Thursday, 17 August 2023

Bills

Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jaclyn Symes:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (09:58): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 and to point out that this has been a little bit of a saga. It has gone on for quite some time. There has been a lot of toing and froing, and I pay tribute to the work of David Hodgett, our shadow, and the work that he has done on this. In short, 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 and other acts for the purpose of amending those acts to remove the requirement for holders and applicants of certain licences and extractive industry work authorities to lodge a work plan for the licence or authority; to create a duty requiring a person to eliminate or minimise the risk of harm to the environment, public land, the public, land, property and infrastructure of particular work or rehabilitation carried out by the person – as it should; to provide for a system of risk levels for authorities that determines the obligations which an authority holder must comply with in relation to the duty to eliminate or minimise risk; to remove the requirement to lodge work plans, while retaining requirements relating to rehabilitation plans; to require the regular review of rehabilitation plans; to change the title of the principal act to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990; and to amend the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act. It is described as modernising the act, bringing it forward with a new model, and I will say something about the model in a minute. But that is the description we hear from the government.

The reforms fundamentally deal with how mining and quarrying works are approved and regulated, and they do introduce a general duty to eliminate and minimise risk of harm to the environment, public land, property and infrastructure, and as I say, that is as it should be. The bill seeks to introduce tiers of risk – high, moderate and low – to determine obligations under the duty. The new duty-based risk framework replaces the existing exploration and mining approvals framework, which relies on the preparation and approval of work plans or of work plan variations. Under the current act a licence or authority holder is typically required to submit or obtain approval for a work plan to commence work under their licence. A work plan outlines the activities to be undertaken under a mining licence.

As I say, this bill amends those acts and establishes this so-called modern, general duty and risk-tiered regulatory framework, and that necessitates a number of consequential amendments. But there are areas of concern, and I will start with some general principles first. More and more of the legislation that goes through this chamber and this Parliament is in this sort of framework where general heads of power are created, and regulations sit under those. The regulations are not visible or transparent at the time the bill goes through the Parliament, so it is always a little bit of a pig in a poke, where we are taking the government at their word. It is always a little bit of a situation where, even with the minister having the best will in the world – let us just impute the best will in the world to the minister – a future minister may have an entirely different set of priorities and approaches. That is one of the things that increasingly concerns me.

It is possible that a good regulatory framework can be derived from this bill, but that will need to be oversighted very closely. It was interesting recently in the UK when I met with a number of the House of Commons and Lords committees on scrutiny of regulations, on the issues around regulations. They are increasingly talking about a need for greater oversight on the regulation-making processes. They are increasingly talking about tertiary regulation, where you have got an authority – you have got a primary act, a secondary set of regulations and then an authority over here that is making determinations on costs and a series of requirements – that is quite distant from the Parliament and quite hard to pull into line. In that sense I think there is an increasing focus around the world as to how we maintain better oversight on regulatory processes, cost processes associated with regulations and the safety regulations that are needed to ensure good outcomes but do so in a way that does not excessively or unreasonably penalise industry or stakeholders. So there is a theoretical set of questions around this approach that is being adopted.

In terms of the government’s approach to this, the government certainly has consulted industry, but it does not seem to have consulted widely enough. It does not seem to have consulted with councils, with environment groups or with community groups and a whole range of other stakeholders who ought to have been intimately involved in these processes. So I think the government comes to this behind the eight ball, if I can be honest – a long way behind – and it needs to catch up.

Others in this place, in this chamber, the Greens in particular and the Liberals and Nationals, are concerned about the government’s failure to consult on these matters. We had contemplated moving a reasoned amendment to try and force the government to actually consult more broadly, particularly as we move towards regulations. I know that the Greens had intended – I may be foreshadowing more than they want me to foreshadow, but I am just going to put it on the record so they know what we think – and certainly foreshadowed a reasoned amendment to force consultation with community groups. We think that that was quite proper.

Our shadow David Hodgett has been negotiating with the government and they have come forward just today indeed with an agreement to broaden their consultation and in particular broaden their consultation with industry, with the community sector and with councils. I am going to read from the letter that has just been received in the last few minutes, because I think it is a welcome letter. This is from the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio, who has not had a great week I might add in between her activities having people who are dead enrolled from her office. She writes to David Hodgett:

As stated in my second-reading speech, the Government plans to undertake a comprehensive consultation process with LGAs, stakeholders, industry and community groups on the development of the regulations that underpin this Bill across the four years leading to the Bill coming into effect in 2027. The Government has already committed funding in the 2022–23 State Budget to begin the consultation process.

She indicates that Minister Stitt will confirm this in the committee stage, and we will certainly go into the committee stage to seek some further commitments.

These additional commitments to you are contingent on the Coalition’s support for the Bill’s passage with no amendments …

Well, we had no intention of amending the bill. Our concern was this issue of consultations and where they were going. I struggle with the government’s idea that it is contingent on our supporting the bill. We are not opposed to some aspects of the bill. It is this regulatory process that we are concerned about. So to the extent that the government is now giving a strong commitment, a written commitment that they will undertake that broad consultation as part of the regulatory process, we will be assuaged, at least to some extent, but we will be watching very, very closely indeed to make sure that those commitments are honoured. We do want a better regulatory –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, this is the point I alluded to earlier. Even if you impute the best motives in the world to a particular minister, there is no guarantee that that particular minister will be the one that is implementing it.

Further, obviously 2026 is the next election period, and it would be hoped that Mr Hodgett is the minister at that time, or someone from the Liberals or Nationals is the minister at that time, and we will certainly, in developing those regulations, be broadly consulting with industry, local government and the community sector as well. I am making that commitment here, which we would honour if we were elected, that we would be ensuring that those regulations are developed in a collaborative way.

It is a pity that it came to this point. As I say, there is much in the bill that we are not opposed to. There is this deeper principle, which I think the chamber and the community is going to need to grapple with increasingly as we go forward, about whether this model of setting up a head of power with regulations ‍– and the feds do this more than we do traditionally at a state level – is the best way forward with lots of areas of government legislation and regulation. The broad principles are actually clear. We want to hold those who are undertaking extractive industries accountable. They are to be responsible for the impacts of what they do and that should be transparent.

It should be regulation that is designed to be lowest cost. So you do not want to unnecessarily load up industry, but at the same time communities have a right to expect that extractive industries will operate in a way that is safe, that respects the environment and that actually leads to a protection of a whole set of values, including heritage and environmental values, as part of that process. I hasten to add that extractive industries are important in terms of the costs of construction, both domestic construction and larger projects, and we do need a supply from the extractive industries, and we do need a supply that is at a sensible cost. These are things to be properly balanced, and if they are properly balanced in the regulatory process they will certainly have the support of the opposition.

We are heartened that the government has come to its senses and has agreed to broaden its consultation. As I say – and I am quite clear with the Greens on this – if it was not for the fact that both the opposition and the Greens were determined to force a higher level of consultation, the government would not have given those commitments. So I think it is important to have that on the record, and in that sense we are not opposing the bill. We will seek some questions before committee if the minister wants to do that. I think actually there are some on our side that want to go into committee though, so she can probably do it at the start of the committee process, and there is a set of questions that a number of our backbenchers want to ask.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:12): I rise today to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023, and I thank Mr Davis for his contribution and agree with many of the sentiments expressed, particularly the concern around a lack of transparency with regard to the regulations that this legislation will be relying on in order to implement changes on the ground and additionally the lack of consultation, and that is something I will touch on further. It is somewhat reassuring to hear that there has been a letter or some reassurances provided by the government with respect to consultation. I do note, however, that this consultation will be taking place after the legislation has passed, not before it has been brought to the Parliament, and furthermore, we have not actually seen these reassurances ourselves, but it is welcome if there will be some degree of consultation taking place at some stage.

However, in terms of our position, we understand that the approvals process for mines in Victoria is not working perfectly. It is an area that has been long overdue for reform. However, the solution that this amendment bill represents is flawed, and we believe it should not pass through the chamber today without thorough reconsideration. Local communities, councils and environment groups have raised many concerns with us. Key to these and the Greens’ concerns about the proposed amendment is the removal of the requirement for mining companies to lodge work plans with the Earth Resources Regulator. Work plans are an essential component of a transparent and accountable planning and approvals process. They include a mining company’s plan for community engagement, their strategy for elimination and mitigation of risk and proposals for rehabilitation at the end of a mine’s life, and because mining licences are not publicly available documents, work plans are often the only accessible documentation for communities that detail local mining and quarrying projects, unless of course they want to lodge a lengthy, expensive and often fruitless FOI request.

From what I understand, there have been problems with the work plan process which have led the department to explore avenues for troubleshooting and repair. However, this legislation proposes that instead of attempting to fix the system we have, work plans should be scrapped entirely, and what will be left in its place is the duty for mining companies to self-assess the risks of their projects, the risks that they pose to the environment, and minimise these risks without public scrutiny.

Recently the Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales conducted an investigation into a gold and copper mine that is potentially contributing to higher levels of heavy metals in nearby residents’ blood. The CEO of the New South Wales EPA, Tony Chappel, has called for an overhaul of the New South Wales legislation and regulations and criticised self-regulation and monitoring that currently occurs in the mining industry in that state. In a recent ABC report, Chappel commented:

I think there is a policy discussion to be had in government about how do we more effectively and more deeply embed the expert environmental and engineering advice right at the start of the assessment process for projects like this.

It is concerning that here in Victoria we are perhaps moving away from this notion with the legislation that is proposed. Without the requirement for a work plan, the first and only step in the approvals process becomes planning permission. This shifts the preliminary decision regarding mining and exploration activities from the resources department and Earth Resources Regulator to local governments and the planning department. Objections will still come to councils and the Minister for Planning will remain a referral authority, but neither the community nor council will have the benefit of an ERR-endorsed work plan to assess a project’s level of risk, the adequacy and honesty of a company’s mitigation efforts or the long-term costs and benefits of the proposal.

Councils are multifaceted systems of government with core competencies across a diverse range of expertise. However, the feedback the Greens have received from a significant number of rural and regional councils, who are the ones who will be directly impacted by this change, is that they may not have the technical, geological and environmental expertise to properly assess and approve these types of projects in the absence of a work plan. They are not able to bring together dedicated teams of geologists, ecologists, environmental scientists and First Nations historians in the same manner that a department or a regulator may be able to. It is actually not clear what information councils will have available to them in order to make their decision, beyond a company’s self-assessed risk plan. What is more, none of the councils we have communicated with were able to tell us how they believed they would be able to implement this planning approval change, because they did not know the change was taking place at all. They have not been advised, let alone consulted, on the proposed legislation by this government. The first they heard of it was from us reaching out to them to see what they thought about it. We have been informed that consultation with councils will take place after the legislation has been passed through the chamber. That is not consultation but notification of a decision, at best.

I will quickly take this opportunity to pass on a summary of the key feedback that government may have heard if they had in fact consulted with impacted councils. Rural and regional councils have told us that regulation of mining activities should be a state responsibility via the environment effects statement process managed by the ERR, with councils best suited to providing local perspectives. Work plans are a very important part of councils’ assessments of mine proposals, and several community organisations fear their removal could gut transparency. Self-regulation of these projects is inappropriate and should be done by the state government, given the environmental risks and the very real prospect of applicants understating their risk to avoid triggering an EES. Councils lack the technical expertise or resources to undertake these assessments. The current EES triggers and processes are inadequate for protecting the environment and the community, and this legislation fails to address this problem. This is another example of cost-shifting onto local government, exacerbating the financial pressure created by rate capping. We heard lots more feedback, but that is a nice snapshot of some of the issues they raised. It is beyond disingenuous for this government to allow mining companies to self-assess their environmental impact whilst forcing already under-resourced local councils to shoulder responsibility of approval that should clearly sit with the regulator.

I would also like to take the opportunity to put on record the concerns raised by environmental and community organisations, who were also not consulted. Put simply, the legislation proposed is largely acknowledged as a backward step for our environmental safeguards. The presumption that mining companies are in a position to genuinely self-assess the environmental risk of proposals through a duty-of-care framework is counter to the experience of many affected communities. Environmental organisations in the community have advocated for the mining sector in Victoria to integrate an environmental impact assessment as an automatic part of the assessment of mining projects for years. The department has not taken the opportunity to do this.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that the government genuinely engages with the whole scope of concerns raised by members of our community and environmental organisations. The lack of consultation with all key stakeholders is incredibly disappointing. Our communities and our precious environment deserve better. Given all these concerns, the Greens will be moving a reasoned amendment calling on the government to undertake genuine consultation with key stakeholders, including environmental groups, communities and councils, prior to bringing this legislation back to the Parliament and to take the opportunity to develop the reforms to minerals mining approvals processes in Victoria that we actually need to protect habitat and the community.

I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until further consultation occurs with local governments, environmental organisations and regional communities likely to be impacted by mining and exploration.’.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:21): I am very keen to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. Can I particularly note the contribution of Mr Davis and particularly thank the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, David Hodgett, who has done a huge body of work consulting on this bill, speaking to stakeholders, speaking to community groups, speaking to local government and speaking to the community in regard to this bill and the impacts that this bill will have. He has also, as Mr Davis alluded to, been speaking to the government and securing a win for the community – a win to make this bill much more sensible. We heard that earlier from Mr Davis. I just want to read out the minister’s letter:

As stated in my second reading speech, the Government plans to undertake a comprehensive consultation process with LGAs, stakeholders, industry and community groups on the development of the regulations that underpin this Bill across the four years leading to the Bill coming into effect in 2027. The Government has already committed funding in the 2022–23 State Budget to begin the consultation progress.

Minister Stitt will also confirm this verbally during the committee process in the Legislative Council.

That is just terrific news. I am really pleased to hear that and really pleased to hear about the outstanding result David Hodgett and the Liberal–Nationals were able to achieve on behalf of the community to make this much more sensible. But, as Mr Davis says, we will be watching this very closely in terms of the regulations. I am under no illusion. When the regulations are drafted and do come into effect, the current Minister for Energy and Resources probably will not be the energy minister –

David Davis: Might not see the end of the week.

Evan MULHOLLAND: quite right – because of actions that have taken place involving people in my electorate and involving Italian clubs that I have visited numerous times and that I have spoken at. As I said yesterday, I am deeply offended on behalf of my Italian community. We will be watching these regulations very closely and keeping a close eye on this, but as Mr Davis said, we hope that Mr Hodgett will actually be the Minister for Energy and Resources at that time.

The bill amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to change the title of that act and remove requirements relating to work plans and makes consequential amendments to the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act 2020 and other acts for other purposes. The main purposes of the bill are to amend the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to remove the requirement for holders and applicants of certain licences and extractive industry work authorities to lodge a work plan for the licence or authority; 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; 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; to remove the requirement to lodge work plans while retaining the requirements relating to rehabilitation plans; to require regular review of rehabilitation plans; to change the title of that act to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990; and to amend the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act 2020 to reflect the removal of the requirement to lodge work plans.

I do want to note that I think the rehabilitation plans and those requirements are quite important. I know from speaking to the community that there have been too many examples in the past where a quarrier has gone in, extracted all the resource over several years and made money off that, and then all of a sudden, when it comes to the end of life of that quarry and it is time for that quarry to be rehabilitated, the company goes bankrupt or insolvent and the land is left unrehabilitated. That part of it is really important. I think these are welcome developments, so we are very keen to see the regulations around them.

I want to take the house to an issue in my electorate that I want to discuss, and that is the Beveridge North West precinct structure plan, where a quarry that was not in the original PSP was taken in and then all of a sudden it was there. This is in Wallan, where from what I hear it is looking like that quarry might actually be approved despite strong community opposition to that quarry. Wallan is a growth area. I know the Leader of the Government would be familiar with it, having her electorate office there, despite it now being in my electorate. It is a growth area. It is where a lot of housing is going in, and understandably there is strong community concern about what the impacts of the quarry might be. I am not against quarrying – I am actually quite in favour of quarrying – but I have sat down with a lot of the community in Wallan and spoken to them about their concerns and attempted to assist them in passing their concerns on to the government.

I just want to note and point out a few things that illustrate, I guess, the ability of the Minister for Planning to make decisions based on the margin of the seat. The Labor member for Preston seems to have some influence with the minister, who has now heritage listed parts of the Preston Market. The Labor member for Preston does seem to have influence over what the minister can do and what the minister cannot do. After staying silent throughout the whole election campaign and having no policy on the Preston Market and having a brush with political death in the seat of Preston, the Labor Party have literally picked up the Liberal Party’s election policy to heritage list the market and put it forward as their own.

The delivery of that is another story. If you speak to the traders at the Preston Market, they seem to have a lot of issues with the government. But I guess the point I want to make is: why is the Labor member for Kalkallo not nearly as influential as the Labor member for Preston? And that might just have something to do with the margin of the seat. I do not think it is right that the minister seems to have a difference of opinion based on the margins of different electorates, and that is something that is deeply troubling to me.

I do want to point out in regard to the Wallan quarry issue that it was revealed this week that Mitchell Shire Council actually spent around $1.3 million of ratepayers money opposing the quarry in Wallan. While I have met with the stop the quarry group, I have listened to their concerns and I have advocated on their behalf, I am quite troubled by that amount of ratepayers money by a local council being spent on a campaign that locals tell me they would have run themselves anyway. If you speak to people in Wallan and Beveridge, most people are against the quarry, but they also say they would have preferred that money to go to fixing local potholes in council roads, go to upgrades of community infrastructure or maybe go towards Wallan having an aquatic centre. When you have got, in Mitchell Shire Council, Wallan and Beveridge making up the majority of the ratepayers in that shire but the majority of their rate money being spent up north in Seymour and Kilmore, I can understand locals’ frustration that Mitchell Shire Council is jumping on a campaign and excusing itself of spending legitimate dollars in the town by spending money on a political campaign. As some of my other colleagues have said in this place, I do not think it is the place for local government to be so involved in political campaigns. I have been to see Mitchell Shire Council, I am very friendly with Mitchell Shire Council and I work with them on a lot of issues, but that was quite troubling to me, despite my advocacy on behalf of the community on this proposed quarry.

I want to note a few people in particular that I have met with, particularly the stop the quarry group. Also, I want to acknowledge Claudia James from the Wallan Environment Group, who I spoke to quite a bit. I know she is quite passionate about setting up an environmental park in Wallan but also quite passionate about – like many in the northern suburbs – protecting the Merri Creek. Many people feel like the Merri Creek could be impacted if a quarry was placed there.

Going back to the bill, the bill is about modernising regulatory approval processes for the exploration, mining and quarrying industries in Victoria, and there is general consensus that this legislation is a step forward and has a lot of positives. There is also recognition that this is a four-year process, and while there will be a comprehensive implementation process, we need to ensure that the government delivers on its stated commitment to early, ongoing and meaningful engagement with industry and other stakeholders on the regulations and guidance materials that sit below these amendments.

I think, as Mr Davis says, the devil is in the detail with these regulations, and in four years time I very much doubt the minister for energy will be the current one. It could be the case that she is not the current one by next week, to be honest, with the way they have quite disgracefully shamed themselves with what has been exposed and how they have used and abused multicultural communities for their own factional benefit. So the minister might not be the minister by next week. The devil is in the detail, and we will be watching. We will absolutely be watching this. As I discussed earlier, we also will claim that win for the Liberals and Nationals – the minister has given us assurances, in writing, that there will be consultation. That is just another example of the Liberals and Nationals and the great shadow minister in David Hodgett actually achieving outcomes for the community. The Greens can go on and pull some stunts and things like that, but here you have got a sensible and mature opposition engaging with the community, engaging with stakeholders and engaging with all sorts of groups across the community and local government sectors and achieving outcomes on behalf of our communities. I commend this bill.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:36): I rise to deliver my contribution to the discussion surrounding the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill was introduced late in June to the Legislative Assembly, and the bill represents something that goes to the core of this government’s belief, and that is progress – progress for a better future for Victorians. I will give some background on the act that it proposes to amend before we go further into the bill itself. It is a pity Mr Davis is not here, because the government has already committed to a comprehensive consultation process – nothing has changed, and the letter that was provided to the opposition confirmed this commitment. The minister in her second-reading speech on this said that the government will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with LGAs, stakeholders, industry and community groups on the development of regulations that underpin this bill across the four years leading to the bill coming into effect in 2027. The government has already committed funding in the 2022–23 state budget to begin the consultative process. Also, it is a pity Dr Mansfield is not here, because I think it is not right and quite a lie to say that companies can self-assess their risks. It is clearly written in the bill that the regulator will determine those risk tiers.

Getting back to the bill itself, the principal act, which was legislated under the Kirner government in the 1990s, states its purpose as ‘to encourage mineral exploration and economically viable mining and extractive industries’, with reference to the importance that the implementation of such industries, in accordance with environmentally safe practices, does not breach native title legislation. Much has changed since the principal act came into effect. Whilst the act does acknowledge the need to be sensitive to our environmental and cultural issues, it was written at a time when we knew much less about the extent to which excavation and extraction could damage the land of Victoria. This unfortunately is a tragedy that cannot be undone – a tragedy that is felt deeply on this side of the chamber and, I am sure, shared by many of my colleagues here and in the other place.

However, rather than lingering on mistakes of the past, this government is getting right to the business of ensuring that our legislation is entirely reflective of how far this state has come in righting the wrongs of the past. Not only do we have the most ambitious climate policy platform of all governments in Australia, including the Commonwealth, we are among the governments leading the world in our emission reduction targets. The Andrews Labor government was also the first Australian government to take meaningful steps towards treaty. We are also the first state in Australia to introduce a voice for Indigenous Australians, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, and that is the place that this bill comes from. We are introducing strong reforms that will stand the test of time as we transition to cleaner resources of energy – strong reforms that ensure that our existing industries are held to a higher standard, reflecting how world-class our state is. This will be relevant and apply to any form of mineral exploration and excavation from mining and quarrying, as any form of excavation has several inherent risks attached to it. These risks affect many different areas. All dangers must be addressed, from worker safety to the protection of culturally significant sites.

How exactly will this bill improve safety and risk regulation in the mineral resources industry? There are several ways that this bill seeks to improve the state of safety in the Victorian mineral resources industry, sensitive to mining, quarrying and the inherent relevant fields respectively. The first is the introduction of a new regulatory framework that will drive the high standards in terms of the regulation of safety on mineral resources extraction sites. This framework will be a statutory primary duty that is risk-orientated and outcome-focused on the practical realities of operating a mineral exploration or excavation site. It will be flexible and streamlined to ensure that it is a quick and effective regulatory body that does not leave approval applications lost in the grey zone or red tape. This also eliminates the requirement of individual mineral resources extraction operators to submit individual work plans, a system that has proved to be not as fit for purpose as it once was thought. Ultimately, the introduction of this framework will greatly improve the function of mineral resources extraction in this state as we go into the future.

After extensive consultation with the community and stakeholders this framework will no doubt lead Victorian mineral resources extraction into the future as we move forward to become a more modern state. In fact we consulted widely with local government, industry and the broader community, including representatives of traditional owner groups, environmental justice advocates and landowners, during the development of this bill, not just once but over many years. The bill creates a framework for transitioning to a duty-based model, every aspect of which is going to be set out in law, in the regulatory framework, in codes and in standards as a duty-based model. All of this will be subject to a massive consultative period and a massive public consultative process before it comes into effect in 2027, so rest assured that industry and the wider community can have confidence in the standards set. The purpose of doing this is to either eliminate or, if that is not possible, mitigate the risks for the mineral resources extraction industry.

Let us turn our eyes to the exact content of the bill and examine how it seeks to achieve this. In terms of the new regulatory framework, or as the bill puts it, the duty, it is all outlined in part 4 of the bill. Part 4, division 2 outlines the role of the duty holder in eliminating or mitigating risks. That role is clearly defined as:

… as far as reasonably practicable, eliminate or minimise any risk posed to the environment, to any member of the public or to land, property or infrastructure by exploration, extractive industry, mining or rehabilitation of land …

‘Reasonably practicable’ is defined as:

(a) the likelihood of the risk eventuating;

(b) the severity of the harm that may result if the risk eventuates;

(c) what the duty holder of the authority knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the risk and any methods of eliminating or minimising the risk;

(d) the availability and suitability of any methods of eliminating or minimising the risk …

and so on and so forth. Clearly this will assist the implementation of a fit-for-purpose regulation system that will ensure that the Victorian mineral resources extraction industry is modern and up to date, like the rest of this state, as opposed to the former system, which was reliant on the assessment of work plans submitted to the department for approval. By replacing the requirement to submit a work plan, approval requests will be far more efficient and transparent. We are leading the country in so many respects, so of course the safety standards of our primary industries should reflect that.

Additionally, the bill goes on to improve the supportive network for regulation of the industry by implementing changes that improve reporting requirements for breaches of safety and the introduction of new risks. With dynamic risk in mind, the requirements will be implemented to ensure swiftness in addressing reported cases as and when safety is at stake. Efficiency is vital. In an ideal world, matters of safety would not be caught in a sea of red tape and would be able to be addressed both quickly and appropriately, which is exactly what these updates to reporting requirements seek to do. Hopefully, after extensive consultation with key interest groups, community members and stakeholders, the new reporting requirements will strengthen the effectiveness of the duty holder’s role. This will mean that breaches of safety that may slip past the watchful eye of the duty holder will still be addressable. It is important that members of the community, employees and so on have a strong, effective process by which they can ensure that mineral resources extraction industries are held to the highest standard.

With that said, let us go back to the specific contents of the bill in relation to the reporting system. Another aspect of this bill that stands out to me is the update of the penalties for breach of the requirements outlined in this bill. This means that the penalty system will be truly reflective of just how severe the endangerment of neglectful mineral extraction is. The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 also has emphasis on the maintenance of rehabilitation requirements.

One of the particularly admirable aspects of the regulations process being introduced in this bill is this: how it will allow for a much more culturally sound approach to resource extraction in Victoria. That is to say the bill will ensure that respect and acknowledgement of Aboriginal cultural heritage will be integral in the approval process. This country is, after all, the home of the longest continuing culture in the world by a long shot. For too long we have heard stories in the news of culturally significant sites being destroyed. This bill will add one more step to ensuring that these unfortunate losses become a thing of the past, while ensuring that we continue to enjoy thriving resource industries in this state. The bill also is compatible with the cultural heritage management plans required by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

At the end of the day this is making Victoria safer on several levels: safer for the environment and the community; safer for the people who make a living in mining, quarrying and so on; and safer for people who operate these businesses. This legislation will be a net positive for all Victorians. Whilst the focus of this bill is clearly on the environment, it is important to note that it is ultimately to improve the working conditions of those who work on these sites and to improve overall the quality of life of those who live near these extraction sites.

We have got a good, proud and diverse economy down here in this great state and an incredibly diverse set of industries. This government prides itself on the scrutiny that we have set for these industries’ practices. We understand that most employers and employees go through their professional lives with the most diligent attention to safety and to their colleagues’ safety, but that is not a uniform truth for every workplace. Like many people on this side of the chamber, I come from a union background and have seen many dangerous workplaces in my time as a state secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, which is why it is important to have a government that ensures the state’s legislation is fit for purpose and that it is doing the job that it is supposed to. This is just one of the benefits the mineral excavation and extraction-related industries will enjoy when this amendment becomes law. I would like to reiterate that this is an issue not just with the industries themselves but with the regulations surrounding them, which is exactly why we are taking this legislative action on it.

This bill will ensure a safe mineral resources extraction industry for employees and employers, locals and all Victorians. That is the kind of important work that we do in the Andrews Labor government, ensuring that our laws protect Victoria and Victorians and contribute a net positive to the state. What this bill is about is straightforward: it is about respect for the land, for where we live, and respect for the people that work on it. It is all about ensuring that our industries may exist in such a manner that they are in line with the values of modern Victoria. It is ensuring that we can move towards a more sustainable Victoria without risking the whole of the efforts made by rushing the process. It ensures mining and other resources industries are safe for the people who make a livelihood from them. It is all underpinned by the values held by this government, the Andrews Labor government, that every Victorian has the right to live in a healthy environment and to work on a safe worksite.

Additionally, this will be good to improve transparency surrounding how key players in the mineral resources extraction industry make their decisions. Victorians have a right to know what is going on in the economy that supports them, and this will serve them well by assisting in such transparency measures. And that is not all. We are here today to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes of the past. The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill is being proposed to this house to ensure that our industries continue to advance into the future in a way that is beneficial to everyone, not just them.

To summarise my contribution, this bill represents a step forward for the Victorian mineral resources extraction industry – one towards safety, efficiency and transparency. Believe it or not, they go hand in hand. If I could just take a moment to acknowledge how hard the Andrews Labor government works to ensure that the legislation we pass is benefiting all Victorians, legislation that does not offer a bandaid solution to big, existential problems – like the effects certain mineral resources extraction projects could have on the environment – but rather recognises the importance of tackling these issues head on with a careful, measured effort so that every Victorian may benefit from our legislation. It is simple. This is decent legislation which does what the Andrews Labor government legislation tends to do: modernise Victorian laws and help our state move into the future. That is exactly what the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act does.

To sum up, this bill will improve the management of the risks associated with minerals and extractive operations. It will simplify and improve the flexibility of the regulatory framework by streamlining approvals and strengthen community confidence in the minerals and extractive operations by establishing a risk-based framework. Importantly, these reforms do not change the scope of the risks that the MRSD act seeks to mitigate. I commend the work of the Minister for Energy and Resources Minister D’Ambrosio in the other place on this bill. Well done to her team for getting this done, which is why I would like to say I commend this bill to the house and urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:51): I rise to speak against the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. Yes, it does have a very nice title, but as we have learned, we should not judge books by their covers, and neither should we judge bills by their titles. It should not be this hard to create low-cost fair legislation. It should be clear, it should be easy to understand and it should prioritise accountability and transparency.

Consultation or not, before or afterwards, I do agree with many of the concerns raised by the Greens and by the Liberals in this house, and well done to them for raising them. But as a Liberal, just personally I cannot vote for this bill at all for all of those reasons but especially including the removal of the word ‘just’ in front of the provision of compensation for the use of and access to private land for the search for and extraction of stone in addition to exploration or mining, because I believe in private property owner rights.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:52): I am pleased to make a brief contribution on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. In doing so I want to acknowledge the fact that we are standing in the most amazing house in the chamber, and this house and chamber was actually built on the back of the mining industry. At the time it was the gold mining industry. It could have gone up, but there is roughly $6 million of gold leaf in our chamber if we took the time to scrape it off, which of course we never would. It is here forever to preserve and admire, but I am just noting the importance of the mining and extractive industries over a period of time, not only to this house but to the wealth and the economy since those early days in the 1800s of our wonderful state of Victoria.

This bill amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and just reflects a name change to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990. It is looking to present a broader regulatory framework, and I will come back to the regulatory position. It also requires a number of consequential amendments, and it is there to bring some modernity to the mineral resources act. It is also looking at that general framework for the minerals and extractive industries and sets out transitional arrangements to move towards that approach from the work plan process.

We do have a very proud history, as I have just mentioned, and minerals across the board in Victoria have played a very important role in our economic fabric for over 150 years. We know that mining companies across the board generate around $1 billion to the Victorian economy and support thousands and thousands of jobs right across the state and also certainly in my Eastern Victoria electorate. They injected $500 million into the state’s economy back a couple of years ago, in 2020–‍21. These are good jobs. This is a skilled workforce in an employment area where you are certainly earning a good wage and therefore creating that wealth in the regions in which you are working: $152 million in wages and salaries, $300 million spent on the purchase of goods and services from over almost 2000 Victorian businesses down the supply chain and, for the government, over $50 million in state payments, always a very important element of those state taxes.

We know we have seen a huge raft of new state taxes under the Andrews government. I think we are tipping the scales on 50 new or improved, apparently –

David Davis: Fifty new or increased taxes.

Melina BATH: Yes, new or increased. I certainly will not call them improved – new and improved headaches for the Victorian public. But our state is certainly an expanding, hopefully, supplier of mineral sands and rare earths, and when we look at the change that is occurring in our state in terms of renewable supply chains, we are in a state of flux and we are in a state of movement. Certainly renewable projects are in the pipeline. Wind turbines of significant matter, size and quantity out off the Gippsland coast, off Ninety Mile Beach, are to be developed and potentially implemented by around 2030, 2032.

We know that there are photovoltaic cells going up on people’s houses and solar panels and solar projects across the state and other very important mineral extraction for that. To do that, it has to come from somewhere. We had a renewable energies inquiry in the EPC, the Environment and Planning Committee, last term. I was on that inquiry, and I noted in doing some research that across the board Australia-wide – I could not drill down into those Victorian details – only 11 per cent of renewable componentry is actually manufactured on site in Australia. Hence we import roughly 90 per cent. If you look at it in terms of the global footprint, we are taking it from extractive industries overseas, transporting it across to Australia, no doubt on diesel ships, and then erecting it and installing it in country Victoria. This is important to understand when we look at the whole-of-life cycle and the environmental footprint – carbon dioxide and decarbonising are the words that are often used – and the importance of minimising that.

I live in Eastern Victoria Region. I am very passionate about my area, and certainly we know the Latrobe Valley under Labor is closing jobs down and closing industries down there. So we need to be looking at how we can advance manufacture some of those components for the renewable sector that is coming our way. You may have heard me speak yesterday in relation to the Latrobe Valley Authority and their so-called transition plan that came out. It was a lovely fluff piece of promotion about the Latrobe Valley Authority, and there was not one direct action. There were many worthwhile commentary pieces in there, but there was not one direct action, time line or road map. They spoke about them, but they did not actually give the community any certainty on them or investment for potential industries to come in or the expansion of existing ones. So I put that on record.

We are in a state of flux. We do need these raw ingredients – these various minerals and mineral sands: copper, zinc, gold, base metals, lithium and the like. We need these, and wouldn’t it be good if we could get the balance right in Victoria between the extractive industries and the mining and rehabilitation of the sites and issuing these with, where required, environment effects statements. When I first came here – I came in 2015, but around that 2016 time – I was up in East Gippsland with my dear colleague Mr Tim Bull the member for Gippsland East. Many of the interested community were involved in the Fingerboards critical minerals project there not far out of Bairnsdale, and many people were saying that there needed to be an EES. I very much commend my colleague Mr Bull for pushing for that environment effects statement on behalf of local residents. That mine at the time was looking at extracting zircon and rare-earth minerals to use in the production of magnets in electric vehicles. Again, that is another whole part of the new wave that needs to be accommodated – and wind turbines as well as batteries and other sources of renewable energy componentry.

The focus of the concerns of the community there was certainly on the impact on water availability with the Mitchell River. The area is home to valuable agricultural production. I have certainly been to some of the farms out there. I have also been to the Mitchell River National Park, a state park, I think it might be, and the caravan park there. If you ever want to go and steep yourself in serene serenity at Mitchell park, it is a beautiful place to be.

David Davis: Serene serenity.

Melina BATH: Absolutely. You can also bring your dogs to the caravan park, walk down to the Mitchell River and float down there on a very hot day. I remember it was about 40 degrees when we went. It is such a beautiful place.

Back to the particular mine at the time I am speaking about, the East Gippsland shire was also opposed to this operation due to the potential effect on food production and farming. The Glenaladale area is certainly synonymous with farming.

In Victoria the government does need to get this balance right with extractive resources. We need those resources. We certainly need them to facilitate the various different projects that we see being undertaken across the state. Dare I say it, and I am not wanting to pump up the tyres of the government, but there is a lot of concrete being put down there and a lot of aggregate that is required. It has to come from somewhere, and that has to be done with a sensitive balance within this legislation.

The other really important thing that we understand is the financial gift that mining industries give back through taxes to this government. One of the great joys of being in this job is meeting fantastic people. I am slightly digressing from the bill, but it is really important to put on the record those very grassroots people in the PMAV, the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. Many of them are actually retired mining workers who love their land and want to go out and prospect and mine. They have certainly been strong advocates for their industry and for their pastime to all levels of government over the many, many years. I thank them for their discussions with me over time.

One of the concerns that locals have, and I have had a number of emails on this bill in relation to concerns particularly from the Eastern Victoria Region and East Gippsland, comes from a gentleman. I will not read his name, but I will certainly read in that he comes from East Gippsland – he comes from Bairnsdale. He has written to me saying that he has worked for 30 years in the oil industry, in Bass Strait, and he has seen what happens in the resources industry when it is permitted to self-govern, self-regulate and self-police. He outlines his concerns about any removal of adequate stakeholder engagement prior to changes being passed and about accepting a written code of compliance. He has concerns about removing the current requirement for work plans to be adequately independently assessed by peers, the community and other interested stakeholders. He also is concerned about the human rights of landholders and communities. The thrust of his email to me is the need for open, genuine, adequate consultation in relation to mineral extraction in our state. Other members of the community have written to me certainly outlining similar points.

I am very pleased to have had a conversation with Mr Hodgett, the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, in this space, and he has already, in working with the government or challenging the government to come to a better position than it has, had that undertaking from the government. Indeed a letter has been distributed to him regarding the consultation and development of the regulations that underpin this bill. As we all know, the devil is in the detail, and the regulations can often make or break the positive holistic improvement moving forward in any situation but in particular in this bill and the mining reforms that it underpins.

The Andrews government certainly has a record of poor consultation, and I could make a list as long as my arm of the various industries, local community groups and education groups with which it has lacked transparency. One very real comment made to me only recently this week was from a stakeholder, not in the extractive industries, but it rang true: that the government needs to understand that notification is not consultation. They very often, as a rule, look to notification; they tell various stakeholders what is going to happen rather than actively engage with them.

Within this I have got some questions, and I have been having a conversation with my Eastern Victoria colleague Mr Tim Bull about this bill. I will raise a couple of questions in the committee-of-the-whole stage. We need positive consultation. We need it to be a two-way street, and if that can be arranged and committed to – there is always a question there – throughout the regulatory process, then there are many merits in this bill moving forward.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:07): I also rise today to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. The purposes of the amendments in this bill are to address the statutory endorsement process, and they do so through three fundamental changes to the existing act. Firstly, they remove work plans and replace them with a general duty to minimise harm. The current work plan arrangement has received criticism for being costly and also for being generally inefficient, especially when the work plan is subsequently rejected during the planning stage, resulting in significant costs to the operators without prior indication from the relevant authority at local council regarding barriers and obstacles they may face in receiving that planning control approval. Considering the discussion surrounding this bill, I think it is really important to note that under the current regulatory arrangements projects receive statutory endorsement, often with little or no community input. These amendments will place community input at the front and centre of this planning process.

The Earth Resources Regulator (ERR), the state regulator in this space, will continue to have input into the processes to ensure the site is safe and minimises the environmental impact of any such application. This bill takes into account that endorsements currently are based on the project’s operation and often do not adequately consider if the location is appropriate for the type of development being proposed. So this bill introduces a three-tiered risk system to work alongside the project risk assessment, and this new system will ensure a primary duty to minimise and eliminate the risk of harm. The second reform is to introduce a new interim system for minor variations in work plans, and the third reform establishes transitional arrangements to bring those rehabilitation plans and bounds into the new regulatory framework as well. Rehabilitation is undeniably an area where strong regulation is needed. Ensuring mines and quarries provide, update and invest in comprehensive rehabilitation plans is entirely necessary, and I am sure I do not need to go into detail as to why it is so entirely necessary. The key reforms of the bill will modernise this regulatory framework, enhance community confidence and improve the approach to risk management and site rehabilitation. The replacement of work plans will significantly improve risk management and simplify the process.

At the same time, these measures will also establish a more substantial duty towards safety and community consultation within the framework regulations. Community confidence in operations will also be strengthened by providing more consistent and more transparent decision-making and regulatory activities. I would like to reiterate that none of these measures will change the breadth of the risks that the current Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 seeks to mitigate. Risk to public safety, environmental factors, infrastructure and land and property are all the purview of the risk management regulatory arrangements established by this act.

To provide some further context, the new system will effectively consolidate the thousands of work plans under the current arrangement, many of which operate under different instruments due to the various intricacies and inefficiencies within the current work plan system. Most mines and quarries face similar requirements and challenges in relation to environmental concerns, community safety and infrastructure as well as neighbouring property concerns. Replacing these work plans with a standardised and consistent risk assessment framework will address the lack of transparency that thousands of varying work plans unavoidably present us with. The inconsistencies in the application of these work plans, the challenges around updating them and the difficulties in their enforcement will be addressed by the amendments within this bill.

The subordinate instruments will also be transparent, consistent, easily enforceable and updatable. With over 1200 work plans lodged with the Earth Resources Regulator, this just reflects the fact that operational risks in mining and quarrying are managed in large part through each site’s separate work plan. It is not hard to see how the current system lacks adequate transparency and consistency. The current system as well, in which work plans receive what is known as a statutory endorsement, does not have a parallel outside of the mining and quarrying industry. The delays and cost increases caused to the industry by the current arrangements do not benefit the community. However, they do lead to costs being carried over to other sectors, such as construction, which also rely on the end products of mining and quarrying. Under the reforms in this bill, the statutory primary duty will form the basis for a new outcomes-focused, risk-based regulatory framework to drive high standards of performance, best practice and a more straightforward approval process for industry and community to be across and to understand.

I do also wish to acknowledge the many people who have reached out to me with different arguments on this bill. I have not had quite the chance to respond to each and every one of them yet, but I have greatly appreciated the concerns raised and have read them in some detail. I am happy to say that I am confident that community input and community decision-making will still play a very big part in this new process. Streamlining and simplifying does not mean removing consultation – in fact this bill actually provides the opposite. As I have already stated, community input will basically play a very different role, because currently it does play a very little part in relation to the work plan statutory endorsement process. The new arrangement will establish community input as the first step before a new project can be approved by the planning process. The ERR will continue to weigh in during this process to ensure site safety and the minimisation of any potential environmental impact as well. The new duty model provides a straightforward and transparent risk management system. This reform will take place in 2027, allowing for an extensive four-year period to develop the appropriate regulatory details that will work in tandem with the duty model when it is operational. This process will be open to community input and public scrutiny, allowing for more significant community input into the industry than has existed for some time.

I would also like to pick up on earlier comments made by Mr Davis suggesting all sorts of things, like that we are abandoning the consultation process. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that there are long speaking spots on these bills sometimes, but that does not mean that members of the opposition should just be making up all sorts of fanciful theories as to the things they think are not happening or are happening when, if they had actually checked the bill and if they had actually checked the budget papers and seen that this consultation is already funded, they would have seen that that is all well and truly already in place.

As members who have actually looked into this process would know, the government has already committed to a comprehensive consultation process. Nothing has changed with that. That is still underway. The Minister for Energy and Resources also confirmed and recommitted to this in the second-reading speech in the other place. The government will be undertaking the comprehensive consultation process with local government areas, councils, stakeholders, industry and especially community groups on the development of the regulations that will underpin this bill across the four years leading to the bill coming into effect, as I say, in 2027. I also do draw members’ attention to the 2022–23 state budget, which also outlines and confirms this funding.

This bill will enable greater community input during that planning process. In addition, as the government creates the regulatory details there will be consultation undertaken with the community and with stakeholders during the four years before the reforms take effect. Already in the development of this bill there has been broad consultation with industry, as I say, with government, community groups, environmental justice advocates, landowners, traditional owners and the wider community. That means there has already been extensive consultation, which will see us transition to this duty model, and there will be further consultation on the regulatory details. Once it is in place, consultation will be baked into the planning process’s first step. Throughout there has been – and will continue to be – consultation at every stage of this process. Despite this, I understand that there have been some misinterpretations, such as by those opposite, who like to draw an inference without even bothering to engage with the substance of a bill and say that we are not consulting when quite demonstrably we are. So it is important to note that the environment effects statement process will remain the same and the consultation arrangements will also remain the same. It has been already said that the measures will enhance this process.

Creating a standardised statutory duty and codes of compliance and standards will improve consistency between sites and provide transparency for the community regarding those compliance obligations that industry must meet. Clear and consistent requirements will make it easier for concerned community members and key stakeholders to understand if an operator complies with the risk management requirements. This bill will also get rid of the opaqueness of 1200 separate work plans, making it easy for regulations to be updated as they will not have to be individually applied to the plans that cover each individual mine and quarry.

I would also like to raise the matter of enforcement. This bill will enhance the ERR’s, the Earth Resources Regulator’s, enforcement options, including measures that increase the maximum penalties available under the act for instances of non-compliance with the statutory duty and requirements. Under the measures in this bill a duty holder will commit an offence of breaching the statutory duty if they fail to minimise the risks of harm posed to the environment, members of the public, land, property or infrastructure as far as reasonably practicable in carrying out the work under a licence or work authority or in relation to the rehabilitation of land, and the Earth Resources Regulator will be ensuring compliance with the general duty. These maximum penalties include jail time for aggravated offences, with a more robust enforcement regime, including increased penalties for non-compliance and jail time for those egregious breaches, as I said.

The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 will enable high standards of performance, best practice and a more straightforward approval process for the industry. The bill will require new operators to carry out an initial self-assessment of risk when applying for a risk tier determination by the ERR. Ultimately the ERR will still make the final determination of the risk tier. That is clearly defined in clause 38AAG of the bill, which reads:

The holder or former holder of a licence must, before carrying out any work under the licence, apply to the Department Head for a determination of the risk level for that licence.

So the regulator will have the final say in determining the risk tier, and if someone desires to create a new mineral mine or quarry, their risk tier is assessed and ultimately will be determined by the regulator.

Councils – now, I do not mean any disrespect to the many people in this room who have come from local councils. I note there are at least two in the room from the Western Victoria Region, Ms Ermacora and Mr McCracken, who I know are still fierce advocates for councils. They do perform a very important role, but it is fair to say as well that each council has different specialities, different needs and different requirements, and it is not fair to expect all councils to be able to be adequately equipped to deal with the intricacies of the current work plan system. Taking this regulatory role away and transferring it to the ERR will provide a simpler, more streamlined process and will support our councils in their core work as well. But as it stands the role of councils will not change significantly, and they will still have some significant influence and involvement in these processes.

The three key reforms of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 will modernise and update the regulatory and risk assessment regime for the mining industry in Victoria. It will remove costly inefficiencies as well as enforcement and transparency issues that currently exist. In past debates I have often discussed the diversity of our economy and the strength that it gives us. Today the mining industry of course is much smaller than it was 150 years ago. However, it is still a very important part of our economy. The material from our quarries and mining supports the construction of hospitals, schools, transport infrastructure and housing. While some may wish to remove mining from the economy altogether, Victorians will still need our schools, our hospitals and our homes, and in doing so we must ensure that the environmental, property, health and safety risks are managed, reduced and if possible entirely removed through a responsible regulatory approval framework. The tranquillity of our natural spaces – the ‘serene serenity’, if I can quote the previous speaker Ms Bath – is something that is very special in our state too, and this bill will not adversely affect the beautiful landscape that we have in any different way than is currently the case.

The framework should in meeting these requirements also be able to operate efficiently and successfully, and this bill I do believe will support these goals. For those reasons – and also just in case I actually kick anything else over while I am speaking in my contribution today – I will conclude my remarks there, I will pick up the bin that I accidentally just knocked over earlier in my speech and I commend this bill to the house.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:22): I rise to speak – at least I will try – on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. I understand the motivation of this bill. Mineral resources are vital to the continued development of our state. They are quite literally the building blocks of the Big Build projects the Premier and his ministers like to visit for media conferences and boast about – or at least those Big Build launches which do not involve fake, mock-up versions of the projects. They are probably just plastic and cardboard – what a joke. You now do photo opportunities in front of mock-up projects to be dismantled after the cameras leave, as happened yesterday. What is next? We have got mock-up projects. Cardboard projects we have got.

The government’s stated aim of dealing with falling approvals and the diminishing minerals pipeline is a good one. To do a proper job of fixing up Victoria’s roads alone would require a vast amount of aggregate, not that we have got much evidence the government is planning to do that. We now need a tank to get around our roads. Even a four-wheel drive will not cut it.

Ingrid Stitt: Come on, Bev.

Bev McARTHUR: No, that is right, Minister. If you want to come out to country Victoria, you will get stuck in your EV. You will do a hell of a lot of damage.

A member: Take her for a tour.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, she would like that. To do a proper job of fixing up Victoria’s roads alone would be a great thing, as I have said, but for continued building projects, public and private, large and small, the work of Victorian quarries and mines is essential. I have real concerns about whether this bill can improve the situation. In fact I have spoken to operators and representatives who are worried it may make it worse.

My first concern is a general one. This is a bill which strips away the existing system and replaces it with a newer and apparently more streamlined process of approvals. The removal of the work plan and its statutory endorsement before the planning permit is the cornerstone of the bill. It is claimed this will reduce unnecessary cost and delay, but is that realistic? Ironically, the statutory endorsement of work plans was only introduced in 2012 and at that time was described in the minister’s second-reading speech as being ‘a streamlining of the referral process’ no less. But this bill in 2023 is now reverting to the pre-2012 process and yet is also claimed by the minister to deliver a simpler and more flexible regulatory framework by streamlining processes. They cannot both be right. You cannot have it both ways. It really is a case of ‘Back to the future’. I can understand the cynicism of those who have been involved in the industry for decades.

My general concern on this is the degree to which this bill removes the existing system, which however imperfect it may be is well established and understood, and replaces it with quotes like ‘more flexible approach’. The problem there is that there is no certainty. Operators are told to take the word of government that it will all be fine. Yet again in this house we see a bill which is more about regulation than legislation. The real effect of it will not be known until later. It will be enacted by departmental officials and staff at the regulator, and we will have little to no democratic oversight. This is simply not good enough. I can fully understand why the Victorian Limestone Producers Association, the VLPA, and the Construction Material Processors Association, the CMPA, have expressed their reservations. They have seen it all before. So have I, actually.

In numerous incarnations we see legislation by regulation in this place. ‘Take us on trust,’ you tell us; that has not gone well. It takes years to establish new systems, especially when they are as new as the general duty required in this bill. In theory this might require less work for operators, but at the same time, with the whim of regulators, it might require even more work. Even in the case of rehabilitation plans, uncertainty is introduced. Yes, they may be a good idea, but if they are to be constantly reviewed, how does that provide any security for the businesses implementing them? They have done what they needed to do, spent what they needed to spend; how can they budget or plan?

My small specific doubt about this bill rests on its reversion to council-led assessment of projects. This flies in the face of the trend in government policy in other areas, in the renewable sector and in the housing development sector, specifically onshore wind but renewable energy more generally. This industry has been recognised as critical to the state, and so it has been brought under direct ministerial control. Surely the extractive industries are similarly critical and their operation should also be streamlined by application to the Minister for Planning rather than dealing with individual councils across Victoria.

As a former councillor I understand the dangers. Councils will not have the expertise or the funding to employ qualified officials to make environmentally important safety-critical judgements. It is a cost- and effort-shifting move by government, and the consequences will be appalling. You are actually just shifting your job onto local government yet again. It is not just the resources. Councils may well be biased, as we have seen in numerous cases in the past which have ended up successfully legally appealed. For base political reasons, local councillors will be granted a greater ability to block schemes which could be state critical. I cannot understand this logic.

Of course applications can be appealed to VCAT, but this is hardly streamlining the process. The value of a statutorily approved work plan ticked off by the Earth Resources Regulator to a successful VCAT appeal has already been shown. Applicants could show VCAT the regulator’s preapproval, enhancing their chance of success. A VCAT senior member’s decision as recently as June this year noted:

In this instance a draft work plan has been statutorily endorsed. This signifies that many matters such as potential impacts to biodiversity values of the subject land and its surrounds, potential amenity impacts from noise, dust and vibration, and quarry operations have been assessed and found to be acceptable by the relevant authorities under the MRSD Act regime.

That system will now disappear thanks to the removal of the regulator’s current role. I should also add briefly that in some rare cases the bias may be in the other direction. What happens when councils operate a quarry? Are they fair judges of commercial opponents?

In short, I have considerable concern about the lack of detail on the regulatory model which this bill will create. There is less certainty, and there is real scope for it to become a nightmare for operators. The general duty model is unclear, as is the detail of the regulations which the minister can make on so many aspects of operation. The removal of the statutory endorsement by the regulator of work plans is another concern, given the lead role now delegated to local councils. If there was a problem with the regulator, would it not have been better for the regulator to be reformed and better resourced rather than this new step in the dark?

In conclusion, the only way I believe this legislation can genuinely deliver its objective is to work through deep and honest consultation with industry. The department and regulators must work through proposed regulation with operators before it is enacted and remain open to their realistic advice. In this regard I am reassured by the commitment provided by the minister to the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, and I hope to draw out more on the government’s plans in questions.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:31): I rise to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. Isn’t mining wonderful? During the debate in the other place members from across the chamber almost without exception talked about all the wonderful products that are only available due to the modern mining sector. Advanced medical technology, the phones in our pockets, the cars we drive and the products that fill our homes are all possible due to mining. And it is not just consumers that benefit from innovation and the global trade in minerals, it is every single Australian. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and this is not due to the leadership of our political class; we have simply had the luxury of the enormous rivers of wealth generated from the minerals and resources sector. Without this enormous wealth we simply would not have been able to afford the ridiculous size of government, the bloated bureaucracy and the money splashed around or promised by the red, green and blue socialists. Economic reality still has to land at some point, and the absolutely dire state of the Victorian economy has led to a small degree of reality and fiscal prudence coming through from the government. This bill unfortunately does not slash red tape, but it does streamline a complex regulatory framework that is difficult to navigate. I will not be opposing it, as it does seem like a genuine attempt to improve the ability for new mining projects to be approved, and we are going to need them.

To our good fortune, as the world is shifting away from fossil fuel energy production a whole new resource boom is underway. While many environmentalists, including some that have graced these chambers, seem to think that we can power the world with rainbows and unicorns, unfortunately stable nuclear fusion remains beyond our reach. It is minerals and resources such as gas that power the world ‍– yes, even for weather-dependent energy sources such as solar and wind. The federal government have recognised this with the establishment of the Australian Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub. There is recognition not just in Australia but with all of our strategic partners that ensuring a stable supply of the minerals required to power the 21st century is absolutely critical. Without lithium from Australia all of the advanced batteries in our phones, cars or homes either would not be possible or might be more difficult to obtain – or, for those with environmental concerns, possibly they would be obtained with greater environmental consequences.

Various think tanks and international bodies are producing comprehensive briefing documents to help business, policymakers and the public understand the scale of the challenge in shifting to new methods of energy production and transmission. The World Bank produced a report in 2020 titled Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition. The report notes that mining for several critical minerals such as graphite, lithium and cobalt will need to increase production by around 500% to meet increased demand through to 2050. And more recently, KPMG published a report in May this year titled Resourcing the Energy Transition: Making the World Go Round. One of the key components of this report is the supply chain risks related to rare-earth elements. It notes that China currently supplies 98 per cent of the EU’s rare-earth elements. But what are these rare-earth elements? What are we actually talking about? They are elements like cerium, which is used to coat wind turbine blades, and neodymium, which is used for magnets in wind turbines and electric motors.

There are those who are fierce advocates for weather-dependent energy and – rather contrarily – fiercely opposed to sourcing the materials needed to deploy it. It is like banning logging in Victoria: it does not actually reduce the amount of logging, it just shifts it offshore – out of sight and out of mind. Whilst I think that regulations are often overly burdensome, complex and costly, it is beyond doubt logging and mining conducted in Victoria is better managed and more responsible than in many other jurisdictions. That said, we are also missing opportunities. If we really want to reduce the environmental impact of energy production, there is no better solution than nuclear energy. About a golf ball’s worth of uranium can provide all of the energy needs of a person for their entire life. Nuclear requires the least amount of mineral resources and has the smallest land footprint and the ability to provide safe and clean power for us all.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:36): I am happy to join the speakers before me in rising to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 and in doing so acknowledge that when it comes to the resources industry the Andrews Labor government is doing what needs to be done to expand opportunity, not just here in our cities but in our regional communities. Regional communities, as we well know, are the heartbeat of our state, and we know, as do so many other Victorians, that this state is community-driven. With this bill and the changes that this bill proposes we will be giving the Victorian community confidence in the mining and resources industry by establishing a risk-based framework. This framework will provide consistency and transparency in the way that decisions are made and in the way that regulatory activities are undertaken, giving Victorians confidence in this vital industry and our partnerships with the communities and workers that make it possible. With material costs for infrastructure and housing rising, it is essential that our resources industry can be as flexible and streamlined as possible so that we can ease the pressures on Victorian industries and also the households that rely on them every single day.

Establishing the framework as presented in this bill will provide consistency and transparency in the way decisions are made and how regulatory activities are undertaken. These changes have come from wide consultation with local government, industry and the broader community, including representatives of Victorian traditional owner groups as well as environmental justice groups, landowners and others during what can only be considered a very extensive development of this bill over many years. They form the basis of a new outcomes-focused, risk-based regulatory framework to drive high standards of performance, best practice and a simpler approval process for industry and communities to understand. With this reform before us in the bill today community input will be the first step before a new project can be approved via the planning process. The Earth Resources Regulator will continue to have input into this process to ensure a site is safe and minimise environmental impact. It will improve, simplify and strengthen our industry.

I would like to take a moment, as is only right and proper, to acknowledge the minister in the other place the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio, the Minister for Energy and Resources, and the work that has been done over many years to make Victoria the epicentre of economic growth – and that cannot be overstated – under her watchful, diligent and entirely capable eyes. The minister in Victoria is leading the way in our resources and minerals legislation, with environmental sustainability, ease for business and best practice all at the forefront of the minister’s work, and for this I cannot commend her highly enough. These kinds of changes to industry continue to make Victoria a state that attracts and retains opportunity. Others in this chamber have made commentary as to their perceived belief in the uncertainty of the future of the minister. I will just say that, for my part, I am entirely confident that the minister will remain for many years to come.

I could take what remains of my time, the 11 minutes, to speak to the critical reforms being led by the minister not only in the resources portfolio but across her other portfolios, whether it be world-leading climate change targets or the revival of the SEC – one that I know members on this side are entirely excited about – or I could talk to the enormous work that she undertook as the Minister for Environment and Climate Action during the former Parliament. But I sit here now with the new Minister for Environment, and I am sure, given that she works each and every day to build on her legacy, she will have some things to say in the next little while. But one thing that I am entirely happy to say is that the zoos and conservation works in our world-class facilities are second to none and they are at the forefront of our work around conservation and preservation of our beautiful, pristine environment.

I will bring myself back to the bill and share a quick reflection. When you speak about the mining and resources industries and where they are from, many Victorians are shocked to learn the extent of the operations in our state. People do not often think of Victoria as a state with a booming resources industry, but how wrong they are. Victoria has a long and proud history of being a state where we welcome the minerals and resources industry, and this government is no exception to that. Indeed this building, as described so beautifully by our colleague Ms Bath, is a monument to that.

This government knows the importance of this industry more than any, whether it is our gold, rock or sand work. It is incredible, the work of our quarries. I have had the fortunate opportunity to talk to a range of leaders in this industry over the last little while, including the traditional owners, and I will say that this government will continue to support its work, its resources and the benefits it brings to our state. Streamlining our minerals industry also allows us to get the resources we need for something dear to my heart, and for so many, and that is the Big Build here in our state. Out of our beautiful operations, I will say that there is –

Bev McArthur interjected.

Sheena WATT: Thank you, Mrs McArthur. The truth is that the most ambitious and significant projects are being delivered in Victoria’s history with the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel, the level crossing removals and the Regional Rail Revival and including some beautiful sites across the Northern Metropolitan Region. But all of these projects take resources. They take concrete and they take steel. They take resources that are coming from Victoria, that are keeping Victorians in work, and with this bill we will ensure that the Victorian resources industry stays strong and delivers what this state needs, not for just today but for the future and for generations to come.

I have said a number of times how entirely excited the community of the inner north is about the upcoming removal of the eight dangerous and congested level crossings along the Upfield line. They will be freed up, making space for – I do not know, what have we got? – native greenery, some beautiful community spaces and of course some shared user paths and some trees and shrubs.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Sheena WATT: Well, you know, it is beautiful to see the artwork, the community and the vibrancy that is coming from our level crossing removal projects. If you have the good chance to come to Coburg and Moreland stations and the areas in between, you will indeed see that. I have spent much time celebrating this space with the member for Pascoe Vale in the other place, and it is true that the community is growing and thriving because of our world-class works to remove the level crossings right across the state. We can expect the same facilities when they come to Brunswick, and I look forward to welcoming this as just another part of the more than 100 level crossings that will be removed across Victoria.

The resource industry is not just about level crossing removals; there is also something that I am entirely excited about, and that is community batteries. I had the good fortune to join the minister at the launch of the community battery in North Fitzroy.

Bev McArthur: It wasn’t plastic, was it?

Sheena WATT: It was not plastic. It is a beautiful, beautiful sight of the real renewables revolution that is happening right now in our state. It is just one of the 100 community batteries that are going up across Victoria, which are being welcomed not only in the cities and the big smoke but also in our regional communities as well. These batteries, delivered in partnership with local organisations and communities, benefit consumers and of course the electricity grid. Victoria is leading the way in battery storage, and this government will triple the number of Victorian homes that have access to this crucial extra storage. I know lots of conversations are happening. I hear it is a very powerful project, and the community, Mrs McArthur would be very happy to know, are absolutely buzzing with the news. It is just another one of the incredible programs brought to us by the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for the State Electricity Commission. We are seeing Victoria lead the pack in renewable energy technology, and with our renewable energy targets, community batteries and indeed the new renewable-powered SEC Victoria, we are primed for a future that is strong and that we can be proud of. We are decarbonising faster than any other jurisdiction, and that is a mighty good thing.

There are of course some that say that consultation has not been done on this bill – I am going to take a moment to stop talking about community batteries and talk about community consultation – and nothing really could be further from the truth. I have the good fortune of being connected to a range of organisations through the work that they do with First Nations communities and have had the good fortune of being involved in the Aboriginal economic development council for I think around 2½, almost three years. I have seen firsthand the work that has been done to enable and unlock opportunities for First Nations communities in mining and resources in the state, and I thank the good folks there at the department who have outlined just how broad those opportunities are. Through that, I have built relationships with some organisations that I know are very keen to see reform to the way we do things, because opportunity abounds in our state.

Of course the government has taken very significant steps to consult widely with government, industry and the broader community in the development of this bill. This bill is not something that came out yesterday – it is a number of years old. As I said, the Aboriginal economic development council has been considering mining in our state and resources excavation for a little while now, and I thank the members for the work that they do. The government has already committed to a comprehensive consultation process – nothing has changed. In preparing some remarks I had the chance to look at the minister’s second-reading speech, where she outlined that the government will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with the LGAs, stakeholders, industry and community groups on the development of the regulations that underpin the bill across the four years leading to the bill coming into effect. It is worth noting and reminding everyone that that will not be until 2027, so time is certainly on our side. The government has already committed, in the 2022–23 state budget, funding to begin the consultation process, and I am sure work is underway to plan that in the weeks and months ahead.

There is a lot to be excited about for economic opportunity in regional Victoria, including in mineral resources and extraction industries. For Victorians this is just another example of how we are strengthening local industry and doing what needs to be done to deliver opportunities and also jobs, frankly – and not just any old jobs; these are safe and secure jobs, and that cannot be overstated. I have spoken a number of times about workplace safety, and I know all too well the commitment that we have from workers and workers representative organisations in these industries. I have had the good fortune of meeting with some of those organisations as recently as last month.

This bill will enhance opportunities for our state right across all areas. I cannot say there is all that much happening in the Northern Metropolitan Region, but I have heard from my other colleagues that represent regional Victoria that there is so much more that can and should be done. With that in mind I will let others speak to what the particular impacts will be in their communities, but I will say –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Sheena WATT: There is a quarry. I do know there is one. I was speaking to that, thank you, Mr Mulholland. But I will just say that there are more across regional communities, and I know that there are a number of speakers on the speaking list that do represent our regional Victorian communities that are very eager to make a contribution on this bill. I welcome the opportunity to hear from them later on in the debate on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:51): I rise to speak to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023. Ms Watt has spoken about members who are keen to speak on this bill, but let us not forget what this industry does for Victoria and what improvements it makes for Victoria. I am reminded as I look around this magnificent chamber, with the gold leaf of the gold rush days, of when gold was discovered in Ballarat in 1851 and how in our great state this city – a city of its time – was known as marvellous Melbourne during those boom times. We saw the economic drive and growth of the state, where immigrants came in and really shaped our city and our state. Let us not forget about those years not long after settlement, which were an important part of the history of this state. Too often we are mocked for the great work that was done by those people, the immigrants who came to this country and came to this state and built this state. I want to put it on record: look at this magnificent building that we are privileged to work in and the extraordinary effort that was put in over those years by those people that were driving the economic boom and really set us up to be recognised. I am sick and tired of those naysayers who keep mocking what has happened in this country and in this state by those people that came before us and built this great state. Unfortunately, it is this government that is taking our reputation backwards, and we have seen that in recent weeks, with the scrapping of the Commonwealth Games. Our international reputation has been trashed. I say this because this industry is important.

Obviously we are speaking to this bill, and I just heard Ms Watt talk about the consultation process. Well, there was a letter to the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources from the embattled Minister for Energy and Resources Ms D’Ambrosio. I mean, she has got a lot to answer for with the latest revelations this week, with members being signed up who were dead, under her watch, in her branch. Nevertheless, I will read in her letter to Mr Hodgett:

As stated in my second reading speech, the Government plans to undertake a comprehensive consultation process with LGAs, stakeholders, industry and community groups on the development of the regulations that underpin this Bill across the four years leading to the Bill coming into effect in 2027. The Government has already committed funding in the 2022–23 State Budget to begin the consultation process.

We needed to get that in writing because we do not trust the government, because their consultation process has been a sham on too many occasions. I was pleased that the shadow minister did get that confirmation in writing, and I understand that the minister will also confirm that during the committee stage when we get to that.

Of course what this bill is to do is change the title of the act and remove requirements relating to work plans and make consequential amendments, but really what it is doing is establishing a modern, general duty and risk-tiered regulatory framework for mineral and extractive industries and setting out the transitional arrangements to move towards that approach from the work plan approval process. That is what it is designed to do. It is around removing some of those aspects that provide difficulty or barriers in terms of trying to get through the process.

As I said, we have got a lot of companies in this state that do mining. I note that even on the government’s own website, the Earth Resources website, they talk about coal and how coal is important to powering our state and that the majority of our power does come from coal. What we have seen is this government banning gas in households in six months time. What a ludicrous notion that is. It is just unbelievable to think about these kneejerk reactions to so many things, whereas they are not doing a proper transition to renewable energy, as they state. This is not responsible policy. It is absolutely kneejerk, and it is again –

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: No, the Indian community and the Chinese community – a lot of multicultural communities – are not happy with the government’s decision. Again, in six months time there will be no new gas connections into homes. It is just ridiculous.

Nevertheless, I will get back to this bill that we are speaking to before the house. I know that Mr Hodgett has done a lot of consultation with the industry. I want to place on record my thanks for the work that he has done. He has spoken at length to many, many stakeholders. I was listening to Mrs McArthur, who likewise has done extensive consultation with those stakeholders affected in her area, in Western Victoria Region, and others who are concerned about what the government might do around how they will approach this in terms of the regulatory framework, how that will impact decision-making and how that will flow on to impacts for the industry.

It is imperative that we have strong economic drivers such as these industries here in Victoria. We need a sustainable industry focus . We need investment in this state. We need confidence in this state. This state is running out of control. The last thing we need to do is have companies fleeing the state because of a lack of confidence around fiscal management, policy direction, consultation and the like. I think this government have shown that they cannot be trusted on a lot of these issues because of how they have operated. I note that that is why it is important that there is clarity. As I said, Mr Hodgett has sought that confirmation from the government to ensure that that consultation process will take place. Despite what the government MPs might say, the government certainly has a track record of saying one thing and doing another. So I am pleased that Mr Hodgett has been able to do that.

In closing, as we approach question time, which is almost upon us, again I say that this bill is about modernising the regulatory approval process for exploration, mining and quarrying industries in Victoria. Those industries are vital to the economic growth of this state. They are vital to those communities out in the regions where jobs are created and where we can do so much good.

I put on record again: let us not forget the history of our state and what has happened in this state with the gold rush days, the exploration and how Melbourne was regarded as one of the finest cities in the world, with that wonderful wealth creation and the tremendous immigrants that came to this great state, that helped build this city and build this state. That should never be forgotten. I will not have a bar of those that talk otherwise, that continually mock those that have come to this great country, whether it was 100 years ago or 100 days ago. We are all Victorians, we are all Australians, and we should be proud of the history that this state has. In terms of the mining industry that has built this state, we should never forget that as well.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.