Meet the brand new Northern Rivers Member of the NSW Legislative Council, Sue Higginson

 Echo, 27 May 2022:

As a brand new MLC, Sue Higginson’s first week in the NSW Upper House has been huge but she says it’s a taste of things to come.

Higginson was sworn in on May 12 and made her First Speech on Tuesday last week. Two days later, she voted after the Upper House spent 10 hours debating amendments to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill, before a final vote of support 23 to 15. ‘I came in at the very end, basically, but my vote helped and supported and counted for voluntary assisted dying becoming law in New South Wales.’…..

Our endangered furry buddy 

A precious tree faerie. Photo Tree Faerie.

Higginson believes that the recent classification of the status of koalas to endangered will add leverage in the fight to save forests. ‘It has to. Having our national icon listed as endangered – only a step away from extinction – the science is on the table and the evidence is there. There is the legal acknowledgement that we are at the end of the road for koalas.

‘If we don’t pull out all the stops and do everything we can, we know what that means. We have to protect koalas where they live and their habitat right now. Part of that is our public native forests. And we’re still logging the crap out of them. We’ve got to stop.’……..

Sue Higginson MLC at Lismore’s Trees Not Bombs Community Recovery Café. ‘I’ve got five years. I’m a mature woman – I’m a mature woman on fire and I’ve got nothing to lose. I’ve got a five year plan.’ Photo Tree Faerie.

Now that she has taken her seat in the New South Wales Upper House she will be there for five years and Higginson is on a mission. ‘I’ve got five years. I’m a mature woman – I’m a mature woman on fire and I’ve got nothing to lose. I’ve got a five year plan and that plan is about improving action on climate and it is to protect our native forests once and for all. It’s to try to stop the absurdity of the extinction crisis and to level up the playing field in this inequality crisis that we experience, and all the things that that means.

‘And of course, fundamentally, it’s New South Wales’ turn to start working on First Nations justice properly,’ she said.

‘Seriously – truth, treaty and voice – we need to do that at the New South Wales level, and we need to do that at the Commonwealth level. That’s massive for me.’  

Read the full article here.

Sue Higginson’s official biography at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/Pages/Member-details.aspx?pk=2268

Sue is an environmental law expert and has practiced as a public interest environmental lawyer. She is the former Principal Solicitor and CEO of the Environmental Defenders Office, Australia's leading public interest environmental law centre.

Sue has been responsible for high profile environmental litigation in Australia. She has represented communities challenging mining giants, proponents of environmentally harmful development and holding Governments to account for the environment. She has delivered environmental legal services to rural, remote and regional communities and First Nations communities across NSW.

Sue has operated her own legal practice where in addition to her environmental legal practice, she assisted environmental protestors who came into contact with the criminal justice system as a result of their activities to protect the environment. She has represented hundreds of people in relation to forestry, mining and coal seam gas and climate change protests in courts across Australia.

Sue has lectured and taught environmental law in universities across NSW. She holds a Bachelor of Laws, with First Class Honours and was awarded the University Medal upon graduation.

Sue has sat on a number of Boards of not for profit charitable environmental organisations in Australia where she advised on governance and compliance.

Sue is a farmer, she grows dry land rice, and other crops, with her partner on their farm on the Richmond Floodplain in the Northern Rivers. Central to her farming practice is biodiversity management and conservation. Her farm is home to koalas, where she has planted thousands of trees to try to secure their future.

Ms. Higginson's term of service in the NSW Upper House expires on 5 March 2027, when hopefully she will consider standing for re-election.

Will Richmond Valley be sending a local farmer and environmental lawyer to the NSW Legislative Council to replace The Greens outgoing David Shoebridge?

Sue Higginson is an environmental lawyer and dryland rice farmer on the Richmond Valley floodplain. As part of farming practice she protects core koala habitat in the area through regenerating habitat and biodiversity and planting thousands of trees.

Echo, 9 February 2022:

Dryland rice farmer Sue Higginson on her farm. Photo Julian Meehan.

A casual vacancy has arisen for the Greens in the NSW upper house, and Sue Higginson is hoping to take the place of the vacating David Shoebridge.

Shoebridge is the Greens’ lead Senate candidate in the upcoming Federal election – as soon as the election is announced, he says he will resign his seat in the NSW Legislative Council…..

Ms Higginson is an environmental lawyer, activist, and a tireless advocate for justice. For many years, she was the CEO and principal solicitor of the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), running the highest-profile environmental litigation in the country.

‘I’ve taken coal and mining giants to court – like Rio Tinto and Santos, Whitehaven, Adani – and I’ve won. I’ve taken governments to court for wrong decisions, and I’ve advised many MPs in NSW Parliament’, Ms Higginson says.

Planning experience

‘As a public interest planning lawyer, I have an intimate understanding of the planning system. Planning law impacts our lives in every way. It determines what can and can’t happen in your local environment. Our planning laws need a significant shake up to address climate change, and put the protection of the environment and the health of our communities first’.

‘I know what that planning law system looks like and I would love to be in a position to advocate for it.’

For over a decade, Ms Higginson says ‘the Liberals have run a destructive economic agenda, serving the elite, and leaving so many behind, while the Nationals have plundered, and continue to plunder, our environment – like there’s no tomorrow’.

‘I’ve seen firsthand how they set the rules to serve their corporate masters and their mining mates, their time’s coming to an end.’ …..

‘I will pick up where David left off. I’m an experienced lawyer with forensic skill and an insatiable appetite for justice. I have expertise across all of David’s portfolios.’

The ballot opens on February 9.

Berejiklian Government determined to expand coal seam gas mining in New South Wales voted down bill to reintroduce the public interest as a ground for certain decisions relating to petroleum titles and impose a moratorium on CSG exploration & mining

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 2020: 

The Berejiklian government has rushed to defeat a private member's bill to derail the controversial Narrabri gas project, as anti-coal seam gas groups were preparing to target National party seats. 

In a rare move, the Coalition suspended the day's parliamentary agenda on Thursday to debate a coal seam gas moratorium bill, in a bid to fast-track its demise in the Legislative Assembly. 

It comes after the bill, put forward by independent MP Justin Field, passed the NSW upper house on Wednesday night with the support of Labor and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. 
 

Santos's Narrabri project could supply up to half of NSW's gas needs.CREDIT:DEAN SEWELL

 
The bill, which the government voted down in the lower house, sought to impose an immediate moratorium on the prospecting or mining of coal seam gas in NSW, and classifies certain areas as permanent "no go zones". 

One of these zones is the Great Artesian Basin recharge zone, which covers part of the area for Santos' proposed $3 billion project to drill 850 gas wells in Narrabri, northern NSW, many of them within the Pilliga state forest. 

Deputy Premier John Barilaro attacked the Shooters party - the Nationals' key rivals in the bush - for their "unholy alliance" with Labor and the Greens in supporting the bill, which he said would "destroy" jobs..... 

Coal seam gas mining has long been a vexed issue for the National Party, amid fierce opposition from farmers and community groups. It was a key factor in the party losing the northern NSW seat of Ballina to the Greens at the 2015 election. 

Shooters MP Roy Butler, whose seat of Barwon includes the township of Narrabri, said the "vast majority" of his electorate opposed coal seam gas, predominantly out of concern for groundwater contamination. 

"The reality is if you don't have a good domestic supply of water in a town like Narrabri, Coonamble, any of those places, it doesn't matter how many jobs you've got, because you're not going to have anyone in the town," Mr Butler said..... 

BACKGROUND 

Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (Coal Seam Gas Moratorium) Bill 2019 [NSW]Explanatory note

The first and second reading of this bill occurred on 22 August 2019.

In the vote of 5 June 2020 which defeated the bill both Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis and Labor MP for Lismore Janelle Saffin were designated as "Pairs" and therefore deemed absent from the vote.

Coaltion Government MLAs who voted down the bill and their electorates:

Anderson, K. (Tamworth) Ayres, S. (Penrith) Barilaro, J. (Monaro) Berejiklian, G. (Willoughby) Clancy, J. (Albury) Conolly, K. (Riverstone) Constance, A. (Bega) Cooke, S. (Cootamundra) Coure, M. (Oatley) Crouch, A. (Terrigal) Davies, T. (Mulgoa) Dominello, V. (Ryde) Elliott, D. (Baulkham Hills) Evans, L. (Heathcoate) Gibbons, M. (Holsworthy) Griffin, J. (Manly) Henskens, A. (Ku-ring-gai) Johnsen, M. (Upper Hunter) Kean, M. (Hornsby) Lee, G. (Parramatta) Lindsay, W. (East Hills) Marshall, A. (Northern Tablelands) O'Dea, J. (Davidson) Pavey, M. (Oxley) Perrottet, D. (Epping) Petinos, E. (Miranda) Preston, R. (Hawkesbury) Roberts, A. (Lane Cove) Saunders, D. (Dubbo) Sidgreaves, P. (Camden) Sidoti, J. (Drummoyne) Smith, N. (Wollondilly) Speakman, M. (Cronulla) Taylor, M. (Seven Hills) Toole, P. (Bathurst) Tuckerman, W. (Goulburn) Upton, G. (Vaucluse) Ward, G. (Kiama).

In which Labor's Walt Secord and The Greens' Jeremy Buckingham nail NSW Nationals' hypocrisy in relation to coal seam and other unconventional gas exploration and mining in the state

The NSW Legislative Council Hansard recorded a seconding reading debate on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014 which began at 12.50am and ended just before 2am on 19 November 2014.

Here are excerpts from that debate:

The Hon. WALT SECORD  [1.24 a.m.]: As the shadow Minister for the North Coast I speak on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014. My observations on the bill will centre on North Coast issues. On Thursday 13 November at 10.05 a.m., without warning, the Liberal-Nationals Government introduced this bill in the Legislative Assembly. For a start, the title of the bill is a complete and absolute deception. The bill does not abolish current coal seam gas [CSG] and unconventional gas production licences currently in operation and it does not protect the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. Furthermore, the Liberal-Nationals Government has put on the table the possibility of reopening the special area of the Sydney water catchment for CSG operations. 

If the purpose of the bill's title is to convey the Government's intention at law, then the bill should have been called the "Unlock the gate and roll out the red carpet for Metgasco on the North Coast after March 2015 bill". That is because that is the intention of this bill. It will allow CSG and unconventional gas exploration to return on steroids on the North Coast after the March 2015 State election. The bill provides no guarantee to the communities of New South Wales, particularly those on the Northern Rivers, that have made their views abundantly clear. But that is no surprise. The Liberal-Nationals Government has already flagged that it will back big corporations over the people of New South Wales every time.

That is why Labor will be moving a number of amendments to the bill to bring it into line with Labor's policy, announced by Opposition leader John Robertson on 29 October. Our amendments will ban coal seam gas from the special areas of Sydney water catchment and from the Northern Rivers, encompassing the local government areas of Ballina shire, Byron shire, Kyogle shire, Lismore city, Tweed shire, Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley……

If the Liberals and The Nationals were interested in responding to community concerns they would have proceeded with a second reading speech by the Minister and then adjourned the bill, allowing the Opposition and crossbenchers to consider it. But their motivation is simple. If the North Coast community had time to consider the bill they would find it lacking in any detail and teeth, and they would see that it was an attempt to dupe them. But what is even more shameful is that not a single member of The Nationals spoke on the bill. I say that again: not a single Nationals member of Parliament spoke on the bill. That is a big betrayal of their electorates—not a word from the member for Tweed, not a word from the member for Ballina, not a word from the member for Lismore, and not a word from the member for Clarence. And out of left field, on 14 November the member for Tamworth popped up in his local media and said he wants to protect the Liverpool Plains. After months of absolute silence, he enters the fray. It was like a scene out of Muriel's Wedding: "Deidre Chambers, what are you doing here? What a coincidence!" It is no wonder that the local community have dubbed The Nationals "Team Metgasco"……        

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [1.03 a.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014. What a long and winding road it has been to get to this wafer-thin bill. After nearly five years of policy development, promises, posturing and touting their wares across the countryside the Government came up with a Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill that is nothing of the sort. There is no gas plan in this bill; there is no response to the Chief Scientist in this bill. This bill is a thin veneer of the Government's plan to sneak coal seam gas through the next election and launch it onto the countryside. This is more spin, more carpet-bagging, from a government that the people of New South Wales do not trust. 

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Take your koala suit off.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It did not take long to get a rise out of you. The Strategic Regional Land Use plan failed, the Aquifer Interference Policy failed, and the people of New South Wales do not believe a single word those opposite say on this issue. Not even the Government's backbenchers, parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers believe a single word Minister Gay says.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The member should direct his comments through the Chair and should stop pointing at people across the table. He should take a moment to take a deep breath, relax and be calm.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! The Minister was referring to relevancy. There is no point of order.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: We are debating the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill. Where did this bill start? It started with the Hon. Chris Hartcher introducing an onshore petroleum bill back in May 2013. Do members remember him introducing that bill and saying ad nauseam, "These are the toughest rules in Australia"? He went on to say, "These are the toughest rules in the world". What a joke that is! We heard announcement after announcement after announcement and that bill, which passed the Legislative Assembly on 28 May 2013, then disappeared; it was pulled off the Notice Paper on 10 September this year. It died an inglorious death; slowly and quietly culled—euthanased—because it was an absolutely pathetic bill that did nothing to placate the people of New South Wales who have concerns about coal seam gas.

The Hon. Steve Whan said this bill is not very broad. I have seen needles with more breadth and depth than this bill. Talk about pinpoint legislation—it is pathetic. The Government is expunging a handful of titles—and it very nearly could not bring itself to do that—when the people of New South Wales wanted substantive action in this area. They wanted, as the Government promised, areas ruled out of coal seam gas activity. We got some very sensible recommendations from the Chief Scientist that should be applied to extractive industries across the State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We're going to do the whole lot.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: No you're not. There were dozens of pages in the Chief Scientist's report—I read them—and the Bret Walker report, but did their recommendations turn up in the gas plan? No they did not. Some key things are missing from the gas plan. One of the most important things missing is the recommendations of Bret Walker, SC: The rights of farmers, the rights of communities, to be empowered in arbitration and land access. It says in the Government's response to the review in the most Yes Minister type language I have ever seen:

On 15 April 2014, the NSW Government commissioned Mr Bret Walker SC to undertake an independent review of the land access arbitration processes relating to exploration under the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991.

The Walker Report … made 31 recommendations to improve the arbitration land access framework. The NSW government has endorsed all the recommendations in the Walker Report relating to the current arbitration framework and committed to a process of implementation commencing immediately where possible."

The Government is committed to a process of implementation commencing immediately, where possible. What an absolute joke! This Government is a farce. No-one trusts this Government and no-one believes this Government. The gas plan is an absolute joke. It is just a blueprint to turn a beautiful State into a toxic gas field. No-one believes this Government.

Do Government members know who does not believe this Government, in particular? The Minister for Mental Health, and the Assistant Minister for Health and member for Wollondilly, Jai Rowell, Gareth Ward, Lee Evans, Mark Speakman, Mark Coure, Stuart Ayres, Chris Patterson, Brian Doyle, Russell Matheson, Rosa Sage, Barry O'Farrell, Don Page, Kevin Anderson, Thomas George, Chris Gulaptis and whoever the Coalition has running as a candidate in Ballina. They all rushed out within 24 to 48 hours of the announcement to state on the public record, "We're banning it. We're banning it." They knew what the community's interpretation of the NSW Gas Plan was. 

It is a carpetbagging exercise by snake oil salesmen who have come into New South Wales communities to sell them a story that New South Wales is running out of gas and this State must have coal seam gas. How many Holdens does New South Wales produce and how many mangoes? Are we completely self-sufficient concerning mangoes? Do we have to have a mangoes industry? We are a federation, a commonwealth, and this issue should be dealt with at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG], not through some carpetbagging exercise by the New South Wales Government. In the context of the most outrageous, erroneous and egregious untruths, I will refer to the Minister's second reading speech, which states:

For example, we appointed a New South Wales Land and Water Commissioner to provide independent advice to the community about exploration activities.

When referring to the framework for community engagement, the Minister stated:

We have also established the Gloucester Dialogue, chaired by the Land and Water Commissioner. The Gloucester Dialogue brings together community, industry and local and State governments to explore issues surrounding the exploration and extraction of coal seam gas in the Gloucester Basin.

This is this the first time in New South Wales this type of dialogue has occurred. Through the dialogue there is regular contact between senior departmental officers and Gloucester Shire Council. Any topic is up for discussion. A community liaison officer from my department operates out of the council chambers two to three days a week. The tenth dialogue meeting was held last Thursday. I commend the Gloucester Shire Council, particularly the mayor, Councillor John Rosenbaum …

Through the dialogue the community has access to all materials relevant to licensing decisions and approvals about AGL's Gloucester gas project.

That is unadulterated rubbish from the Minister because in that very week the man who had the idea for the Gloucester Dialogue, Aled Hoggett—a former councillor of the Gloucester Shire Council—resigned from the Gloucester Dialogue. He did that in the very week when the Minister was spruiking it as the way forward for engagement and the way to sell the Government's gas plan. Aled Hoggett stated in his letter of resignation, "The dialogue was initiated at my suggestion in February this year."…..

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. "The dialogue was initiated at my suggestion in February this year", Mr Aled Hoggett stated in his letter of resignation from the Gloucester Dialogue to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech. "I hope that Mr Roberts' current assertions would become reality, that we could find a new path to coexistence between coal and gas projects in local communities. Instead I resigned my position on the dialogue early this month. In my opinion, the dialogue has failed and has become an overbearing monologue directed at our tiny and underresourced council. It is being managed to satisfy the requirements for consultation while delivering no such thing. More fundamentally, the dialogue cannot address three major problems in the New South Wales planning system that undermine coexistence between rural communities and the coal and gas industries. The first problem is that the New South Wales planning system disempowers local communities."

Mr Hoggett went on. He resigned from the committee that was his idea and that the Government enshrined in the heart of the Government's NSW Gas Plan because it is a farce—like the rest of the Government's plan. The gas plan is based on a false assumption around economics and on a belief that the Government can say just anything to the community and get away with it. I will read onto the record what Mr Jai Rowell declared in the Wollondilly Advertiser to his community in relation to the announcement of the gas plan: "'It ain't happening, it's over, we won', Wollondilly MP Jai Rowell declared last week", after the gas plan was released. Yet the gas plan refers to the very fact that the AGL gas development in Camden will remain an integral part, in the Government's opinion, of gas delivery in New South Wales. That completely contradicts what Mr Jai Rowell said—"It ain't happening, it's over, we won"; there will be no coal seam gas in Wollondilly. The community is not stupid.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It is in Camden. It is not in Wollondilly, mate.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I acknowledge the interjection. The expansion plans of AGL are clearly into the Camden electorate. The member for Camden knows it. The community knows it and they are not being sold a pup on that one. Another very important element of the recommendations made by the Chief Scientist and Engineer that did not make it into the Government's NSW Gas Plan. It should serve as a warning to all people in New South Wales that the Chief Scientist and Engineer concluded her report with these words:

There are no guarantees
· All industries have risks and, like any other, it is inevitable that the CSG industry will have some unintended consequences, including as the result of accidents, human error, and natural disasters. Industry, Government and the community need to work together to plan adequately to mitigate such risks, and be prepared to respond to problems if they occur.

They are wise words by any measure in regard to risk management. How did the Chief Scientist and Engineer suggest that those risks be managed? By Recommendation 9, which states:

Recommendation 9
That Government consider a robust and comprehensive policy of appropriate insurance and environmental risk coverage of the CSG industry to ensure financial protection short and long term. Government should examine the potential adoption of a three-layered policy of security deposits, enhanced insurance coverage, and an environmental rehabilitation fund.
That is a very sensible recommendation. It is something that I would recommend in relation to any extractive industry, in all industries and most undertakings…..

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Clearly, there is enormous concern in the community. Does the recommendation to which I have referred turn up in the gas plan bill? No. What we have from this Government is a suggestion that all this will be done after the election—just like after the 2011 State election the Government had strategic regional land use plans that covered the State and protected areas, such as water catchments—"no ifs, no buts, a guarantee". Where did that go? It went the way of the premiership of the Hon. Barry O'Farrell. Those promises were not kept and people will hold this Government to account on its word. People do not believe for one instant that this promise from the Government will be kept. That is clear from the words of Mr Kevin Anderson who, straightaway after the announcement of the gas plan, rushed out to say that he wants the Liverpool Plains to be protected. Other members on the North Coast have said that they want those areas protected. I join them in saying that those areas should be protected. This coal seam gas industry is unnecessary. As the Chief Scientist said, it has major issues in terms of risk.

The Government may argue that it did not have time to do this. Why has it not implemented the recommendations of the Bret Walker review? I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply why the recommendations have not been implemented. There is a massive configuration in the community about land access and arbitration. The Government commissioned one of the best legal minds in the nation to deal with the issue, and he made fantastic recommendations about how to deal with it. The recommendations are widely supported by the environment movement, people in social justice, the legal fraternity and all sides of politics. Yet the Government has not moved. That shows that the Government is not serious and cannot be trusted on the recommendations of the Chief Scientist; otherwise some of the low-hanging fruit in the recommendations would have turned up in this wafer-thin petroleum bill. All the bill does is set out to cancel or expunge—

Mr Scot MacDonald: Finally we can talk about the bill.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I will cover the whole bill in my remaining two minutes. The Government will expunge a number of petroleum title applications, which simply could have been rejected. Will the Government cancel the petroleum exploration licences [PELS] that are up for renewal? As promised, will it protect areas such as water catchments? No, it will not. With this bill, the Government thinks it can erect a thin veil and hide behind it and sneak through to the next election. However, the electors of Lismore, Ballina, Tamworth and Barwon do not want to be guinea pigs in the Government's toxic coal seam gas experiment. They understand that we are a country rich in natural resources. Former Federal Labor and Coalition governments have signed up to a massive export of LNG without proper socio-economic analysis. 

There is a parliamentary inquiry into gas supply and demand. I look forward to that inquiry. We have seen some of the submissions to the lower House inquiry from companies such as Jemena, which say there is no gas supply crisis, there is lots of gas in Bass Strait from conventional sources and all it needs to do is build a pipeline. There are other suggestions for pipelines, et cetera. The Greens are not opposed to fossil fuels…..

Why is the NSW Baird Government removing surgical facilities from the new $80 million Byron Central Hospital?

In September 2014 it was reported that the early works contract for the new $80 million Byron Central Hospital had been awarded and, that main works construction on the greenfields site was to begin in 2015.

On 16 October 2014 the Echo Netdaily reported on the possible privatisation of surgical services within this hospital:

The NSW Parliament is today set to debate controversial government plans to privatise the proposed Byron Central Hospital after a move by the Labor opposition yesterday to force the coalition to release all documents related to the development.

It comes as a residents group revealed the Ewingsdale landowner of the surrounding land where plans are being pushed through for almost 200 dwellings, a nursing home and shopping centre is the daughter of one of Australia’s richest beef barons who has been buying up prime farmland nearby.

Byron Shire Council last week narrowly approved pushing the so-called ‘seniors’ development through to its development application (DA) stage, outraging local resident groups who say it should have been deferred for more time to consider the contentious plan which contravened the shire’s new Local Environment Plan (LEP).

But comments by Ballina MP Don Page, following the council decision, that he wanted the private sector to provide surgical services at the hospital has sparked the move in parliament to try and throw light on the hospital plans and the push for privately-run services.

Labor’s shadow health minister Walt Secord says his call for papers, known as a Standing Order 52, in the NSW Legislative Council yesterday will be debated this week.

‘It’s an extraordinary step, but this is about finding out the National Party plans for Byron Central Hospital’, Mr Secord told Echonetdaily.

He said Mr Page’s comments to the ABC in favour of a privately-run service followed an announcement by state health minister Jillian Skinner last month that the central hospital’s project team was ‘undertaking a market sounding process to determine whether there is interest from private providers to deliver surgical services at the facility’.

Read the rest of the article here.

The aforementioned debate did take place and Greens MLC Jan Barham from the Northern Rivers spoke up for the people of Byron Bay Shire and revealed what government members were obfuscating that day -  that surgical facilities had been entirely removed from the architectural plans for this hospital.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard [Proof Copy] 16 October 2014:

Ms JAN BARHAM [10.55 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Walt Secord. I urge members to have a history lesson on this matter because both sides have misrepresented the situation. As to Byron Central Hospital, I spent 10 years attending meetings and dealing with the processes conducted under the former Government for its delivery, only to be thwarted time and time again. For example, a Central Coast hospital was proposed and it was suggested that Byron would lose its two hospitals and get one large hospital in Ballina. I apologise to the Minister for Ageing, who outlined the Government's position, but he is incorrect. The previous process was always followed carefully and stringently, with wide consultation on delivery of the supply plan for the new Byron Central Hospital.

Until February 2014, architectural plans that were shown to community members—who had served for more than 20 years on committees discussing the delivery of a new hospital—included surgery services. The services plan that was completed in 2002 and put out for public consultation included surgery.

The idea of removing surgery services from the hospital, as proposed in the current planning process, is abhorrent to the local community. People feel that promises have been broken and they deserve answers. Members may note that I have put questions on the Notice Paper about these issues. I recently attended a forum at which design plans for the hospital were released, and committee members were shocked to see that the previous architectural plans had been changed to remove surgery services. It was the first they had heard of it. There has been a lack of consultation and notification about this process. People who have the community's interests at heart and who have voluntarily given so much time and energy to local health issues and to this project, were shocked. That night they expressed their displeasure about what was occurring. [my red bolding]

The Government is unwilling to tell the community why surgery services have been dropped or what process is being undertaken to ensure that Byron shire retains those important services. A new proposal should be developed and presented in a manner that conforms with normal processes so the public can access it conveniently. The process must be transparent. There has been misinformation but the important issues are service delivery and good public health services—about which I have put a question on notice. Tourism is also an important consideration. Unfortunately, visitors who engage in dangerous and adventurous activities often use local health services and facilities. I welcome this important motion but I caution members to recognise, observe and acknowledge the history of this matter. The Byron shire community have put in a lot of effort to ensure they get a hospital that meets their needs. I look forward to these issues being considered and resolved.

On a vote in the Lower House the motion passed and the Baird Government is now obliged to supply to Parliament all documents, including but not limited to ministerial briefing notes, email correspondence, financial documents, memos, file notes, meeting papers and meeting minutes relating to the new Byron Central Hospital and Maitland Hospital.

These documents should be interesting to say the least, as one local resident in a submission to the NSW Minister for Planning & Environment in September 2014 outlined how planned surgical services were whittled away before being removed from the building design:

As a member of Byron Bay Hospital Aux, I have been interested in the planning process for the new Byron Shire Central Hospital since the first consultants were engaged by the Dept to consult with the local community, so probably for over 20 years. Along every step of this process I have attended numerous public meetings as well as meetings of the planning committee and was always assured that there would be no downgrading of the services available at the Byron Bay or Mullumbimby Hospitals until the new Hospital was built and we would keep all the current services available at both Hospitals and indeed add to these services, when the new hospital was built. I was astounded to see that the plans currently on exhibition make no mention of operating theatres or day surgery. The initial proposal incorporated two "state of the art" operating theatres. This later became theatres for day surgery procedures and now we have non{e} at all!. As Byron Bay Hospital has facilities for day surgery and has had some form of theatre since it's inception, I find it totally unacceptable that the new Central Hospital has none at all and I say this whilst being well aware that the Area Health Board is looking for expressions of interest for a private provider to build operating theatres on the site, for them to buy back services from. I wish to strongly object to the fact that there is not allowance for operating theatres in these plans. These plans must include provision for at least day surgery in the event that no private provider is found, otherwise the people of the Byron Shire have been duped by the Health Department. This Hospital underwent a very lengthy and painful community consultation, there was much ill feeling in both communities over the loss of both hospitals. The community only agreed to the one Central Hospital provided there was no loss of services. They would not agree to what is now proposed in these plans. 

Once again the North Coast Nationals appear to have blindly endorsed a flawed health services plan for the Northern Rivers region.

Mid North Coast Greens: NSW Minister for Primary Industries admits to being industry mouthpiece on coal seam gas

Mid North Coast Greens Media Release Tuesday 19 August 2014:

Minister Hodgkinson admits to being industry mouthpiece on coal seam gas

The Greens NSW mining spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham was astounded to hear the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson read an AGL press release to answer a question about the ability of coal seam gas to coexist with the dairy industry.

Mr Buckingham asked Minister Hodgkinson whether she had read the report of the parliamentary inquiry into coal seam gas, and particularly the evidence given by North Coast dairy co-operative NORCO that they could not coexist with coal seam gas.  NORCO recently reported on their rapid expansion of its dairy exports to China.  Minister Hodgkinson answered by reading verbatim from this AGL press release. 

“It’s appalling that the Minister for Primary Industries resorts to literally being an industry mouthpiece by reading our an AGL press release to answer a serious question,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

“Except for an official tour of AGL’s coal seam gas facilities at Camden, Ms Hodgkinson seems to have put no thought into the subject and is happy to just read from an industry press release.

“She admits she has not visited the gas area near Narrabri, nor been to Queensland where the coal seam gas industry has rapidly expanded in agricultural areas, nor could she remember whether she’d read the parliamentary report into coal seam gas.

“If I were Agricultural Minister, I would have quickly visited to the United States to find out for myself how fracking for gas affects agriculture.  Instead we have an ignorant minister reliant on industry spin.

“Farmers are up in arms around the state, worried about the impact of gas and mining on their ability to farm and to source clean water, yet the minister is asleep to the issue.  

“Farmers would be disappointed that Minister Hodgkinson seems disinterested in her portfolio.  Agriculture is a vibrant and innovative sector of the economy and needs a passionate advocate, but instead we have an ineffective minister.”

Federal Greens candidate in Cowper Carol Vernon satisfied with recent NSW Legislative Council amendments to Local Land Services Bill 2013

Media Release, June 28, 2013

Greens Cowper candidate pleased that Greens amendments support landholders

“Our local towns, from Kempsey to Maclean, benefit from a healthy rural environment,” said Carol Vernon.

The Greens candidate for Cowper expressed her satisfaction that The NSW Legislative Council has agreed to two Greens amendments to the Local Land Services Bill 2013.

“The Greens are pleased that these sensible amendments to promote modern, scientific land management were adopted by the NSW Parliament, “ said Carol Vernon

The first amendment restores triple bottom line natural resource management, and the use of sound scientific knowledge in decision-making.

The second amendment (in italics) modified an existing object in the act “to provide a framework for financial assistance and incentives to landholders including, but not limited to, incentives that promote land and biodiversity conservation”

“Farmers and landholders who want to manage their land to promote environmental restoration and biodiversity deserve financial support,” she said.

“The Greens would like to see a system of rate reductions for landholders who dedicate parts of their land to environmental restoration or conservation.

“Compare these moves to support protection of the environment by the NSW parliament, to the stance of the federal Liberal/National parties for land and biodiversity conservation. On June 26 they refused to vote for Senator Milne’s motion for “a total prohibition on logging in any World Heritage areas in Australia, now and into the future.”

“Only Greens in the Senate will protect future biodiversity essential to our children’s heritage,” said Mrs Vernon.

Media contact: [redacted]

Website: http://candidates.greens.org.au/cowper

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CarolVernonGreensForCowper?fref=ts

Carol Vernon (Greens4Cowper) on Twitter

Blog: http://mncgreens.blogspot.com.au   E: Cowper@nsw.greens.org.au

Richmond Valley Council declares moratorium on new coal seam gas projects. When will Clarence Valley Council do likewise?

Today's Northern Star reports:

Richmond Valley Council has joined the growing list of Northern Rivers councils to declare a moratorium on new coal seam gas projects.

Councillors voted to approve the moratorium (Stuart George, who works for Metgasco, and Charlie Cox excluded themselves from the vote) despite previously having opposed a moratorium.

NSW Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham, who is the party's spokesman on mining, said it was clear the coal seam gas industry "has not got a social licence to operate in NSW".

"Local government is acting to fill the void left by the state government's failure to implement a moratorium on coal seam gas," he said.

"Santos Chief Executive David Knox's assertion that opposition to coal seam gas has 'peaked' is just wishful thinking. We saw a massive rally in Sydney recently, and 7,000 people marched through Lismore just last weekend. Community understanding and concern continues to grow.

"Last week Marrickville Council voted against allowing coal seam gas at St Peters, and Dart Energy canned their plans to drill. Narrabri Council is considering a motion to stop coal seam gas; Lismore Council has a moratorium; Moree Council, Leichhardt Council, Kyogle Council, Tweed, Byron, Wollongong Council, Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly have all expressed concern.

"There is nothing like a looming election to focus the mind of elected officials, and Councillors across NSW are recognising that the community wants to protect their land and water from the threat of coal seam gas.

"Congratulations to Richmond Valley Council for standing up for their community and a healthy environment."