20 August 2024
Topics: Labor’s chilling decision to block the Regis goldmine in regional NSW, Indigenous Cultural Heritage Laws, critical minerals projects
E&OE
Senator Duniam:
Well, clearly no project in this country is safe under this government. No mining project, no land development, no renewables project is safe when you’ve got a Commonwealth Minister in Tanya Plibersek applying laws the way she is. For a project like the gold mine near Orange in NSW, McPhillamys Gold mine to have gone through four years of hard yakka getting every state and federal environmental approval lined up, as is required under federal and state laws, to only, at the eleventh hour, after all of their hard work and consultation have that project knocked on the head is nothing short of absolutely flabbergasting. A billion dollar project supporting 800 jobs in a regional community, hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to the taxpayers every year through royalties. Now gone. All because of the application of a certain piece of legislation by this Minister Plibersek. We reject her approach to major project assessment and approvals. We reject this decision and we have lodged the disallowance motion in the Senate today to overturn that decision. Australians need confidence that their government have their interests at heart. This government can’t balance the competing priorities of protecting cultural heritage and ensuring we have a thriving economy. Protecting jobs that need to be in these regional communities, ensuring that investors who are considering whether they invest here or, for example in Papua New Guinea have certainty about their investments. What this government have done today is nothing short of absolutely disappointing and the fact that the proponents of this objection under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act were, of course, supported by the taxpayer funded EDO says everything about this government’s priorities. You know, Minister Plibersek tries to draw some equivalency between a decision made by Sussan Ley a few years ago, and this one. Sussan Ley stopped a go-kart track from going ahead, Minister Plibersek has stopped a billion dollar mine which will be an economic lifeline for that community. We’ll hear from Jacinta and then Susan and then we’ll have some questions.
Senator Nampijinpa Price:
Thank you. It’s utterly disgraceful that Minister Plibersek has determined to ensure that 870 jobs do not go ahead, that Indigenous Australians from the Orange area will miss out on economic development within their region. We know that the Orange Land Council, who are the legal authority to speak on this particular issue on issues of development within their region, had voiced no concern with this project going ahead. We know that the NSW State government are up in arms at this decision made by Minister Plibersek as they’ve given the prior approval for this to go ahead in this region because they know what it means to bring about economic development to the region. We’ve heard from the head of the Orange Land Council who has once again spoken about an issue that I have highlighted over and over and over again; that activists are getting in the way of economic development opportunities, jobs for Indigenous Australians. This is another prime example where this is occurring. It’s utterly disgraceful that the Albanese government continues to fund the EDO when they have demonstrated once more their bias toward any sort of economic development in this country. This government has said that they can chew gum and walk at the same time. You can have projects, such as this gold mine and you can protect the environment and cultural heritage. These things can be done simultaneously. On one hand, you’ve got the Prime Minister attending Garma to grand-stand and suggests that our economic development for Indigenous Australians is what the key step is to go forward to unlock land use for this very purpose, but only if there’s renewables involved. So, he will take away this opportunity from this region even when the Orange Land Council, the legal statutory authority, who has the authority to speak on these issues, wants for this project to go ahead for the benefit to the wider community. It’s utterly disgraceful. This is another demonstration that Labor does not care for Indigenous Australians. They would prefer to lock up land to keep Indigenous Australians behind the eight-ball, dependent on things like welfare, dependent on government handouts as opposed to ensuring there’s prosperity and there’s economic independence. This government is an utter disgrace. Minister Tanya Plibersek is disgraceful in terms of the decisions that she’s making at the whim of the activist EDO as opposed to listening to the authority on the ground to ensure that this project goes ahead. So we’re going to do everything we can to ensure that it does. That we can support the region, that we can support economic development going forward, because that’s what we’re truly about. Economic empowerment through utilising land for Indigenous Australians and the wider community so that we can grow and prosper together.
Senator McDonald:
Well, this decision, this latest anti-mining decision by the Albanese Government is very serious. This is another step in shutting down mining by stealth. Australia’s sovereign risk is now so high that we are seeing companies choose to invest in other jurisdictions. They are now uncertain. It has taken four years for this company to go through the process, costing over $200 million to go through the process to get state and federal approvals. And yet in one stroke, the Minister has removed all of that work and all of those approvals, thanks to an activist organisation who is keen to see Australia shut down for business. Now why is this bad? Well, this is stealing from our future generations. It is stealing from them economically. It’s stealing from them for jobs, for a broader range of opportunities. And we know that the Albanese Government is delivering for the Greens. They’re not delivering for regional Australia and they’re certainly not delivering for Indigenous Australians and all Australians who want well paid jobs, who want companies that pay taxes and who go on to fund the rest of the country’s economy. At a time when we’re seeing commodity prices falling in other sectors, it has never been more important than we bring forward critical minerals projects. Projects like this gold project. They are important for future economies, for our allies and for Australia’s economic wellbeing. Australia is becoming un-investable as the thanks to the layering of regulation and legislation by this Albanese Government. Today we are seeing one more tranche of activist approvals and activist support funded by this government to undermine approvals for projects that pay the bills for this country. And instead Australia becomes full of economic uncertainty and I’m not sure that the government understands the gaping hole that they’re producing in our economic future, but also for our young people, for great jobs, for well paid jobs, for tax-paying companies that will ensure the future prosperousness of this for this nation. So be very clear, Labor’s decision is one more arrow in the heart of the mining sector. It is providing greater uncertainty to mining companies and we all suffer as a result of this bad decision making.
Journalist:
Can I perhaps just get some clarity on the disallowance. You’ve said your concern is with the application of the law, so I take it your problem isn’t with the protection provisions that are there, but how they’ve been applied. So, can you tell me what exactly the issue is? Do you contest the cultural significance of the area as being described? Or is it how the mining company is proposed to deal with that cultural significance. Can you just go into a bit of detail about exactly where you see the issue being?
Senator Duniam:
So, the problem we have is firstly, if I can step back a little bit, we had a promise from this government that would have new standalone cultural heritage laws for this country. We don’t. So, we have old laws which have been in existence for quite some time. How you apply them is the key. Now, the Minister of course, as part of this process has heard from multiple parties. The mining company is one of them and the local community representatives, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, of course, have indicated that concerns they had are manageable and they are the organisation with authority, legislative authority, to speak on behalf of members of that country. So my problem, our problem, the Coalition’s problem is that out of nowhere, the open nature of Section 10 of this Act enables anyone who identifies that they have some cultural claim here to lodge an objection to a project. Either oral or written. The details of that, there’s no hard and fast threshold. There’s a huge amount of leeway there for the Minister to make a decision in any direction. So, it is about the open nature of this legislation, the fact that the Minister had….
Journalist:
….So, are you saying she should? She shouldn’t have listened to the other Indigenous voices who got a different point of view from the Orange Land Council…
Senator Duniam:
…Well, so the organisation that have legislative authority to speak on behalf of country I would have thought would be your prime point of reference for this particular project. Now I’m sure Jacinta has more to say about the particulars of the competing views here, but the fact that the group recognised under law as the authority in this space, say that the concerns are manageable. They were happy for the project to proceed. Then out of nowhere, come another group of people and it’s been put about that, and certainly claims of questions have been raised by the Orange Aboriginal Land Council that this group aren’t actually authentic in their claims, so that is something that if I were Minister, would raise red flags with me. And to make a decision of this nature to kill off a project like that, I think that’s a very, very concerning point.
Journalist:
We have a lot of circumstances around the country where there are contested claims about who has historical connection or ongoing connection with lands and different groups that are that is not settled in many cases. So as a matter of principle, are you suggesting that it is only those that have been recognised are the only voices that should be considered when it comes to a determination like this.
Senator Duniam:
If the law recognises a group as the authority for country, then that would be the prime reference point. The Minister can take into account other views. But the fact that she has taken prime reference from a group of people who others question their authentic claims here, whether their claims are authentic, frankly, is what concerns me. And as a result of that, has literally killed off a multi hundred million project that will create economic activity. This is not a Go-Kart track. This is not a path in a park. This is a huge project and she has listened to a group of I understand 17 people supported by the taxpayer funded EDO, which is not an organisation that has much credibility these days, and has made a decision on that basis. So I say stick to the recognised entities like the Orange Aboriginal Land Council as a primary authority on cultural heritage.
Senator Nampijinpa Price:
Sorry, I just want to add to that, because we have already got a situation where the EDO have already used Aboriginal people in this effect and brought in those who have claimed to have been, with regard to the Barossa project, and the insult that this brings to traditional owners of those areas, you know it, it’s deeply insulting, you know it’s offensive, especially if those wishing to claim one aren’t of that area. But we know as Indigenous Australians that there are a lot of people who are claiming to be Indigenous, who are in fact are not Indigenous, and this is a growing concern amongst Indigenous Australians. It certainly is within amongst Wiradjuri people and I have many conversations with those who are legitimate Wiradjuri people as well, but what the Minister has done is opened up a can of worms to open the door to these sorts of individuals to act in this way going forward. It means the EDO will no doubt, because they’ve not been asked to stop behaving in this way, will continue to behave in this way going forward. Which is why we as the Coalition will defund them because they are not showing good faith in their actions and in their conduct and in their using of Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are sick to death of being used.
Journalist:
Sorry, can I just clarify, are you saying the EDO is doing that in this case, or that it or that the Minister’s decision prospectively might allow them to do that in the future? Or are you saying the EDO in this case has used people who might not be Indigenous?
Senator Nampijinpa Price:
We need to understand further detail with regard to this particular case and the EDO because we know that they have done it before. So I’m certain that the EDO will absolutely do it again. We need to know more detail about the individuals that the EDO have been consulting with regard to this case because concerns have been brought up about the individuals that EDO have used for this particular case, and these are the issues that we need to look at further. We can’t continue to have this sort of conduct play out to stop progress for Indigenous Australians on very important projects that seek to economically benefit some of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. That’s what we need to do going forward. And the Minister’s not serious about that. Labor certainly are not serious about that. Prime Minister Albanese is not serious about that, because I’m sure if they can find somebody who can put their hand up and say, hey, I’m Indigenous to this region, but are not, that work in their favour of the decisions that they want to make they will exploit that. We want to stop that level of exploitation.
Journalist:
Just question about cultural heritage. That’s for Jonno, just firstly on Section 10, you’ve clearly raised concerns about how the level of discretion is. Would you like to see that tightened? And separately, as you said, the Minister had promised to create a standalone Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. That hasn’t happened yet. What would you like to see from the Minister? On that front, is it the case of being upfront about where those reforms are at? If you need to make a commitment that will be introduced or not before the end of this term? What would you like to see?
Senator Duniam:
Well, first on that issue, I think the Minister does need to honour her promise. We wouldn’t be in this situation, I suspect, if we had new, modern, up-to-date, fit for purpose laws that dealt with cultural heritage, that provided certainty, that gave guidance to decision makers and First Nations representatives on how they can actually engage in this process. We don’t have that. So to the other issue, yes, section 10 of that Act clearly needs a clean up. It needs tightening up. We need to understand who has standing in any claim and who does not. And this is the problem. We have a decision being made about a billion-dollar investment that will benefit regional Australia and the economy more broadly and because of the open-ended nature of section 10 in particular, and there are probably other parts of that Act that have a huge gaping hole about who it covers and who it does not, investor certainty is not there. Sovereign risk is created, and the CEO of Regis Resources said it himself; you know you can comply with all of the state and federal environmental approval laws you like, but then off to the side you might have an issue, like this one that they’ve encountered. And that entire project, now is dead.
Journalist:
When you clean it up to establish who has standing in these cases, do you need to clearly designate that one group has standing? Does there need to be a hierarchy in terms of one group’s voice needs to be factored in, as potentially these issues can pop up all around the country?
Senator Duniam:
I’ll start, Jacinta might have a bit more to say. What we need in all of these laws as they apply to projects of this nature; mining, farming, forestry, land development, renewables, is certainty. That’s what investors are crying out for and when they’ve got investment certainty, then we have jobs. Part of that is understanding who is able to have standing in a situation like this. Can it be someone who lives in Sydney who identifies a link to country on the other side of the country? We need to look at all of that. We need to work with First Nations communities and actually understand the best way forward. But the way it is now is not right. It is not working and there is no excuse for a company, as Susan McDonald just said, to have spent $200 million to have come to this point only to have the project knocked over in the way that this one has done.
Senator Nampijinpa Price:
Yeah, certainly. Look happy just to add to that, this is why we need an inquiry. This is why we need to look at whether native title or whether the Land Rights Act of the NT is effective for traditional owners. Now, given the growing number of individuals who now want to identify as being Indigenous has increased dramatically in recent times, this is a growing concern amongst the Indigenous community and we need to absolutely look at how, you know, legislation can be created better to address this particular issue and ensure that we are dealing with legitimate traditional owners across matters that concern their land.
Journalist:
Considering that the existing mining situation in Cadia the gold mine that’s already there has already raised its concerns around contaminants in the groundwater, locals beyond Orange and Bathurst and anywhere around there, are concerned about health risks associated with existing mining operations. Is it not fair to assume that there’s a general community pushback against the further gold mines that could further harm farm land, other jobs, existing jobs at risk?
Senator Duniam:
Look, you’d have to be stupid to ignore the concerns of any community when it comes to any new projects. Be it renewables or mines. Of course we are talking about a mine application that would be granted in 2024 to current standards. Things have improved, practises are better, better for the environment, more efficient and of course the end of life clean-up is a much better situation than it was years ago. That said, there are always going to be impacts on the environment that we need to manage, minimise and mitigate, and that’s something that as part of any decision-making process, we need to ensure takes place. I will note that this mine passed to every environmental approval, state and federal and the Labor Government in NSW is, as Senator Nampijinpa Price said, up in arms over the fact that the federal government had done this. It passed their approval process. It passed ours. There are many projects that don’t. So yes, there are always going to be concerns and it is up to proponents and regulators in government to work with communities to ensure those concerns are addressed. But that’s not a reason not to do anything.
Journalist:
Given the role the EDO’s played in this, do you think the sort of funding arrangement in place at the moment is tenable going forward?
Senator Duniam:
No, the funding arrangement in place is not tenable going forward. We’ve committed to defunding that organisation. They operated swimmingly without Commonwealth funding assistance for the years we were in government. And it’s one thing to have a disagreement with an entity that the government fund when you’re in Opposition, but when the Federal Court of Australia so scathingly reflect on the work of the EDO in the way that Justice Charlesworth did in the case we’ve already mentioned, you cannot continue to add in for infinitum there is no end date on the funding going to this organisation and the review that took place at the request of Minister Plibersek found nothing to see here. If I were betting on Minister Plibersek or Justice Charlesworth about who had a closer look, I’d go with the Judge and that’s why we are going to cut their funding and we don’t think it’s an appropriate use of that finite resource; taxpayers money.
Journalist:
Senator McDonald, can I ask you? You said just before that it’s, you know, never been more important that we bring forward critical minerals projects. There is a Bill before Parliament right now that has billions of dollars or a tax production credit that’s aimed to help bring forward critical minerals. Would you be supporting that?
Senator McDonald:
No, we won’t. And you would have been following my comments, the questions throughout estimates, we believe that the production tax credits are is poorly targeted, it’s too slow. It is unclear as to who it will benefit. Certainly won’t solve the nickel industry in Western Australia as it stands now. And we think there are better ways to bring forward, as you say, critical minerals and other important minerals like copper and gold, and that will be the things that Peter Dutton has already announced, so the reduction of electricity and energy prices, the halving of approval times, the defunding of the EDO, rolling back from….
Journalist:
…Do you think those factors are going to be enough to overcome the fall in prices that we’ve seen to make those projects viable again?
Senator McDonald:
The issue is a mixture of world prices, but also the lack of confidence that investors have in Australia currently. That is the number one thing that miners talked to me about is, how do they have any confidence that their project will be approved, that their extension will be approved and this is crazy because we have jurisdictions right around the world desperate for the sort of minerals, rare earths that we can provide that are an important part of this new electrified economy.
Journalist:
You’re telling you that’s a greater issue than global prices?
Senator McDonald:
Yes.