I contribute to debate on the Explosives Amendment Bill 2023. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Explosives Act 2003 to implement the final recommendations of a 2019 statutory review. The bill also makes amendments to the Act to transfer some provisions from the Explosives Regulation to the Act. The amendments transfer long-established and critical elements of the regulatory regime. That includes authorisation and prohibition of explosives, the granting of security clearances and exemption procedures.

Specifically, the bill inserts and clarifies the definition of "supply" within the Act to also include circumstances where supply occurs without money being exchanged. Furthermore, it enables the regulatory authority to destroy forfeited explosives after analysing, certifying and retaining sample evidence for use in proceedings. The bill establishes powers for the disposal of unwanted and unusable explosives, and the authorisation of New South Wales police officers to exercise functions and powers of an inspector in certain circumstances. As I mentioned previously, the bill is transferring certain provisions from the regulation into the Act, key elements of which include the authorisation, registration and prohibition of explosives; powers for the regulatory authority to grant security clearances; classes of licences that may be granted; and procedures and powers related to the granting of exceptions.

Those with a keen eye may have noticed that the wording from the regulations that has gone into the bill are not word-for-word. The reason for that is that Parliamentary Counsel, which is responsible for the drafting of the exact provisions in the bill, felt that there was a need for a change of the wording to effectively transfer the intent. They have done that in accordance with modern drafting standards and best practice and, as such, those changes have been made, and both language and structural changes have been made to bring it up to modern standards. Precursors and explosives have a legitimate use from time to time, particularly in regard to farming, agriculture, and prospecting or mining. Chemicals like ammonium nitrate are regularly used in farming and agriculture, but we have to regulate the use of the chemicals because, as we have seen overseas especially, they have tragic outcomes if they are used intentionally and unintentionally.

I recall in particular the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 where 168 people were killed and the damage from that explosion extended 16 blocks and damaged 324 buildings in the process. There was an unintentional explosion in Beirut in August 2020, which left 218 people dead, 7,000 injured and, at last estimate, somewhere in the range of $15 billion in damage. So, it is important that we regulate those chemicals and make sure there is appropriate licensing and handling of them, particularly in farming and agriculture. It is important to note that the two recommendations already implemented from the statutory review have no impact on farmers or regional industry. The amendments are not intended to impact or alter the industry's compliance with the current regulatory regime.

Debate Adjourned. 

When I was interrupted previously, I was regaling the House with information on the use of ammonium nitrate as a fertiliser. I spoke with members during the pause, and they said they were waiting with bated breath to hear the resumption of this section of the speech. Members will wait no more. Currently, an explosives licence is required to import, export, manufacture, store, supply, use or transport ammonium nitrate in the New South Wales. To approve an explosives licence for ammonium nitrate, SafeWork NSW must be satisfied that a facility is capable of handling ammonium nitrate safely and securely. SafeWork assesses compliance with the requirements of the Australian standard applicable, which is AS 4326, if members want to look it up.

Essentially, the changes that are being considered have no impact on the use of ammonium nitrate for farming. Currently, farmers who transport or store explosives are required to have a licence, and the bill does not change that. The same goes for prospectors. If someone is perhaps out Bathurst way looking for gold, and they want to blow some things up to find bits of gold, the changes that are being put forward do not affect that. Existing licensing clearances and other compliance regimes that are in place will stay; the bill makes no change to that. There has been extensive consultation on the bill, which is always important when we propose changes to laws.

Key industry stakeholders were notified of the release of the discussion paper that was put out between 19 July and 16 August 2019. There were a number of submissions from the police, the pyrotechnics industry, the Minerals Council and a number of organisations that are involved in the manufacture and transportation of these materials. Key stakeholders were also invited to an industry forum. In short, their submissions and feedback were carefully considered by the review. Their input went into the recommendations, which have in turn gone into the bill. I commend the bill to the House.