Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue, and I say that those on this side come to this with a deep seriousness, because we have looked at the issues and we have looked at the evidence before us. And, quite frankly, where a government is making a decision on the basis of a secret statement of reasons, something has gone very wrong in this country; something has gone very wrong with the decision-making process. And it's not surprising that you see the Greens and Labor on a unity ticket when it comes to stopping this development—not surprising at all. But all Australians who are listening to this debate must understand that it's simply not acceptable in this country to make decisions based on a secret set of reasons. If the minister is confident in her reasons, then publish the statement. If the minister feels that Australians will support the decision, publish the statement.

But the fact is—and quite contrary to what we've heard from some of those opposite in the debate here today—that there is a significant difference of opinion among the Aboriginal representative groups. In fact, the largest Aboriginal representative group—the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, which is the official representative body in this area—clearly indicated in its submission to the section 10 process that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance on the Belubula River.

You can't just say that this is a one-sided argument where new information has been revealed secretly to the minister that, therefore, should stop a project dead in its tracks. That is what this has done, make no mistake.

When Minister Plibersek says, 'Oh, there are other options,' the company involved, Regis, a company headquartered in my home state of Western Australia, has made it very clear that the site proposed, the site accepted by all the regulators—including the federal regulator, the minister's own department, that had approved this under the EPBC Act—was the location for the tailings dam that made the most sense in terms of the economics of the project. That is important, I say to those opposite: the economics of a project are important. For projects that deliver jobs, that deliver tax revenue and that deliver royalties to state governments, the economics are important. But it didn't just look at the economics of the decision; it looked at the environment. It looked at the Aboriginal heritage aspects of the decision. It got feedback from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. It went through a state process. It went through a federal process. Seven years, $193 million spent, future jobs in a regional community—all that can be tossed aside by this minister, who will not even reveal her decision-making process.

The statement of reasons remains a secret. This is not acceptable in this country. It is not acceptable that secret decisions are made that don't just affect a single company—in this case, it's a goldmining company based out of my home state of Western Australia—but affect every superannuation holder in Australia who happens to have shares in that company. The decision affects the local community in terms of future development. It affects the ability of companies to make decisions based on having a timely process in which they can understand the rules. If it's derailed at the last moment by a secret decision, where the minister can't even be clear in her public pronouncements about what the basis of that decision was—was it actually Aboriginal cultural heritage? Was it about environmental concerns? Was it about it being the headwaters of a river? The minister has been extraordinarily unclear. The story has been changing on an almost daily basis, and the statement of reasons remains secret. This might be the way the Labor Party governs, but it cannot be the way Australia is governed.

Coming from a resource rich state in Western Australia, the ability for project proponents to undertake assessments and turn the shovel on projects in a timely way is absolutely vital. We've heard across the board how these timelines are stretching out to the point of ludicrousness. In this case, you have a seven-year project timeline. I've talked to many companies in Western Australia where the project timelines have stretched out 10 years, 12 years, 15 years—