Greens MP Cate Faehrmann has today given notice of a motion in the NSW Parliament, calling on the government to legislate for marriage equality in the event that the Federal Parliament fails to do so in 2011.

“The Greens preference is for Australian Greens’ bill to amend the federal Marriage Act. However, if the Federal Parliament fails to act in accordance with overwhelming public support, then the NSW Parliament should,” Ms Faehrmann said.

“Advice from constitutional law expert Professor George Williams indicates the states have the ability to enact marriage equality laws. If the bigger parties in Canberra let us down, then politicians at Macquarie Street should step up to the plate.

“The Greens are extremely pleased to see support for marriage equality growing across the country.

“We will continue on with this campaign until all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sex and gender identity is removed. If necessary the Greens will introduce a marriage equality bill in NSW to make this happen,” Ms Faehrmann said.

The motion reads as follows:

I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move:

1. That this house notes:
a. Overwhelming public support for marriage equality in Australia
b. The growing number of jurisdictions overseas which have legislated for marriage equality including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa
c. Advice from constitutional law expert Professor George Williams that marriage equality laws can be enacted by the states
d. The Australian Greens’ Marriage Equality (Amendment) Bill 2010 currently before the Federal Parliament.

2. That this house calls on the NSW Government, in the event that the Federal Parliament fails to legislate for marriage equality in 2011, to legislate to allow marriage between adults in NSW regardless of sexual orientation, sex and gender identity.

A NSW Auditor-General’s report on coal mining royalties released today is a damning review and exposes flaws in the practice of coal companies assessing their own royalties, Greens MP and mining spokesperson Cate Faehrmann said.

The report states an estimated $8 million in coal royalties could have been collected over a five year period, and notes that Industry & Investment NSW does not have the systems in place to determine whether the royalty being paid by coal companies is correct. (See excerpts over the page.)

“This report clearly shows that Industry & Investment NSW does not have the competence to deal with the complexities and responsibilities of overseeing mining operations in NSW,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“The department is not taking its responsibilities seriously and instead seems to be operating for the sole benefit of mining companies.

“It’s unbelievable that the department allows mining companies to self-assess the royalties they owe to the people of NSW.

“The mineral resources of NSW are owned by people of NSW. The mining companies pay royalties to exploit these.

“Welfare recipients face harsh penalties if they make the smallest errors in their submissions to Centrelink. It is an outrage that the department is so lax in collecting the monies owed by coal companies.

“This audit has confirmed that Industry & Investment NSW needs urgent investigation,” said Ms Faehrmann.

The full report is available here: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/2010/mining/mining_contents.htm

Excerpts:

Page 2

We estimate that at least $8 million more in coal royalties could have been collected between 2004-05 and 2008-09.

A major overhaul of the administrative arrangements for collecting royalties is needed.

Page 3

…[Industry & Investment NSW] (DII) does not provide comprehensive guidance on the specific rules for coal mining royalties to lease holders, and relies too much on individual staff to clarify the rules. As a result, there is little assurance that the rules have been applied properly and consistently, and that all companies have met their obligations.

DII identifies late royalty payments, and promptly follows up with lease holders. However, DII cannot assess from the royalty returns, which are self-assessed by lease holders, whether the royalty being paid is likely to be correct. Unlike in some other jurisdictions, NSW coal mining lease holders do not have to provide supporting evidence or independent verification of the amount paid. As a result, in-depth audits by DII are the sole mechanism to determine the validity of royalty payments. Also, DII relies on a manual royalty return system which is highly inefficient.

The Greens have accused the NSW Government of attempting to ram through controversial legislation in the dying days of Parliament to allow for capture and storage (CCS) activities underneath most areas of NSW, excluding National Parks.

The Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 2010 establishes a regulatory framework for the injection and permanent storage of CO2 in underground reservoirs, including allowing ‘prospecting licences and assessment leases’ that may involve access to private land.

“Communities across NSW should be outraged. The government is ramming this bill through in the last few days of Parliament, knowing it’s highly controversial and deserves wide consultation,” Greens MP and mining spokesperson Cate Faehrmann said.

“Carbon capture and storage is a false solution to the problem of potentially catastrophic climate change. Its sole purpose is to prop up the coal industry, which at some stage soon governments everywhere will realise we can no longer continue to do.

“Under this proposed legislation, NSW taxpayers will bear any liability from ‘leaking gas’ or other problems arising once the CCS sites are closed and the company has moved on. Yet again mining companies profit while the people and environment of NSW bear the consequences.

“This bill isn’t about tackling climate change, it’s about protecting the profits of the mostly foreign-owned gas and coal companies which plan to drill and mine their way across our most productive farmlands,” Ms Faehrmann said.

Three gay newly-weds in San Francisco. Photo: Thom Watson

Today I gave notice of a motion in the NSW Parliament, calling on the government to legislate for marriage equality in the event that the Federal Parliament fails to do so in 2011.

Obviously, my preference is for Australian Greens’ bill to amend the federal Marriage Act. However, if the Federal Parliament fails to act in accordance with overwhelming public support, then the NSW Parliament should.

Advice from constitutional law expert Professor George Williams indicates the states have the ability to enact marriage equality laws. If the bigger parties in Canberra let us down, then politicians at Macquarie Street should step up to the plate.

It’s great that support for marriage equality growing across the country. We will continue on with this campaign until all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sex and gender identity is removed. If necessary the Greens will introduce a marriage equality bill in NSW to make this happen.

UPDATE: Labor MP and government Whip in the Legislative Council Greg Donnellyblocked the immediate progression this Greens motion. The motion is not necessarily defeated however, just blocked from proceeding before the 2011 election.

It’s unfortunate that some Labor MPs are so out of touch with the rest of the community on marriage equality. I personally know many MPs from all sides of politics that support removing discrimination, but it took just one to throw yet another spanner in the works.

Marriage equality is a mainstream issue. It’s one of the issues that is brought up with me over and over again, especially from young people. There is a level of disbelief in the community that some people could be so opposed to giving all people the choice to marry whomever they love.

It appears that there will not be an opportunity to debate in this Parliament my Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2010. It is a great shame that this House will not have the opportunity to debate the bill because there is overwhelming public support for voluntary euthanasia laws and the right of all of us to make our own decisions at the end of our lives. I take this opportunity, in my final adjournment speech for this session, to state for the record some of my experiences over the past three months in campaigning on this important social policy issue. I commence by congratulating my colleague the Hon. Ian Cohen on his work in first introducing a voluntary euthanasia bill in 2001. It is the basis for legislation that my office has been working on. In what is Ian’s last fortnight in this House I acknowledge his work in this area and his courage in pursuing the issue throughout his career in Parliament.

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2010 sought to confer on individuals who suffer from a terminal illness the right under certain circumstances to request assistance to end their lives with dignity. Since I gave notice of the bill I have had the opportunity to meet many people with tragic personal stories. I will take a minute to relate one of those stories to the House. Gideon Cordover’s father contracted motor neurone disease. Gideon’s father had watched his own father die the terrible death of motor neurone disease. Gideon’s father was adamant that he would not put his family through the same thing. Gideon’s father ended up obtaining a lethal dose and passed away with his family beside him. Essentially, he took his own life with the use of the lethal dose. It was a tragic circumstance and a story that moved me deeply. As a result of this experience Gideon is now an active campaigner for voluntary euthanasia.

I thank all those people who have contacted my office to share their experiences and views on voluntary euthanasia. I respect that there are many strongly held views in the community. I congratulate those individuals involved in the Dying with Dignity organisation on their resilience in keeping this campaign in the public consciousness. Notwithstanding my comments above, during the past two months it has been disappointing to see the way that some individuals and groups have engaged in debate on this issue. I single out Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for special mention. Shortly after I gave notice of the bill an anti voluntary euthanasia poster appeared on his office door depicting a grim reaper standing over an elderly couple. The grim reaper has emblazoned on his chest the Greens logo. The absurdity of such an image should be plain for all to see. This type of campaign is not only illogical; it is driven by an irrational, hysterical fear of a non-existent threat.

It seems to me that rigid ideology drives the position of some in this debate, rather than a willingness to consider, debate and talk through public policy outcomes. A significant focus has been paid to experiences in other countries in relation to voluntary euthanasia. Often it seems that statistics have been cherry picked, including a statistic in one petition that has been tabled in the Parliament over some weeks. It seems that these statistics have been cherry picked, taken out of context and spread around in a way to create fear and uncertainty. It is true that the voluntary euthanasia laws in the Netherlands are the most liberal in the world. While I have not been long in this place, I am comfortable that members of this House can come together to make laws in the interests of the New South Wales community with appropriate safeguards and provisions. We should not be scared of making our own laws even if other jurisdictions have chosen to do it slightly differently. But it is that idea that goes to the heart of the anti voluntary euthanasia campaign. It is based on a philosophy that the views of one group in society should be imposed on all.

The law I have proposed will not allow involuntary euthanasia. It will not put pressure on anyone to take the steps that the law would allow. It will allow individuals to make their own choice. We rarely get to make laws that give people their own choice. Too often we are forced to regulate and restrict. I look forward to bringing forward a voluntary euthanasia bill in the next Parliament. This issue continues to have widespread public support, and it continues to have the public support that is building across the country. Parliaments around the country remain well behind public expectations. I note that the South Australia Parliament recently debated voluntary euthanasia, which was narrowly defeated. However, I am sure that each time we debate voluntary euthanasia we will have more support. I am looking forward to bringing my bill into the next Parliament and ensuring that New South Wales citizens have the right to die with dignity.