Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

It is a delight to rise to speak on the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, which is an important piece of legislation for this Senate to consider, given the abrogation of duty by this government when it comes to doing the right thing by the people of Australia—communities that need a government that serves in the national interest, gets the balance right and does the right thing by those who need them to. We are moving this bill because the government refuses to do the right thing.

Let's go back through the history of how this Labor government decided a goldmine should not be built near Blayney, in the central west of New South Wales—McPhillamys goldmine, which would create 800 jobs, generate $1 billion worth of economic activity through its construction phase and return hundreds of millions of dollars of royalty revenue to the state of New South Wales annually. Of course, royalty revenue is how we pay for hospitals, how we pay for schools and how we deal with the growing need for essential services in all our jurisdictions. But the opportunity to take that revenue has been denied to the state of New South Wales, and now they will be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off.

This mine and its tailings dam had full state and federal environmental approvals. For five years, this project and all associated with it went through the Independent Planning Commission in New South Wales. The project has complied with every requirement under state law. It has met every environmental standard and every planning requirement, and cultural heritage considerations were dealt with at that stage. So, the project got the big tick. The state of New South Wales, with its rigorous process, backed it in. And I'll come back to this a bit later, but New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns seems to be, as far as Labor premiers go, a pretty good one, calling out the federal government on making the wrong decision here.

The mine also had full federal environmental approval. The EPBC Act is known for its fraught nature. It is broken. It is out of date. This government have committed to fixing it, although they haven't yet and won't be during this term of parliament—a broken promise. But the fact that these laws had been complied with, that this project had met every standard required of it under the EPBC Act—including the tailings dam, which is the subject of contention here—was not enough for this government. There was full state and federal environmental approval and planning approval, and cultural heritage considerations were met and dealt with, but still here we are dealing with a situation where this Labor government has used another piece of legislation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, section 10, to stop this project from going ahead. It's a terrible outcome. It's a terrible situation for the people of Blayney and for Australia in particular.

The biggest concern, though, is not all of these matters related to the economy and to the fact that this met with full environmental and planning approval and had dealt with cultural heritage considerations in an appropriate way. It's the sovereign risk issue that now rears its head. It's the fact that investors overseas are looking at Australia and going, 'Even if you have full state and federal environmental, planning and other approvals, you might still have your project knocked on the head.' Regis Resources, the company behind the McPhillamys goldmine—the one that would have created 800 jobs, generated $1 billion of economic activity in the life of its construction and then generated all that royalty revenue—themselves said, 'Why would anyone look to come and invest here if you can comply with every law and then out of nowhere a decision can be made of this nature?'

We tried of course to convince this Senate to overturn this decision. We moved a disallowance in the last sitting week and, by one vote, sadly missed out on the opportunity to do so. We're still waiting for the minister to provide a statement of reasons, the one that's required under the act, to inform this Senate, the community and the proponents why she actually made the decision she did. We had a motion in this place to ask for that statement to be provided by Monday just gone. Instead we were given another document, not the one we asked for. But the interesting part of this is that even the government voted with us on that motion. The Australian Greens, however, decided to vote against it. Why they would not want the minister to comply with the law and provide a document that she is, by law, supposed to produce baffles me. What's to hide? Why cover it up? Where's the transparency here, particularly when it comes to a project that had met every federal and state approval and had dealt with all of the cultural heritage considerations?

Given we have not yet been able convince parties in this chamber to do the right thing by the people of New South Wales, by the people of this country and indeed by some of the groups I'm about to reference, we've introduced this bill. It's to give everyone another chance to tell Australians and the international investor community who they're backing in. Is it the inner-city voters, who tend to vote Green, in Sydney and Melbourne, or is it the people of Australia, who require employment, and the investors, who want certainty rather than sovereign risk? Let's see where people vote when ultimately we come to a vote on this bill. So why are we doing it? It is in the national interest for us to pursue this issue. The government has failed to do what's right, so the opposition has had to take this on. It is in our national interest that we have a thriving mining sector, one that complies with the law of the land, which this project did on so many levels. It's in our national interest, it's in our economic interest and it's in our social interest to have this project commence.

I want to go to some of the things that have been said by those closer to the process. I might start with the CEO of Regis Resources, Mr Jim Beyer, who wrote to a number of members of this place on 4 September. I'd like to quote from some of his letter. It was a letter that I understand also went to the minister for environment, Minister Plibersek. He says;

This decision has ceased progress of the Project indefinitely and caused uncertainty within the community and the wider mining sector about the viability of investment in Australian mining.

This puts paid to the claim made by the minister that 'they can just go back through the assessment process. They can just find another location for their tailings dam. This doesn't cause sovereign risk'. The reality is that it does. This is someone who knows a thing or two about what it takes to invest in these projects. I might add $192 million was written down in relation to this project, including the purchase, the cost of complying with all the approvals they did get and the cost of going through the section 10 process, which has ultimately killed this project. It isn't just a tailings job they've blocked; it is the entire mine. If anyone in this place can find me a mine without a tailings dam, I'd love to know about it. The proponents of the mine seem to think you need a tailings dam, or else this mine won't work.

Mr Beyer goes on to say:

As part of the application process—

that is, the section 10 application under the ATSIHP Act—

over a number of years, more than 1,700 pages of expert reports, legal summaries, representations were submitted by Regis Resources, including 15 expert specialist heritage reports. Regis also engaged six separate expert archaeologists and anthropologists through the assessment process as part of the section 10 application.

That goes again to the point around Regis having complied with every federal and state requirement: environmental, planning and cultural heritage. All of it was complied with based on expert advice, science and fact. I'll go on:

… since 2016, Regis actively engaged and consulted with 13 registered Aboriginal parties, including the section 10 applicant.

The application that was made at the beginning of this process in 2020 and the ultimate application that was decided upon were very, very different. Mr Beyer goes on to say, 'As a result of this process, it culminated in a situation where the final decision made by Minister Plibersek was made on claimed cultural significance that bears no resemblance to the original claims made on the initial section 10 application.' How could things shift so markedly in that time? How could a claim made with such certainty in 2020, about cultural heritage considerations, be completely different to the one a decision was made on? Is it not fact? I would love to know how, and this is why we've been asking for the statement of reasons. Mr Beyer also said:

Additionally, as part of the section 10 process, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council submission clearly indicated that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance of the Belubula River, it's headwaters and springs.

That is, of course, the local land council recognised at law as the authority able to speak on behalf of country.

The minister also made a claim that mining companies want to go for the cheapest, easiest and most convenient option, implying that Regis Resources was cutting corners and wasn't seeking to comply with the law. Mr Beyer puts paid to that. He says,

Minimum cost was not the primary selection criteria at any time. The construction methodology chosen for the site is downstream and is one of the most expensive, and also one of the safest.

He goes on to say, 'Given the minister said, "You can't build your tailings dam here," for reasons we still don't understand because she hasn't given us the statement of reasons, to find an alternative site for the TSF'—that is, the tailings facility—'could take anywhere from five to 10 years.' Alarmingly, he also points out:

Should the minister have harboured other environmental concerns in relation to the project—

as she has cited in some of her commentary in relation to this project—

such as downstream water quality or destroying the river, one might question why the minister had already herself approved the project on environmental grounds through the EPBC decision—

as well as rigorous environmental approvals through the New South Wales government process. I'll tell you what: that is alarming reading for someone who is making decisions about the future of investment in Australia.

There are other views in relation to this which need to be taken into account. Let's listen to the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, because this is, of course, in relation to Indigenous cultural heritage. They say the proposed development 'would not impact any known sites or artefacts of high significance'. They go on to say that it's a matter of concern to the council:

… that a range of claims have been made on this issue, by people and organisations lacking the experience, expertise and authority to hold themselves out as authorities on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in order to push other agendas.

This is the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council saying this. That is incredibly concerning and, of course, the applicants were supported by Labor's taxpayer funded Environmental Defenders Office too, which is worth noting in this debate.

I want to conclude by reflecting on another Indigenous leader, Wiradjuri elder Roy Ah-See, who had the courage to come to Orange and speak to the community there about Ms Plibersek's decision. The minister decided not to come to that bush summit. She was invited and would've been made very welcome if she had come to explain her decision. Mr Ah-See wrote to Minister Plibersek around the same time as Mr Beyer. His letter says:

You and your advisors completely rejected their evidence—

relating to his community—

and have disrespected these highly regard Wiradjuri elders. Your advisers never even spoke with them. This is disgraceful. It's obvious your minds were made up.

You and your advisors have refused to accept the OLALC authority to promote and protect Aboriginal Culture and Heritage under Section 52(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Your recent interview on ABC morning news, you stated that you and your advisors, spoke to—

in the minister's words—

the MOST APPROPRIATE GROUP in this matter, therefore, you have systematically made the 121 Local Aboriginal Land Councils which make up the Land Rights Network irrelevant.

It points to concerns now of the undermining of a structure and a regime that was in place to empower traditional owners around what happens on country. That's been undermined. Mr Ah-See says it himself. He says:

You have created a category and given authority of a group of people outside of Native Title. Recently one of these people was engaged by a local farmer and was caught dropping artefacts on a proposed wind farm area. These same people in a recent event in Bathurst stated that all land is Aboriginal land regardless of freehold title and they will be claiming it back. Your comments and decision has paved the way for all environmental groups to stop any economic development on land handed back any LALC within the network.

There are a range of concerns about this process. How can a project which had full environmental planning and cultural heritage approval at state and federal level be knocked on the head like this based on claims made by a group that Indigenous leaders, Wiradjuri elders, are saying have no authority to do so? This Senate needs to do the right thing, and it should support this bill to do it.