CONSTABLE, Ms Tania, Chief Executive Officer, Minerals Council of Australia DENYER, Mr Matt, Principal Adviser, Indigenous Partnerships and Communities, Minerals Council of Australia KING, Mr Demus, General Manager, Trade and Investment, Minerals Council of Australia LAMBIE, Dr Ross, Chief Economist, Minerals Council of Australia Committee met at 09 : 56 CHAIR ( Ms Swanson ): I declare open this public hearing of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries inquiry into factors shaping social licence and economic development outcomes in critical minerals projects across Australia. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands from which we meet today and pay respect to elders past and present of the Indigenous peoples across Australia. This hearing will be audiobroadcast, and the transcript of proceedings will be published on the parliament's website. I now welcome representatives of the Minerals Council of Australia to give evidence—a warm welcome to you all, and I thank you for coming out in such fulsome numbers to give evidence to this important inquiry. This hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and has the same standing as proceedings of the House. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded by Hansard and attracts parliamentary privilege. Would you like to make an opening statement? Ms Constable : Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. When people talk about mining and social licence, the conversation often begins at the mine gate: land use, environmental performance, community engagement, cultural heritage, jobs and local benefits. All of these issues are critically important—and rightly so—but in 2026 social licence in mining has become something much bigger. It's no longer just about whether a local community accepts a project; it's also about whether Australians understand the role this industry plays in keeping the nation running, particularly in times of disruption and uncertainty. We've seen this repeatedly in recent years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when global supply chains broke down, mining continued to operate and help sustain the national economy—something that we're very, very proud of. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, disruptions to global energy and fertiliser markets reinforced the importance of secure supply. And, today, rising geopolitical tensions are underlining the value of trusted, reliable sources of energy and critical minerals. In each of these moments, one fact became clear: mining is one of the industries that keeps Australia running in a crisis. It underpins energy systems, industrial capability, food production and our role as a trusted supplier to strategic partners. Australia is the country that can be relied upon. Our submission notes that, based on ABS Census data across the Australian Mining Cities Alliance regions of Mount Isa and Isaac, Broken Hill and Karratha, and East Pilbara and Kalgoorlie-Boulder, the unemployment rate of 3.58 per cent is lower than the Australian average of 5.1 per cent, while median income is 80 per cent higher than in the rest of Australia. In 2023-24 the minerals and energy sector paid $35.4 billion in wages to Australian workers, bought goods and services from 60,000 local businesses, contributed $661 million to almost 6,000 community organisations from local sporting clubs to health services to cultural programs, and paid $519 million to local governments in rates and infrastructure charges. No other sector got close to matching these contributions. But there's a harder truth that we need to confront. Recognising the importance of mining is not the same as delivering mining projects. Australia can have world-class resources, strong environmental standards and broad community support, but if projects cannot move from proposal to production in a timely and predictable way then those advantages are lost. Investment won't wait. Capital is mobile, as you know, and countries that can approve and build major projects faster while maintaining high standards are increasingly where that investment is going. Bringing projects to reality requires more than support in principle; it requires systems that work in practice. And we talk about clear and consistent regulatory frameworks, with a focus on timely and efficient approval processes and policy stability that gives investors confidence over the long term. What industry is seeking is not lower standards. We want to make the point that global capital makes decisions based on delivery, not intent. Mining investment doesn't sit still; it moves across borders, across jurisdictions and across projects toward places where timelines and outcomes are clear. And the data shows how sensitive that is to approvals, as we've talked about consistently over the past couple of years. In Australia it now takes, on average, around 17 years to bring a mine from discovery to production, with most of that time spent before construction even begins. Permits and approvals are an essential driver of that delay, contributing to almost half of all project hold-ups. And those delays are not theoretical in their impact. According to a report by Nous consulting, for a large mining project, every week of delay can reduce project value by around A$7 million. That's how investors think about time: not as a process but as a loss. An additional year of delay in a new project pipeline is estimated to cost the Australian economy $3.2 billion in GDP each year. That's why the government's announcements on the investor front door and AI use in the environment assessment approval process are so important. They will help to get more mines on the ground faster. In other jurisdictions, reforms have brought timeframes down dramatically, attracting tens of billions of dollars in new investment as a result. So, that difference is not about geology; it's about the ability to move from decision to delivery, and investors respond accordingly. Where timelines are uncertain, capital pricing rises, projects stall and, in many cases, investment shifts elsewhere. That's the practical reality of competing for global investment. There are 411 minerals projects on the major project list of the department of industry, and only 63 of those are currently committed. So when we talk about certainty, timeliness and accountability, we're not talking about process preferences; we're talking about whether projects happen at all. The minerals opportunity for this country is generational, and the communities I've mentioned want more investment, because their families' futures depend upon it. Accordingly, our submission makes six practical recommendations: coordinated and timely approvals, a native title framework that properly resources traditional owner organisations, workforce and training settings aligned to project timelines, capability programs that grow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enterprises, infrastructure investment that opens minerals provinces to economic opportunity, and Future Made in Australia implementation that ensures community benefit flows to the businesses and people on the ground in those communities. Mining is not simply an export industry; it's a strategic industry. Mining creates, drives and sustains national resilience, but it will only play that role if projects can be delivered. Thank you, Chair, and we welcome the committee's questions. CHAIR: Thanks, Ms Constable. Deputy Chair, I'd like you to commence. Mr CHAFFEY: Thank you for your address and your submission to the inquiry as well, Ms Constable. You just stated in the opening address 'around 17 years from discovery to production' for mining in Australia. How can we speed that up? Can you give us an indication of ways other than the few that you listed that we can address this issue. Ms Constable : I think it's really important. Can I go to the use of artificial intelligence, which there are mixed reviews upon. In the regulatory process it takes around 3.8 years in that statutory timeframe. We think that the use of artificial intelligence to bring data together, to research data—we've all started to use it and we can see how quick it is. When you bring all of that data and that information together, you are able to do a couple of things. You start to historically identify patterns. You get more accuracy in the information received by assessors, and that builds trust and confidence that, over time, you're going to get decisions on environmental issues that can be relied upon. The use of AI is in speeding up timeframes where people don't have to go and look for information. Their job becomes about analysing that information and then making decisions because AI won't make the decisions. It always remains with a person to make the decisions. That will cut timeframes right down, so we suddenly move from 3.8 years in the statutory timeframes to what should be months in making those decisions. When we start to do that in Australia, we leapfrog over jurisdictions like Canada, the United States and others towards getting a better and faster outcome. The faster decisions or the faster timeframes are the outcome, but it's the confidence and trust that is built along the way. People can say, 'Yes, I can see that that has made a difference, and I can see that consistency in the decision-making,' and we get a much better environmental outcome and projects on the ground. That's one way that's really very important. I talked about the investor front door. It used to be known as 'major project facilitation'. There are a lot of public sector departments across the Commonwealth and at a state level. Your project proponent comes into Canberra, as an example, and will deal with not just a single department but multiple areas of a department, depending on what they need to talk to them about. When you've got an investor front door that can concierge a project and provide the entree to various departments to bring together various individuals within departments and across departments, then, again, you're cutting down the time that it takes. You get information moving across departments. You get information moving across states faster with the Commonwealth. Then, again, you move the timeframes from what can be months or even years spent on a particular set of issues right down into what should be days, weeks and months—not in the years. So, when you're putting those things together in the continuum of 16 or 17 years and you're taking pieces out of that, you're considerably cutting down timeframes. They are just a couple of examples that should be repeated within states and then, as I said, in dealing with it at a regulatory level. You can apply that sort of thinking when you're talking about other stakeholders within communities. It's very important that you never, ever take out that stakeholder and community consultation. But a process can be put into place to make sure that you speed things up so you're dealing with the people; you're not dealing with the process. They're the sorts of things that you would want to do. I think the other important thing is that our projects are quite complex. Lots of projects are. But making sure that there is understanding about our critical minerals projects, making sure that we have things in place that will also cut timeframes down related to people understanding what sort of markets apply to a critical minerals project and how pricing affects a particular project and that information with banks and other financial institutions on a regular basis not just by project proponents but by industry and making sure governments understand how they work in practice can also provide important information to decision-makers that might be supporting a project, providing grants to a project or providing major project facilitation to a project. So they're the sorts of things we're talking about in terms of cutting down timeframes. Mr CHAFFEY: Thank you. CHAIR: I just want to pick up on this concept with you. I've just taken the time to have a look at the United States–Australia Framework for Securing Supply of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths because that's really the genesis of this inquiry. We obviously have struck an agreement with the United States, and it is the government's intention to expedite, where it can, not only the extraction but, importantly, the processing of rare earths and critical minerals. In section 1 of that agreement, it clearly outlines that, in terms of securing supply: The participants are intensifying their cooperative efforts to accelerate the secure supply of critical minerals and rare earths necessary to support manufacturing of defence and advanced technologies and their respective industrial bases, including by leveraging existing policy tools such as the United States' industrial demand and stockpiling infrastructure and Australia's Critical Mineral Strategic Reserve. But the point that is made in the agreement that I think is pertinent to the points you're making is: The participants are taking measures to accelerate, streamline, or deregulate permitting timelines and processes, including to obtain permits for critical minerals and rare earths mining, separation, and processing within their respective domestic regulatory systems, consistent with applicable law. The reason I read that is that I think it's important to know for this inquiry that there is a broader determination to extract critical minerals and rare earths and process them. Now I'm getting to the question. We need to compress these timeframes. We need to extract. We need to process. But a big part of this, as you've pointed out, Tania, is social licence. We've also been charged with looking at how we obtain social licence within the communities. I take the examples that you've given about bringing Indigenous communities along on this journey but also communities in general. Talk to me about examples where social licence has been done well and talk to me about examples where we could have done better. At the end of the day, we've got to learn the lessons. It's a bit like using AI to compress the data. We've got to learn the lessons of the past where maybe things weren't done as well and then we've got to learn the lessons of, 'This is where we did it well.' How can this committee provide recommendations to government of how to do it well so that we can get projects moving along in a timely manner? That's the nub of this. There are two elements: the EPBC type environmental regulation, and there's the social licence of bringing the community along with it. It's clear we've got a strategic need for this. How do we do it well? I know that's a broad question, but if you can cite some examples, I think that would be useful for our inquiry. Ms Constable : I think we must seek continuous improvements. I want to recognise that there are always things that can go wrong in any industry, and you've got to try and make sure that doesn't happen. I'll give you an example of where I've seen a company—I heard the head of Lynas, Amanda Lacaze, speak at the Press Club a couple of weeks ago. CHAIR: The committee are hoping to visit Lynas in the west. Ms Constable : I think if you go to Mount Weld, you'll be very pleasantly surprised. I was only at the Kalgoorlie processing facility, the week before last. I took our new ambassador to the US over to that facility to have a look. It's very impressive. It shows you how sustainable a processing facility on critical minerals can be. They have really taken it to heart. Everything about the company starts with, 'What is the right thing to do on this critical minerals project?' in Australia, in Malaysia and when they're dealing with other stakeholders. How they might engage their people—they set it up to make sure that the facility itself supports the diversity of the people they have working for them, right down to how it's set up and how a woman might interact with a mine site compared to a man. It has wastewater treatment being applied to it and a recycling facility on the facility. Because there is unreliable power in that area, they're moving to a renewable source of power so that they get additional reliability into their mine site for their operations. They have introduced operations that make the facility much more efficient in the way it operates. There are not as many people required in the space that they have, but the people that they've got are much happier doing the types of work because they're not just doing processing work and mundane work; they're making decisions. There's sophistication of operating a critical minerals project as opposed to being a processor on a line type operation. The community confidence that comes with that is very high because they can demonstrably say, 'We have facilities that really are about sustainability.' They can also demonstrate that they have Aboriginal people involved on their project in the Laverton area. Amanda is very proud of the fact that she's also engaging people through Carey mining, which is an Indigenous company, to provide services to her mine site. Those things, again, are demonstrable in terms of all of the good things that you would want to do. Now, that's not unique to that project. There are many projects, and most of our companies have examples that get to the heart of making sure that they've got good social licence to operate in communities. They're investing in their communities. They're investing in their netball teams. They're investing in social clubs. They're investing in community operations. We see that even in areas where we're tested, such as Newman. We have high Aboriginal populations there, but it is a township that relies on iron ore operations such as BHP's Mount Whaleback operations. They have a strong need to make sure that they are investing heavily in the community. They're investing in providing a power supply to the township. They are trying to move that to Horizon Power, but it's heavily subsidised. Housing is heavily subsidised. Where you've got women's crisis centres and women's shelters, they're providing the organisations with housing to help with that. The facilities themselves are provided by BHP. They also operate night-time vehicle services, where Aboriginal community members can use vehicles and drive to pick people up to make sure that they're safe. They're the sorts of things that our companies are investing in. A number of the case studies that are in the submission go to the heart of that. Where things went wrong—and there are big examples of where things went wrong—and decisions were made that may have been legal but were not in line, we've had environmental issues. You lose social licence straight away. A decision might be made. It might be a legal decision that meets every regulatory process. But, at the end of the day, if it doesn't meet society's needs, then a company doesn't have social license to operate, whether it be in the community more generally or with Aboriginal partners. We've seen examples of that along the way. CHAIR: I sense that you've referred to Juukan Gorge there. Ms Constable : Yes, I have referred to Juukan Gorge. There is another tension in communities at the moment—we see this in Victoria—where there might be community interests such as farming interests and mining interests with exploration occurring, but the community hasn't been working together to ensure the best outcome for the different types of industries and for the community as a whole. We have a lot more work to do on that. That work is being done by the Minerals Council of Australia, by our project proponents and by government, who are all trying to bring all of these interests together to get a good outcome in terms of land access. Land access is still a very big issue in Australia, and we haven't dealt with that as well as we could have. They're examples. If you have any other questions there, my colleagues can add to that. CHAIR: I'm going to go to Mr Venning because I know he has a question. Mr VENNING: I've got two very different questions. I'm happy to come back to the other one later. I represent a lot of Indigenous communities that are really struggling right now—whether it's fetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or school attendance rates as low as 20 per cent in a lot of my remote communities. You put that on one side. On the other side, with the investors that I speak to, the ILUAs are becoming more and more transactional. That's what I hear on the ground. It's transactional to the corporation that often doesn't live in the community. Often, they live in Adelaide. Is that something that you are seeing as the peak body? Are you doing any work to examine whether the native title agreement is achieving optimal economic and community outcomes for the people that actually live in community? Ms Constable : We've worked on these issues— CHAIR: I'm sorry; a division has been called, and we will need to attend. We'll just suspend the hearing at this point. Proceedings suspended from 10:24 to 10:35 CHAIR: I think we're picking up from Mr Venning's question to Mr Denyer. Mr Denyer : Thank you. Yes, we are, Mr Venning; the industry is working very hard to look at what agreements maintain at the end of the day. We need to come back to what the native title agreements are all about; effectively, they're about land access. But over time we've been able to negotiate with communities, which is what we should be doing—that is, negotiating with individual communities about what goes into agreements themselves and what communities want out of those agreements, just as much as what the industry would like out of those agreements. Do they need to change? I'm not sure, to be honest. It's something that needs to be done at a community level. Mr VENNING: Thank you for that response. I agree with you. My view is that the breakdown is probably between those making the decisions and the community they say they represent. Maybe that's where we're seeing the breakdown, from my point of view, in the communities I represent. CHAIR: Mrs Phillips. Mrs PHILLIPS: In your opening statement, you talked briefly about training timelines; you said you wanted them shorter or something like that. Can you expand on what the government can do to help strengthen workforce participation, skills development and employment pathways, particularly in our remote and Indigenous communities. What's your experience, what's happening and what could we do better? Ms Constable : This is such a big issue across the economy. Last time we spoke, we talked about apprenticeships and traineeships, and comparisons between the construction sector and the mining sector. At that stage, I didn't make the point that around about four per cent of our workforce are apprentices and trainees. Construction makes up about eight per cent of their total workforce but has much bigger numbers. We're trying to get to the bottom of why the differences are there. A lot of that construction occurs in metropolitan areas; there is a big workforce on construction in metropolitan areas compared to regional Australia, whereas most of our workforce is sitting in regional Australia. I don't think governments need to do everything for the— CHAIR: I'm sorry; we will suspend again and see what lies before us in the House, with this division. Proceedings suspended from 10:38 to 10:49 CHAIR: We will resume the hearing, picking up on Ms Phillips's line of questioning. Ms Constable : You asked what government could do more of in this space? I think it's not just a reliance on government; we have to help ourselves in this. I think, importantly, what government is providing is that information base. Job Skills Australia has been very important in profiling needs and looking at workforce projections over time. As you know, our projects go for decades. Every five years, we're looking at what our needs might be. We've had an incredible shortage of engineers, as you would be well aware. Only a couple of years ago, we dropped down to 87, so we were declining in our levels. I'm really pleased to say that, in 2025, we're up to 269 engineers again. We need many more than that, but that's a significant increase. Partly because, I think, the critical minerals industry has helped make mining almost sexy again—that it's a place that you want to work; it's got fabulous employment opportunities. I think parents, when they're looking at what their kids could do next, are looking at an industry that they feel is going to be there for the long term. There was a lot of talk about whether the mining industry was declining as it's an old industry and whether it would be there at the end of the day. It's not going anywhere. The coal, iron ore, gold and critical minerals industries are comparatively the strength of this economy compared to others. Job Skills Australia is working very well in looking at practical ways to improve some training skills programs—the automotive skills and mining skills programs. CHAIR: We will suspend due to a division of the House. Proceedings suspended from 10:52 to 11:0 1 CHAIR: I do apologise. Ms Constable : We could prepare for any questions you might have on economic outcomes or specific critical minerals projects across Australia. Do you want any of that? CHAIR: I do think that might be useful. We could always invite you back on a day when we're not going to be having divisions. I think that economic piece is really important to this as well. I will give you something on notice about this as well, if you don't mind, Tania. Ms Constable : Sure. CHAIR: This is really what's on my mind about it. The options there are for improving coordination between different jurisdictions and the Commonwealth in the development of the critical minerals sector—I'm getting down to state legislation here. Regulations from the state and how they intersect with things like the EPBC are probably where we're seeing the difficulties. That's a lot of the feedback I'm getting—that projects just get stalled in permits and permissions and regulations and red tape. Hence what you told me about the 17 years. So I'm interested in how we can make a recommendation to improve that coordination. I know it's a magic-wand-type approach, but we've got to start somewhere. And what should the Australian government do to ensure that engagement and approvals processes across the different levels of government are harmonised and streamlined? They're one and the same question, I suppose, but I'm really interested in how we can do this. I know it's difficult, but I'd be interested in your thoughts as the peak representative body for the mining industry. I know you've done a lot of work on this anyhow— Ms Constable : Yes. CHAIR: but, for the contents of the report and recommendations, I think it's important. We have had a disrupted session today. If there's anything that we haven't covered that you really wanted to bring to our attention—I know you've done your submission, and I thank you for that—or if there's anything that has arisen from today's conversation, vis-a-vis the economic piece, then I'd be really interested to receive that. Ms LANDRY: Chair, when you guys were out of the room, we talked about the fuel situation and how that's going to affect the mining sector in the next 12 months to two years. Maybe that's something that we could get some feedback on as well. CHAIR: Thanks, Michelle. I think that's— Ms Constable : We're happy to come back. CHAIR: Okay. Let's stay in communication about that, because I think that's really important as well, given that it's a development that's come up since the inquiry was stood up. It being five past 11, I thank you for your time and your attendance. You will be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence and have the opportunity to request corrections of transcription errors. Please send your responses to any questions taken on notice during this hearing to the secretariat by close of business Thursday 28 May. I thank members and witnesses for their time. Committee adjourned at 11:05