey is Professor of Constitutional Law in the Sydney University Law School. In this interview with Professor David Flint she answers questions on the law -- and not the policy - relating to the power of the states to expropriate property. This was raised on talk back radio recently in an interview with the NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell by 2GB's Alan Jones. This was in the context of the cancel licenses and exploration permits relating to coal seam gas mining on prime agricultural and urban land. (Professor Twomey's answer relates to the general power of states to expropriate and not to the detail of the legislation governing mining in New South Wales.)
Views: 212 CANdoAust
OCE meaning
 
00:52
OCE Meaning www.opencutexaminer.co [email protected] What does OCE mean? Meaning or definition Well, under the Surface Coal Mining Legislation in Australia the OCE meaning is an 'Experienced Surface Coal Mine Worker' who has undertaken appropriate study, developed specific operational skills and satisfied the Board of Examiners that they are worthy (have the appropriate knowledge, skills and aptitude) of being granted an Open Cut Examiners Certificate of Competency. The role of an Open Cut Examiner is a statutory role under the Queensland & New South Wales Coal Mining Safety & Health Legislation
Views: 85 Open Cut Examiner
[Legislative Council] QWN - Liverpool Plains Mine
 
00:49
20 September 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question without Notice - Liverpool Plains Mine The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:31 ): My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, Minister for Resources, Minister for energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts. Given that during budget estimates the Minister committed to use his best endeavours to visit the Liverpool Plains and affected locals before making a final decision on whether or not to renew EL 7223, and given that the Premier would not give that limited commitment, will the Minister now accept the invitation and visit locals and the potential site of the mine with them before that decision is made? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:32 ): I am pleased to advise the honourable member that even as recently as this morning I have been putting arrangements in place to do exactly that.
Views: 3 Adam Searle MLC
Who or What is an Open Cut Examiner?
 
00:56
Who or what is an Open Cut Examiner? https://www.opencutexaminer.com/who-or-what-is-an-oce/ [email protected] WHO OR WHAT IS AN OPEN CUT EXAMINER? (DEFINITION) An OCE is an ‘experienced coal mine worker’ who has undertaken appropriate study, developed specific operational skills and satisfied the Board of Examiners that they are worthy (have the appropriate knowledge, skills and aptitude) of being granted an Open Cut Examiners Certificate of Competency. The role of an Open Cut Examiner is a statutory role under the Queensland & New South Wales Coal Mining Safety & Health Legislation. Eg QCMS&H Act 1999 – Section 59 Additional requirements for management of surface mines A site senior executive must appoint a person holding an open cut examiner’s certificate of competency to carry out the responsibilities and duties prescribed under a regulation in 1 or more surface mine excavations. The role and responsibilities of an Open Cut Examiner are defined in the Queensland Coal Mining Safety & Health Regulations 2001. This is where the primary or main role/responsibility is found. QCMS&H Regulations 2001 – Chapter 3 – Part 2 Open-cut examiner Section 105 Open-cut examiner’s responsibilities and duties—general (1) The site senior executive must ensure— (a) the main responsibility of an open-cut examiner for the mine is the safety and health of persons in or around the surface excavation during mining activities in or around the surface excavation; and (b) the open-cut examiner’s main duties relate to the main responsibility. (2) Subsection (1)(b) does not prevent the open-cut examiner having other duties at the mine, including, for example, duties given to the examiner under the mine’s safety and health management system. There are a number of additional key responsibilities under the QCMS&H Regulations Chapter 3 – Part 2 Open-cut examiner and further responsibilities that may apply from time to time throughout the Regulations.
Views: 73 Open Cut Examiner
[Legislative Council] QWN - Wollongong Coal
 
02:34
1 June 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Wollongong Coal The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:29 ): I direct my question to the Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for the Arts, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given the Minister's answer in this place on 8 March and the development yesterday that the Australian Stock Exchange has halted trading in Wollongong Coal Limited shares, what is the status of the NSW Resources Regulator's investigations into whether that company is a fit a proper person to hold a mining licence in this State? The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What an excellent question. I could see that coming from a mile away. The Hon. Shayne Mallard: No-one mentioned a word yesterday. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 14:30 ): I am sorry to get in the way of the discussion between two members. The PRESIDENT: Order! It is clear that some members want an early mark. If I could give myself three calls to order, I would do so and take an early mark, but I cannot. However, I can call members to order. I suggest that members let this hour pass in an appropriate manner. The H on. DON HARWIN: Of course, Wollongong Coal Limited is the owner of the Russell Vale Colliery and Wongawilli Colliery located in the southern coalfields near Wollongong, and Jindal Steel and Power Limited owns a 60.3 per cent holding in Wollongong Coal. On 29 April it was announced that Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and one of its directors had been investigated by India's Central Bureau of Investigation on potential criminal corruption charges. The courts in India decided that there was sufficient evidence for a case to be brought to trial. I am advised that no conviction of criminal corruption has been made at this stage. The chief compliance officer of the NSW Resources Regulator approved a full review of Wollongong Coal's fitness to hold an authority under section 380A of the Mining Act last year, and that review is ongoing. In light of recent events, I have asked for an update on that review, which I have not yet received. However, when I do receive it I will be happy to pass it on to the House. The Hon. Walt Secord: Mr President, wakey, wakey! The PRESIDENT: Order! For the benefit of members and anyone reading Hansard, I assume that "Mr President, wakey, wakey" was not directed to me. "No" would be a suitable response. The Hon. Walt Secord: No, Mr President.
Views: 20 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] 2R - Wyong Special Area (Protection) Bill 2018
 
22:46
8 March 2018 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Wyong Special Area (Protection) Bill 2018 FULL TRANSCRIPT AT https://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/wyong-special-area-protection-bill-2018/ Today I introduce the Wyong Special Area (Protection) Bill 2018, which keeps an election promise made by the New South Wales Labor Opposition and Mr David Harris, MP, during the 2015 State election campaign. In a twist of historical irony, it also keeps a promise made by the Liberal Party during the 2007 and 2011 election campaigns—a promise that to this day the Liberal Party has not honoured. I will speak more about that later. This is an Act to prohibit the granting, renewal or modification of exploration, prospecting and mining authorities and titles for minerals and petroleum, and certain planning approvals, that relate to land at Wyong that is the site of the Wallarah 2 Coal Project, and for other purposes. The proposed Act defines the Wyong special area in clause 3 as the area defined to mean the land subject to certain exploration licences and an authorisation granted under the Mining Act 1992, namely EL6514, EL4911 and A405. Clause 4 prohibits the grant or renewal of any mining authorisation in relation to land in the Wyong special area and the making of any changes to the conditions to which such an authorisation is subject. Clause 5 prohibits the grant or renewal of any petroleum title defined in the Act and the making of any changes to the conditions to which such title is subject. Clause 6 provides that a planning approval is not to be given under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to development for the purposes of prospecting and mining activities on land in the Wyong special area and cancels any such planning approval already given. The bill seeks to protect the Wyong water catchment area from destructive mining, thereby protecting the important water supply, which serves more than 300,000 people. Further, the bill is required to fulfil an allegedly ironclad election commitment made by the Liberal Party in 2007 and 2011, and of course by my party, the Labor Opposition, in 2015. The South Korean Government owned mining company Korea Resources Corporation [KORES], submitted, under the Wallarah 2 Coal Project, a new application to build a longwall coalmine beneath the Wyong water catchment valleys affecting the Dooralong and Yarramalong valleys. These valleys are the major drinking water resource for more than 350,000 people. Wyong Shire Council, Gosford City Council and the Joint Water Authority engaged Professor Philip Pells to prepare the water section of their submission against the Wallarah 2 Coal Project. Professor Pells demonstrated, using the mining company's own data, that there would be a catastrophic loss of water in the catchment if the proposal proceeded. In 1999, when BHP Billiton owned the lease under its subsidiary Coal Operations Australia Limited, its well-credentialed and respected hydrology consultant, Mitchell McCotter, found in its report produced in 1999 that there were transient pathways in the geology that would enable surface water and aquifer water to travel to the mine workings if mining occurred. These facts were presented at the Chikarovski inquiry in 2008 and were ignored by the panel members. In March 2011, prior to the State election that year, the then Minister for Planning, Tony Kelly, rejected the mine proposal. In a letter to the community group fighting against the mine, the Australian Coal Alliance, he said: The project does not adequately address potential surface water quality impacts, resulting in uncertainty around the ability of the project to meet acceptable water quality outcomes. The Minister , in rejecting the mine application , further stated: The project is not considered consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the precautionary principle, and as a consequence is not considered to be in the public interest. Leading up to this decision the Liberal Party in opposition championed the community's cause again s t the mining project , and the two particular proponents were Chris Hartcher and Barry O 'Farrell. The Liberal Party committed itself in writing twice that if elected it would not allow the coalmine proposal in the water catchment valleys. Barry O'Farrell stood before a crowd of more than 300 people at a rally in January 2009 and said : The next Liberal-National government will not allow mining to occur here, will not allow mining to occur in any water catchment. Mining leases and mining permits will reflect that common sense. No ifs, no buts, a guarantee...... FULL TRANSCRIPT AT https://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/wyong-special-area-protection-bill-2018/
Views: 39 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] QWN - Nuclear Power
 
04:02
23 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Nuclear Power The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 16:00 ): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Energy and Utilities in his capacity as the Minister and the Leader of the Government. In light of Deputy Premier, and Minister for Regional New South Wales, John Barilaro's recent statements saying that New South Wales can fix its energy problems with nuclear power, what scoping studies or modelling has his Government undertaken on this issue? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts) ( 16:00 ): I do not think there has ever been a more exciting time to be the Minister responsible for the energy security of New South Wales. I cannot think of any other portfolio where technology, economics, engineering and climate compete for attention as intensely as in the energy portfolio. To steer us through this complex area the Government has made a commitment to support solutions which deliver a reliable, affordable and clean energy future for households and businesses. The Government's commitment is to achieve this at the least cost to the energy consumer and with maximum benefits to New South Wales. At present the major proportion of the New South Wales generating fleet comprises power stations that use either coal or gas and emit carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy is widely considered a low-carbon emissions energy source and it plays a significant role in some countries. Given our aim of moving New South Wales to net zero emissions by 2050, this feature of nuclear energy is not something that should be passed over lightly. However, there are several important factors in play when considering nuclear power in New South Wales. Firstly, New South Wales legislation prohibits the mining of uranium and the construction and operation of nuclear reactors for non-research purposes. This prohibition, introduced in 1986, was motivated by concerns about the safety of nuclear power and the management of its waste, I presume; it was an act of a previous Labor government. The Government recognises community concerns continue about nuclear power and will engage with the public on securing the State's future energy needs. There is no proposal, however, to change the legislative framework for nuclear power. Secondly, electricity generated by nuclear power may not be cheap. In fact, of all the technologies that could possibly assist in meeting our net zero emissions target, nuclear energy is frequently rated as one of the more expensive. The market is currently focused on renewables, backed up by peaking gas plants and storage to manage intermittency. These are cheaper options than new base load power plants, including nuclear. We need least-cost options for downward pressure on prices. It is not the role of the New South Wales Government to decide on the commercial viability of technologies. We need national market reform to allow the private sector to invest confidently in new least-cost generation. There is, however, a rapid pace of technology change, so we need to keep abreast of and open to information on new and changing technologies.
Views: 7 Adam Searle MLC
[Legislative Council] 2R - Public Health Amendm't (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill
 
19:19
24 May 2018 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill 2018 FULL TRANSCRIPT AT https://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/public-health-amendment-safe-access-to-reproductive-health-clinics-bill-2018/ The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 17:11 ): I make a contribution to the debate on the Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill 2018 as a son, as a person with two sisters, as a father with two daughters and as a friend of many women I know personally and professionally and who have enriched and shaped my life. I hope that in my contribution I speak in support of these women, because this bill is about the personal autonomy and agency of women. These women are our friends, our relations and our partners and lovers, and they may seek to attend reproductive health facilities. As we have heard in this debate, women who seek to attend reproductive facilities do so for a wide variety of reasons, not only to obtain a termination of pregnancy. This legislation is premised upon the simple idea that women should be able to access needed medical services without being accosted, harassed or intimidated in any way. The Hon. Shayne Mallard and others said that this legislation is not about the legality of abortion, or whether the current state of the law should be changed; we debated that matter in this place not long ago. In today's debate, the issue that has predominantly been raised against this bill is that the bill is somehow an infringement on fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to political communication and religious freedom. Some members in their contributions have waxed lyrical about High Court cases and other high constitutional principles. Let us be very clear: This is a nonsense. Before I develop that argument, let us look at the issue of fundamental rights and freedoms as ventilated in this House. I am not the first contributor to this debate to make this point. Where was that concern in 2012, when this Parliament enacted electoral funding reforms restricting the right to make political donations only to natural persons on the electoral roll, thus depriving many other civic societal institutions of the right to participate and be heard? Where was that spirit at 2:24 a.m. today when we were debating further electoral funding reforms, even in the shadow of earlier reforms having been struck down by the High Court? The Hon. Trevor Khan in his contribution today made the telling point about where that concern lies, when this Parliament, without the support of this side of the House, enacted the mining protest laws providing for imprisonment of up to seven years for persons offending against that statute. I note that a previous contributor to this debate suggested that my side of politics likes to have its cake and eat it, because we opposed those other changes, whereas we as a party are supporting this bill. I will return to that earlier point, because this bill does not infringe on fundamental rights and liberties. I will try to develop that argument as intelligibly as I am able. The fact is that in relation to fundamental rights and freedoms we are not just debating what any one of us might colloquially refer to as a moral right; instead we are debating those rights that have been recognised by law, the High Court in particular. In the case of Unions NSW and Ors v State of New South Wales, the judgement went through the history of Longley, the ABC and the ACTV case to look at where this implied freedom of political communication came from and what it was about. In the ACTV case, Justice Brennan spoke of the need for there to be a free flow of political communication, so that electors may form judgements. Chief Justice Mason stated that it was only through uninhibited publication that the flow of information can be secured and the people informed. The case was about maintaining the integrity of the electoral process underpinning the system of representative government..... FULL TRANSCRIPT AT https://adamsearle.org/in-the-legislative-council/debate-on-bills/public-health-amendment-safe-access-to-reproductive-health-clinics-bill-2018/
Views: 10 Adam Searle MLC
Missing Mt Penny documents from ICAC are tabled in the NSW Legislative Council - 15 March 2013
 
08:41
Missing Mt Penny documents from ICAC are tabled in the NSW Legislative Council - 15 March 2013 Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham noticed that documents were being tabled at the ICAC Inquiry into alleged corruption of a coal mine tender in the Bylong Valley were not provided under a 'call for papers' made by the Parliament in a 2009. ICAC did a comparison of the documents it had found with those supplied to the parliament. If found that up to 700 documents that should have been supplied to the Parliament were not. The question is now who decided to withhold these documents and why? It certainly doesn't seem to be a coincidence and points to a cover up. www.jeremybuckingham.org
Views: 446 Jeremy Buckingham
NSW Government to boost CSG regulation
 
02:13
Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner has announced stronger regulation of the coal seam gas industry during a speech at Bowral south of Sydney.
(Part 3) Speeding in the Country - RTA NSW
 
00:15
Message: From the RTA NSW about the consequences of driving in the in the bush and speed Broadcast: South Australia & beyond Current Road Toll: http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/roadsafety/home Road Traffic Act (1961): http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%201961.aspx Playlist of Australian Road Safety Campaigns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRo-2THXaOQ&feature=PlayList&p=A0553820DE1F6611&index=0&playnext=1
Views: 3696 drivinginsa
Land & Env court continues hearing objections to New Hope's Acland stage 3 expansion
 
01:48
7/03/2016 Hearing in the Land & Environment court hears objections to New Hope's coal mine stage 3 expansion.
Views: 166 Qldaah
Asbestos: who to contact
 
03:20
This video illustrates who in New South Wales you should contact when renovating your home, removing asbestos, disposing of asbestos or reporting unsafe work.
Views: 791 SafeWork NSW
NSW Parliament - CSG Water Catchment Debate 17 October 2013
 
19:44
13,000+ members of the community signed the petition for a ban on CSG mining in NSW water catchments. This is the full video of the petition debate in the NSW Parliament on October 17 2013. If you want to forego the mumbling and pollywaffle, we suggest you skip straight to 4:55 to hear Ryan Park (Member for Keira) recognise the huge, sustained community effort against CSG mining, admit the past wrongs of his party and make an honest, impassioned plea for sanity.
Views: 324 Stop CSG Illawarra
Pat Garnet of Bulga NSW Asks David Shoebridge, MLC a Question
 
01:14
Pat Garnet of Bulga asked a question of David Shoebridge, MLC at the recent public meeting on the 16 March 2015 in Newcastle Town Hall to discuss the Final Report of the NSW Parliamentary Enquiry into Newcastle and Hunter Planning. The meeting was convened by Margaret Henry and chaired by Paul Scott. Speakers included (in order of appearance): Nuatali Nelmes - Lord Mayor of the City of Newcastle (Australia) Jodie Harrison - Mayor of the City of Lake Macquarie David Shoebridge MLC - Greens Member of the NSW Legislative Council The Hon. Lynda Voltz MLC, Member of the NSW Legislative Council Brian Ladd - NICRA (Newcastle Inner City Residents Alliance) Joan Dawson - SOR (Save Our Rail) Kim Ostinga - Friends of King Edward Park Michelle Burdekin - Whitebridge Community Alliance David Blythe - Hunter Concerned Citizens Cr Michael Osbourne - Greens Councillor City of Newcastle (Australia) Jenny Aitchinson - Labor Candidate for Maitland Milton Caine - Christian Democratic Oarty Newcastle Tim Crakanthorp, MP - NSW State Member for Newcastle With a selection of questions from the evening. See the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYhje4QqmU
Views: 61 UoNCC
The once mighty Darling River is dying and here's why.
 
05:31
The once mighty Darling River is dying. This 1,472 kilometre river long is dying under the yoke of greed and mismanagement. The problems start in Queensland where huge amounts of cotton is grown with irrigated water, taken from the tributaries of the Darling. Cubbie Station, for example, basically diverts the Culgoa and Balonne Rivers. Owned by a foreign textile firm it grows 200 square kilometres of cotton, and has water storages 28 kilometres long which can hold 460 billion litres of water. Police recently raided another cotton farm at Goondiwindi which has 52.3 kilometres of illegal earthworks diverting water into private irrigation dams instead of the river. There are allegations this farm has misused public funds allocated to improve the health of the river. But it’s not just in Queensland that we have a problem. Big irrigators in NSW have also been accused of large scale water theft, with water pump meters either sabotaged or not connected; pumping during embargoes; and taking water released for the environment. The Independent Commission Against Corruption and other inquiries are investigating whether public officials stopped compliance officers from investigating allegations of water theft. All this cotton irrigation up here - legal and illegal - diverts a huge amount of water from flowing down the Darling River. It hurts floodplain graziers, wrecks the environment, causes anxiety in downstream communities. The Menindee Lakes, near Broken Hill, fill when the river floods and provide water for 20,000 people at Broken Hill, breeding habitat for birds, and recreation and tourism. But in recent times the Government has quickly drained the lakes and the Lower Darling has run dry. Now the NSW Government is building a $500 million pipeline from the Murray River at Wentworth to pump water 270km back upstream to Broken Hill. The people of Broken Hill don’t want this pipeline. They are worried it will be used to justify emptying the Menindee Lakes and to allow more irrigation or less buybacks on the Upper Darling River. The Cotton irrigators a crowing about it, describing the Broken Hill pipeline as “a win for NSW growers” and “a solution Cotton Australia and its allies have long lobbied for”. One cotton irrigator who has benefited enormously is the owner of Tandau Station south of Menindee Lakes. Barnaby Joyce signed off on $78 million buyback of its water rights, almost double the valuation made by his own bureaucrats at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences! And upstream of Menindee, is one of the greatest injustices on the Darling - the refusal by successive governments to build a downstream weir for the people of Wilcannia. Wilcannia has one of the lowest life expectancies in Australia – only 42 for women, 37 for men! The Barkindji, or river people, are appalled that their river is reduced to a trickle through town due to upstream irrigation. Water management is very complex. There are big dollars involved and there is a lot of room for corruption and fraud to sneak in. Australia has a dismal track record of water management, and it does not seem to be getting any better. Climate change is likely to exacerbate drought and floods. It will reduce soil moisture and lead to less runoff into waterways. Continuing to mismanage water in this country in a changing climate will lead to disaster, yet that is exactly what the National Party have been doing. In 2014, the government passed legislation which deliberately cuts off the data set on which to make decisions about water prior to the Millennium Drought. That means the last 13 years of data are excluded, because it might mean less water for cotton irrigators. This year they enacted laws that will allow illegally constructed works that divert flood water into irrigation dams and away from natural waterways, to be retrospectively legalised! Having the Nationals in charge of water is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. They can not be trusted. There are big questions to answer Should we irrigate so much cotton and rice in an arid continent? Should we grow high value horticultural crops rather than many square kilometres of cotton? How much water can we divert from our rivers before the environment suffers? How much water is being illegally stolen? What is the true value of the water? How do we ensure environmental flows are not sucked up irrigators pumps? Australia urgently needs a Royal Commission into the administration of the Murray Darling Basin, so that all the farms, communities and environments that depend on these once mighty rivers, are healthy into the future.
Views: 24517 Jeremy Buckingham
Defining Moments: Gold rush
 
05:36
The discovery of gold in the 1850s started a series of rushes that transformed Australia. See this Defining moment in Australia's history brought to life, as told by historian David Hunt. More: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments
[Legislative Council] QWN - Hunter Thoroughbred Industry
 
01:28
22 September 2016 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament Question Without Notice - Hunter Thoroughbred Industry The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:30 ): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that this Government has ignored three separate reports of the Planning Assessment Commission which found that the Drayton South mine expansion could not coexist with the equine industry, what is his response, as Minister for Primary Industries, to the globally-recognised Hunter thoroughbred industry call for protection? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minis ter for Lands and Water) ( 14:30 ): My agencies have provided plenty of input into the assessments of these projects. Ultimately, the assessments are determinations that are made by portfolios that are not mine. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 14:30 ): I ask a supplementary question: Would the Minister elucidate that part of his answer that referred to input made by his agencies, and inform the House what the content of that input was. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minist er for Lands and Water) ( 14:31 ): The input and the submissions from those agencies are widely known. In recent weeks I think they were even reported in the media.
Views: 3 Adam Searle MLC
SYDNEY-NSW POLICE gang stalking  and intemidation on front of my door
 
02:16
Hurstvile NSW Police 02 11. 2016 Camping on front of my home into police car. When I try to talking to her she try to gas lighting me in self defense and then run away from site. This cop lady come almost on daily bases to intemidate me on front of my home at Bexly. This is happening on every address where i was live in pass , the same scenario and different police car. Its happen often that come male police officer for same purpose on different address . To be generous with him I offer him a brand new pillow for the car, and fun with play girl before I dial up for girl I strongly advice him to tell his sargen that he is sticking chips in fish for lunch. ... he often refused my offer then muve away. In this video I will show you how Cops know If you record them. It's obvious that is some one is hacked your mobile device and FB. As soon you start to record they know and then run a way from sean.
Orana NSW: Region of investment opportunities
 
01:47
The Orana is a vast and vibrant region, full of opportunities. It accounts for 25 per cent of New South Wales and takes in some of the state's most productive agricultural and resource rich lands. Orana means 'welcome' in Wiradjuri, so Orana to our region. For more information visit: invest.orana.org.au --- This video is presented with thanks to Thrive Media, Dubbo City Council, Mid-Western Regional Council, Alkane Resources, TAFE Western, Charles Sturt University, High Valley Wine and Cheese Co, Reliance Media, Auscot Gin Trangie and Kantara Pastoral.
Views: 765 RDA Orana
Jeremy Buckingham - Anti-protest laws - NSW Parliament - 15 March 2016
 
20:08
Jeremy Buckingham - Anti-protest laws - NSW Parliament - 15 March 2016 Hansard here: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20160315031?open&refNavID=HA8_1
Views: 154 Jeremy Buckingham
[Legislative Council] 2R - Electronic Transactions Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
 
05:40
30 May 2017 Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 2nd Reading Speech - Electronic Transactions Legislation Amendment (Government Transactions) Bill 2017 The Hon. ADAM SEARLE ( 15:08:3 ): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Electronic Transactions Legislation Amendment (Government Transactions) Bill 2017. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. Despite its title, it does not really have anything to do with the Electronic Transactions Act 1999. It has more similarities with the statute law revision legislation in that it makes a series of amendments to a wide range of Acts and other legislative instruments. This bill has a number of purposes and objects. One is to provide for a trial of digital driver licences. Despite this involving amendments to the Road Transport Act 2013 within the portfolio of the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, the carriage of the bill is with the Minister for Finance, Services and Property, Minister Dominello, in the other place. The shadow Minister for Finance, Services and Property in the other place will make some further comments on behalf of the Opposition. In this part of the bill the relevant provisions are in schedule 5. Schedule 6 to the bill postpones the commencement of portions of the Strata Schemes Management Act. Our relevant shadow Minister in the other place, the member for Swansea, will give some more commentary on that part of the bill. This should be very embarrassing for the Government, because when it introduced that legislation it considered it to be significant reform. It was to commence on 1 July 2017 but is now being delayed by some months. That calls into question the competence of the Government in rolling out its reform plans. It is a bit like the Fire and Emergency Services Levy. We now understand the Government will have to legislate to unwind that before the budget and if it ever gets it back on track it will have to re-legislate it. This echoes that situation. It is becoming a bit of a habit with this Government, which must be causing the community to question its basic competence. Other aspects of the other bill include the facilitation of service of documents by email to allow for the use of approved forms instead of using statutory declarations, and to provide for the online publication of public notes announcements and advertisements. There is also a proposal to make minor amendments. In particular, schedule 4 contains amendments to a range of Acts. Schedule 1 amends 40 Acts or regulations and allows notices and other documents to be served by sending a notice or other documents concerned to an email address specified by the recipient or by other means as may be prescribed. Various ways of service are set out in the provisions and include quite exhaustive methods. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in her reply to indicate the purpose of the regulation-making power. Schedule 3 provides amendments allowing for the online publication of government notices—not just restricting it to publications in the print media—in relation to provisions in the Charitable Fundraising Act, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act, the Storage Liens Act and the Uncollected Goods Act. These provisions provide for publication on a website that in the opinion of the authority or agency concerned is appropriate to cause the notice to come to the attention of the persons in the district concerned. This seems to potentially expand the discretion of the agency concerned, for example, to include notification of compulsory land acquisitions. The question is whether the provision is designed to hide rather than to disclose such intention. I ask the Government to clarify that..... FULL TRANSCRIPT at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-73558/link/95
Views: 9 Adam Searle MLC
Barry O'Farrell on Assyrian, Armenian & Greek Genocide in NSW Parliament
 
03:41
Liberal Premier, The Hon. Barry O'Farrell MP, moving a motion within the Parliament of NSW Legislative Assembly to recognise the Assyrian, Armenian, and Greek Genocide by the Ottoman Empire. The motion passed unanimously in the house. I thank the Premier and the Parliament, the Genocide was an issue very close to my heart that I had long lobbied for. The motion read: That this House: (1) notes that on 17 April 1997, this House recognised and condemned the Genocide of the Armenians by the then Ottoman Government between 1915 and 1922, and designated 24 April of every year thereafter as a day of remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the twentieth century; (2) recognises that Assyrians and Greeks were subjected to qualitatively similar genocides by the then Ottoman Government between 1915 and 1922; (3) reaffirms its condemnation of the genocide of the Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks, and all other acts of genocide as the ultimate act of intolerance; (4) recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; (5) acknowledges and pays tribute to the contribution of the Anzac servicemen who aided the survivors of the genocide; and (6) acknowledges the significant humanitarian relief contribution made by the people of New South Wales to the victims and survivors of the genocide. Read the full speech at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20130508009
Views: 3047 AndrewRohanMP