Queensland lifted its uranium ban once, with a cabinet decision. This government will not say the word.

This is an opinion piece. It reflects the views of the CoCCuLiNi Desk, is based on the sourced facts cited below, and is not a statement of fact about any company or person.

The LNP opened Queensland to uranium mining in 2012 and Labor shut it again in 2015. Two years into the Crisafulli government the ban stands, the government avoids the subject, and explorers who moved on hope in 2025 are still waiting.

The Take. A ban that one cabinet can lift, the next cabinet can restore. Queensland proved both halves of that sentence between 2012 and 2015. Until the two major parties agree, the question of whether this government lifts the ban matters less than explorers think.

Start with the record. No uranium has been mined in Queensland since Mary Kathleen closed in 1982. A ban has stood since 1989, with one gap. The Newman LNP government ended it in October 2012. Labor restored it in 2015.

What happened in June

On 24 June Robbie Katter, the Katter's Australian Party leader and member for Traeger, moved a motion in parliament calling for the ban to end. His electorate takes in the Mount Isa region, where he puts the known resource at about 80,000 tonnes of contained uranium, most of it at Valhalla and Westmoreland.

Mines Minister Dale Last replied with an amendment about the state's natural resources and the government's energy policies. It passed. Katter said afterwards that the government's only speaker got through the debate without mentioning uranium.

That followed a question on notice in March, after which Katter said the government was holding the same line as Labor.

So the position is not a refusal. It is an absence. The government has not defended the ban and has not moved against it.

Why the 2012 precedent cuts both ways

Campbell Newman spent the year before he lifted the ban saying his government had "no plans" to do so. Hansard records the phrase being read back to him at length. As late as 11 October 2012 he repeated it in writing. Before the month was out, the ban was gone.

Two lessons follow, and explorers usually take only the first.

The first is that "no plans" from a Queensland premier is not a commitment. David Crisafulli was a minister in that government. He has seen how quickly the position can change.

The second is that the change did not last. It was made by cabinet, so it was unmade by the next cabinet. The window stayed open for about two years. No mine was built in it, because no mine can be permitted, financed and built in two years.

The arithmetic of a four-year term

A uranium project needs the better part of a decade from decision to first production. A Queensland parliament runs four years. The next election is due by October 2028.

An investor asked to fund Valhalla is therefore underwriting at least two elections. Labor has reversed this decision once already. A lifting that arrives in 2027 would hand a developer perhaps eighteen months of certainty.

That is why the June 2025 trade deserves a hard look. Explorers moved on Queensland ground that month on signs the new government might act. Fifteen months later the signs have not become a policy. Anyone who bought on that hope was pricing sentiment.

Queensland is not alone

Katter told parliament that Queensland is the only state with known uranium that does not allow it to be mined, and pointed to Western Australia. That overstates the difference. Western Australia has barred new uranium projects since 2017, and in August its Labor government said it had no plans to change that. Only one grandfathered project still meets the state's criteria.

The demand side has moved. Australia signed a deal in July allowing uranium exports to India. The supply side, state by state, has not.

The cold read

North-west Queensland holds about 2% of the world's known uranium resources, on Geoscience Australia figures cited by the ABC. That is real, and it is not scarce enough to force anyone's hand.

What would change the picture is not a cabinet minute. It is legislation, or a Labor opposition that says on the record it would leave a lifting in place. Neither is on offer. Until one is, the ground around Mount Isa is an option on politics, and it should be priced as one.

Opinion and commentary. Facts are sourced above. Not investment advice. Do your own research.

Opinion and commentary — the desk's own views, grounded in the sourced facts above. Facts are sourced; views are clearly labeled as such and are not statements of fact about any named party. See our Ethics & Disclosure policy. Spotted an error? Tell the desk — we correct in the open.