Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.35 p.m.]: Prior to the luncheon adjournment I was talking about Labor's refusal to stand up to the dictates of the economic vandalism of The Greens movement. Just as the Labor Government in Canberra bows to the dictates of The Greens, so it is in New South Wales. Labor governments year in and year out bowed to the same Greens economic vandals. Not only have we seen industry after industry suffer because of controls, limitations and interference emanating from Labor Governments at the behest of The Greens, but we are also being increasingly saddled with escalating taxes to fund spurious climate change reduction schemes and energy saving rackets.

I am pleased that the newly elected Liberal National Party Government in Queensland has already started to take the knife to many of these types of schemes that have been soaking up enormous amounts of taxpayers' money. Just as the people of Western Australia sacked their Labor Government and the people of New South Wales followed suit last year, only a few days ago the people of Queensland sacked their Labor Government.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Normally in debates on bills members should refer to the long title of the bill. I am not sure that the member is within a bull's roar of the long title of this bill.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: Earlier in this debate the President reminded the House of the expansive nature of second reading debates. From what I have heard, the member is being absolutely relevant to the motivation behind certain opposition to this bill and thus is being extremely relevant to the bill.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: Relevant or otherwise, it is excessively amusing and good for our side of politics. Madam Deputy-President, I would urge you to rule against the point of order.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: Being a sore loser is not a point of order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! Due to the level of noise in the Chamber, I had difficulty hearing some of the comments of the Hon David Clarke. I ask members to resume their seats. Members will keep noise to a minimum so the member with the call can be heard.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I am prepared to speak louder if there is some difficulty. I was talking about the defeat of Labor in Queensland only a few days ago and how it was such a humiliation and embarrassment to them. This is an unstoppable grassroots revolution by ordinary, everyday, fed-up, mainstream Australians who have had their fill of Labor, its Greens bosses, its carbon tax and its money guzzling, ineffectual and failed energy saving schemes.

The former New South Wales Labor Government's solar energy scheme is a prime example. Had that scheme continued in the form that Labor intended, this State would have gone broke. The Greens and their allies do not want energy if it comes from coal. They would close down the entire coal industry if they could. The Greens and their allies do not want energy from hydroelectric sources because it would mean building more dams. The Greens and their allies do not want energy from uranium: they opposed all uranium exports from Australia.

The economic policy of The Greens and those they influence is economic ratbaggery at its worst. Given half a chance, they would send the country broke. Because of The Greens and those they influence, even though Australia has 23 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, we do not have the faintest idea of the extent of reserves that exist in New South Wales. We must find out what those reserves are. Queensland knows what its reserves are, and so do South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That is because they allow exploration. We need to allow exploration as well.

Already there are appropriate safety and environment safeguards in place, so safety is not an issue in this matter. The Hon. Steve Whan stated during his contribution to this debate that this Government is arrogant and dishonest. The peak of arrogance in government was reached by the former New South Wales Labor Government, and that is why it was thrown out of office. The peak of dishonesty in government has been reached by the Labor Government in Canberra, and that is why it will be thrown out of office when the Australian people are given a chance to vote—and they can hardly wait.

On 16 February 2012 a Labor heavyweight, Paul Howes, who represents the Australian Workers Union, said, "It's about time the New South Wales Government overturned this nonsense archaic ban on uranium exploration." Paul Howes is dead right. The ban should be overturned, and we will overturn it.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.41 p.m.]: I support the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012. I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy and the New South Wales Government on introducing this long overdue and very important bill. This bill is important for the State, the economy and the people of New South Wales. It is an important bill because it is about making New South Wales number one again. It is true that, post Fukushima, there has been a focus on uranium and nuclear energy. But there is misplaced concern that the energy source is unsafe, and there have been misguided beliefs about the future of uranium and nuclear energy. I acknowledge the expertise in this area of my good friend the member for Smithfield, Mr Andrew Rohan, and his sound contribution to the debate.

[Interruption]

He is probably one of the most qualified people in this Parliament to speak on this issue. He is an Australian lover, not an Australian hater. He adopted this country because of the freedom and the opportunity that he did not have in his native country, Iraq. He loves Australia. He does not hate Australia as do some of the contemporaries of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham—much to the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's great shame. Talk about Greensland!

The Hon. Walt Secord: Charlie, you have the wrong speech.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I have the right speech, Wally. You need to listen to me and not to them, mate. At a nuclear reactor plant, the concentration of uranium must be enriched to sustain nuclear reaction, which is utilised to generate electricity and to produce radioisotopes that are commonly used in industry, research and medicine, especially for cancer treatment. In Australia more than 500,000 doses of therapy are given each year in the treatment of cancer sufferers.

Dr John Kaye: Wait—that is not the uranium.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham should stop laughing at his own jokes. Worldwide demand for uranium will continue to increase at an average rate of 3 per cent a year as countries struggle to meet the increasing demand for cheap and reliable sources.

[Interruption]

This is legislation will work much better than bong sessions in teepees. Demand is increasing particularly in emerging economies, such as China, India, Brazil and Korea—that is South Korea, not North Korea.

Dr John Kaye: North Korea and Iran.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Not North Korea and not Dr John Kaye's mates, who use uranium for a different purpose in North Korea. In South Korea, uranium is used for peaceful purposes and healing purposes. A strain on the supply of uranium is predicted by the end of 2013 due to the completion of the Megatons to Megawatts agreement between the Russian and United States governments. From 1995 to September 2010, 400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads were recycled into low-enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants in the United States of America—which is another mob The Greens hate. The first plant to receive fuel containing uranium under this program was the Cooper Nuclear Station in 1998. The program has eliminated the equivalent of 16,000 nuclear warheads.

The Megatons to Megawatts government-to-government program's goal of eliminating 500 metric tonnes of warhead material is scheduled to be completed in 2013. Currently one in 10 American homes, businesses, schools and hospitals receive electricity that is generated by Megatons to Megawatts fuel. Where will the required uranium come from to replace that fuel? New South Wales is well positioned to take advantage of that situation by getting the ball rolling on uranium exploration. Furthermore, the demand for traditional fossil fuel, such as petroleum—both oil and gas—and coal will continue to increase in the near future. However, due to their finite nature and their effects on the environment, we cannot ignore the fact that we need to build our capacity to develop a clean energy alternative. We know that not even The Greens can power a wind farm. We cannot ignore the fact that Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and the world cannot be powered by sea or wind alone, despite the best efforts of The Greens.

Uranium is an inevitable energy source. At present New South Wales lacks oil and gas resources and coal and is totally dependent on interstate and overseas suppliers to meet its needs. The cost of importing these products places huge pressure on the economy and the State budget. The other fossil fuel is coal, and it is abundantly available in New South Wales. This State produces and exports some of the highest quality coal in the world. It is in great demand worldwide and it is our major export commodity as well as the largest contributor to the State's finances. However, given the efforts of anti-carbon emission and climate change supporters—and now that we are out of water in Brisbane and have to rely on the desalination plant in Sydney—mining in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular, will face challenges in the future.

Dr John Kaye: We are out of water in Brisbane? It was flooded.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I must have picked up Tim Flannery's media release by mistake. I must be reading from the wrong page.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I remind the Hon. Charlie Lynn to not respond to interjections from the crossbench.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am sorry, I seem to have Tim Flannery's media release mixed up with my speech. I will return to my speech. Uranium has been mined economically in Australia since 1954, but production is confined to four major mines—the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, the Olympic Dam mine, the Beverley mine, and the recently commissioned Honeymoon mine in South Australia. Nationwide, more than 12 new uranium mining projects are earmarked for development in other States that will generate an estimated $2 billion in revenue. In the early 1980s the Australian Labor Party opposed uranium exploration and mining in Australia.

In 1984 the newly elected Federal Labor Government introduced the so-called three mine policy, which restricted Australia's uranium activities to the three mines operating at that time—the Ranger mine, the Nabarlek mine and the Olympic Dam mine. Reserves at the Nabarlek mine were subsequently depleted and it was later abandoned. The Beverley mine was approved and became the third mine. In 2007 the Labor Party abandoned the three mine policy and in 2009 approved a fourth mine, the Four Mile mine in South Australia, thus ending the 25-year ban on uranium exploration and mining in Australia. Subsequently the Federal Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, declared that increased uranium mining in Australia is inevitable.

In May 2011 the Federal Government called on the New South Wales Coalition Government to repeal the ban instituted by the New South Wales Labor Government on uranium exploration with a view to better understanding and evaluating Australia's total uranium resources. Finally, the longstanding national ban on exporting uranium to India was lifted in November 2011, which resulted in huge new markets opening up. However, the former New South Wales Labor Government continued, and as the current Labor Opposition continues, to oppose uranium exploration and mining in this State, in direct conflict with the incumbent Federal Labor Government. That is no coincidence: it is in the Labor Party's DNA to oppose productive policies that are aimed at strengthening our economy.

The Labor Opposition is opposed to making New South Wales number one again. It is also opposed to a stronger economy and to increasing revenue and spending. It is no surprise that New South Wales fell so far behind with that mob in government. It is no surprise they were wiped out at the last election. It is no surprise that they sit on the opposition benches today. History will be the judge. The passage of this bill, which reverses a decade-long ban on uranium exploration in New South Wales, will encourage and attract increased exploration investment and will pave the way to establishing the scope of uranium resources in the State. Uranium exploration and mining is now permitted in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Australia's uranium reserves are the world's largest, estimated at 23 per cent of the world's total. However, Australia's production sits in third place behind Kazakhstan and Canada.

In 2010-11 Australia's production was just over 7,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate and worth about $1 billion. It is only fair that the people of New South Wales be allowed to share in the potential wealth created by a mining boom, the wealth other States are enjoying. With the news we are hearing daily about job losses in the banking and manufacturing sectors, this legislation is welcome news because it will encourage job growth and production in the far west of New South Wales. Vast uranium wealth is already being mined in South Australia, just over the border from New South Wales. There is no reason why we should not have the opportunity to create our own mining boom in New South Wales so we can fund our schools, hospitals, roads and rail, as well as our feral mates on the other side of the House. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.51 p.m.]: Exactly 33 years ago today at 4.00 a.m. the pilot-operated relief valve at unit two at the pressurised water reactor at Three Mile Island, operated by Metropolitan Edison, ceased operating. It became stuck open. On top of that, operator confusion caused the plant to be operated as though there had not been a loss of coolant. No recognition was taken of the fact that the coolant was no longer circulating through the pressurised water reactors. As it turned out, there was a small release of radioactive iodine and radioactive gas. People around the Three Mile Island reactor dodged a bullet but the complexity of the accident caused it to take many months to understand what had gone on.

Not so lucky were the people of Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, on 26 April 1986. As a result of what is now perceived to be operator error and design error, 350,000 people were evacuated. At least 4,000 people died almost immediately as a result of the accident, and many more cancers will be caused. The Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that 50,000 excess cancers and 25,000 deaths over the next 50 years will result from that accident.

Less well known is the Sellafield nuclear failure in 2005. Twenty tonnes of uranium and plutonium dissolved in nitric acid escaped into the containment vessel of the Sellafield nuclear facility. It is not a reactor; it is a reprocessing plant. That created a hot soup that was so toxic and corrosive humans could not go into the facility. A set of robots was designed and built to try to clean up the mess created. The Sellafield nuclear reactor may be known to some as the Windscale nuclear facility. To my knowledge, it has changed its name at least three times. Sellafield wants to hide the tragic reality that the Irish Sea is one of the most reactive bodies of water on the surface of the planet specifically because of the nuclear reprocessing plant. It is recommended that Irish women not eat fish caught in the Irish Sea specifically because of the radioactive material.

On 11 March 2011 in Fukushima Province, the Fukushima Daiichi reactor, which consists of six boiling water General Electric designs—the same designs that John Howard was so enthusiastic about importing into Australia—operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Co, was hit by the Tohoku earthquake and resulting tsunami. The coolant pump ceased to operate, resulting in overheating. Units one, two and three went into complete meltdown. Six workers exceeded their lifetime radiation exposure, approximately 300 people were exposed to significant levels of radiation, and future deaths from that accident are predicted to be somewhere between 100 and 1,000, and possibly far greater than that.

These are just the accidents we know about—they were so significant that the companies were unable to hide them. But there are far more nuclear accidents and far more cover-ups, particularly in France, Russia, the old Soviet Union and even the United States. Nuclear accidents are always about a design error, an operator error or a regulator error. They are always going to be fixed next time round and, because of the complexity and the danger of the process, they always fail later on. There are always excuses for the 100 per cent safe nuclear power, the nuclear power that was going to be so safe it would be on every street corner. It was going to be so cheap that it would not even be metered. That was the nuclear power of my youth. The nuclear reality of today is Fukushima, Three Mile Island, the broken arrow to the United States Defence Force, and the other nuclear accidents we do not even hear about. That is the reality of the modern nuclear industry.

The nuclear danger does not begin with a reactor, nor does it end with a reactor. The nuclear danger begins with the mining process, with the tailing dams, with the milling, with the enrichment of uranium, all of which involves the release of toxic substances into the environment and often into the waterways. Let us be absolutely clear about the process of uranium enrichment, the process of getting rid of the isotopes that will poison the reactor and concentrate into sufficient levels of those isotopes that will cause a nuclear reaction to occur. That process in and of itself is a dirty, dangerous process that will inevitably produce highly toxic wastes that will spill into the environment, or wastes that are inflicted upon the communities nearby. All too often in Australia the uranium deposits are in areas owned by Aboriginal people, and it is the Aboriginal people who bear the cost of the great wealth that the Hon. Charlie Lynn talked about, the cost of the great benefits that the Hon. David Clarke talked about, the cost of the great leap forward that the Hon. Marie Ficarra talked about. Those costs are not borne by suburban New South Wales; those are the costs borne by the Indigenous populations of this country.

It is not just that which goes into the reactor and the reactor itself that is dangerous; it is that which comes out of the reactor, including plutonium. Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years—that is, it takes about 700 generations of humanity before the most radioactive toxic material on the planet that comes out of the reactor is half as dangerous as it was when it first came out. It will be thousands of generations before that material is safe again. What does thousands of generations mean? When the United States decided it needed to do something with its high-level nuclear waste and it decided to build a repository in the Yucca Mountains, who did it have to employ? It had to employ anthropologists. Why anthropologists? It is straightforward. If we go back 700 generations, people were not talking English, French or German.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What were they talking?

Dr JOHN KAYE: We do not know. That is a good interjection, the first positive contribution by the member today. We do not know what they spoke. Nobody knows what they spoke. In 700 generations ahead in time people will not be speaking English, French or German. What sign do we put on a nuclear waste repository to warn people not to dig there? All we can do is employ anthropologists to work out what should be put there. But the problem does not end with the waste; it goes beyond waste and to nuclear terrorism.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I understand the need for a wide-ranging debate on any bill but Dr John Kaye just referred to a number of Hollywood movies, for example, Broken Arrow and Three Mile Island.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: And China Syndrome.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Dr John Kaye referred to China Syndrome and to movies depicting incidents that have occurred all over the world, and he is now talking about Federal Government policy. The objects of this bill, which are very narrow, refer specifically to uranium exploration licences in New South Wales. Dr John Kaye has given the Government information about everything to do with nuclear power but he has not referred to the issues with which we are dealing today.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The Hon. Marie Ficarra and the Hon. Charlie Lynn referred to nuclear power plants in their contributions to debate on the bill, and the Hon. David Clarke referred to Federal and State government policy. As such wide-ranging debate was allowed earlier surely the contribution of Dr John Kaye is in order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! Members will resume their seats.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The objects of the bill list those matters that can be referred to in the second reading debate. The long title of the bill is as follows:

A Bill for

An Act to amend the Mining Act 1992, the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 and other Acts and instruments with respect to prospecting for uranium and the ownership of uranium; and for other purposes.

Dr John Kaye has not referred to prospecting for uranium; he is talking about matters that are not even mentioned in the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I would have referred to uranium exploration if this Government had been in the business of mining uranium. We have to understand the consequences of mining uranium. Prospecting is the first step to mining uranium, which then leads to its export or its use in New South Wales. It would be extremely dangerous to enter into the business of prospecting without fully understanding the consequences.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: Using the logic of the Dr John Kaye, a bill about the dog Act could lead one to thinking about the welfare needs of children who might be bitten by dogs. We have a standing order that restricts such wide-ranging debate. Dr John Kaye is making wide-ranging comments, which is an unreasonable exploitation of the latitude that has been extended to him. This bill is about uranium exploration.

The Hon. Luke Foley: It's a bit late, Catherine; members on both sides of the House have done it for hours.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Members of the Opposition could have taken points of order at any time.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I understand the point of order.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: Neither the Hon. Catherine Cusack nor the Hon. Duncan Gay were in the Chamber when I took an earlier point of order about the wide-ranging nature of Government members' speeches. The ruling at that time was that they were appropriate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I remind members of the earlier ruling: wide latitude is extended during second reading debates. However, I remind members that their comments must be generally relevant to the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Madam Deputy-President, I appreciate your ruling. In relation to that ruling I add—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, the member is about to canvass your ruling.

Dr JOHN KAYE: For God's sake, Catherine. You do not know what I am going to say as I have not yet said it.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order!

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is inappropriate for members to canvass the Deputy-President's ruling.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I did not have an opportunity to hear Dr John Kaye's further comments. I remind him to be generally relevant to the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE: In line with that ruling, if we engage in uranium exploration there can be only one reason to do so—that is, uranium mining. Those who are prepared to vote for this legislation with their eyes wide closed are not being mindful of the impact of uranium waste and the use of uranium in the nuclear weapons cycle. Mohamed Mustafa El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated:

The emergence of a nuclear black market. The determined effort by more countries to acquire technology to produce the fissile material usable in nuclear weapons and a clear desire of terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction ...

Professor El Baradei made absolutely clear the direct link between the nuclear power industry and the fissile material used in nuclear weapons. We cannot shut our eyes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is ironic that as we are debating this bill a meeting is being conducted in South Korea to try to stem the flow of fissile material that comes from uranium—much of it mined in Australia and some of which might come from New South Wales in the future if this bill is passed. The reality in the nuclear industry is that an atom of uranium cannot be tagged. We cannot take an atom of uranium and say, "This atom of uranium will never end up in a nuclear weapon." If this legislation becomes law—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: You want to stop all uranium exploration?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, I do.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order—

Dr JOHN KAYE: This is unfair.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not unfair. Dr John Kaye is now suggesting that this legislation will lead to New South Wales uranium being used for fissile material in North Korea, which is outrageously outside the leave of the bill.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! Members will resume their seats. The Hon. Catherine Cusack will come to order. Due to the level of noise in the Chamber, I could not hear the member's point of order. Members who wish to take a point of order will wait for the call.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: My point of order relates to the allegation that this fissile material will be used in North Korea to manufacture nuclear weapons, which is outside the leave of this bill. Madam Deputy-President I again ask you to ask Dr John Kaye to be relevant to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Under what standing order?

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The standing order that relates to relevance.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I ask Dr John Kaye to be relevant to the bill in the time remaining to him.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will continue to be relevant in my contribution to debate on the bill before the House today. I refer again to the consequences of the passage of this legislation. If we introduced legislation to change the regulation of dogs and we did not consider the issue of rabies we would be derelict in our duty. If we passed a bill that enabled uranium exploration in New South Wales and we did not talk about the consequences of doing so and of New South Wales joining the global nuclear industry, we would be derelict in our duty to ourselves, our citizens, our citizens' children and grandchildren, and the world. When we start fiddling with uranium we engage in global and long-term problems. We cannot commence uranium exploration without giving consideration to those problems.

I would have much more to say; but, very cleverly, the Government—which clearly is embarrassed by what I have had to say—has used parliamentary debating tactics to stop me from talking. I finish by making the following important observations about this legislation. This legislation is about uranium mining. Members who think they will be voting purely on a bill about uranium exploration do not understand the commercial realities of the minerals industry. No corporation will engage in exploration without the understood promise that if it finds an economically exploitable resource it will then be able to exploit that resource—joining New South Wales to the global nuclear industry. The second understanding that members must have is that, like everything to do with the nuclear industry, this proposal is based on a deception that all that can be done under the bill is a little bit of exploration. But once we facilitate exploration we become involved in mining; and once we get into mining we are inevitably part of the cycle that will put increasing pressure on Australia to take back nuclear waste.

I talk now briefly about what is happening at Muckaty Station and the tragedy of the Aboriginal people who are having forced upon them the nuclear waste from Lucas Heights. That is the thin end of the wedge. If Australia expands its nuclear industry by uranium mining, and New South Wales engages in that, inevitably we will become part of that cycle, and we will be contributing even more to the tragedy that is befalling the people of Muckaty Station. Finally, I point out that New South Wales does not need nuclear power, Australia does not need nuclear power, the world does not need nuclear power. There are cheaper, safer alternatives. It is those safer alternatives that this State should be exploiting, not uranium. [Time expired.]

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [4.11 p.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012 and defend the 26-year policy of the State of New South Wales prohibiting uranium exploration and mining. That ban on uranium exploration and mining was introduced by the then Labor Minister for Energy and Technology, the Hon. Peter Cox. Peter Cox is a man who attracted me to the Labor Party; the closest friend of my uncle. The member for Auburn was a Minister in the Wran Government for a decade, and one of the finest men I have ever met. When he introduced the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Bill 1986 he said this in the other place:

The clear objective of this bill is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the people of New South Wales and the environment in which we live.

I believe those objectives have stood the test of time and remain the clear defining statement why the ban—which, until now, has been supported across party lines—should remain. This bill ends that bipartisan commitment to banning uranium exploration and mining in this State. This bill amends four Acts. It amends the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986, to which I just referred. It also amends the Mining Act 1992, the Radiation Control Act 1990 and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Further, it alters State Environment Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007. This bill is no small step; it alters four Acts of Parliament and the key environmental planning policy of the State relating to extractive industries. I have a number of concerns with uranium exploration and mining that I would like to canvass. The first relates to waste. The Australian Conservation Foundation has said:

Australia has 40% of the world's uranium deposits and supplies 20% of the world's uranium market. On a good day that uranium becomes radioactive waste, on a bad day it becomes nuclear fallout.

Hazardous waste is created at every stage of the nuclear cycle, including the mining, enrichment, reactor-electricity generation and reprocessing stages. Uranium waste is toxic for approximately 10,000 years, and it causes distressing illnesses, most prominently cancer and genetic defects. I believe no community should be expected to live with nuclear waste. And I believe that if we in New South Wales are going to dig it up we should take responsibility for the waste; and no community in New South Wales should have to live with nuclear waste. Transporting nuclear waste has many inherent risks as accidents are a possibility during any transportation process.

I would like to talk about the mining of uranium, because whilst this is a bill that contemplates only exploration at this stage, some members who have spoken in support of the bill have clearly anticipated exploration leading to mining. I credit them for that because I think that is an honest account of what is likely to happen if this bill passes: exploration will lead to mining. I see that as inevitable. Where mining occurs, left behind are uranium tailings, usually rock in a pulverised form. These tailings contain radiation and a half life of approximately 80,000 years. Australia has had regular reports of tailings leaks and contamination of water sources near uranium mines. This overwhelmingly affects remote, and often Aboriginal, communities. No matter how well a mining company manages its uranium tailings, that company cannot take responsibility for what will happen over the next 80,000 years. In 2003 a Senate committee found "a pattern of underperformance and noncompliance" in the uranium mining industry. It identified many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination from the uranium mining industry.

I want to talk about proliferation. Australia has no way of quarantining its uranium for use only in nuclear power. We rely on the underresourced International Atomic Energy Agency, which admits it cannot guarantee where uranium ends up. International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General, Mohamed El Baradei, described the agency's basic inspection rights as "fairly limited", complained about "half-hearted" efforts to improve the system, and expressed concern that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to a local police department". Of the 10 nations that we know have developed nuclear weapons, six did it under the political cover and/or with the technical assistance of a nuclear power program. The current threat is much larger than rogue States; there is every reason to fear non-State actors, particularly terrorist organisations, could develop or gain access to nuclear weaponry.

I have listened to the debate from members on both sides of the Chamber. I have always taken the view, inside and outside my party, that nuclear non-proliferation is a moral matter. The Roman Catholic Church teaches us that the way societies organise is a moral matter. I turn briefly to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, a publication of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, because for me nuclear non-proliferation has always been a moral matter. I quote from the Social Doctrine of the Church at paragraph 509:

Arms of mass destruction—whether biological, chemical or nuclear—represent a particularly serious threat. Those who possess them have an enormous responsibility before God and all of humanity. The principle of the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, together with measures of nuclear disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear tests, are intimately interconnected objectives that must be met as soon as possible by means of effective controls at the international level.

That last sentence comes from an address by Pope John Paul II to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican in January 1996. For me the threat of nuclear proliferation is a moral matter. When it is all boiled down that is the reason why, for more than 20 years, inside and outside my party, I have been an opponent of the expansion of the uranium industry in this country. Before I conclude I will deal with the question of accidents. On 26 April, in a few weeks' time, it will be 26 years since the accident at Chernobyl when 400,000 people were evacuated and between 10,000 and 25,000 people died. The accident at Three Mile Island in March 1979 cost $1 billion to clean up.

Last year the accident at Fukushima on 11 March showed that it was not just internal design issues of the operation of nuclear plants but acts of nature that threaten the safety of human beings when they live near nuclear power. A 20-kilometre exclusion zone has required 200,000 people to relocate since that accident last year. Industry claims that new reactors reduce accident risks to nearly negligible should be treated with suspicion. The risk of a nuclear accident being nearly negligible is just not good enough. In conclusion, I defend the 26-year policy of the State of New South Wales prohibiting uranium exploration and mining. I congratulate Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation on campaigning for so many years against this dangerous industry. I pay tribute to former Labor Senator Bruce Childs and his colleagues on the Nuclear Disarmament Coordinating Committee who organised the massive Palm Sunday peace rallies for so many years. As long as I am in public life I will argue against this dangerous industry.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [4.23 p.m.]: If hysteria and hyperbole could be used to produce electricity all we would need to do would be to connect some generators to The Greens and to the Left of the Labor Party and we would have an everlasting and renewable source, which would see humanity through for many millennia to come. Unfortunately The Greens and the Left of the Labor Party are stuck in an old way of thinking—an old Cold War mentality where the antinuclear movement was largely subsidised by the Soviets, who paid for and indoctrinated people to take part in demonstrations and to take the fight to Western civilisation.

I feel sorry for people like the Hon. Steve Whan, who clearly supports jobs in mining and who is stuck with this horrid policy which we know full well he does not believe in for one second. He does not believe in this policy at all but it has been rammed down his throat—one of the unfortunate consequences of having a leader who also is the shadow environment Minister. Unfortunately for the Hon. Steve Whan he must kowtow to the Left of the Labor Party, themselves in the thrall of the extreme Greens movement of this nation. Some people in the Left of the Labor Party have far more progressive ideals in relation to nuclear energy.

One of those people is Martin Ferguson, one of the leaders of the so-called Ferguson Left faction of the Labor Party. Here is a person who is not about hugging trees, not out lying in front of bulldozers and not trying to send Australia back into a sort of cave-dwelling Stone Age. Here is a person who believes that the future should be embraced and he is not turning his back on the future. But do others in the Labor Party listen? Unfortunately, no. If only the Ferguson Left and the sensible members of the Right could get together, they could overthrow the tyranny of the extreme Left Greens element.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Peter Garrett—the Nuclear Disarmament Party.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Indeed. Peter Garrett was formerly a member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party before it was, like most of the minor parties that proclaim an environment cause, taken over by Trotskyites, as Peter Garrett himself noted at the time of his departure. The inevitable demise of the Nuclear Disarmament Party is a salutary lesson that some members in this Chamber should take clear notice of—the infiltration of extreme left-wing ideologues into an ostensibly environmental party and the consequent debilitating effects that has on the party. The Greens say, "We are not backward-looking, we are forward-looking; we are for the future." Where does energy come from in that future? We are told that coal is evil, coal is terrible—coal of course being the most cost-effective form of producing electricity in Australia by a long way. So we cannot have coal.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's a credit that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal has said that in this House.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: What have I said? You've thrown him now.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am. I am just wondering why my leader is congratulating the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He told us that coal is the cheapest.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Of course. If we cannot have coal what could we possibly have? We cannot have hydro because hydro means dams, and dams might kill the left-footed, right-handed snail of Uzbekistan or whatever small furry creature The Greens have on their agenda.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The left-footed, right-handed snail of Uzbekistan may be of interest to the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps but it has nothing to do with this bill.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. As I have ruled previously, wide latitude is extended during the second reading debate. However, I ask the Government Whip to be generally relevant to the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Hydroelectricity is off The Greens agenda because they do not like dams. They then moved on to natural gas and coal seam gas for a brief time. But the Chief Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, said at the time that dams in Sydney would be empty because of global warming. I have made reference to that quote several times in other debates. The Greens are opposed to coal seam gas and natural gas because they produce carbon dioxide. According to The Greens we cannot get energy from coal, nuclear power, hydroelectricity or natural gas. What about biofuels such as waste from sawmills? We cannot have that either because that would lead to an increase in milling activity. Trees are more important than poor people being able to cook their dinner cheaply at night.

Perhaps we could have wind power. That was the flavour du jour of The Greens movement for some time. Some of them then decided that we cannot have that because of the subsonic vibration effects or the visual pollution caused by wind turbines. In the eyes of the bourgeois Greens, visual pollution is just as terrible as other forms of pollution. We now have the suggestion that solar will be the be all and end all. Tim Flannery was sceptical of this and in fact was quite supportive of nuclear. Let me place on the record that the Chief Climate Commissioner was supportive of nuclear energy. The person appointed by the Gillard Government said that renewables did not have the ability to provide baseline power and that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with nuclear energy, it just was not commercially viable in Australia at the current time. That goes to show how far removed even a hardcore greenie is to the extreme position of The Greens party. At the heart of this is The Greens hate of humanity; The Greens' hatred of human achievement.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: First, the honourable member is making imputations about members of the House. It is beyond the pale. Secondly, my point of order relates to relevance. The relationship between The Greens and humanity is a long way from the leave of this bill. Madam Deputy President, I ask you to direct that the member's comments be at least remotely relevant to the bill.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: The Greens taking points of order about relevance and imputations is the height of hypocrisy. There has been enormous latitude allowed in this debate primarily because of The Greens wanting to talk about Three Mile Island, North Korea and all of those sorts of matters. For them to now be taking points of order is extraordinary. I ask that they grant the same latitude to others as was accorded to them and listen to the member in silence.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! In relation to the first part of the point of order, the Government Whip was not referring to individual members in the Chamber. In relation to the second part of the point of order, all members have been extended wide latitude during the debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: As I said, The Greens hate humanity and human achievement. They see humanity as a virus, something to be hopefully not eradicated but at least contained enough so as to not impinge upon their marvellous Gaia. They do not accept that humanity is a part of nature. Humanity is seen as an external imposition upon their mythologised view of the way the world works. All this bill says is, "Let us look for the stuff." That is all we are saying. If I were a Minister—I will not pursue that line. Suffice it to say that the current arrangements in relation to this area are in the hands of Chris Hartcher, a moderate, progressive and socially aware Minister whose own moderation on this issue is to be commended. One of the great ironies of today's debate is that we are only trying to find possible locations of uranium deposits. This is a mapping exercise. It is nothing more than an attempt to try to compile an encyclopedia of knowledge as to where these deposits may be located.

It may come as a surprise to members opposite—certainly to The Greens members—but the exploration and mining of radioactive substances in New South Wales already occurs in relation to thorium. Thorium can be explored for and mined in New South Wales. Can thorium be made into a source of energy? Yes, it can. The Canada Deuterium Uranium [CANDU] nuclear reactors that normally use uranium can also use thorium as a fuel. Thorium can be used as a component in normal light water reactors, and it has the advantage of breaking down into uranium 233 which can then be used and in fact burns itself off.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has looked at thorium reactors. Thorium also can be used in nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. But do we hear any complaints from The Greens about the mining and exploration of thorium in New South Wales? No, we do not. That is because it is not sexy, so The Greens are not interested in it. They run wonderful little scare campaigns so that immature 14-year-olds suddenly decide they have to save the world and that uranium mining must be prevented. They join The Greens, go on a protest march, don a hazmat suit and carry a banner that says "No uranium". But no-one talks about thorium. Thorium can be explored for and mined in New South Wales, but The Greens do not care because they are only interested in stunts that gain publicity. If they had to explain to people about thorium it would involve them making an actual effort. They would have to make an attempt to justify their position, rather than run their usual scary, hairy campaigns.

Amongst the panoply of things I find bizarre about The Greens is that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham today said there is no need for this bill because we already know a lot about where the uranium deposits are in New South Wales. He said that all the mapping has been done and we know lots about the uranium deposit locations. Then Dr John Kaye, who obviously did not hear the earlier contribution by his colleague, said if we start looking for these uranium deposits it will inevitably lead to mining. My answer to that is if we already know where the deposits are, why are we not mining them? If one accepts the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's assertion that we already know where they are and follows it up with Dr John Kaye's assertion that looking will inevitably lead to mining, why are we not mining today? The answer is that looking does not equate with mining. This is a concept that The Greens and, to a lesser extent, members of the left wing of the Labor Party seem unable to comprehend. We can look, which is a verb, and we can mine, which is another verb, but looking and mining are two entirely different activities.

Recently while watching QI I learned an interesting fact. Radioactivity is all around us. If someone took a pocketful of brazil nuts to a nuclear reactor plant, the nuts would set off the alarm. Brazil nuts are so radioactive that they would produce enough radioactivity to set off an alarm that has been set to detect an escape or release of radioactivity in a normal nuclear reactor plant. Moreover, bananas are radioactive—which may come as a surprise to members from the North Coast of New South Wales. Brazil nuts and bananas are both radioactive. Nothing better sums up the position of The Greens and the Labor Party Left than the words "nuts and bananas".

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL [4.40 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I participate in debate on the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012, which has been hotly debated in this House. I note that the bill is about exploration to establish whether commercial quantities of uranium exist in New South Wales. At the outset I indicate that what I find disappointing about the bill is that I do not believe the Government has a mandate to introduce this legislation. The Government does not have a mandate from the people to change a 26-year-old policy. That is a very critical point. While the Government enjoys a very strong electoral mandate, it has no mandate on this particular issue. I believe that colours the broader issue of uranium and nuclear power.

I make the point that, because we are concerned about climate change and increasing temperatures, it is reasonable to be aware of uranium deposits that exist in New South Wales and to have a debate on whether we wish to participate in a nuclear industry. While we argue vehemently in this place over whether or not we are saving the world, it is trite to point out that the only other Australian States that do not allow exploration for uranium are Victoria and Queensland and that a number of uranium mines are operating in this country. Australia has one of the largest reserves of uranium, and our reserves might be even larger than we think once exploration is undertaken in New South Wales. However, I believe it is impossible to have a debate on climate change without considering the issue of nuclear power as a viable option to deal with the challenges of climate change in the future. The issue of uranium has to be within the parameters of the debate on nuclear power and climate change.

It is not good enough to simply point to failures of the past, although it is reasonable to state that those who forget history are condemned to relive it. While Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or even Fukushima demonstrate some of the challenges of the nuclear industry, they do not necessarily condemn nuclear power forever more. The Fukushima reactor was a 1960s design that depended on boiling water. That design no longer operates. The latest generation of nuclear reactors has far greater built-in passive safety features that do not rely on human behaviour to control them. We also need to think about reactors that have been built in accordance with 1960s designs. What did our mobile phones look like in the 1960s? They did not exist. In 1986 our mobile phones were the size of a brick. Today's technology can be used to ensure that future nuclear power generation is conducted in a safe and basically pollution-free manner.

We cannot have a debate about climate change without examining nuclear power and the fact that it has a very small carbon footprint compared to the footprint of coal. The issue of fossil fuels has been raised. There is a certain class bias in the debate because a number of developing countries in the world are looking towards nuclear power to raise the standard of living of their people. It is trite for us in Australia, with our very cheap coal, to say that those countries are not entitled or that we will not allow them the right to generate nuclear power to raise their standard of living. It is a very selfish First World view of how the world operates. The reality is that places such as India will use nuclear power to raise the standard of living of its people, and I believe that is an enterprise in which we should participate. I believe in a more equitable world in which everybody enjoys a better standard of living, in which we eradicate poverty, and where everybody has the right to good living standards. It is important to be part of the process so that we can influence the process.

Other forms of power generation have been discussed. Despite all the debate, no-one can seriously argue that either solar power or wind-based power is an effective form of base load generation. That has not been demonstrated anywhere in the world and it is extremely expensive to generate power by those methods. If we vilify nuclear power and the future of nuclear power, we guarantee the use of fossil fuels. We must be realistic about that. It is important to consider examples such as Japan. If Japan were to replace all of its nuclear power tomorrow with wind-power generation, it would require 1.3 billion acres of windmills, which is roughly 50 per cent of Japan's land mass.

That brings into perspective why we should be considering nuclear power as a sensible alternative to meet the challenges of the future. If we want to live in comfortable homes, if we want plasma television sets, if we want air-conditioning and we want a good standard of living, we need to produce power that does not have a big carbon footprint. Unfortunately for us, at the moment coal is by far the cheapest method of generating power. Elsewhere in the world, if China were to give up its nuclear power program, it would have to revert to building more fossil fuel generators which would increase the quantity of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. That would change the climate of the nation and increase temperatures. We need to be realistic about this issue.

I understand that there is a lot of emotion about the issue of nuclear power and uranium, but my personal view is that it is eminently sensible to be aware of the extent of uranium reserves in New South Wales and whether the reserves are commercially viable. Then we can have another debate on whether or not we want to mine it. I do not believe anyone would see any difference between uranium mined in Western Australia or South Australia, once it leaves our shores to be used to generate power overseas, and uranium mined in New South Wales. The source of the uranium is a trite argument that does not add to the debate. We must be realistic about this issue. The ban has operated for 26 years. The world was a very different place 26 years ago. Twenty-six years ago the technology was very different. Climate change was not discussed 26 years ago. But today uranium is an important option. I am a supporter of nuclear power and I believe this is reasonable legislation. However, I am unable to support the bill because the Government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation to Parliament.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [4.49 p.m.]: To some extent, I agree with the comments made by my colleague the Hon. Eric Roozendaal about the debate around uranium and nuclear power. If nuclear power plants are to reach the efficiency everyone hopes they will achieve in power generation and waste, we must commence the debate now to examine whether the technology is practicable and, if so, how it will work to the advantage of our State. But any decision to explore uranium and to mine uranium should come out of debate with the community in the public arena from the perspective of what this technology offers to our State. We need to understand the technology and decide whether it is feasible before we make a decision to invest not only capital but also the approximately 20 years it will take to build nuclear generation plants. That will be a very long process and involve a great deal of debate, time and planning. To date, none of that debate has taken place.

The legislation before the House allows for exploration. A bill that allows exploration is always a precursor to a bill that will allow mining. There is no reason to explore for uranium deposits unless there is an underlying intention to mine uranium and either sell it or use it. The community has a rightful expectation that the Government will debate and discuss this issue, given that it is a contentious issue. The debate must take into account the history not only of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan but also the Australian community's views on nuclear testing by the French in the Pacific region.

Those issues drive people's concerns about the use of nuclear power. They are issues that people have grown up with, particularly people of my generation and older. There has always been huge concern in the community about the nuclear industry. Eventually the community must have the debate so that if we reach the point where those fourth-generation nuclear power plants offer the benefits that are expected, the community is well versed in both the risks and the advantages. I move an amendment to the motion as follows:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "that" and inserting instead:

a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012.

2. That the committee consist of seven members comprising:

(a) three Government members,

(b) two Opposition members,

(c) two crossbench members;

3. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum;

4. That the committee report by 16 August 2012.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [4.52 p.m.]: I echo the strong words of my colleagues the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and Dr John Kaye in opposing the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012. It insults the intelligence of the people of New South Wales to suggest that in introducing this bill the Government is only interested in prospecting and searching for uranium and that it is not the intent that it will lead to a full-blown uranium mining industry in New South Wales. Anyone engaged in the industry knows where the major uranium deposits can be found in New South Wales. That is not a matter of any great scientific controversy. This bill is not intended to allow some passive, dry, academic prospecting; it is the immediate precursor to the expansion of the uranium mining industry in New South Wales. The bill should be called what it is and should be opposed by the Parliament. The bill is opposed by The Greens.

The expansion of the nuclear industry brings with it the risk of cataclysmic nuclear war. History has shown us that even the smallest nuclear explosion from a first-generation nuclear weapon is utterly devastating and can destroy an entire city. The current nuclear industry produces weapons that are one thousandfold as powerful as those used in World War II. The thought that New South Wales would play a part in generating nuclear fuel for the nuclear industry, which includes the potential for weapons of civilisation-ending destruction, is of itself enough to oppose this bill. On the grounds of peace and non-violence alone, The Greens oppose any expansion of the nuclear industry.

On a more fundamental level, ever since the dawn of the so-called atomic age, no country, no nation, no group of nations has devised a method to safely deal with the nuclear waste produced from the nuclear industry, whether it is for weapons of war or the production of electricity through nuclear power. The observations of the United States of America—probably the most sophisticated nuclear player on the planet—and the enormous difficulties it has faced in devising even a vaguely rational way to deal with the thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste it has produced in the nuclear industry, show how impossible it is to safely deal with nuclear waste.

The observations of the United States Court of Appeals, in its decision in 2004 to strike down the plan by the United States Government to store its nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, are worthy of reflection by this House before it makes the decision—as it looks like we will tonight—to allow the expansion of the nuclear industry in New South Wales. In that case, the court was deciding on a plan by the United States Government to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, a distant mountain in the north-west of the United States in a relatively geologically stable repository. The United States Environmental Protection Agency produced a set of regulations to regulate and maintain that nuclear waste for 10,000 years. That is an incomprehensible time frame for any government to consider. The Environmental Protection Agency said it had a set of plans and regulations that would ensure the nuclear waste could be safely maintained for 10,000 years.

As part of a parliamentary system that can almost never look beyond three to six months—or even 24 hours at times—and a political system that is regularly criticised for not looking beyond the next electoral cycle, we can only imagine the difficulties faced by a government trying to devise a plan to cover 10,000 years. The court then considered an argument that 10,000 years for the storage of nuclear waste was not enough. In its introduction, the court said:

Having the capacity to outlast human civilization as we know it and the potential to devastate public health and the environment, nuclear waste has vexed scientists, Congress, and regulatory agencies for the last half-century. After rejecting disposal options ranging from burying nuclear waste in polar ice caps to rocketing it to the sun, the scientific consensus has settled on deep geologic burial as the safest way to isolate this toxic material in perpetuity. Following years of legislative wrangling and agency deliberation, the political consensus has now selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's nuclear waste disposal site.

The State government of Nevada was strongly opposed to a nuclear waste repository in its territory and, together with a number of environmental organisations, challenged the proposal to store the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. In the course of its challenge, it put material before the court which set out the health impacts of exposure to nuclear radiation. The court recorded it in this way:

At massive levels, radiation exposure can cause sudden death.

The court referenced a National Institute of Health fact sheet. The court record continued:

At lower doses, radiation can have devastating health effects, including increased cancer risks and serious birth defects such as mental retardation, eye malformations, and small brain or head size.

The court referenced the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain. It went on:

Radioactive waste and its harmful consequences persist for time spans seemingly beyond human comprehension. For example, iodine-129, one of the radionuclides expected to be buried at Yucca Mountain, has a half-life of seventeen million years ... Neptunium-237, also expected to be deposited in Yucca Mountain, has a half-life of over two million years.

The court noted that as of 2003 the United States had a very substantial nuclear waste problem. This is the same nuclear waste problem that is developing in China and India, and the same nuclear and waste problem that is faced even more horrifically by Russia and a number of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The scale of the problem facing the United States and the reason it was pushing to have the Yucca Mountain facility put in place were clear: as at 2003 nuclear reactors in the United States had generated approximately 49,000 metric tonnes of spent nuclear fuel. And there is nowhere safe to store it.

There is nowhere safe in the United States, nowhere safe in Australia, nowhere yet identified on the entire planet to store the existing thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste produced by the United States alone, let alone those additional thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste that will be generated if the proposal goes ahead to mine uranium in New South Wales and export it to China, India, the United States and Europe. What was the scientific consensus about the requirement for the safe storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain? This is the standard, which was tested by the court, that the Department of Environment [DOE], when devising its regulations for Yucca Mountain, was required to demonstrate:

The DOE must demonstrate, using performance assessment, that there is a reasonable expectation that, for 10,000 years following disposal, the reasonably maximally exposed individual receives no more than an annual committed effective dose equivalent of 150 microsieverts from releases from the undisturbed Yucca Mountain disposal system. The DOE's analysis must include all potential pathways of radionuclide transport and exposure.

The standard imposed for Yucca Mountain was: For 10,000 years the storage facility had to prevent someone being exposed to an annual committed effective dose equivalent of 150 microsieverts. Nevada challenged the decision of the Government and the Environment Protection Authority to establish a compliance period to extend for only 10,000 years in the future. According to the State of Nevada, the 10,000 year marker violated the obligations the Government had for rigorous scientific-founded controls. It said it was arbitrary, capricious and hardly sufficient to protect. It did that because the National Academy of Science—one of the most august scientific institutions in the United States and one relied upon in all other respects by the Environment Protection Authority and United States Government in setting up the Yucca Mountain facility—found in a 1995 report entitled "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards":

With respect to length of compliance period, the National Academy of Science has found "no scientific basis for limiting the time period of the individual risk standard to 10,000 years or any other value." According to the academy, "compliance assessment is feasible for most physical and geological aspects of repository performance on the time scale of the long-term stability of the fundamental geological regime—a time scale that is on the order of one million years at Yucca Mountain."

The National Academy of Science went on to explain that humans may not face peak radiation risks until tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years after disposal or even further into the future. On the basis of that scientific evidence the Court of Appeals in the United States struck down the proposal by the United States Government to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. It did so because even a compliance regime going 10,000 years into the future is insufficient, on the science, to safely store the nuclear waste produced from the nuclear industry.

We know—the science is very clear—that if we dig out uranium now and inject it into the nuclear fuel cycle we will produce radioactive waste that may be at its most lethal in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years from now. No safety regime in any Act passed by the New South Wales Parliament will have a scintilla of effect 100,000 years into the future. No comforting words from the Premier will protect future generations when they are exposed to radioactive waste mined in New South Wales.

One of the other astounding factors with respect to nuclear waste is that the United States Department of Defence and the United States Atomic Energy Agency are trying to come up with language-neutral ways to identify dangerous nuclear waste sites because they know that the English language will not be spoken—or anything approaching the English language—when people are exposed to nuclear waste and radiation from nuclear waste. The waste we are producing now to fire a light bulb for an instant will be around for hundreds of thousands of years polluting the planet.

Many generations beyond ours will be exposed to the radiation and the pollution that we are producing now, with all of those health impacts I cited earlier in this debate. If we produce the waste we will have to come up with some magic way to communicate in a language other than English. It is so far in the future there is no conceivable way to safely regulate for nuclear waste. There is no conceivable way to currently store nuclear waste. There is no conceivable way to make the world safe once we dig this poisonous element out of the ground, insert it into the nuclear fuel cycle and spread it around the planet, as is the intent of this Government.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [5.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, odd and interesting as they were. With very few exceptions, they completely ignored the objects of the Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill 2012. A couple of those exceptions were the Deputy-President, the Hon. Paul Green, my colleagues, and the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. People reading this debate in Hansard will be quite confused about the bill. As I indicated earlier during a point of order, it is helpful if people read the bill. I suspect that not many members who contributed to the debate today have read the bill.

I refer to the objects of the bill. It is a bill to amend the Mining Act 1992, the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 and other Acts and instruments with respect to prospecting for uranium, the ownership of uranium and for other purposes. At least one of the objects did not get a mention at all from anyone except me—that is, the ownership of uranium. It was completely forgotten. Members opposite completely changed the other objects of the bill to what they hoped they would be so they could put their scare campaign in place. This is a bill for prospecting; it is not a bill for mining. That aspect of the bill was deliberately ignored and exaggerated. If I were to give my prize today—it is tough to award a prize, given the content of some of the speeches—it would go to Mr David Shoebridge, not surprisingly, who described it as a bill for civilisation-ending destruction.

The Hon. Steve Whan: You cannot remember the earlier comments.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Steve Whan had some comments that were dangerously close to award-winning. I know the member likes to win everything, but he is on a little bit of a losing streak lately and sadly it has continued today. The Mining Legislation Amendment (Uranium Exploration) Bill amends four Acts to remove the prohibition on uranium exploration in New South Wales. Since the prohibition was put in place there have been advances in safety and environmental management of uranium exploration. If members opposite were really concerned about the environment and the bill, I would have thought that would have been a legitimate matter to debate. Not one of those opposite, the scaremongers, went to that point. Either those opposite had not read the bill, or it did not suit their political purpose.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! Members will listen to the Minister in silence.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Those opposite had their chance; they did not do much of a job debating the issue and they are looking for another chance. As indicated by the Minister in the other place, there is a growing international demand for uranium as a low carbon source of energy. Therefore, it is the right time to gain a better understanding of what, if any, uranium resources are located in New South Wales. The bill makes changes to the Mining Act, Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act, the Radiation Control Act and the Aboriginal Lands Right Act.

Those changes make it clear that uranium will now be defined as a mineral for the purpose of exploration only. This means exploration of uranium will be subject to the stringent environmental and safety assessments and approvals that apply to all mineral exploration in New South Wales. In addition, uranium exploration activities will be subjected to the requirements of a national industry specific code of practice and safety guide. As a result of those amendments the New South Wales Government will provide a strong, responsible legislative framework for undertaking uranium exploration.

Mr Deputy-President, I was interested in some of the contributions, particular your contribution, in which you spoke about the bill and indicated that the time for committee examination was after the exploration process had been concluded and before anyone made a decision to go further. There was some serendipity because the Hon. Eric Roozendaal also made that point. Those were appropriate points to be made in this debate: let us find out what the situation is before we go off half-cocked. But, no, that did not suit Opposition members.

They were quite excited that they directed to me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question asking whether there were any plans for mining of uranium in New South Wales. I said—I think what I say now will be pretty close to what I said; they will tell me if I have not got the words right—that I am unaware of any plans for mining. Somehow, that was turned into a conspiracy theory. Because they did not at that stage ask me whether I was aware of any plans for changes regarding uranium exploration, somehow my answer to the question they asked me about uranium mining was relevant to uranium exploration. Somehow, that made me devious, and somehow there is a conspiracy.

The Hon. Steve Whan: You were devious.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You're always devious.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There they go again, "You were devious." Clearly, the question asked in this place was, "Are you aware of any plans to change the standards?" It was not quite that, but it was all about mining; nothing in the question referred to exploration. I answered the question in the House honestly and accurately. That did not suite their agenda. Somehow it suits the North Korean agenda to link exploration with mining, with the China syndrome, with anything they can think of. It is any wonder people do not believe them. It is the Chicken Little syndrome, with the sky falling in. They exaggerate everything.

The bill before the House is also about a change in ownership. Had the members opposite read the bill they might have spoken about that change in ownership. If members opposite had read the bill, they may have raised concerns about safety in exploration. It is obvious they had not read the bill, but they had made up their mind to run a scare campaign, and they ran a scare campaign. Sadly for them, they are convincing no-one because their scare campaign has nothing to do with the bill before the House. The bill will pave the way for New South Wales to gain a better understanding of the location and extent of any uranium resources in New South Wales. This will be vital information for future planning for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I indicate that the Government will oppose the amendment. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Lynda Voltz be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Barham Mr Buckingham Ms Cotsis Mr Donnelly Ms Faehrmann Mr Foley Dr Kaye

Mr Moselmane Mr Primrose Mr Roozendaal Mr Searle Mr Secord Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood Mr Whan Tellers, Ms Fazio Ms Voltz

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones

Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Colless Dr Phelps

Ms Sharpe

Mr Lynn

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of Ms Lynda Voltz negatived.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra

Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones

Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Colless Dr Phelps

Ms Barham Mr Buckingham Ms Cotsis Mr Donnelly Ms Faehrmann Mr Foley Dr Kaye

Mr Moselmane Mr Primrose Mr Roozendaal Mr Searle Mr Secord Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood Mr Whan Tellers, Ms Fazio Ms Voltz

Mr Lynn

Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the affirmative

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.


Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.