The chair of a parliamentary inquiry into the impacts of metal mining on human health is worried about its integrity after the majority of its committee members blocked the appearance of “highly relevant” witnesses.
Key points:
- A parliamentary inquiry chair is concerned her committee “refused” to hear from key experts
- Greens MLC Amanda Cohn says she’s “anxious” about the integrity of the inquiry’s final report into the health impacts of mining
- The inquiry will hear from medical experts tomorrow
New South Wales Greens MLC and inquiry chair Amanda Cohn said no reason was given as to why occupational health experts slated to appear have been refused, and that she was now “really anxious” about the final report’s accuracy.
“Their expertise and research was critical to inform the work of the inquiry and I don’t anticipate that we’ll be able to report with any integrity on this subject without considering their testimonies,” Dr Cohn said.
‘Refused to hear from experts’
The inquiry, which is investigating the current and potential impacts of gold, silver, lead, and zinc mining on human health, land, air, and water quality, kicked off in September and toured NSW communities facing mining impacts.
It was triggered by increasing community concerns around the pressure mining was placing on resources such as rainwater and clean air.
Dr Cohn said she believed the inquiry was providing an important platform for the public and had made significant findings.
“This inquiry was really shining a light on some extraordinarily damaging current and proposed mining projects,” she said.
Last week, the committee met to finalise the schedule including the chair’s proposal to call leading respiratory specialist Deborah Yates, whose work looks at mine workers with silicosis, and environmental scientist and lead expert Mark Taylor.
Dr Cohn had also proposed to extend the inquiry’s hearing days and visit an additional mine site.
However, the committee voted against hearing from the proposed expert witnesses and did not support the extra hearings.
“Members of the inquiry representing the Liberal, National, and Labor parties have cut the inquiry short and refused to hear from experts who were scheduled to appear at our next hearing,” she said.
“These are academics who have spent their careers researching these matters.
“This is really critical evidence.”
The inquiry committee members who voted against the chair’s intended list of witnesses did not respond to requests for interviews for this article.
Committee can object
Charles Sturt University political scientist Dominic O’Sullivan said parliamentary committees could object to witnesses “if they wished”.
“The procedure is that the chair of the committee is required to circulate a list of witnesses it intends to call and the committee can object,” Professor O’Sullivan said.
“There’s always the matter of political judgement of who will be heard and who won’t — these things need to be balanced.
“But often they are balanced more on points of political concern rather than principle.”
Professor O’Sullivan believed the parliamentary inquiry system had integrity because it existed on the public record.
“They’re published, people can read them and interpret them as as they wish,” he said.
“But the interpretive skill that any citizen might apply is to consider who was on the committee, who had the numbers, and what kinds of influences, prejudices, and priorities those members may have had,” he said.
The inquiry will hold its final hearing tomorrow.
Health experts scheduled to appear include NSW Health executive Jeremy McAnulty, clinical toxicologist Andrew Dawson, and NSW Health’s Centre for Alcohol and Other Drugs’ medical advisor Thanjira Jiranantakan.
Posted , updated
