Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for her comments, and I'd like to respond to some of those in my contribution here. But I would like to frame my contribution as someone who spent a good part of their career as a mining engineer in the mining industry. Of course, when we enter this place we leave a good part of our history behind, but it's an industry that has been very, very good to me, as it has been to a great many people, certainly, from around Queensland and across Australia. In my particular case, it was a way for a young boy from Ipswich to find a way towards good employment. Quite a few people of my generation will remember the great mining industry there was in Ipswich only a couple of generations ago and how proudly we looked upon those of us who sought good careers in that industry and went forth. For me, the pathway was through mining engineering.

Unfortunately, in the broader debate that we have on mining and environmental protections, sadly, it has become a 'for or against' situation. Often, the mining industry has been demonised across the spectrum and not seen as what it is: both a great contributor to the nation, across a number of fields, and a sector that is very highly regulated. It is a sector that, in Australia, is asked to do a lot, and it does a lot. We can be very well assured that the mining industry does step up to the requirements we place upon it, and, in the very rare instances where it operates outside of them, it's inevitably caught and made to act on it. I hope that, through this debate, we can reframe the role that the mining industry plays in our environmental protection going forward.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was created in 1999, and since then we've seen significant changes in technology and the types of projects being pursued. I'd give the example of tailings dams. For a long, long time, tailings dams were the hardest barrier for a mine to cross, in terms of seeking its environmental approvals. This is probably for good reason: tailings dams have a very bad and, unfortunately, in a lot of cases, a well-deserved reputation for the impact they have and the lasting damage that can be caused when they are poorly managed.

I've been very fortunate in recent years to work with one of our great CRCs, CRC ORE—Optimising Resource Extraction. This is a CRC that looks at ways of reducing water consumption and energy consumption in the mining industry. And, of course, by doing that it vastly reduces the carbon footprint of mining operations that take up that technology. When it comes to tailings dams, some of the great work that has come out of the CRC ORE has been the potential in some cases to reduce the requirement for tailings dams altogether, and in others to significantly cut back the scale of tailings dams required, sometimes by beyond 50 per cent. This is a significant change in a project. As you would expect, with technology developing so quickly, we are able to better manage these projects. We're able to get better environmental outcomes. Mines today are better able to respond to the requirements that we have. We must see that these are important steps that have taken place since the time that this act was brought into play. But, as per the independent review released earlier this year, some serious reform is required to ensure this act remains fit for purpose.

I think balance is what we're looking for throughout this debate. In the case I'm presenting, it's balance between the mining industry and environmental protections. But balance between state governments' and federal governments' responsibilities is also very important. And what is very clear is that, throughout this process, the central theme of what we're trying to achieve here has been agreed by the state governments. This is very much a process of state governments and the federal government having a similar issue that they would like to address—that being simplification of this process and greater clarity and consistency in the application of standards contained in the act, to ensure that all projects are treated fairly and are subject to the same scrutiny.

From my point of view and, I think I can say, from my long time and experience in the mining industry and beyond, what I'm looking for out of this is not more yeses. I'm not looking for something that guarantees more approvals. What I'm looking for is something that provides less maybes, because it's in that inconsistency that we find troubles. It is important that we acknowledge—and I certainly do—that, within the mining industry, there is good mining and bad mining, in terms of the practices undertaken, the commodities extracted and the issues of social licence and national benefit. There are many ways that we can address a mine's value, and we need to have that nuance in this discussion.

In my region, unfortunately, we've seen firsthand the impact that uncertainty on projects can have. I am speaking again to a broader issue, part of which this legislation addresses—that is, the uncertainty that currently exists across a number of jurisdictions in terms of major project approval. One thing I can wholeheartedly agree with the shadow minister on is that delays have a terrible impact. It goes beyond investment. It goes beyond a business statement, a statement of commerce. I'm talking about the impact that these delays can have on people's lives, on families and on communities. Unfortunately, the case in my patch that is very relevant to this is the New Acland mine. For 14 years this mine has been going through approval processes, back and forth. The state government's position on this mine is that it won't make a determination on granting a mining lease while there are still active legal cases, but there are a number of other mines, like Olive Downs and Adani, where that policy has not been applied. There's significant inconsistency in the policy that's been applied there.

That has meant that the 350 people who've worked at Acland for 14 years have had uncertainty about their future. To put it into a little bit of context, that's putting a kid through their entire school education while being unsure as to what your future employment options look like. Sadly, this is a result of a government choosing to delay an approval process. The upside to this is that we can see the advantages that could have resulted had we reduced that delay 14 years ago. The investment by New Acland and the investment by its supply chain could have been deployed elsewhere, and it could now be a mature asset delivering elsewhere.

I've had the privilege of standing on many mine sites around Australia and around the world, and seeing the good and the bad. Very honestly, I'm not looking for more yeses; I'm looking for fewer maybes. That could not be a more important issue today. In the context of reducing uncertainty, the context in which this bill is being put forward needs to be considered.

We have come through a very difficult period for many people across the nation during the pandemic, health-wise and throughout the economy. This government has acknowledged that and has extended funding into major projects. The $110 billion pipeline is where we sit at the moment. They are important projects. The idea of delivering these projects is to build things that increase our productivity across Australia so that we're able to do more with less. It's a very simple view that we need to have when it comes to infrastructure, that there's a purpose and a point to it. Once we've decided that, once we understand what we're trying to achieve and once we see the productivity gains that we're trying to realise for this nation to put it in a better place in the future so that it's able to pay down the debt that we have accumulated during our response to the pandemic—that will have to happen. The only way to do that is to increase our productivity so that we can bring in more. But for those projects to go ahead we need certainty. We need it not just for us now but for our kids and our grandkids. We need the certainty that we can invest today in these projects and know that within a set time frame they will be mature projects delivering the benefits they were designed to deliver. That is very much the scope of this bill.

In this amendment bill there are some very strong measures that I hope will go some way to ensuring the act is used more efficiently. I've talked, of course, about the single-touch environmental approvals which are underpinned by national environmental standards. I'm pleased that all state and territory leaders have agreed it is an immediate priority to pass necessary legislation to streamline approval processes and assist in the development of national standards which will provide greater clarity for proponents and the community. Consistency across jurisdictions will be vital in ensuring Commonwealth requirements and obligations are upheld regardless of who makes the project approval decisions. I think we've had a great example of this during the pandemic. In a number of ways—national cabinet being the headline mechanism—state and federal governments have worked together to get a better outcome for the nation. I think that was a very important thing that we did, and this bill in part reflects that. I hope businesses will have confidence to put forward their proposals knowing there is a clear set of principles that will be applied in assessing them.

The single-touch decision process will support this government's commitment to delivering, on time, key decisions and faster approval of major projects. I will step back to my patch again and look at what Inland Rail will bring to our region. It's a great project not because of what it is in itself but because of how we will use inland rail. Much like a bridge provides a conduit between two places, inland will provide the ability for local producers to move their product. We've already had some great conversations in Toowoomba about significant industries wanting to come into the area and take advantage of the great confluence between the wonderful Western line, which runs all the way out to Roma, and inland rail. This will be a significant project that will require approval. Those people, in order to move their operations to the area, need to have confidence in taking that step forward. They need to see this government bringing forth legislation like this so they can see we understand the challenge they face: the great challenge of confidence, of knowing that there will be a return on their investment. These are the things that the business community looks for. These are the things that employees look for to make sure they have job security going forward.

I've been blessed to be able to see major projects around the world overcome significant issues. I remember being in London and watching a project there, the East London line, overcome significant environmental hurdles. We had to employ archaeologists; we had to do all sorts of inventive things to meet the requirements there. I think it's important for me to reflect that the rest of the world is addressing these concerns; the rest of the world understands that we need to overcome these challenges, not just fall at the first hurdle. It's so important that we continue to provide our major project proponents with this security.

See this speech in context