Why miners want a deal done on new environment laws | Insiders On Background

Speaker 1 ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Speaker 2 Hey, Jules and Jez here. Join us as we unpack the news of the week on Not Stupid.

Speaker 1 But you know what I think is one of the failures of the right? George Brandis made this observation a few years back, which is that they allow the very idea of human rights to be a left thing.

Speaker 1 When did that become a left issue?

Speaker 2 Climate change too, right? I mean, how did climate change become a left issue when it's actually a fundamental business and human rights issue? Exactly. You can find Not Stupid on the ABC Listen app.

Speaker 1 And watch it on iView.

Speaker 2 After abandoning the net zero emissions target, the next pressing question for the coalition is whether to help the government pass its changes to environment laws. It's a big test for Labor too.

Speaker 2 This is its second attempt at trying to fix what many agree are a broken set of laws. In fact, we spoke on this podcast a couple of weeks ago to Ken Henry about these changes.

Speaker 2 The former Treasury boss has been making the case for all parties to get behind these laws and for two main reasons.

Speaker 2 One, to speed up decisions on renewable energy projects, critical minerals projects and housing developments. And two, to deliver better outcomes for nature.

Speaker 2 Biodiversity is in steady decline in Australia.

Speaker 2 Now, the government needs either the support of the Coalition or the Greens to pass these changes next week in the final sitting week of Parliament for the year.

Speaker 2 Business groups have a very clear view. They want the the Coalition and Labor to come together and get this done, rather than allow the Greens to press their demands.

Speaker 2 I'm keen to hear from one of those organisations, the Minerals Council, and Tanya Constable is the head of that organisation. I'm David Spears on Ngunnawal Country at Parliament House in Canberra.

Speaker 2 Welcome to Insiders on Background.

Speaker 2 Tanya Constable, welcome. Thank you for having me.
So the government wants to get this bill passed next week. Just firstly, what do you think of the legislation it's put forward?

Speaker 2 Has it struck the right balance here in your view?

Speaker 1 Well, it's a fast-moving piece of legislation. The Act is enormous.
The amendments that have been made come to about 50, it's now a 1,500-page piece of legislation, so it is huge.

Speaker 1 And it's been moving very fast over the last few months, David. We want to see balance.
in protecting the environment. That is so important.

Speaker 1 We've been calling that for five years since the Samuels review. But we also want to make sure that we're seeing

Speaker 1 ecological sustainable development, that objective as a second objective, which is important for business to get projects off the ground.

Speaker 1 So they're the two things that must be achieved with this legislation. So amendments are fundamental.

Speaker 2 You're talking about faster approvals, basically.

Speaker 1 Faster approvals, definitely faster approvals, but there are other parts of the legislation that we want to make sure are also addressed.

Speaker 1 If there's going to be a national EPA, for instance, we we want to make sure that within that national EPA we're also seeing enough change again so it works for business.

Speaker 2 Let's talk about that national EPA. So an independent regulator and environment protection agency that would

Speaker 2 play an enforcement and regulatory role but also on delegation do approvals as well, although the minister would still have the power of final approval.

Speaker 2 We know the coalition has some concerns over this EPA and whether the minister has the power to sack the boss of the EPA and so on. What do you think about the idea of an EPA itself?

Speaker 2 Is it a good idea?

Speaker 1 Well the national EPA

Speaker 1 should be the tough cop on the beat as was suggested by the Samuels review five years ago. I think everybody agreed with that.
To have a body that looks at compliance, enforcement and

Speaker 1 assurance,

Speaker 1 that is totally appropriate.

Speaker 2 What about approvals?

Speaker 1 Well if you're going to accredit the states and the territories then it shouldn't have assessment and approvals because you've got a group doing the assessment and approvals and then acting as the enforcer and the assurer of that body of work.

Speaker 1 So you don't need it because that's going to be the assessment and the approvals.

Speaker 1 function will sit with the states.

Speaker 1 So you want that body being the tough cop on the beat making sure that everything's done properly for the states but importantly for the Commonwealth because the minister will retain that final decision-making power at the end of the day and that's totally appropriate as an elected official.

Speaker 2 And what do you think when we talked about a tough cop on the beat enforcing the law? Are the penalties that are suggested here too tough or are you okay with those?

Speaker 1 Well the $850 million penalty that has been suggested in the Act is for the most egregious acts

Speaker 1 in terms of protecting the environment. And that's fine.
But what we're not seeing there is balance because you're going to have administrative errors, there there are mistakes that are made.

Speaker 1 So the penalties need to reflect the type of concern that might be there with any sort of breach, unintended or not,

Speaker 1 with the legislation. So I think that has to be addressed.
But even more importantly than that, there are stop work orders around

Speaker 1 those sorts of breaches and they're not clear.

Speaker 1 There needs to be a maximum imposed, no later than two weeks because you know you you're losing uh project time along the way so no longer than two weeks after which a court order would be necessary and then uh we want to see natural justice applied and that's been taken out of the act it needs to be put back into but if there is unacceptable environmental damage occurring on a site and the epa says stop work after those two weeks

Speaker 2 you're saying it would have to have a court approval to continue with the stop work that's correct right would would the courts be able to deal with that in that sort of timeframe, do you think?

Speaker 1 Well, I think that

Speaker 1 we've seen that occur in the past. So yes is the answer to that.
And we need to make sure that that is addressed within the amendments for this Act. It's fundamental to make sure, again, we get those

Speaker 1 faster timeframes addressed and we are protecting the environment. So the balance is there, but at the moment, the way that it's framed with the amendments, it's still not good enough.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, look, we've all seen how the courts can get clogged up with a lot of this stuff.

Speaker 2 You are confident that this could still ensure there's protection of the sensitive environment issues on those sites.

Speaker 1 Natural justice must apply when you are stopping any sort of development across Australia.

Speaker 1 And you've got to have the protections there to make sure that, one, you're protecting the environment and that

Speaker 1 you're seeing projects going forward. I mean, that's the whole idea of making sure that natural justice is applied and that the decisions are reviewed.

Speaker 1 So the court system is there to make sure that that does occur.

Speaker 2 Does it matter to you whether the minister can sack the boss of the EPA? This is one of the coalition's demands.

Speaker 1 This is entirely appropriate to be considered. The minister under the Act is the decision maker,

Speaker 1 and you have a national EPA that might be doing assessments down down the track.

Speaker 1 The functions of the EPA need to be clear.

Speaker 1 The CEO of the EPA must be accountable to the minister who is the decision maker and at the moment there is no accountability to that minister. So

Speaker 1 there must be some sort of binding statement of expectations

Speaker 1 or at least making sure that it is very clear what this what the CEO can and cannot do.

Speaker 1 And that there is already a model under the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environment Management Authority that does provide clear guidance on

Speaker 1 what the statement of expectations would be on that CEO.

Speaker 2 At the end of the day, these sort of changes that you would still like to see to the legislation, are they red lines? Should the bill go down if these can't be achieved?

Speaker 2 Or are you worried that might send Labor to the Greens to negotiate with them?

Speaker 1 Well they're fundamental changes to make sure that the Act achieves that balance of protecting the environment. and making sure that we get projects off the ground.

Speaker 1 So they are fundamental for this legislation going forward.

Speaker 1 And I think the business community as a whole, and we have been leading this business community for about five years now in terms of the detail around what needs to be achieved in terms of that balance.

Speaker 1 These issues, if they're not addressed,

Speaker 1 will not see any further protection of the environment and they won't see projects get off the ground.

Speaker 2 So better to let the bill sink than pass without those changes?

Speaker 1 We're not going

Speaker 1 to see this bill sink. We will be making sure that we continue to work to get the changes made to ensure we achieve that balance.

Speaker 1 So it's not about sinking it, it's about making sure that we achieve both objectives.

Speaker 2 Would you rather the coalition pass this bill as it is or vote against it as it is?

Speaker 1 We've been talking to the coalition about making sure that those fundamental changes are there. So

Speaker 1 our clear view and message to all political parties is make sure that we can see this bill achieved in the shortest time possible so that we can get the changes that are needed for everybody concerned and for this country.

Speaker 2 Just one more detail on the changes.

Speaker 2 There's no climate trigger, which the Greens are demanding, but there is this requirement that proponents report, disclose their emissions and their mitigation measures for a project.

Speaker 2 Is that a problem?

Speaker 1 We think that this climate disclosure is just

Speaker 1 a duplication of what is already there.

Speaker 2 So a bit of a paperwork, but

Speaker 2 it's not a deal-breaker.

Speaker 1 Well, why have something if it's not needed? Because at the moment, under

Speaker 1 the national

Speaker 1 greenhouse, well, the greenhouse energy reporting mechanism that is there, there's a scheme that's already there, the anger scheme, as it's known, and the safeguard mechanism, the reporting requirements are already available.

Speaker 1 And the minister has said it's not intended that

Speaker 1 the assessment approval system will take into account climate disclosures. Well if that's the case, why have it at all?

Speaker 1 So at the very least we want the minister to make clear in the legislation that it will not be used for

Speaker 1 approval processes. To knock out a project.
To knock out a project right from the start.

Speaker 2 Do you think some Australians might wonder, well why not? Surely we should be thinking about the sort of emissions that are going to be generated from a project before it gets the green light.

Speaker 1 Well, as I said, the emissions that

Speaker 1 are

Speaker 1 currently reported under both of those Acts, this is about environmental legislation. The most critical habitats across Australia are considered under this legislation.

Speaker 2 And climate change has a fair bit to do with that.

Speaker 1 Well, emissions, if I look at

Speaker 1 the mining industry,

Speaker 1 we have a very clear position on climate to achieve an ambition of net zero by 2050.

Speaker 1 We are

Speaker 1 reducing emissions across all of our projects. There are 106 projects at the moment that I can refer to as case studies in the industry, right across the industry, to reduce emissions.

Speaker 1 And it's going very well in terms of reducing emissions at the moment. So

Speaker 1 we are leaning very heavily into emissions reduction in our industry.

Speaker 2 You mentioned those two words, net zero.

Speaker 2 I want to ask you about that, Tanya Constable, because we've had weeks of coalition agonising and they finally arrived at a position of dropping their commitment to this net zero by 2050 target.

Speaker 2 Do you still support the government maintaining this 2050 target?

Speaker 1 Well as I said, we've made our position very clear in terms of an ambition for net zero by 2050.

Speaker 2 But in terms of government having a target of net zero by 2050?

Speaker 1 Well, that's the law. So the industry will always follow the law.
What we're about is that we're going to be able to do that.

Speaker 2 I think this is the political debate, is whether we should keep that or dump that. What do you think?

Speaker 1 Well, I think that's a matter

Speaker 1 for politicians to consider.

Speaker 2 The sector is important, though,

Speaker 2 in this area. Do you have a view whether we should keep this target?

Speaker 1 I think our position is quite clear, David. It's an ambition of net zero by 2050, but we're focused on emissions reduction and and getting energy costs down.

Speaker 1 For us, energy costs are a really big part of

Speaker 1 our overall cost structure and the cost structure in Australia is very, very high.

Speaker 2 And does having that target help bring those costs down? Or do you think dumping net zero would help bring those costs down?

Speaker 1 Well it's a business, it's a good business decision

Speaker 1 in terms of emissions reduction because if we get

Speaker 1 emissions down, if we're making sure that we're getting our costs down, then that places us in good stead in terms of meeting international obligations, meeting

Speaker 1 our legal obligations in Australia. But importantly,

Speaker 1 we are continuing to lead the world in terms of

Speaker 1 mining as a whole.

Speaker 1 So we want to maintain that jurisdictional leadership and emissions reduction is important to make sure, again, that we're meeting our climate obligations at that international level.

Speaker 2 Are you saying there that Australia could lose investment in its mining? if we are seen to abandon emissions reduction?

Speaker 1 Well, it's really important for the investment community to make sure that we are meeting all of our sustainability measures. And investors are seeing that with Australia.

Speaker 1 They're seeing that emissions reduction. And we've been tracking our emissions reduction in the industry for the last five years.

Speaker 2 I guess what I'm getting at, if Australia were to drop its net zero target, would we lose investment?

Speaker 1 We at the moment are focused on making sure that investment occurs in Australia. So for our industry,

Speaker 1 that investment is very clear about ensuring that

Speaker 1 every company, every public company and private equity going into projects looks at a whole range of environment, social and governance issues.

Speaker 2 And where's one of those

Speaker 2 emissions reductions? Yeah, so if we drop the target, do we lose investment?

Speaker 1 I'm not sure about where investors are going in terms of that particular target.

Speaker 1 What I can say is that the mining industry focuses very heavily on what investors are looking for and investors focus on our obligations and meeting obligations and are tracking companies' requirements to get emissions down.

Speaker 2 So I think we're doing a very good job. It sounds like they do look at that net zero target.

Speaker 1 Well, they look at emissions reduction. They look at what a company

Speaker 1 is doing to get emissions down. That's very clear.
And I think that that is boding well for Australian companies because

Speaker 1 they are definitely getting emissions down. We also have a...

Speaker 2 You can see what I'm getting at here. The target helps attract that investment.
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 1 The emissions reduction that the companies are are actually taking.

Speaker 2 Not so much the government target, but what companies individually are doing.

Speaker 1 What companies are individually doing is

Speaker 1 really critical.

Speaker 1 And when they can prove that they are reducing emissions, when they can prove that they are investing in research and development opportunities or that they're changing their practices,

Speaker 1 because our companies are investing in energy efficiency, they're investing in fuel switching, renewable energy, they're doing a whole range of things to bring those emissions down and I think that's critical for investors and will make us more competitive as an industry over time.

Speaker 2 And just one more on this issue.

Speaker 2 Do you think we would get cheaper power in Australia if we dropped the target or is that not clear to you?

Speaker 1 Well, I think this is one of the biggest problems that we have around energy at the moment is it's so complex. No one has all the answers to this.

Speaker 1 We have to have a clear view on what energy policy looks like in the future, part of which is

Speaker 1 a number of issues that I've mentioned already, making sure that the safeguard mechanism is one of those. But

Speaker 1 we have to stabilise energy costs in Australia to maintain that competitiveness. We are too high as a jurisdiction around energy costs.

Speaker 2 But this is the question, is dropping that target going to help or is that not clear?

Speaker 1 Well, I don't think that that's clear at this stage. What is clear is that energy costs need to be addressed and it again is a focus for our

Speaker 1 the Minerals Council but also for our companies. So I'm not focused on a net zero target.

Speaker 1 I'm focused on bringing energy costs down and making sure that it's a starting point right now for the next five years that we stabilise those energy costs. So we'll be looking at our own reports.

Speaker 1 What can help stabilise those energy costs over the next

Speaker 1 immediate period?

Speaker 2 I want to ask you about critical minerals. It's a month, Tanya Constable, since Anthony Albanese and Donald Trump signed that critical minerals deal.

Speaker 2 It involves several billion dollars to try and get critical minerals mining and processing underway in Australia.

Speaker 2 Is it clear a month on exactly how that's going to work, what that money is going to be used for?

Speaker 1 It's early days, but it's a

Speaker 1 $1 billion

Speaker 1 announcement by each of the US and Australia. I think that we're going to see an opening up of a whole range of critical minerals projects.
And it's pretty exciting because I was

Speaker 1 only in the

Speaker 1 Northern Territory two weeks ago with the Chief Minister up there looking at the Arafura mine. It's a rare earths mine and it's vast.

Speaker 1 When it gets up and going, and I'm quite sure it will with this recent announcement,

Speaker 1 it will

Speaker 1 produce around about 4% of the total critical minerals at a global level. So it's a huge project.

Speaker 2 4% of the world's

Speaker 1 4% of the world's. The other big project that we have in Australia, of course, is the Linus project in Western Australia.

Speaker 1 And it's already the only mine outside China that's really producing rare earths.

Speaker 1 So the Arafura mine site, the Nolansball mine, presents a huge opportunity in terms terms of adding to the overall mix.

Speaker 1 The use of everyday products that we need in electronics, for instance, relies on rare earths.

Speaker 2 I mean, it's used in so many things, you know, that we talk about mobile phones and defence technology and you name it.

Speaker 2 But on the other side, and I guess this comes back finally to where we began, the environmental damage question.

Speaker 2 We've seen in China with a lot of the rare earths mining and processing terrible environmental damage.

Speaker 2 How confident are you and how assured should Australians be that our environment won't suffer as we pursue a critical minerals industry?

Speaker 1 Well, that's the beauty of Australia.

Speaker 1 We have regulations that ensure environmental protection in Australia. Of course, there are always tweaking that is needed.
There are issues that always need to be addressed where problems occur.

Speaker 1 But the companies act responsibly in Australia and we want to see that continue.

Speaker 1 And that's, of course, why this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act and its amendments are critical to go through so that we continue to have that assurance.

Speaker 1 So I believe that when

Speaker 1 we see critical minerals projects put on the ground, more of them that are further downstream from just mining, the critical minerals processing, that we're starting to see that extra value add, that we will continue to be the number one jurisdiction on minerals processing and minerals mining in the world.

Speaker 1 And that is a fantastic opportunity because it's not just going to open up billions of dollars of projects, we're talking trillions of dollars of projects.

Speaker 1 So the mining industry at the moment is 11% of GDP.

Speaker 1 To continue that and build on that, the wealth creation for Australia is absolutely massive. So particularly in the

Speaker 1 north of Australia,

Speaker 1 where we're seeing a lot of those projects,

Speaker 1 and they'll finally get off the ground when we see the United States-Australia partnership and other partnerships that Australia is leading with Japan, with Korea, with Canada

Speaker 1 and more recently with the EU. When those partnerships come together then I think that we're going to see a new opportunity open up for Australia.

Speaker 2 Tanya Constable, thanks so much for talking to us.

Speaker 1 Thank you, David.

Speaker 2 And thanks for your company as well. If you have any thoughts on this conversation, drop us a line, line: insiders at abc.net.au.
We'll have more on this on Sunday morning.

Speaker 2 Hope you can join us for Insiders 9 a.m. on ABC TV.

Speaker 1 You're making us all feel very excited about being here.