REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT URANIUM MINING AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES (PROHIBITIONS) REPEAL BILL 2019 CORRECTED At Macquarie Room, Parliament House, Sydney, on Monday 18 November 2019 The Committee met at 9:00 am PRESENT The Hon. Taylor Martin (Chair) The Hon. Mark Banasiak The Hon. Mark Buttigieg The Hon. Wes Fang The Hon. Scott Farlow The Hon. Mark Latham The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones The Hon. Mick Veitch (Deputy Chair) Monday, 18 November 2019 Legislative Council Page 1 The CHAIR: Welcome to the third hearing of the State Development Committee inquiry into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. The inquiry has been established to inquire into the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. The object of this bill is to repeal the ban on uranium mining in New South Wales, which has been in place since the enactment of the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986. This inquiry is a fact-finding mission to consider if New South Wales should investigate the viability of nuclear power as an energy source. Before I commence, I acknowledge the Gadigal people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. I also pay respect to the Elders, past and present, of the Eora nation and extend that respect to other Aboriginals present. Today we will hear from representatives of industry groups, peak bodies and professional associations for nuclear-related fields, union representatives and an energy economist from the University of Queensland. I will make some brief comments about the procedures for today's hearing. Today's hearing is open to the public and is being broadcast live via Parliament's website. A transcript of today's hearing will be placed on the Committee's website when it becomes available. In accordance with the broadcasting guidelines, while members of the media may film or record Committee members and witnesses, people in the public gallery should not be the primary focus of any filming or photography. I also remind media representatives that they must take responsibility for what they publish about the Committee's proceedings. It is important to remember that parliamentary privilege does not apply to what witnesses may say outside their evidence at the hearing here today. I urge witnesses to be careful about any comments they may make to the media or to others after they complete their evidence, as such comments would not be protected by parliamentary privilege if another person decided to take action for defamation. Guidelines for the broadcast of proceedings are available from the secretariat. All witnesses have a right to procedural fairness according to the procedural fairness resolution adopted by the upper House in 2018. There may be some questions that a witness could only answer if they had more time or with certain documents to hand. In these circumstances witnesses are advised that they can take a question on notice and provide an answer within 21 days. I remind everyone here today that Committee hearings are not intended to provide a forum for people to make adverse reflections about others under the protection of parliamentary privilege. I therefore request that witnesses focus on the issues raised by the inquiry terms of reference and avoid naming individuals unnecessarily. Witnesses are advised that any messages should be delivered to Committee members through the Committee staff. To aid the audibility of this hearing, I remind both Committee members and witnesses to speak into the microphones provided. The room is fitted with induction loops compatible with hearing aid systems that have telecoil receivers. In addition, several seats have been reserved near the loudspeakers for persons in the public gallery who have hearing difficulties. Finally, could everybody please turn their mobile phones to silent for the duration of the hearing today. STATE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, 18 November 2019 Legislative Council Page 2 PATRICK GIBBONS, Principal Advisor, Energy, Minerals Council of Australia, affirmed and examined DAVID FRITH, Director, Industry and Environment, NSW Minerals Council, affirmed and examined The CHAIR: I welcome our first witnesses. Do either of you or both or you like to begin with an opening statement? Mr FRITH: I will start. Good morning everyone. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. I represent the NSW Minerals Councils, which is the peak industry association representing the minerals industry in New South Wales. We are separate to the Minerals Council of Australia, which Mr Gibbons represents, but we do have a lot of common member companies and we collaborate on a lot of common policy issues where applicable. The obvious distinction is that we tend to focus on New South Wales policy issues while the Minerals Council of Australia focuses on national policy issues. The NSW Minerals Council supports the bill to overturn the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power in New South Wales. As has been spoken about extensively in this inquiry already, the ban on uranium mining is somewhat of a bizarre situation given that the ban on exploration was overturned several years ago in 2012 and that uranium mining is undertaken safely and with significant economic benefits in neighbouring States, particularly South Australia. The Committee has heard evidence about the forecast growth in nuclear power globally and we believe New South Wales, under any logical reasoning, should have the opportunity to take advantage of the economic opportunities that may arise should we discover any economically recoverable uranium resources in New South Wales. In terms of nuclear power, the security, reliability and affordability of electricity supply is crucial for mines which are large-scale industrial facilities that operate 24 hours a day seven days a week and use around 6 per cent of the State's electricity. Our members have already experienced a steep rise in electricity prices in recent years and they are concerned about the drop off in dispatchable supply over the coming decades, which is well known. The scale of the task to replace this capacity while reducing emissions and supplying secure, reliable and affordable power is immense and we believe that all options needs to be on the table. Renewables will have an important and growing role to play in energy production, however, the Committee has already heard evidence about the increasing total system costs of the electricity supply system by pursuing a grid based on 100 per cent renewables and storage. We referenced another study in our submission that shows similar results. These studies demonstrate the need to plan for alternative low-emission, dispatchable generation technology such as nuclear or coal and gas with carbon capture and storage. We believe that all of these options need to be on the table to make sure that we can deliver a secure, reliable, low-emissions electricity supply at least cost. Mr GIBBONS: I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. The perspective of the Minerals Council of Australia is that there are four indisputable facts about energy, climate change and nuclear power. First, climate change is real, and as global energy demand increases so too does the need to decarbonise our power supplies. Second, nuclear energy provides about 10 per cent of the electricity demand with zero emission power. Third, the power provided by nuclear energy is low cost and can meet the needs of industrial and household consumers 24/7. Finally, billions of citizens in 31 countries benefit from low-cost, zero-emissions nuclear power. Here in New South Wales you can explore for uranium but not mine it and nuclear is banned. The Minerals Council thinks that is nonsensical. The ban on uranium mining is an ideological hangover from the 1980s. It is an out-of-date policy fad that delivers nothing but costs plenty. Both the State and Federal nuclear bans should be lifted so that New South Wales can at least consider nuclear energy. Most of New South Wales' large baseload plants, which provide around 80 per cent of electricity in New South Wales, will close over the next two decades. At this stage it is unclear where the replacement electrons will come from or at what cost. Intermittent renewables will play an increasing role in the provision of electricity, but they need to be backed up by other sources, whether it is gas and coal or storage. All technology options need to be on the table, including small modular nuclear reactors, which potentially offer some of the lowest cost and most reliable sources of 24/7 power, all with zero emissions. Finally, let us talk about the missed opportunities. Because it already has the Lucas Heights medical reactor, New South Wales should be the home of what could be a major nuclear industry. Look at Canada—60,000 jobs and 15 per cent zero-emission and low-cost power from nuclear. It is a $6.7 billion industry. These are the opportunity costs of the New South Wales bans. The Minerals Council urges the Committee to support the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Thank you both for your submissions and attendance today. I was interested in page four of the submission of the Minerals Council of Australia. It states that, "New South Wales has lost its comparative advantage in energy. Rising prices and falling reliability are forcing businesses to invest STATE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, 18 November 2019 Legislative Council Page 3 overseas, instead of in New South Wales." What is the time frame on that? Often in the public debate there is a complacent feeling that these energy reliability issues will only become present once we have the closure of Liddell, Vales Point and Eraring.