Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2025 - Second Reading Speech
On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate on the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2025, which we oppose. The Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 exists for a very clear purpose: To prohibit uranium mining and the construction or operation of nuclear reactors and related facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of New South Wales and the environment in which we all live. The bill would strip away those protections and open the door to uranium mining and nuclear reactors in our State down the track.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Hear, hear!
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Wes Fang from the National Party. He said, "Hear, hear!", to the prospect of nuclear reactors—which, of course, is incredibly reckless. First of all, we are in a climate crisis. Rapid emissions reductions are needed this decade and, frankly, nuclear power cannot deliver that. The Climate Council has made it clear that nuclear is not appropriate for Australia. It would take at least 15 to 20 years to deliver and at enormous cost. The clear reasons nuclear power is not the energy solution that Australia needs include cost blowouts, extensive water use and waste risks.
On the subject of waste, I listened with interest to the Leader of The Nationals in this place, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that South Australia has no problem with uranium mining. I had the privilege of living in Adelaide for about three years in the late '90s, and at that time—and it continues to this day—there was an extraordinary movement against the prospect of a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. There have been many campaigns against a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, including by many traditional owners of different parts of the land there who have taken their cases to court. The member said, "It's all fine. South Australia does it. It's wonderful." No, it is not all fine. The issue of where to store nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for thousands of years, is a very big deal.
South Australians do not want a nuclear reactor in their backyard, and I do not think we want one in ours. Based on that reason alone, nuclear is not the solution. Nuclear projects around the world are notorious for delays and budget blowouts, and they divert public money from faster, cheaper renewables that are backed by storage and transmission. The CSIRO found that renewables are the lowest cost way to meet our electricity needs. Unlike renewables, the cost of building and operating nuclear energy in Australia could increase electricity bills by $665 on average and by $972 for a family of four.
The Hon. John Ruddick: That's just made up.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Order! If the Hon. Wes Fang interjects one more time, I will place him on a call to order.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I note the interjection by the mover of the bill, the Hon. John Ruddick, who said that the findings from the CSIRO of $665 on average and $972 for a family of four are all made up. It is really quite extraordinary that the member from the Libertarian Party chooses to say that this CSIRO information is all made up. I will not say any more, but I find that an interesting observation for the member to make. In the United Kingdom there was a threefold blowout of the Hinkley Point C nuclear energy facility, which has so far cost $90 billion and is running 14 years behind schedule—so 2031 versus 2017. As experts have repeatedly warned, nuclear power brings—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Ms Cate Faehrmann will resume her seat.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I cannot hear what the member is saying because of the constant interjections by a couple of members opposite, and one in particular.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I uphold the point of order. As I have already said, I will start calling members to order if the interjections do not cease. We still have a long way to go this evening, so let us make sure we are all here at the finish line.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: It is extraordinary how much The Greens members speaking on anything seem to rile up a couple of the members opposite—or should I say "The Greens political party".
Interesting. Australia is acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, but that does not justify opening the door to civilian nuclear power. Nuclear reactors also require vast amounts of water. A typical 1,600-megawatt nuclear facility uses about 2,000 litres of water per second—equivalent to the daily water use of four households. Imagine what that would be like when the next drought hits. But by the time we have a nuclear facility up and running, we will probably be 10 droughts into the future. Who would get priority for water during a drought? Going nuclear would mean Australians paying more, waiting longer and locking in risk, all when renewables are already delivering.
The bill would also repeal the prohibition on uranium mining. Uranium is the most strictly controlled element on earth. There are a range of State and Federal laws, as well as a multitude of international agreements, designed to restrict or govern the mining, sale and use of uranium. I was very surprised to learn that New South Wales allows companies to explore for uranium in the State. I did not realise that extraordinary piece of information. There are good reasons for restrictions, even though uranium exploration is allowed in New South Wales. Uranium mining is expensive, dirty and dangerous, yet there has been sustained pressure to fast-track approvals. The Minerals Council of Australia has long lobbied to weaken national environmental protections that treat uranium mining as a matter of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Let us be clear: This push is about profit; it is not about the public interest.
We all know about the troubling history of uranium mining in Australia. Groundwater contamination is one of the most serious risks, with Aboriginal people living near the Ranger uranium mine experiencing higher rates of stillbirths and cancer. The idea of opening up more mines in New South Wales, or anywhere else in Australia, is absolutely ludicrous. Previous speakers mentioned that people voted on whether or not they supported nuclear energy at the last Federal election, and we saw where that landed. Good luck to those who support uranium mining and the opening up of nuclear facilities for a nuclear future in New South Wales, because it is electorally unpopular to the point where I do not think it will ever be implemented as a policy and no party will ever get elected talking about it.