Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.38 p.m.]: In joining in debate on the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill 2009, I congratulate the Greens on introducing this bill, which is a perfect example of wedge politics. The bill is designed to carry out Greens ideology and the Greens objectives. The Greens political party, which has backed a great deal of anti-farming legislation, now wants to present itself as the farmer's friend.
Sadly, in the gallery are many sincere people who have come here to watch this debate. Some of them have a farming background. Some have visited my office and spoken to me, urging me to vote for the bill. Some have expressed concern about possible damage to the Liverpool Plains area, the aquifers and so on. I understand the farmers' concerns. However, they have been misled into thinking that if the Legislative Council, which is a House of review, passes a private member's bill it becomes law. No bill can become law unless it is supported by the Labor Government.
Dr John Kaye: That's not true.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: This legislation is totally opposed by the Government.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind Dr John Kaye that he is on two calls to order.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Government has indicated that it will not support this bill. The Greens have played a hoax; they gave the impression that if the bill is passed today it will take effect in New South Wales. It will not take effect. The bill must go to the other place, the lower House. We already know that. A few months ago we debated at length a bill, which I supported, that would have provided for the election of a new Port Macquarie council. That bill was debated and passed by this House, and then went to the lower House. What happened to the bill in the other place? It is stone dead. The Government did not support that bill.
Mr Ian Cohen: So what did you do—nothing?
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: My point is that, sadly, the Greens have misled the people in the public gallery for their own political purposes. I am sorry that the people in the gallery have been misled by the Greens. No doubt their legislation and other matters will arise in due course from the water resources inquiry announced by the Minister today. The terms of reference for that inquiry have been established. That inquiry will clarify the areas in the Liverpool Plains that need to be protected. The matter will gradually unfold through the water resources inquiry, not through the Greens agenda. This bill is a perfect example of the strategy that was adopted in the 1980s by extremist socialist parties, communist parties and Maoist parties that realised they were making no political progress or gaining political influence in New South Wales and Australia. At a secret conference—I have seen some papers from that conference—they agreed to change their strategy, abolish the Australian Community Party and other organisations and deliberately infiltrate other organisations.
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I cannot see how some kind of conspiracy theory that Reverend Nile seems to be entertaining has any relevance to coalmining—
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I ask the member to direct his comments to the point of order.
Dr John Kaye: I am. I am asking you to rule on the issue of relevance. The speaker is exercising a conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with coalmining or the substance of this legislation.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Other members have spoken unchallenged of their belief of the motivations behind the introduction of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is debating a similar point. There is no point of order.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am explaining the objectives of the bill, as did other members. These organisations realised that they could not make progress if they were clearly identified. Therefore their objective was to find out what issues they could exploit to gain political support. They looked at a number of issues. Can we continue to use the feminist issue? Can we continue to use the homosexual issue?
[Interruption]
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind members of the public in the gallery that they are not to interject on proceedings in the Chamber.
Mr Ian Cohen: It wasn't the gallery.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members of the public in the gallery were interjecting also.
Ms Sylvia Hale: How can people in the gallery stop themselves from laughing?
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! It is difficult for people in the gallery to behave in a proper manner and observe the rules of the House if members do not set a good example.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: After examining all those issues, these organisations focussed on the environment, which led to the birth of the Greens. They used the Greens and the environment as a political weapon to gain power and influence in the political world. That is why I nicknamed the Greens the watermelon party: green on the outside and red on the inside with a pink lining. The Greens have cleverly exploited environmental issues. It is interesting that the nations whose people had the most extreme socialist views and socialist governments, whether it be the Soviet Union or other countries, were causing the most pollution in the environment. Indeed, those nations produced acid rain, which destroyed the forests in Europe and so on.
It was simply a political objective. The Greens have used environmental issues as a political pathway. They worked out how to exploit small groups, whether it be the farmers on the Liverpool Plains or residents in other communities. Over the years I have watched the Greens—all this can be documented—fasten onto a local issue and use it for their own purposes: they have used the sincere citizens of this State for their political agenda. The Greens jump on a bandwagon and exploit an issue for their own political purposes. Sadly, their strategy is working. I congratulate the Greens on their success in linking up hundreds of environmental groups, many of which do not realise they are supporting a political machine. Because of the political influence the Greens have gained, the Federal Labor Government led by Prime Minister Rudd must now negotiate with the Greens to try to get his carbon emissions legislation through the Parliament. That is the danger we face when the Greens gain political power and influence.
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. We have now gone from a conspiracy theory in the 1980s through to the trials and tribulations of the Prime Minister with regard to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to the subject of this legislation.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As I ruled earlier, other members have spoken about their belief of the intentions behind the introduction of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is doing just that. I ask the member to be generally relevant and not to stray from the subject matter of the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: These are the reasons the House should not pass the bill. The passage of the bill—
[Interruption]
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I direct the attendants to remove from the public gallery the people who are interjecting.
[The people interjecting were removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms.]
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As I was saying, passing the bill will give further political mileage to the Greens, and I do not believe this House should do that, even if it were to satisfy the concerns of the people in the gallery. We saw—other speakers have referred to this—what happened when the Tasmanian Labor Government tried to work with the Greens; it found that their demands were impossible. That is why I cannot support this bill. It is not because of the content; it is because the bill will give the Greens greater ability to blow their trumpets and claim a great victory in this State, and give them further political oxygen. During my time in this Parliament I have been working hard to deny political oxygen to the Greens. The Nationals, the Liberals and the Labor Party should cut off the oxygen supply to the Greens because they are helping to create a political monster, which we will see take more effect at the 2011 State election if they gain control of the upper House.
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Let us have a close look at this. We have gone from a conspiracy in 1998 to the trial and tribulations of Kevin Rudd and now we are at the 2011 election.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! What is the point of order?
Dr John Kaye: The issue is relevancy. Nothing of what has been said today—it is a very fine attack on the Greens and I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on that—is relevant to coalmining, water and land.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I rule against the point of order for the same reason I stated earlier. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is talking about his belief of the intention behind the introduction of the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am giving reasons why I cannot vote for the bill, which is the point of what I am presenting to the House. For the benefit of Dr John Kaye, after the next election it could be that, because of an obstructive upper House, both major parties believe they cannot function and get legislation through the upper House, so they conclude it is time to agree on the abolition of the upper House. If the upper House becomes obstructive, which it could under a move led by the Greens, it would undermine the future of this House, and that is another reason why I do not support this legislation.
Other speakers have said, and the Greens have admitted, this bill is poorly drafted and major amendments are needed because if it were ever law it would have a dramatic impact on the economy of this State. It is amazing to see the Greens, when they want to, give all discretionary powers over the extension of mining activities to the Minister. I can remember the Greens arguing day after day, "Don't give powers to the Minister", "Take the power away from the Minister" but now, when it suits them, the Greens play a different game with this legislation because they want to give power to the Minister.
Does anyone in their right mind want to give any more political power to the Greens so they can force governments to adopt their policies, which cover a range of moral, social and economic issues? I will not go into detail because I am sure all honourable members are well aware of them. We must look at the big picture when voting for this bill today. We should not look at it as just a Greens bill with one Greens amendment, but at the long-term political impacts. The Minister announced the terms of reference of the inquiry for the water studies, which, as I said earlier, would lead to the necessary protection of sensitive areas.
The Greens often raise their concerns about the amount of bore water farmers use. I wonder whether the people in the public gallery from the Liverpool Plains know what step the Greens will take next if this bill is passed. Perhaps the Greens will try to stop farmers from using bore water to protect it. Do the farmers in the gallery today realise that is part of the Greens agenda? We should remember the native vegetation and threatened species legislation that governments have introduced, but that have been strongly driven by the Greens and the environment movement. All the farmers that I meet complain about such legislation, which the Greens regard as the best in the world. The farming community should be suspicious when the Greens want to be their friend and help them. For those reasons, the Christian Democratic Party does not support this politically motivated legislation of the Greens.