Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [5.29 p.m.]: I referred earlier in debate on the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012 to members' credibility. Before Opposition members cast a stone and say that Government members are liars and that they have no credibility, they too should have credibility. People in glasshouses should not throw stones. When we take into account what members of the former Labor Government did to New South Wales they should be the last people to throw stones. The member for Liverpool spoke earlier about liars. One has only to refer to the history of the Australian Labor Party over the past few years to see that at one time the Australian Labor Party was great. However, unfortunately, it is now dead and gone.

Mr Robert Furolo: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 59 which refers to irrelevance or tedious repetition. Under Standing Order 59 the Assistant-Speaker may direct a member to discontinue a speech if that member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition. Clearly the member for Myall Lakes is persisting in irrelevance and tedious repetition and should be asked to return to the leave of the bill.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I think the member for Lakemba has referred to the wrong standing order. The member for Myall Lakes has had a little over five minutes and whilst he is very entertaining I ask him to address the leave of the bill.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: For the first time in 26 years this bill will make possible uranium exploration in New South Wales, which has the potential of delivering significant economic benefits to this State. New South Wales is not alone in taking advantage of the economic benefits of uranium exploration: Uranium exploration has bipartisan support federally and in most States. Currently Queensland permits uranium exploration but not mining. Companies spent nearly $18 million on uranium exploration in Queensland. I would like to see $18 million being spent in New South Wales on uranium exploration. Exploration can provide economic benefits for industry, government and local communities. South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory allow both uranium exploration and mining. The uranium industry in Western Australia has seen a significant resurgence in development following the 2008 lifting of the ban on uranium mining.

The overwhelming majority of State governments in Australia and the Federal Labor Government have indicated their bipartisan support for uranium exploration and mining. The New South Wales Labor Party, which was voted out with the greatest landslide in history, says it does not want uranium exploration and mining even though its comrades in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and South Australia, who are all on the same page, are allowing it. Unfortunately the Labor Party in New South Wales, in an attempt to scare the community, is opposing uranium exploration purely for political expediency. Opposition members should be 100 per cent behind this legislation and should sell it in their electorates as it is good for New South Wales.

In South Australia the Honeymoon East Kalkaroo projects include both productive mine sites and exploration tenements, some fewer than 20 kilometres from the New South Wales border. The Honeymoon project is worth $45 billion to the South Australia economy. However, the depleted husk of the New South Wales Labor Party opposes it. That depleted husk, which is not a seed, is disintegrating before our eyes. Those are not my words; those are the words used by Labor Party heavyweights, a former Australian Labor Party president and other former Premiers of New South Wales when referring to the rabble on the other side of this Chamber. The brains of the rabble opposite would not cover the knuckle of a canary. Opposition members are trying to tell this Government how and when it should do things for New South Wales. It is unbelievable that members of the Opposition have no valid argument but use only scaremongering tactics.

Currently Australia has three operating uranium mines—Olympic Dam, Beverley in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory. Three additional operations are scheduled to begin production in the near future. This Government proposes exploration to map the location of uranium in New South Wales so that in the future we will be able to establish whether or not to proceed, which is a commonsense approach. When this Government asked the Department of Primary Industries, "Where is our prime agricultural land?" it was informed that after 16 years of Labor no prime agricultural land had been identified. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [5.35 p.m.]: I support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012, a commonsense approach that will bring sensible decision-making into the uranium exploration debate in New South Wales. For too long that debate has been centred on untruths, distortions and hysteria and has been captured by The Greens and elements of the far Left who prefer to engage in anti-western, anti-United States rhetoric rather than sitting down and working out a sensible policy framework that addresses the key issues of providing an energy resource which, if managed properly and with strict protocols and guidelines in place, could provide a strong foundation for the growth and development of an export industry which will be able to supply a resource for the world's growing energy demands and provide investment and jobs for New South Wales.

Let me make two things abundantly clear. First, Australia has been mining uranium since 1954 and, second, a massive demand for a reliable supply of energy is coming from the growth economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, as well as our closest neighbour, Indonesia. It must be made clear that the global energy demands will dictate the policy discourse relating to energy resource extraction and exports for governments well into the twenty-first century. In an ideal world it would be great to have 100 per cent of our electricity and energy demands supplied from renewable sources. But that is a fantasy, the stuff in children's fairytale books that is spread around by The Greens and the socialist Left—by the protestors who sit in Martin Place all day and the groups that use violent tactics to disrupt multilateral forums and meetings such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the G20 summits.

The truth is that we cannot meet global demands from renewable sources. We need to be proactive and forward thinking about how to provide reliable resources that balance the economic, social and environmental factors. These factors are not mutually exclusive and need to be worked through in a professional and considered manner with debate based on the scientific, financial and engineering facts that are presented. I am a strong believer in and advocate for the development of a robust renewable energy market. In 2001 the Howard Government introduced the mandatory renewable energy target to encourage the uptake of renewable energy in Australia's electricity supply. In 2007 the Federal Government agreed to targets of 20 per cent renewable sources by 2020.

The developing economies are currently experiencing growth rates of around 7 per cent to 8 per cent and have nuclear power infrastructure in place. This bill is a logical move towards developing a sensible and workable policy framework that could open up the market for the export of uranium from New South Wales. I say this because the bill does not overturn the existing ban on uranium mining in New South Wales and nor does the bill allow what the Left will be saying—which we have already heard in this debate—that we will have nuclear power in Australia. The ban remains in place so let us not allow the Left to run with the argument that we are recklessly allowing the extraction, sale and export of uranium. It makes complete sense to allow for exploration as Australia has approximately 23 per cent of the world's uranium reserves.

It makes sense because Australia already exports uranium and has done for the past 60 years. However, there is little information about uranium resources in New South Wales because of the longstanding ban on exploration. Maintaining the ban is economically irresponsible because we could be providing incentives for exploration in regional areas that will in turn facilitate investment and jobs in New South Wales. Last year alone Australia exported more than 7,000 tonnes of uranium worth up to $1 billion to our economy. This bill makes sense because it will open up investment in exploration and allow for the collection of vital information about the location of reserves. It will also establish the potential, after a thorough and exhaustive process, for extraction, sale and export of uranium to meet the energy demands of growth economies.

It will encourage investment and the creation of jobs in our State, in particular in the regional economies that need that investment. It is sensible to develop a proper framework that will allow mining companies to conduct research and to build a repository of information so that we can make sound decisions in the future. Even the Labor Party is moving away from its once intransigent position on the export of uranium with its recent national conference decision to overturn a long-term ban on the sale of uranium to India. We have heard a chorus of voices calling for a more sensible policy debate and discourse on this complex issue. Former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke spoke in favour of uranium exploitation and said that the decision to lift the ban was good. He is quoted as saying:

"There has been an incapacity within Australia to discuss the issue of uranium,'' he said. ''You've got to think about these issues in terms of modern reality. The fact is if we want as clean as possible an environment, the generation of electricity by nuclear power stations is going to be an increasingly positive feature of that.''

He said Labor should not get ''hung up on uranium''. On whether or not to have nuclear power in Australia, Mr Hawke said: ''Sure, of course we should have a debate about it.''

This bill is part of a process that we must go through to develop a thorough and sensible policy response to an issue that should have been dealt with many years ago. The New South Wales Coalition is getting on with the job and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [5.42 p.m.]: I support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012, which will lift the 26-year prohibition on uranium exploration in New South Wales. In that time we have developed a greater understanding of how to manage the risks associated with uranium exploration and we now have more than 40 years experience in applying international radiation safety regulations at uranium sites. According to the World Nuclear Association, Australian and Canadian radiation safety regulations are among the most comprehensive and stringent in the world.

Uranium mining companies worldwide have generally taken active steps to strengthen their performance by reducing radiation doses and promoting and adopting health and safety recommendations. Health and safety legislation applies to all exploration work in Australia. The relevant Acts in New South Wales are the Mine Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Those Acts, together with the Australian Code of Practice for Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing, which comprehensively address health and safety issues, will provide this State's framework for radioactive minerals exploration sites.

The Commonwealth Government has noted that as one of the world's largest producers of uranium Australia has a leadership role. That role is to ensure the sustainable development and responsible use of this globally important energy resource. Consequently, the Australian Government's policy is that uranium exploration and mining will be approved only subject to stringent safety requirements in line with world's best practice. There are some clear examples of Australian companies demonstrating that leadership and best practice. Energy Resources of Australia is a subsidiary of Rio Tinto and operates the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. Through the Australian Uranium Association, the company has been active in a number of stewardship-related projects. For instance, it has provided informed scientific information on issues such as the Fukushima incident and represented the industry on critical new legislation and scientific developments.

Through mentoring workshops it has also helped to transfer knowledge about leading practices in radiation protection and water management to new and emerging uranium producers. BHP Billiton also provides examples of best practice. At the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia the company encourages the responsible use and management of its products throughout their lifecycle from production to recycling and disposal. Its uranium business also supports the uranium product stewardship principles promoted by the World Nuclear Association and the Australian Uranium Association. These principles include supporting the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology and promoting sustainable development for the industry. The company shares concerns about various aspects of the uranium lifecycle even where others have direct responsibility.

Heathgate Resources provides another example of best practice. The company is the owner and operator of the Beverley and Beverley North uranium mines in South Australia. Beverley, which commenced production in late 2000, is Australia's first operating in-situ recovery mine. From the outset the company has been committed to developing and operating Beverley as a world's best practice in-situ recovery mine. Using world-leading technology, uranium is recovered at Beverley in accordance with stringent safety and environmental standards and is exported to be processed into fuel to generate clean energy. At the same time, it provides employment opportunities and royalties for South Australia.

From these industry examples it is clear that the uranium industry in Australia is working hard to achieve best practice. It is working to achieve that in health, safety and regulatory compliance and in making recommendations to further contribute to that goal. These examples provide New South Wales with the knowledge that industry will be working to achieve high standards of safety and environmental protection when exploring for uranium here. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.48 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012. It should be noted that although members have raised a broad range of issues in this debate the legislation relates only to exploration for uranium and nothing else. If uranium was found and if we believed that New South Wales should repeal the 26-year moratorium on uranium mining that could happen only after the appropriate legislation was passed. I believe that our country has missed a great opportunity to use nuclear energy over many years while other countries have embraced that technology. However, as I said, this debate is about uranium exploration and nothing else. I was particularly interested to hear the comments made by my learned colleague and good friend and namesake the member for Murray-Darling, who said that his electorate would more than likely embrace any opportunity to increase employment and prosperity. Any member who is prepared to make such a comment is clearly representing his constituents.

I have been most impressed by the large number of members who have contributed to this debate. No fewer than 20 members have spoken about uranium and they have done so very willingly—they have not had their arm twisted—and the majority have referred to the environment. It is important to note that all members, regardless of their political leanings, are conscious of the environment and the fact that we must embrace initiatives and technologies that move us towards producing cleaner energy. I have made many contributions in this place about my efforts to use less energy by living in a sustainable home, driving a hybrid vehicle and shunning the use of fossil fuels as much as possible. It was wonderful to hear what other members are doing in that regard. Even though we have a fabulous resource in coal, which we have exploited for many years and which has ensured that we have enjoyed cheap energy, we should embrace the opportunity to fund research into and development of cleaner energy sources.

I refer to some of the comments that were made in relation to carbon dioxide [CO₂]. I have always supported technology for cleaner energy. One of the great pollutants that we produce in this city and in many of the cities around the world is vehicle emissions. However, in relation to coal, I do not believe that CO₂ is a dangerous greenhouse pollutant or that it will contribute to global warming. The production of CO₂ emissions in Australia is as small as 0.006 per cent of total carbon dioxide production. Coal-fired energy should continue to be produced in this country until we can develop clean energy alternatives. It is worthwhile noting that one kilogram of uranium will produce the equivalent in energy of 1.5 million tonnes of coal. This is a worthwhile debate because there is a lot of misinformation in the community. It is beneficial to note that one kilogram of uranium—an amount that I could hold in my hands—will produce energy equivalent to 1.5 million tonnes of coal. One needs to look at how much coal production could be reduced if the country moved towards the production of nuclear energy as an alternative.

New South Wales has the only nuclear reactor in this country—Lucas Heights. Although it does not produce energy, it does provide us with the resources that combat diseases such as cancer. That facility has operated without a problem for all those years. In 2007 I had the opportunity to travel to London for the International Conference on Climate Change as a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management (Climate Change). I had the opportunity to meet with energy providers in England, particularly those providing nuclear energy. I was not aware that one-third of the power in England was provided through nuclear energy. England embraced nuclear energy just after the Second World War. There may have been a hidden agenda in that it wanted to advance its nuclear technology in relation to the production of nuclear arms, but at the same time England developed nuclear power to provide one-third of its power.

The member for Balmain said that it would be difficult to encourage countries such as China to develop ways of minimising its environmental footprint in relation to the amount of coal that it burns. China is moving ahead with hydroelectricity in leaps and bounds. The Three Gorges Dam will provide China with one-third of its energy needs. China will not sit back and continue to buy coal from this country for years; it will do anything but that. Hydroelectricity will provide China's 1.1 billion people with one-third of the energy it requires. This is a major move forward and will provide that country with a cleaner alternative than it is using at the moment. In my studies relating to planning, I have done research into the fear created about aspects of nuclear energy. I want to dispel some of those fears because when we talk about nuclear energy and the exploration of uranium, if exploration eventually leads to the mining of uranium, we should look closely at whether we would consider building a nuclear reactor somewhere in this country.

When one speaks about nuclear energy, the first thing that comes to mind is the Chernobyl disaster. Michael Crichton is an actor and the author of Jurassic Park. He wanted to explore man-made disasters and he chose Chernobyl as one such man-made disaster he was prepared to write a book about. He undertook forums around America and went on to dispel the myths surrounding Chernobyl. The interesting thing about Chernobyl is that at that time—now 30 years ago—the world media reported thousands and thousands of deaths from the disaster, whereas 64 lives were lost as a direct result of that disaster. It is a shame that those records have never been corrected and that the worldwide media gets away with spreading that sort of diatribe. It was also reported that hundreds of thousands of people were affected by the fallout; however it is now believed that between 3,000 and 4,000 people were affected not only by radioactive fallout but also by fear and depression.

Another point raised in the debate relates to the problems with the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan, which were the result of the disastrous tsunami that hit Japan. The disaster at that reactor was caused by the diesel pumps, which are used to pump cool water around the reactive rods to keep them cool while they are producing energy. They become inundated with seawater and as a result they went out of action. We must look at everything fairly and realistically in this debate. I support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012 and the exploration of new resources in this State. I believe it could bring great prosperity, but I also think the debate on nuclear reactors and uranium needs to be explored much further.

Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Castle Hill) [5.57 p.m.]: I support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012 introduced by the Minister for Resources and Energy and I commend his contribution to the Government's task of rebuilding New South Wales. Uranium is quickly losing its dirty-word status in the energy industry, and more and more jurisdictions are turning to nuclear power to supplement or to be the mainstay of their energy requirements. Uranium power reactors supply 16 per cent of global power and this figure is growing. As mentioned by other speakers on this side of the House, this bill is specifically about exploration rather than mining. But the bill does not pretend that the eventual goal is mining uranium. The bill is not about establishing a slippery slope; it is about establishing the facts so that a proper decision can be made.

It is not that uranium mining is a purely economic question—there is also a moral question. The idea that uranium mining is intrinsically a moral evil does not have foundation. If uranium mining is carried out with peaceful intent, with concern for the environment and with awareness of the risks and the proper safety measures, then it can be done in an ethical way and we now have the ability to do that. I will focus on two specific things in the debate so far on this issue. The first is the potential economic benefits that arise from uranium exploration and the second is to refute some of the safety and environmental management concerns raised by members opposite

The amendments to allow uranium exploration are not complex but as a result of the large amount of legislation that encompasses this area, a number of Acts will require amendment, and I will briefly run through those. The first amendments is to the Mining Act 1992, which will allow for exploration licences and related environmental assessment permits but will not permit mining licences. The amendment is required because under the Mining Act 1992 a person must not explore for any mineral except in accordance with the authorisation for that mineral. Under the Mining Regulation 2010 a new group of minerals will be created with that amendment and uranium will be prescribed within that group

The Radiation Control Act 1990 will be amended to ensure that exploration of naturally occurring radioactive ores of uranium will be subject to that Act but exempt by regulation from licensing. Next is the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1993 to ensure that the principle that the Crown owns all uranium resources in New South Wales is comprehensive and in line with the amendments to the Mining Act 1992. Finally, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 to include uranium as a mineral and to provide for part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 assessment and approval for exploration licence applications to occur.

The exploration of uranium has enormous economic potential. Australia has mined uranium since 1954. In 2010-11 more than 7,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate, worth up to $1 billion at current market price, was produced. Australia is the world's third-ranking producer behind Kazakhstan and Canada. Australia is understood to have more than 23 per cent of the world's reserves of uranium ores, but because of the longstanding prohibition on uranium exploration and mining in New South Wales we have no information as to any possible uranium reserves in this State. Victoria is the only other Australian State to prohibit exploration and mining. Queensland permits exploration only; South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory allow uranium exploration, mining and export.

The Federal Government wants to better understand Australia's uranium resources. In May 2011 the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, called on New South Wales to repeal its prohibition on uranium activities. It is expected that New South Wales would benefit from increased exploration investment if the uranium exploration ban was lifted. In Queensland, as I said earlier, where uranium exploration is permitted but mining remains prohibited, companies spent nearly $18 million in 2010-11 on uranium exploration activities. Nationwide more than 12 uranium mining projects are proposed, worth an estimated $2 billion. There has also been an immense increase in global demand for uranium. Some 440 power reactors exist globally and they supply 16 per cent of the power generated globally—that figure is expected to grow. At present 341 reactors are proposed, 155 are planned and 62 are under construction.

Nuclear power produces lower emissions over its full lifecycle, including mining and waste storage, than solar energy and many renewable energy options, to which the member for Hawkesbury referred. Notwithstanding the Fukushima incident in 2011, global demand for nuclear power generation continues. Australia is in a position to benefit from an increase in demand for uranium and any benefit in New South Wales will be contingent on the existence of uranium reserves. It is a bit rich for those opposite to express concern about uranium exploration and the opportunity for future mining when New South Wales is crying out for better infrastructure. If such mining were to occur, having been deemed to be safe, the economic benefit generated would divert to the roads and hospital infrastructure in this State.

Those opposite have raised safety and environmental concerns. In New South Wales existing safety and environmental frameworks already provide for any risks and hazards that may be associated with exploration for radioactive minerals. The Mine Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 will apply to uranium exploration sites as they do where there is any naturally occurring radioactive material. The risks from uranium exploration are no different from other radioactive minerals such as thorium, where exploration activities already take place. The strong environmental management framework for exploration in New South Wales includes a range of conditions being set when approvals for titles are granted.

Additional conditions may also be imposed commensurate with the exploration activities. These protect wide-ranging aspects of the environment and water. Further, a security must be lodged that covers the full cost of rehabilitation in case of default by the explorer. Compliance checks are carried out and community complaints or environmental incidents investigated. This is not a rash decision and even though it could result in strong economic benefit to the State, the Government is not diving in without adequate safeguards in place. Many other Australian governments are exploring this area. I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is present in the Chamber, on his work, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.05 p.m.]: On behalf of the people of the electorate of Dubbo I speak in favour of the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012. The bill removes the prohibition on exploration for uranium in New South Wales, but the existing ban on uranium mining in New South Wales will remain in place. It is vital that we talk about this subject to ensure that what is being proposed in this bill is not diverted by way of sideshow or scaremongering, and that the intentions of the bill are laid out for the community to understand and digest. This legislation is aimed at allowing the exploration, not the commencement of, uranium mining in the appropriate format, at the appropriate time and potentially supported by the appropriate legislation, which will then enable appropriate opportunity for the matter to be discussed in full.

The bill will make amendments to a number of Acts and regulations. The Mining Act 1992 will be amended to allow for exploration licences and related environmental assessment permits but will not permit mining licences. A further amendment will provide for uranium to be the property of the Crown and no compensation will be payable for this vesting in the Crown. The Mining Regulation 2010 will be amended to create a new group of minerals, and uranium will be prescribed in this group. There will also be amendments to the Radiation Control Act 1990 to ensure that exploration of naturally occurring radioactive ores of uranium will be subject to that Act but exempt by regulation from licensing. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 will also be in play to ensure that the principle that the Crown owns all uranium resources in New South Wales is comprehensive. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 will be amended to include uranium as a mineral and to provide for part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 assessment and approval for exploration licence applications to occur.

As I said earlier, this debate needs to be kept on point and what is intended should be clearly understood. The electorate of Dubbo embraces opportunities to have appropriate balance in resource exploration and mining. A number of mining operations in my electorate have worked hand in hand to achieve that balance. They have been welcomed by the community and the agricultural sector. They underpin and highlight how the strategic regional land use policy, which was announced today, is intended to be achieved. Dubbo is possibly the best example in this State to support this policy and the additional work being undertaken by the Government. I cite the example of the Northparkes Mines, located just north of Parkes, and the emerging work of Alkane Resources Ltd in the Peak Hill communities of Tomingley and Toongi.

The Toongi operations, which are currently under development application and scoping exercises, have been widely reported in the media as containing a rich deposit of uranium and associated rare minerals. This announcement has not sent the public community into a raging panic. No-one is running scared because they know the Government is committed and has demonstrated genuine engagement over the past nine months. I went on the front foot in my community to explain that Minister Hartcher is attempting to achieve responsible legislation and an examination of what resources the State has access to so that an informed and proper decision can be made on real economic grounds about the future prosperity of the State. The Alkane Resources project at Dubbo is one such project that has the potential to yield opportunities for the State.

The people of my electorate are not running scared because they understand the scope of the bill, which is why it has my strong support. Australia has mined uranium since 1954 and between 2010 and 2011 it has produced more than 7,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate. This is worth up to $1 billion at current market prices. Australia is the world's third ranking producer behind Kazakhstan and Canada. It is understood that Australia has more than 23 per cent of the world's reserves of uranium ores but because of its longstanding prohibition on exploration of uranium and mining, New South Wales has no information on its possible reserves. That is the essence of the importance of the bill to the future of this State and why it should be supported unanimously.

This bill will give us the opportunity to know exactly what is out there, without causing fear in the community, which is something members opposite engage in too often. Nationwide more than 12 uranium projects are proposed in other States, which are worth an estimated $2 billion. The only other Australian State to prohibit uranium exploration and mining is Victoria. Recently the Federal Government encouraged exploration for potential mining of this rare resource. I commend the Minister for Resources and Energy for his work on the bill. I commend his office for presenting the bill to the House and to the community in such a way that it explains, step by step, the potential processes. He is taking the community in partnership with him to ensure that this is achieved in a correct, responsible and rational manner.

At the time the work is undertaken, I look forward to holding community information forums in my electorate, in the same way that the O'Farrell-Stoner Government has been holding community information forums across the State on Health, Education and other important portfolio areas. This gives the people of New South Wales the opportunity to have open, honest, direct and transparent dialogue on this important issue. It is the first step towards identifying the capacity of this State to grow, and potential opportunities for revenue. It would be negligent for the Government not to do so. We are on the front foot with this. Labor members could spell "negligence" in their sleep, as they demonstrated over the past 16 years.

Mr Richard Amery: At least we can pronounce it.

Mr TROY GRANT: I think I have done all right.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr TROY GRANT: I am not an educated man, but I do my best. I reaffirm my congratulations to the Minister and commend the bill to the House.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I remind members that when they seek the call they should stand in their place and seek it; they should not just sidle up to the table. The member for Davidson has the call.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [6.14 p.m.]: I might note that non-verbal communication is 80 per cent of communication. However, I accept the Chair's comment.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member has no choice but to accept my comment.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I speak on the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012, which was introduced by the experienced and capable Minister for Resources and Energy. The objects of the bill are as follows: to remove the general prohibition on prospecting for uranium in New South Wales; to enable exploration licences and associated permits—but no other licences or authorities—to be granted under the Mining Act 1992 to prospect for uranium; to apply to uranium prospecting the State environmental planning policy applicable to other mineral exploration; to vest all uranium in New South Wales in the Crown and to exclude compensation for that vesting; and to make other consequential amendments.

I support the bill, which permits exploration of uranium as proposed, essentially for many of the reasons that other speakers have already well canvassed in this debate. My personal view is that if uranium is found in commercially viable quantities in New South Wales it would likely be the precursor to further political and community debate regarding mining at the State level. In due course that debate might even progress to a sensible national debate on potential nuclear energy generation in Australia. I am not prejudging that debate but I observe that, in my view, there has not been healthy discussion of that matter in a sensible and rational way, certainly in recent times, mindful of technological improvements and developments.

In undertaking any such debate at whatever level, it is crucial to know the science and facts. We should take a logical and intellectually rigorous approach rather than become distracted by emotion or fearmongering based on blinded ideology. It was somewhat coincidental that I watched an interesting documentary compiled by the BBC on SBS television last Sunday evening regarding nuclear energy and some past disasters involving nuclear mishaps, which were tragic. At the same time as highlighting some of the real risks and dangers of the production of nuclear energy it also challenged what are undeniably some popular misconceptions and raised some good questions. I recommend that members in this place view that program; I understand it is available currently on the SBS website.

Today I seek to highlight that the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, is currently considering the economics of energy generation via an inquiry, including public hearings. That inquiry will consider various alternative sources of energy, including nuclear energy, which is the subject of some submissions already forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee. In considering such matters the committee will continue to canvass a broad range of views from stakeholders in the energy industry, researchers and the public. The committee also is pursuing innovative engagement with the community, particularly through a deliberative process involving sample groups of the public from both metropolitan and rural New South Wales. Energy security is a very serious issue that affects everyone. In undertaking its inquiry, the Public Accounts Committee aims to consult widely in formulating recommendations relating to how power generation of all types might meet the future needs of our growing population in a reliable and affordable way.

Although I am not prejudging or pre-empting any recommendations that the committee might make, I note that it is undertaking the inquiry on the referral of the Minister for Resources and Energy without any input, at this stage, other than the terms of reference, which are not only appropriate but also publicly available. To the extent that people are monitoring this debate, I note that submissions to that inquiry close at the end of this month. I encourage people to view the submissions that have already been made and to consider making a submission to the inquiry. Returning to the bill, I note that New South Wales continues to move into what is undoubtedly a new energy era, and we need to move with it. Doing so requires us at least to be responsibly aware of potentially valuable resources that might be utilised for the benefit of New South Wales and its people.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal—Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast) [6.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Blacktown, Smithfield, Liverpool, East Hills, Balmain, Vaucluse, Sydney, Newcastle, Cessnock, Pittwater, Murray-Darling, Cronulla, Myall Lakes, Londonderry, The Entrance, Hawkesbury, Castle Hill, Dubbo and Davidson for their contributions to the debate. As is required in a speech in reply, I will comment on the themes that members have raised in the debate and address their concerns. I want to thank several members in particular. First, the member for Smithfield, who is a qualified geologist—I think he is the only qualified geologist in the House—understands the need to identify resources that are present throughout New South Wales. He understands the benefits of a comprehensive scientific understanding and the importance of having the correct information and data upon which to go forward and make appropriate decisions relating to the development of resources in New South Wales.

I thank also the member for Murray-Darling, who is a strong supporter of the proposal to the change in the law on uranium exploration. He knows that his area in far western New South Wales is a potential beneficiary of uranium exploration, if it were to lead to uranium mining. He represents an area that is sorely in need of jobs and investment and one that is willing to make efforts to secure both jobs and investment. He has always been a worthy representative for his area and the needs of his electorate. Further, I acknowledge and thank the member for Dubbo, who has taken a special interest in this legislation because of the existence of potential uranium deposits in his area. Whether those deposits are commercially viable is another matter, and whether the New South Wales Parliament legislates to allow those deposits to be mined is another matter. But he, too, is keen to see the gathering of scientific data and a proper assessment of the potential resources in his electorate so that informed decisions that could benefit his electorate are made appropriately by the Parliament.

It is worth noting the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blacktown, who claimed that "without warning or consultation, the Premier ripped up the existing law". That comment is interesting when one considers the following facts. In August 2011 in this Parliament, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier stated that the ban on uranium mining would stay. This bill endorses that; it maintains the ban on uranium mining. Then in December 2011 the Premier announced that the New South Wales Government would consider overturning the ban on uranium exploration only in an effort to discover the extent to which the resources existed in New South Wales. The bill fulfils that announcement by the Premier in December. So the Leader of the Opposition was aware that there would be no uranium mining and that there could be a potential change in relation to exploration.

Four weeks later the Premier announced that the bill would be introduced into the Parliament. So the Leader of the Opposition has had seven months to prepare himself for this policy decision—a policy decision that he said was whipped up and brought to the Parliament without notice. If seven months is not enough warning of the Parliament's legislative program for the Leader of the Opposition, one can only despair of how he will approach the next 3½ years of the Parliament. After I introduced the bill the Leader of the Opposition had a full week to read the 14-page agreement in principle speech before making his contribution. Yet he came into the House and said, "This bill has been introduced without warning."

The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are on par with the comments of the member for Balmain and the member for Sydney. Both the member for Balmain and the member for Sydney were, with the greatest respect to them, completely predictable. They predicted the Fukushima nuclear disaster would come to New South Wales as a result of this legislation. They both ignored the fact that the bill relates to exploration only. They both took the full step from exploration to mining, from mining to nuclear power, from nuclear power to tsunami, and from tsunami to disaster. Chernobyl, Fukushima—they were all visited upon us in the totally predictable contribution of the member for Balmain. There is one thing The Greens do: they never let us down. If there is one message I will give the House it is that the member for Balmain, who came second in the primaries—

Mr Jamie Parker: But who won? Who won the seat?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Balmain will come to order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: He was beaten in the primaries by the Liberal Party candidate. The Liberal Party got more votes in Balmain than he did. That says a lot about the member for Balmain.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Balmain to order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The mayor of the Leichhardt Soviet—no-one ever calls it Leichhardt council—

Mr Jamie Parker: Point of order: I raise the issue that The Greens won that seat from the Coalition.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Balmain will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I will not waste more time on the member for Balmain because I must leave this place at seven o'clock. I could spend half an hour on him, but is it worth it? Is the member for Balmain worth it? Say yes.

Mr Nathan Rees: Yes.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member for Toongabbie says yes. The member for Sydney took time out from tearing up the streets of Sydney, banning cars from parking in Sydney and laying miles of grass in the middle of the biggest thunderstorm and rain deluge—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I ask the Minister to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: —to predict that the Fukushima nuclear disaster would be visited upon New South Wales. How good will it be when she sends out her newsletter to her electorate? It will look good. One can see it now: a picture of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on the front cover of the newsletter with the headline, "Clover Moore fights nuclear disaster in New South Wales". It will not be accurate or spot on but it will be good.

Mr Richard Amery: It'll take your breath away.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the member for Mount Druitt correctly says, it will take my breath away. I contrast the contributions of the member for Balmain and the member for Sydney with the sensible, well-reasoned contributions of Government members, all of whom addressed the benefits of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: All of them addressed the fact that this bill will change the law to allow uranium exploration. They all accept that we are not scared of knowledge in the twenty-first century. It is the mediaevals opposite, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Christopher Columbus's opponents.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Members will come to order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: They will not sail across the Atlantic Ocean because they might fall off the edge. They are frightened of knowledge.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Wollongong and the member for Toongabbie will come to order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: If the member for Cabramatta continues to interject I will be tempted to do what the Premier also was tempted to do in question time. However, I will resist temptation. We are not scared of knowledge. The Queensland Labor Government and Anna Bligh are not scared of knowledge. She is prepared to allow exploration in Queensland. She lives in the twenty-first century.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Balmain to order for the second time.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The 2007 national conference of the Australian Labor Party said uranium mining and exploration were permissible across Australia. Yet in a few minutes time members opposite are going to vote against this bill even though their sacred national conference, the holy of holies where the right wing rules, as the member for Toongabbie knows only too well, endorsed uranium mining and exploration right across Australia. The South Australian Labor Government has the world's largest uranium mine, Olympic Dam, in its State. Premier Mike Rann signed off on a $45 billion program relating to that project. The Northern Territory Labor Government promotes its uranium overseas. I heard Minister KonVatskalis touting to the Chinese the great virtues of the uranium deposits in the Northern Territory. The Western Australia Labor Opposition has endorsed in principle uranium mining in that State. The Queensland Labor Government allows uranium exploration; it changed the law. The Federal Labor Government invited New South Wales to change the law. So, hey guys, what provokes the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Liverpool to oppose this legislation? It is subservience to The Greens. There is the tail and it is wagging the dog.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Members will come to order. The member for Murray-Darling will resume his seat. The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: We all know who the real Prime Minister is in Canberra: it is Bob Brown.

Mr Jamie Parker: He is doing a good job as well.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge the interjection. The member for Balmain said Bob Brown is doing a good job as the de facto Prime Minister.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I invite the Minister to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am. We are talking about why the Labor Party is voting against the bill, Mr Acting-Speaker. The State of Tasmania, as it plunges in its downward spiral, is ruled by The Greens-Labor anti-jobs alliance. What is this Government determined to do? We are determined to gather the scientific data upon which the people, the business community and the unions of New South Wales can make sensible decisions for the future. That is all this bill does. It enables data to be gathered so decisions can be made. When I referred to the unions of New South Wales I had in mind the union that has industrial coverage of uranium mining, the Australian Workers Union [AWU].

The Australian Workers Union supports uranium exploration in New South Wales. The great AWU supports this principle, as do the Federal Labor Government, the South Australian Labor Government, the Northern Territory Labor Government and the Queensland Labor Government. People opposite are afraid of knowledge. One can understand The Greens' attitude. We all know that The Greens worship Gaia, the great earth spirit, but one would have hoped that the Australian Labor Party, which once was a great party and represented the aspirations of many people in our community and sought the economic development of this State, would support a sensible, moderate policy. It has chosen not to do so and that is to its tragic shame.

Uranium is a viable option if the proper safeguards are in place. The uranium industry has in the last year alone brought $1 billion to this country. It employs several thousand people and it offers opportunities, as the member for Davidson said, to be investigated, as his committee is doing, as a potential alternative source of energy on an economic basis. They are matters of potential. This legislation does not seek to achieve that; it simply lays the foundation for the gathering of knowledge. That is what it is all about. Having trespassed upon the indulgence of the House more than I intended—I am delighted always to bring to the attention of the House the sheer obscurantism of the Australian Labor Party and the sheer self-indulgent denial of the truth by The Greens—I present this bill.

Mr Paul Lynch: Self-indulgent? Really?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: It is an enormous act of self-control not to respond to the presence of the member for Liverpool but I will exercise that self-control. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Mr Anderson Mr Annesley Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Barilaro Mr Bassett Mr Baumann Mr Bromhead Mr Brookes Mr Conolly Mr Constance Mr Cornwell Mr Coure Mrs Davies Mr Dominello Mr Doyle Mr Evans Mr Flowers Mr Fraser

Mr Gee Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Grant Mr Gulaptis Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Mr Holstein Mr Humphries Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson Mr Perrottet Mr Provest Mr Roberts Mr Rowell

Mrs Sage Mr Sidoti Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Speakman Mr Spence Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr Toole Ms Upton Mr Ward Mr Webber Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Ayres Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burton Mr Daley Mr Furolo Ms Hay Ms Hornery Mr Lalich

Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms Mihailuk Ms Moore Mr Parker Mr Piper Mr Rees

Ms Tebbutt Mr Torbay Ms Watson Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.