Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

As my leader, Senator Minchin, has mentioned, the opposition will be supporting the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 and I am pleased to say that the bill is actually a completion of work started by my Queensland Liberal colleague the Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP, when he was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. This particular bill before us today is a result of the processes started by Mr Macfarlane some years ago. We are pleased in the coalition to see the bill finally receiving parliamentary approval.

Australia is the world’s second biggest producer of uranium, which generated something like $658 million in export revenue in the 2006-07 year. It provided jobs for some 800 Australians, mainly in remote Australia, and there are opportunities for considerably more employment in the uranium industry particularly in Northern Australia. This leads me to inquire of the Australian Labor Party just what their position is in relation to uranium exports and uranium mining. As I have mentioned, there are already a considerable number of jobs created and supported by this industry. But I am confused, as I think are most Australians, as to what is the government’s position in relation to uranium mining.

I thought that, rather than wait for an answer in this chamber, I should have a look at the website of the minister who I guess would be responsible, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who is the Leader of the House and the member for Grayndler. On his website is a statement entitled ‘Labor Party policy: uranium’. As I read down it I saw that, at paragraph 68, it says:

In relation to mining and milling, Labor will:

prevent, on return to government, the development of any new uranium mines …

I thought this, perhaps, might be out of date, but it is off the current website of the minister. I heard Senator Farrell’s speech on this and he was saying that the Labor party no longer has a three-mine policy. It is now, as I understand it, a four-mine policy. I am always very curious as to why there is a three- or a four-mine policy in place. Is uranium from three mines good uranium while uranium from a fourth or fifth mine is bad uranium? I simply cannot understand why a party, which now, regrettably, is in government in both Australia and in most of the states, will allow mining of uranium from some areas but not from other areas.

In reading the Labor Party policy on uranium, which, as I say, I extracted this morning from Mr Albanese’s website, I am even more confused. The Labor Party policy goes on to say, at paragraph 69:

In relation to exports, Labor will:

allow the export of uranium only from those mines existing on Labor’s return to government …

As I understood it, when Labor returned to government, they increased the number of mines that could be exporting uranium. The environment minister, Mr Garrett, who spent a lifetime opposing uranium and uranium mining, and singing songs about it, making millions of dollars from songs that he sang about how awful uranium was, just recently actually approved an additional uranium mine. I am not sure what South Australia has over Queensland, but it does seem to me that there is a bit of favouritism from the Labor Party when it comes to uranium mines. They are quite valuable, Senator Conroy, are they not? They create a lot of jobs as I indicated. Am I wrong, Senator Conroy? You are shaking your head.