Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 20 August 2024, from Senator Duniam:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals and having support of the local Land Council."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals and having support of the local Land Council.

President, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak about what is an exceptionally important motion before the Senate, and it's one that I know the government hopes would just go away, would just disappear, and that we wouldn't have to worry about it at all. Let me read it out so that those listening along at home or the solitary person in the gallery understands what it is we are talking about—that is:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals, and having support of the local Land Council.

They're the facts, and so what has happened here is absolutely disturbing.

Let's look at what the reality in Australia is: no project in this country of any significance is safe. It doesn't matter whether it's a mine, a forestry operation or a land development to build more houses that we so desperately need. It doesn't matter if it's a renewables project. They're all unsafe now as a result of what we're seeing with the application of these laws.

As stated, this project, the goldmine in question—the one that would have generated a billion dollars of economic activity and 800 jobs for a regional community in Orange, New South Wales—had all of its state and environmental approvals. The Minns Labor government has criticised, quite heavily, the Albanese Labor government's decision to block this project despite it having all state and federal environmental approvals. That is not a low bar; that is an extremely high bar. This project has been killed. This project is dead. This project can't go ahead, if you listen to the people backing it—like the CEO of the company, Regis Resources, who contradicted the minister who reckoned it could go ahead still. Investor certainty is rocked, and people looking to make decisions about whether they invest here in Australia or elsewhere in the world will be looking at decisions like this.

As I say, it took four years of engaging with the governments, state and federal, to get these environmental approvals across the line. That was done; the boxes were ticked. They'd engaged with the traditional owners, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. That was done. But now here we are: at the 11th hour, the project having made it across all of these hurdles, the Minister for the Environment and Water, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, decided to knock this project on the head.

We believe this is the wrong decision and it should be overturned. There is no excuse for this, because it comes back to balance. It comes back to the need to ensure that, while we protect our cultural heritage and we don't repeat things like Juukan Gorge and the disaster that occurred there, we allow for economic activity. This decision is not balanced. We don't have a new, standalone cultural heritage act. This government promised it, but here we are, two-and-a-bit years into their term, and there's no such legislation on the horizon. It will not be happening; it will not be going ahead.

This government, rather than dealing with the substance of the problem—forget about the fact that it has knocked dead a project which would generate nearly a thousand jobs and a billion dollars worth of economic activity and, every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties revenue for state and territory governments—wants to play politics with it. The minister says: 'We didn't oppose the mine. We just opposed the tailings dam.' While that's strictly true, of course, a tailings dam, for those in the know, is necessary for a mine to operate in an effective and safe way. It's like saying: 'I didn't kill them. I just severed their legs and let them bleed to death.' That's the equivalent of what has happened here, and this is the appalling part of it.

What's more is that the people who opposed this project, under the act I referenced before, are supported by the Environmental Defenders Office—that organisation we all know so well—funded by the same government that has knocked this project on the head. Whichever way you're going to try and get projects up in this country, you are going to find obstacles and reasons not to do it. Investment is going offshore, and so are the jobs that go with it, particularly in regional communities.

For government ministers to come into this place, or anywhere else for that matter, and say, 'The former coalition environment minister Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, made a decision like this'—do you know what she blocked? It was a go-kart track—not a gold mine. It was a go-kart track on top of Mount Panorama, not a gold mine generating economic activity and providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs. There is no equivalence between the decisions that minister made at that time and this disastrous decision, which, as I say, must be overturned, or else this government does not have this country's interests at heart.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a stunt from the opposition. It is calling on the government to explain a decision, but the minister has in fact clearly outlined the reasons for the decision that she made, and the Labor Party is happy to defend that because everyone in this room knows that both Liberal and Labor governments have previously made decisions along these lines, consistent with the law.

This decision does not mean that the gold mine can't go ahead. It just means that an Aboriginal heritage site can't be destroyed to build a waste dump for the mine. Genuine partnership with First Nations peoples is essential for the Australian mining sector to reach its full potential, and the Australian government is committed to this goal. Our government has been unequivocal in our support for mining, which employs 300,000 Australians, and that's a good thing. We've announced the most significant resources measures in a budget for a generation. There's $3.4 billion over 35 years for Geoscience Australia to find new deposits of minerals and sources of energy to help build a future made in Australia. The critical minerals production tax incentive provides a 10 per cent refundable tax offset for the processing costs of eligible facilities that process critical minerals in Australia. The production tax credit will incentivise the refining and processing of critical minerals and will create more jobs here in Australia as we become a renewable energy superpower.

But let's be clear. Building a waste dump on this particular site would have destroyed the headwaters of the Belubula River, a place of particular significance for local Aboriginal people going back thousands of years. I hope the company can find an alternative site for its tailings and waste dam. I understand that there were more than four sites investigated with 30 options in the mix.

It is interesting that the opposition is choosing to raise this because there are actually striking similarities between the decision made by the former minister for the environment Ms Ley, who is now of course the deputy Liberal leader. Back in 2021, the deputy Liberal leader made a similar decision, just down the road from the gold mine, in that situation. She made that decision after listening to the views of the same local traditional owner group: the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. She said at the time that she protected the site under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—I remind senators that that act has been in place since the 1980s—because of its cultural significance to the Wiradjuri people, on the basis of 'local Aboriginal narratives, songlines, ceremonies and cultural heritage'. Unsurprisingly, we see another member from the Liberals and Nationals undermining their deputy leader here in this place, and, just yesterday, we had members from the opposition in the other place bagging out her previous environment decisions as well.

But, after the Juukan Gorge tragedy, we all said, both Labor and Liberal, that we'd never let something like that happen again. If we really mean that, we have to apply the law. Following Juukan Gorge, the then minister, now deputy Liberal leader, said:

Juukan Gorge was indeed a call to action.

She said that in November 2021. Later in November, she said:

This is about the Government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them.

She also said: 'It is a high priority to me that we look at better ways of protecting Indigenous cultural heritage.' Well, either that's your view as a political party or it's not.

All of the indications here suggest to us that the coalition are not serious about this, that they are seeking to undermine the commitments that Ms Ley has made and that they don't actually believe the things that she has said on their behalf about the significance of culture. It's a sad thing because the truth is that a healthy mining industry and, indeed, a healthy business environment is intimately connected to us working out how to work effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to protect their culture and grow our economy, and that is entirely possible. If the Liberals have changed their mind on that, they should come out, fess up and inform the chamber.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in response to Senator Duniam's urgency motion regarding the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. Firstly, I want to be clear that this urgency motion, in the way that it's written, is exceptionally misleading. In fact, it's absolutely wrong. I think Minister McAllister has highlighted that. The motion say it's a 'disastrous decision' to block a goldmine—no, that is not true. If they read the detail in the press release from Minister Plibersek, they'd realise that it's about the tailings dam. Across this country, there are many, many mines that are open. There's a lot of destruction that has happened, and no-one hands those areas back in a pristine condition, as they were before. But the tailings dam for this mine was going to be put in a sacred place, and the Wiradjuri people, the traditional owners of that area, used their voices and told the federal Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, that they didn't want the dam there.

The urgency motion says that the mine has the support of the local land council. We have members of the opposition who come into this place and say things about the local land councils—in fact, I have suggested terms of reference for an inquiry that we should look into these land councils. People say: 'They're corrupt. They don't know what they're doing, and their governance is so bad.' At every Senate estimates, I sit in the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, listening, during the cross-portfolio discussion, as senators grill the land councils. But people in this place are now turning over a new leaf, by the look of it, in supporting a statement by a local land council. I actually feel like they don't know what they're doing. To write a motion that says a mine has 'support of the local land council', while you're sitting on the other side of the desk absolutely grilling them, is rubbish. It's ridiculous. This motion is a joke.

When sections of the community say, 'We want to use section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to protect our country, and we have the right to,' we should be listening to that. The minister has listened on this occasion, but there are many, many instances where she hasn't. Murujuga is one of them. We are waiting for Aboriginal cultural heritage protection laws to be fixed in this country on the back of Juukan George and what happened there with the destruction of their country.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This urgency motion could not be more urgent, because we stand at a precipice of decision-making in this country. We are a country that is completely reliant on the income from mining. The Albanese Labor government's failure to understand the urgency of continuing to bring new mining projects online, and instead to delay, to obfuscate and—I am concerned—to kill mining by stealth, is incredibly concerning not just to us today but to future generations of Australians who will be denied income streams from royalties, from well-paid jobs in the regions, where Indigenous families live and where other families live, who all want well-paid jobs and access to services. All this is denied to them when we lose projects like this one.

Regis Resources is just the latest casualty in sovereign risk that is being imposed on investment in this country. There are investors, both Australian and from overseas, who are now rating Australia as more risky than Indonesia, Africa and South America, where they see more stable decision-making processes. We should be exceptionally worried about this, because Regis Resources spent four years assessing the mine proposals, going through state approval processes, going through the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act approvals, which included an assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage. This was a mine that had been assessed under all of those avenues, and yet, at the eleventh hour, thanks to the Environmental Defenders Office funding legal advice, we have seen this company—another in a long list of companies—have their approvals delayed or denied.

Critical minerals, rare earths and other important commodities like gold are important to Australia. They're important financially, they're important for the jobs and they're important for regional services. But guess what? They're also important for the modern, increasingly electrified, world that we are going to live in. These make up the componentry parts of every modern element that we use, and we require five times as much copper as we have mined to date. We require more gas, more metallurgical coal, more of every commodity you can think of, including a range of new ones in rare earths that we're not familiar with. These are important, and the rest of the world is looking for supply chains to supply them.

Australia needs to get with it and manage supplying these commodities as well as managing the environment and cultural heritage. We can do these things. We are one of the most-experienced modern mining nations in the world, and yet, under Labor, we will stop that happening and we will be the poorer for it. We will be pious and we will feel incredibly proud, but we will be poor—and that will be cold comfort, because we have enjoyed a first-world lifestyle based on the revenues from mining and well-paid jobs.

This would have provided 580 jobs in construction and 290 full-time jobs based around Orange—that is, jobs where the construction workers, the mine workers, wouldn't have to leave the region, wouldn't have to fly away from their families, wouldn't have the associated workplace health and safety mental health issues and disconnection from their families. It's in the region—hooray! But it will not be, under this government. Under this government, that project will never go ahead because they want to call a tailings dam—an integral part of the mine plan—some sort of waste dump. What a complete lack of understanding of mining.

This is a government that seeks to deliver for the Greens. They don't want to deliver for regional people. They certainly don't want to deliver for Australians. We should feel incredibly worried about the economic failure of this government and the failure for regional people.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again—the same radical inequality I've been speaking against for almost 30 years. The $1 billion McPhillamys Gold Project in New South Wales had all the environmental approvals it required and no objection from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council on cultural heritage grounds; then along came Tanya Plibersek to effectively shut it down on the mere claim of another Aboriginal corporation about cultural connections to a local river.

The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council has criticised what it calls 'unsubstantiated' cultural heritage claims made by people unqualified to make them. It says:

We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … to push other agendas.

Give me a break!Aboriginal corporations and individuals use cultural heritage as well. So many of these groups do it all on their own, citing mythical beliefs like rainbow serpents, or citing secret women's business and men's health. Green extremists have been caught several times deceiving traditional owners and confecting spiritual and cultural connections that never existed in order to stop developments.

Let's also not forget the approved Bowdens Silver mine in New South Wales that Minister Plibersek had shut down over the supposed environment impact of a 13-kilometre transmission line. Labor's happy to lay thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to connect its wind turbines and solar panels to the grid without caring about the impact on farmers, but it will stop development of a world-leading silver deposit—a critical mineral in those very same solar panels—over a mere 13 kilometres. You can't make this stuff up.

The future of Australia is being held hostage by confected radical division and green extremists. Enough is enough. The goldmine would have created more than 800 jobs and have generated $200 billion in royalties for the people of New South Wales. (Time expired)

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against Labor's decision to stop the development of the McPhillamys goldmine out near Orange. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the people of Orange in the Central West of New South Wales. It's a beautiful city and it's a city that's very close to my heart. It's where my parents got married and where my grandmother and aunt are buried. I spent my childhood travelling up and down the Newell Highway from Chinchilla, spending many holidays in that beautiful town of Orange—so a big shout-out there.

I want to clarify that my support for this mine will only ever be there provided it has met all environmental approvals for the mine, because Orange sits at the headwaters of the Lachlan River. I know one of my cousins would have my guts for garters—he loves fishing over there around Orange; he's a big fisherman—so by all means let the mine go ahead, but we definitely don't want to destroy any of the environment around that beautiful part of the world in the Central West. It's fantastic.

I also acknowledge the gold industry. It is one of the forgotten minerals of Australia's massive export sector, when it comes to minerals. Of course, iron ore and coal are the top two minerals, but the next mineral after that is gold. Three or four years ago, gold exports were valued at about $22 billion and that was when gold was about $2,000 an ounce; it's now worth about $3,700 an ounce, so I'd expect it to be heading above $30 billion anytime soon. If iron ore comes off—and far be it from me to start predicting the price of metals—we do need other metals out there and other ways to make sure we keep generating export income. Gold is certainly one of those metals, especially given the value of the US debt, at something like $35 trillion and rising by a trillion dollars every quarter. People are suddenly starting to see the value in the world's oldest currency, gold, itself. It has always acted as a hedge against the irresponsible behaviour of central banks, who are used as a means for governments to act responsibly. Instead of going out to the market and issuing bonds, they just rely on their central bank to buy their bonds—and we have seen the consequences of that over the last two decades, ever since the GFC. Anyway, I digress. I'll come back to the MPI.

My issue with this particular decision is that it doesn't seem to express the opinions of all Aboriginals in the area. Indeed, in the local Orange area—according to reports; I haven't spoken to these people myself—there seems to be some disagreement amongst the Aboriginals themselves, amongst the Aboriginal communities themselves, as to who is responsible for making those decisions. I guess this is the problem with cultural heritage when you don't have clear title: Who gets to make the decisions? Is it this Aboriginal group or that Aboriginal group? As Senator McDonald mentioned before, the EDO, the Environmental Defenders Office, was funding the group that opposes the mine. So are these people genuine locals, or are they activists from the city pretending to be locals?

One of the reasons why this mine has been stopped is cultural practices. However, these cultural practices have to remain commercial; they're not confidential. I always get a little bit cynical when I hear about people talking about commercial-in-confidence and how it has to stay confidential. I'm not quite sure what cultural practice you would have that has to be confidential. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

As much as I love the great city of Orange, I know jobs are important out there, and jobs don't come by every day. If towns like Orange don't get these opportunities—albeit it is close to Sydney, so a lot of retirees like to move out there. They have to find ways to keep their local population employed, or people move out of the town, and we don't want to see that happen out there in the central west. So we've got to consider the jobs that this will provide—as well as to the New South Wales government.

I've read that it's going to provide $200 million just in royalties. There is a fair bet that, if it's going to provide $200 million dollars, there will be another $200 million in payroll tax delivered to the state government. There will be hundreds of millions in corporate tax. There will be more money in the PAYG that the workers will pay back to the federal government. So we've got to make the best of these opportunities, especially in an area like this.

Just down the road, Bathurst was the site of one of Australia's first gold discoveries. It's an industry that's been with us for almost 200 years, and we need to protect it and our regions.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator Duniam's motion with regard to the atrocious decision made by Minister Plibersek to put an end to the McPhillamys goldmine project going forward, which would have brought about prosperity to the Orange and Bathurst region, providing well over 870 jobs and bringing in billions of dollars to support the local economy.

I've heard a lot of rhetoric, a lot of grandstanding and a lot of sanctimonious talk with regard to this being about cultural sensitivities and supporting Indigenous Australians. It is evident that, like other projects that have been blocked by the EDO, there is no interest to support Indigenous Australians to move forward in terms of economic prosperity in this country. It's certainly in the government's favour and the Greens' favour to keep Aboriginal people diminished and dependent on welfare, dependent on government handouts, constantly, as opposed to economic empowerment and economic independence. We've heard from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who had determined they were quite happy, and they were within their own rights to manage this situation going forward. And, of course, this project had met approval from the New South Wales state government to go ahead. Then, all of a sudden, the EDO—woah! They found some supposed Wiradjuri individuals who don't want this project to go ahead.

I'm having deja vu. Obviously, it wasn't enough for this government to see what happened in the Northern Territory with the Barossa project and when the EDO go about using and exploiting Indigenous people, dragging in those who don't belong to the region to claim that they do belong to the region, to put an end to economic prosperity for Aboriginal people. This is nothing new, and it has occurred again on this government's watch. It is absolutely appalling that this has in fact happened.

It has been suggested that the EDO had gone out to South East Archaeology to make their opinion clear on behalf of a Wiradjuri elder known as Ms Nyree Reynolds. I am told by some Wiradjuri that they do not actually recognise her as being Wiradjuri. In fact, if you go to the Indigenous Law Centre on the UNSW's website, Ms Nyree Reynolds claims to be Gamilaraay. So what is it? Is she Wiradjuri or is she Gamilaraay? This is the issue when you want to play around and act like you're the hero for First Nations, as you call us—for Aboriginal people in this country. This is what happens when you exploit Aboriginal people for your own benefit as opposed to doing the right thing and allowing economic prosperity to occur. The legislated body is stating that this is what is needed in the region. They are actually suggesting that there are some discrepancies here. But, no, you go with the EDO's recommendation once more, and let's see if this decision will end up in the High Court.

It will be back on you, the government—which doesn't listen—even though you ran a referendum claiming to listen to Indigenous Australians and to give them a voice. Because they don't have a voice, you're completely ignoring them now and listening to those who like to fabricate cultural sensitivity. You can't explain what the cultural sensitivities are, because they are more than likely fabricated. Let's face it: there was no cultural sensitivity prior to the EDO getting involved. Now, all of a sudden, there is cultural sensitivity. It was already passed by the New South Wales government, and it had the nod of approval by the Orange Aboriginal Land Council. Now you're just saying: 'No, we've got our experts. This is who we're listening to.' It's utterly disgraceful.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.