House debates

Monday, 23 February 2009

Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008

Second Reading

7:45 pm

Photo of Ian MacfarlaneIan Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I always recognise talent, Minister. As we have heard, the purpose of the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is to respond to concerns of the Uranium Industry Framework members. That is a process that I was very involved in previously and one which, as the member for Brand said, establishes and reinforces a framework in which uranium can be mined in Australia in a safe way not only for those immediately handling the ore body but also in terms of its storage, treatment, transport and eventual sale.

The bill also addresses commercial concerns of uranium projects proponents, particularly in the Northern Territory. It seeks to establish a uniform royalty regime of 18 per cent of net value for uranium projects in the Territory, thereby delivering costing certainty to commercial operators in the planning stage. The proposed 18 per cent royalty—and I emphasise that it is 18 per cent of net value— would make uranium development consistent with other mineral developments in the Northern Territory. The bill will also provide the Northern Territory, via the Northern Territory Treasury, the ability to collect the royalty on behalf of the Commonwealth and to provide the Northern Territory judicial system the opportunity to be used if prosecution or dispute resolution is required.

The opposition of course supports this bill. The opposition has always understood that at a time of mining’s importance, it is important to create opportunities, and uranium is no different. Currently, at a time of economic turmoil, for the mining and resources sector in particular, the framework is a way of adding some certainty to what is an extraordinarily difficult situation.

The uranium industry is in fact short of certainty, and that came about in no small part because the party that the member for Brand highlighted had always supported uranium mining but it had on occasions changed its mind slightly, completely, totally, absolutely. As we have seen, with a change of government to the Labor Party comes an added concern from those industries wishing to invest in uranium mining, which, I should point out to the House, which does not always occur in isolation from mining of other minerals. So, whilst the mine mentioned by the member for Brand, that is operated in the Northern Territory by ERA, is a uranium mine, mines such as the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia is in fact a mine that contains a number of other resources, particularly silver and copper. We need to ensure that those companies which are prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions of dollars, in some cases—have as much certainty as can be provided.

It was also heartening to note that, in his second reading speech, the Minister for Resources and Energy acknowledged the potential for uranium to make an important contribution to abating greenhouse gas emissions. That is something I would have liked to have heard more of from the member for Brand and perhaps the Minister for Trade, who has now left the chamber.

Comments

No comments