Thursday, 3 August 2023

Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:30): It is a privilege to rise today to make a contribution as the lead speaker on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. I do that on behalf of our Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources the member for Croydon, who unfortunately has taken ill. I want to, firstly, commend him on the work that he has done certainly in talking to stakeholders around this bill, ensuring that we are properly briefed. I do acknowledge the work that he has done. I had a good chat to him just before, and there is a substantial bit of work that has been done on this. I thank the Minister for Energy and Resources’ office for providing a briefing to the shadow minister on this as well. On certainly all of the information that we have and all of the briefings that we have been provided, the opposition will not be opposing this bill.

I do want to start by discussing the purpose of this bill. Then what I would like to do is raise the importance of mining in the state, because it is a huge contributor to our state economically, in terms of what some of the mining and resources do for the broader state and its benefits, and the potential opportunities around it, which I will raise a little bit later as well. There are some concerns that stakeholders have raised, so I do just want to discuss those and put them on record, and that should just about see us out. The purpose of the bill – the bill amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to change the title of the act and remove requirements relating to work plans and to make consequential amendments to the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act 2020. The main purposes of the bill are to amend the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act to remove the requirement for holders and applicants of certain licences and extractive industry work authorities to lodge work plans for the licence or authority – and we will talk a little bit about that shortly; to create a duty requiring a person to eliminate or minimise the risk of harm to the environment, public, land, property and infrastructure of particular work or rehabilitation carried out by the person – again, a really important part, and can I stress the words ‘harm to the environment’, because I know there have been a lot of questions raised around all of this and I think what needs to be front and centre in terms of anything that we do is to ensure that we protect the land on which we mine and certainly, beyond the mining, when it comes to the rehabilitation, that we are able to hand the land back over to something that is sustainable and that we can all share and utilise beyond the actual project itself, so that is really important; to provide for a system of risk levels for authorities that determines the obligations with which an authority holder must comply in relation to the duty to eliminate or minimise risk – again, a very important word, ‘risk’; to remove the requirement to lodge work plans, while retaining the requirements relating to rehabilitation plans. That is really key in all of this, when we are talking about plans. One of the things that we will raise and talk about today is regulation – red tape – which really buries businesses, buries anyone that is trying to actually create jobs and can, effectively, be a deterrent to job creation.

What we do need to do is remove red tape and ensure that there are protections in place. In this particular instance when it comes to mining, we do need to get rehabilitation plans because they are key. We cannot have somebody walk away after all of the project has been done without a specific plan for how they rehabilitate going forward. The bill also changes the title of the act to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990 – pretty straightforward – and amends the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act 2020 to reflect the removal of the requirement to lodge work plans.

One of the key issues on which we are normally very critical of government is in terms of not doing enough work, and certainly the Andrews Labor government have not done enough work in terms of consultation in general. So when we are here or in the community – I mean, we have just had the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games – you hear so many times that the government do not consult, they do not talk to the community. That would be fair, and I think most of my colleagues would agree with that – that the government run roughshod over people and they do not consult.

In this particular instance I do give some credit, because the government have actually worked with industry in getting a lot of this bill up, and that is how it should work, quite frankly. That is what we should expect, not at selective times but across the board. I think most Victorians expect a government, when they elect them, to actually do the work: work for the community, listen to community and ensure with any of the work that is being done here when we put bills before the Parliament that there is proper due diligence and consultation. The same when they are launching a project like the Suburban Rail Loop, as an example. Instead of doing stuff on the back of an envelope, you do it with consultation. The same with the Comm Games. Instead of dreaming up a $2.6 billion figure that becomes $7 billion, you actually do the work. That is what we would expect.

In this particular instance the stakeholders – and I would like to thank the contributions from the stakeholders – the Minerals Council of Australia; Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia, the CCAA; and the Construction Material Processors Association Inc (CMPA). For a period I had the shadow minister for resources portfolio, and those stakeholders were certainly stakeholders that I spent a lot of time talking to, in fact going out and visiting a number of properties, seeing what is done and seeing what they contribute. I wanted to specifically put on record Dr Elizabeth Gibson, who I know the shadow minister, the member for Croydon, has had considerable conversations with, and I am going to refer to her paper shortly in terms of some the questions that she had. Overall, there was good consultation in terms of this bill – so a tick there.

There are some issues, which I will raise. I think what this ultimately does and the purpose of this bill is to ensure that we streamline things – that we make it easier for businesses to actually get up and go and provide the valuable materials that we get from mining – but also that we have protection in terms of the framework, because that is really important and fundamental. You have got to have the protections. You cannot have cowboys coming in and out of the industry, so you have got to have that, but you have got to ensure that you do not have projects that take years and years and years.

I mean, even when building a house, in terms of looking at cement and aggregates and other things that are being used, we have a housing shortage here in Victoria. We had people on the steps of Parliament yesterday talking about a housing shortage. We know there is a housing crisis. We know the costs to build a house are through the roof, and people forget that those materials do not magically appear. Cement and concrete do not magically appear, and our roads do not magically appear. All of those things require materials – in fact raw materials. Where do those materials come from? Not from the sky but from the ground, and that is why we do need to ensure that we have those materials, we have them in a cost-effective manner, and we do that in such a way that we promote industry to actually deliver that. That is why removing red tape ensures we streamline.

A lot of this talks about some of the plans. If you look at the flow chart that was put together previous to what we are proposing here, you would literally have to jump through so many hoops to even get to looking at extracting, so that most people would give up after five or six years, let alone 10-plus years to get a project up and running. The time to actually get to market on a lot of this takes so long. You need a huge chequebook. You need lots of time. Forget it if you think you can do that in a reasonable time frame under the current framework. In fact, ironically, from recollection, I think I had this portfolio in about 2016, and we were in fact talking about this stuff then. Probably one of the biggest criticisms I had when I was shadow minister then was that we should have got on with this a long time ago.

Roma Britnell: Well, they should have.

David SOUTHWICK: The Andrews government should have got on with this a long time ago, because every year gone has been a missed opportunity of, unfortunately, the economic benefit. While we are on the economic benefit of mining, I think it is fair to say that according to the figures from the Minerals Council of Australia the economic benefit of mining in Victoria is $1 billion. It is a total economic contribution to the Victorian economy of $1 billion, and that is from an MCA economic contribution survey from 2020–21. That is a big number, a substantial number, and an industry that has 1700 local businesses involved, $310 million in industry purchases, $510 million in direct spending, $151 million in wages and salaries, $218 million in exploration and 58 per cent in spend. That is huge. Think about that: all those jobs, thousands and thousands of jobs, and all those businesses for $1 billion.

Now, what else could we spend a billion dollars on? Or more importantly, what could that billion dollars of economic benefit have been used for in recent times? Unfortunately it is the Commonwealth Games. Because the billion dollars of this economic benefit from mining, the whole industry of mining, could be the cancellation fee to pay out for the Commonwealth Games. I was gobsmacked when I was doing the research on this; I could not believe it. In Parliament we throw numbers out. People will look at numbers and they will say ‘billions’ or ‘millions’. Quite often people get confused when the numbers are billions and millions of dollars – even treasurers. All kinds of people get confused about using those numbers. But when you think about a whole industry –

A member interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Well, the Deputy Premier gets confused a lot and needs a calculator when it comes to numbers and thinks that money grows on trees. But in fact what does the Premier say? ‘It costs what it costs.’ So the Premier certainly clearly does not care about numbers or money. But in this particular instance $1 billion, thousands of thousands of jobs, 1700 local businesses in Victoria and the whole industry of mining in Victoria, a year’s worth of that economic benefit, could go straight to pay for the cancellation fees of the Commonwealth Games – just the cancellation fees of the Commonwealth Games; forget about other costs. Writing out a cheque to the Commonwealth Games Federation to say ‘I’m sorry, we’re not going ahead. Here is the compensation’, is just like the east–west link – ‘$1 billion, as we’re not going ahead with the east–west link’.

Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would like to proffer that we are meant to be speaking to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 and here we are straying on all sorts of flurries and fancies. I think it is better we come back to the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am certainly talking about the money specifically to do with mining. As the lead speaker – I do understand that the lead speaker gets a fair bit of leeway to be able to talk about it and frame the importance up, so therefore I would ask you if I could continue on the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance. I do think you are straying a little bit, so let us talk on the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: Thank you very much. As I was saying, $1 billion is a lot of money that could be spent – it is a huge benefit. I thank all those people that work in the mining industry for their contributions to Victoria. If we do not have contributions like those from those industries, unfortunately that money has to come from somewhere. Money does not grow on trees. In this particular instance money has effectively come from hard work in the ground, and it is very, very disappointing that that money could be really blown up against a wall on the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games.

Let me continue in terms of what the economic benefit actually does, because the other element in terms of mining, which we need to be mindful of, is that there are some unique benefits to Victoria. There are some very, very unique benefits to Victoria when we talk about mining. Mineral sands – very, very unique benefits. I know that certainly when it comes to renewables there was quite a time, when the minister for energy used to be – I am not sure. Who has got resources here?

Roma Britnell: It would be Lily, wouldn’t it?

David SOUTHWICK: Lily? I will back you in; great. I just had to be sure because I have not heard the minister for resources talking much about – I know for a time it was the Treasurer and then it was handed back to the minister for energy.

There is actually a lot of important correlation between the two. When you are looking at renewables in terms of what the mining does, when you are looking at things like solar panels, for which a lot of materials will come from minerals, when you are looking at electric cars, the batteries in electric cars are very, very important with the lithium and also for the grids that we use. Then you look at smartphones and tablets and computers – all of them – in terms of lithium. One of the first lithium exploration projects is taking place in the Dorchap region of the electorate of Benambra. That shows that we have got exploration happening on our doorstep in Benambra. I thought the member for Benambra was in here today, but he is not. That shows that we have got exploration – an important part – and it leads to value adding into electric cars, smartphones, tablets, solar panels and grid batteries for renewable storage. What I would say in terms of that – and I am going to go into some others as well – is we probably do not do enough in terms of value adding with some of the materials that we mine. That is probably our big opportunity going forward – a missed opportunity here in Victoria that we should absolutely be doing more with. I will come back to that in a minute.

Antimony is another important resource in Victoria – 3551 tonnes in 2020–21. Not only can it be used in flame retardants to protect firefighters and emergency services workers but it can also be used as a firming agent for the glass in solar panels. Again, solar panels – renewables – are very, very important. Copper, lead and zinc are used for electronics and our energy network, public transport grid and batteries. When the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure the Deputy Premier is going looking at some of the transport projects that have completely blown out one of the things that the minister could be looking at doing is using local materials and ensuring they are value added. That would ensure that Victorians get value for money, not budget blowouts – $30 billion worth of budget blowouts under the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure the Deputy Premier, including the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. Again, when we have got important products like copper, lead and zinc which are used in public transport, it would be fair for the minister, when she is thinking about going out there – like she was I think today out in the West Gate Tunnel – to have a look at that, and while she is at it she should make sure that that project does not continue to blow out by billions of dollars as it has done under her watch.

Gold – 722 kilo ounces. According to the Minerals Council of Australia there is over $200 billion of gold still underground in Victoria. We look at this wonderful building. We take people on tours here. An eight-year-old boy came on a tour last night. I asked him, ‘What do you want to see in Parliament?’ He said, ‘I want to see all of the gold.’ It is here. This building was built, amazingly, largely by hand, due to the gold rush, due to the wealth back then. Unfortunately this Parliament was never finished, because the government ran out of money. They ran out of money and they could not finish the building. Do you know what? It is like Back to the Future, isn’t it, because the Andrews Labor government are broke. They have run out of money and they cannot finish their projects either. If you see the Deputy Premier scurrying through in the middle of the night with the Treasurer and the Premier scraping off the gold, maybe they are paying for all of the projects that have blown out – the public transport projects, the infrastructure, the tunnel – $30 billion.

Do you reckon there would be $30 billion worth of gold in this building? I am not sure. There is a lot still under the ground that we could be mining to pay for the $30 billion worth of blowouts. We have not got onto roads and we have not got onto all of the hospitals and schools and everything else. But $30 billion? There is $1 billion of economic value from mining throughout Victoria. I am not sure whether I mentioned that – that is not for one year; that is each and every year. We have got $30 billion. We need 30 industries, 30 versions of the mining industry, to pay for the blowouts alone – just the blowouts. I tell you what, unfortunately we are going to have to go back to the mining industry and say you are going to have to work harder. We need more economic value from mining because the state is broke. Under the Andrews Labor government the state is broke, and we have got to turn back to the ground, we have got to dig it out and we have got to pay for all of the blowouts the Deputy Premier, the Premier and the Andrews Labor government have wasted, completely wasted. It is beyond belief.

Let me continue. We have tin and tungsten, along with cobalt and neodymium – let me get that right. They make our touch screens work and our phones vibrate. There you go. All three elements are used in the small but heavy mass that is spun by the motor inside our phones to create those vibrations. Some would say that we should not be doing any of this, and then you will have a phone that does not vibrate. There you go. You would not have a phone, mind you, but we could always give those people that do not think we should be doing this –

Jade Benham: You wouldn’t have electric cars either.

David SOUTHWICK: Or electric cars. We could give them the string and the two little cups, and they could do that. Or the pigeons – we could do that as well. There are studies showing how tungsten could be pioneering a new, innovative type of glass which could be used for touch screens and even as a precursor to energy-efficient smart windows. Now, that is really important. I went out to Swinburne University a few years back. They were looking at some of this stuff, and part of this was actually looking at using those windows for solar paint. Instead of having solar panels, you could actually paint the windows, and they become solar panels. This is a great homegrown innovation. Do you think anything has happened with that in the last few years? There is no investment from this lot over here, the Andrews government. They are too busy wasting money and blowing out projects.

Roma Britnell: Not innovating.

David SOUTHWICK: Not innovating. This is a golden opportunity – a missed opportunity. They should be knocking on the doors of these people, these inventors, these innovators here in Melbourne – homegrown in Victoria – and saying, ‘Good on you. Let’s invest. Let’s build these great opportunities’. These are missed opportunities by the Andrews Labor government. What the Andrews Labor government will turn around and say is, ‘No, you shouldn’t do that. We’ll do it ourselves. We’ll just create the SEC and do it all ourselves because we don’t believe that innovation could happen anywhere else but under a government.’ That is kind of a bit odd, but anyway. There is lithium, which I have spoken about, so I will not continue. That kind of all adds up, in terms of many of those mining opportunities, to the billion dollars. Did I mention smartphones? I do not think I mentioned smartphones. I did talk about the vibration, but leaving the vibrations alone, I thought I might also add that they contain –

Ros Spence: You started strong, but it’s going south.

David SOUTHWICK: Oh, right. The minister at the table said I started strong. That was probably when I was talking about the fact that the government has blown a billion dollars on a cancelled contract that is going to take up the whole industry. Maybe I will go back to talking about the waste and mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government – a billion dollars to cancel a contract for the Commonwealth Games. That is appalling. But let me get back to smartphones.

Ros Spence interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I have got plenty here, do not worry. It is the vibe. Let me get back to smartphones.

Ros Spence interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I am talking smartphones, Minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Caulfield.

David SOUTHWICK: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Smartphones contain about 60 different elements, including not only gold but copper and silver too. There are three good conductors of electricity in circuits. Usually we see a thin covering of gold, because it does not corrode and so ensures durable connections. That is why we need it.

Let us get back onto some of what people are saying about all of this. Firstly, the issue about work plans. I do know what this bill is all about; I just want you to know. We are streamlining work plans. Secondly, what we are doing is ensuring, as part of that, that there is a duty requiring a person to create a duty in terms of minimising risk, and those duties form part of a licence, and there are different forms of licensing depending on risk. I think that is a really important part of this bill, because there is not a one size fits all when it comes to risk. Those that are minimum risk should pay a lesser licence fee, and there should be lower hurdles when they are very, very basic licences for very, very basic work, going right up to things that are more complex. They have actually broken down the risk accordingly to make it easier as part of all of that. That is part of a new duty-based framework which replaces the existing framework.

As part of all of this, in terms of the process and in terms of protections, we do have councils that have some involvement in this, although less than they had before. But councils are involved in some of the tick-offs of the work approvals. One of the things that Dr Elizabeth Gibson had to say about this was that there was still a concern that the LGAs are a little bit preoccupied with local interests and not looking at the overall benefit to the state. You can end up fighting too much of an ideological war as opposed to ensuring there are protections – that is where it should start – and that the whole thing is in a balanced manner.

There were seven main issues that Dr Gibson from the CMPA raised. One was the one about local councils. Also once the extractive area has been identified, the proponent and the local government authority must protect the area from incompatible strategic or statutory development from the first day of becoming aware of the proposal. This would need to be limited by time during which the applicant would need to prove a geological resource. A longer period would be appropriate to finalise the approval. It is about not holding things up, because that is what we are trying to get away from with this bill. There must be documentary evidence of what the LGA must actually direct and manage. It would be difficult to accept that it would be within the LGA’s responsibility and that they would be properly resourced to manage all the activities. Again, the government has been talking around a lot of things in changing the planning framework overall in the state. We would also need to make sure it is consistent with this, and there are some concerns in that.

Where the LGA resolves not to make a decision or rejects a planning permit application, the application must immediately go to a major case list of VCAT. All advertising ceases. The LGA must not request the Minister for Planning to call in the application, continue funding any campaign against the application, take the applicant to the Supreme Court or promulgate strategic planning changes in responding to these types of cases. The timing sequence, number 5, for the decision by an LGA should be shortened from 12 months. If Earth Resources Regulation becomes a determining authority, then the assessment to the application without the work plan will be problematic. Finally, clear and concise benefits have not been clearly articulated with the resource development. They are all very, very important points and I wanted to raise them.

The bill certainly modernises the regulatory approval process for the exploration and quarrying industries in Victoria. As I said, you have got to get cement, you have got to get concrete and you have got to get mineral sands. You have got to get them from somewhere. We have a shortage at the moment. We have a cost-of-living crisis, and that is why we do need to deal with all of this. There is also recognition that there is a four-year process, and while there will be a comprehensive implementation process we need to ensure the government delivers on its stated commitment to early, ongoing, meaningful engagement with industry and other stakeholders on the regulations and guidance material that sits in these amendments.

There is nervousness within the industry that the devil is in the detail. There are still concerns from the industry in terms of some of that. Overall, they are positive. The framework is fine. Let us get the detail. While there are several points of clarification and issues that have been raised, stakeholders would rather see the legislation go through as a step forward, so they are positive. As I said before, the Minerals Council of Australia, the CCAA and the CMPA have been in direct contact with the minister and raised all of these points.

In conclusion, we have got to get on with it. We have got to ensure that there is certainty in these industries and that there are proper protections, particularly when we talk about the environment. We must ensure that there are protections, we must ensure that the land is left the way it was found or improved in that matter and that there are parks, water facilities – a whole range of things that we can have as part of all these things going forward. Therefore we are not opposing the bill, but please, government, do not waste money. A billion dollars is a lot of money, as we have seen from the industry I have just spoken about.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:01 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.