CONSTABLE, Ms Tania, Chief Executive Officer, Minerals Council of Australia EVANS, Dr Shane, Principal Adviser, Economic Reform, Minerals Council of Australia McCOMBE, Mr Chris, General Manager, Sustainability, Minerals Council of Australia PEARCE, Mr Warren, Chief Executive Officer, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies [by video link] [09:16] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Do you have a brief opening statement? Ms Constable : Yes, thank you, Chair. Australia is in a global race for mining investment, and other countries are moving faster by offering more efficient, quicker approvals. At the same time, approval timeframes for Australian mining projects are getting longer, not shorter. Any serious discussion about lifting productivity must start with mining. Mining is our most capital-intensive, high-output industry and has played the same role for Australia that Silicon Valley plays for the United States. In 2024, mining generated around $730 of value added per hour worked, more than 3½ times the average of other leading industries. This industry has built modern Australia and underwrites our living standards. Mining also acts as a platform for economy-wide productivity gains through its skilled workforce, shared infrastructure, advanced research and early adoption of technologies like automation and artificial intelligence. A key productivity constraint today is environmental approval delays under the EPBC Act. Average approval times have increased 38 per cent since 2019, rising from 2.6 years to 3.6 years. For large projects, these delays can cost up to $1 million per day, slowing housing supply, renewable energy transmission infrastructure and minerals development. The MCA has proposed a targeted, responsible use of AI to improve EPBC assessment processes. This would support pre-lodgement checks, risk triage, geospatial analysis and document review while keeping final decisions firmly with human regulators. A $30 million three-year investment could deliver early capability within weeks and generate around $1.1 billion in economy-wide benefits in the first year alone by restoring approval times to earlier levels. This is game-changing productivity reform, improving throughput and certainty without weakening environmental protections. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and thank the committee for the invitation to appear. CHAIR: Thank you very much. I'll kick off with some questions and then I'll pass to my colleagues. The first question I have is: what do you think has been the economic damage to Australia from not being able to access our own resources, particularly at this time of global oil shock? Ms Constable : I think that we have a strong history in resource development in this country. Because we have seen constraints around regulation, particularly environmental regulation, over a number of years, we've lost the opportunity to get mines on the ground and other resources in play more quickly. While other countries around the world are experiencing the same sorts of issues, they are not experiencing them, I believe, to the extent that Australia is. We are resource rich. We have gas deposits around Australia. There's the Dorado project over in Western Australia, the Taroom area as a whole in Queensland, the Beetaloo basin for gas in the Northern Territory and the Bass Strait in Gippsland as a whole. These projects should have been developed. We should have had more refineries on the ground than we have currently to ensure that we have energy resilience around fuel. The other issue on mining is this. We have put out on a number of occasions a list of projects that sit in a pipeline. It's the department of industry's list. It's around about $66 billion worth of projects that are sitting there waiting to be developed. That's the opportunity cost of regulation that takes too long to get through the approval system. It takes too long and Australia is losing out as a result. CHAIR: So what role specifically has EPBC played in delaying the mining of these particular resources which are clearly in need right now in our community? Ms Constable : We've been working on the EPBC reforms for quite some time. The duplication of effort between the states and the Commonwealth has been quite extreme, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been a piece of legislation that has contributed to that. We would hope to see this duplication reduced over time. At the moment, the government is making changes to the EPBC Act. Time will tell whether they will be improvements. I hope they are. But until the stage where we get the duplication removed and one set of assessment approval processes occurring between the states and the Commonwealth we won't see the real gains and real projects on the ground. That's across industry. It's not just mining. It's housing, renewables, construction as a whole and the oil and gas sector. There are numerous projects that are sitting there waiting to get off the ground. In the statutory period, the timeframe that it takes now is about 3.6 years. We don't think that that's appropriate. CHAIR: It's 3.6 years to get an approval under EPBC? Ms Constable : To get the list of approvals, yes. Mr McCombe : I might qualify that, following on from Tania's remarks. That does relate to mining projects specifically, and that is the average approval timeframe. Clearly short, simple projects will be completed faster, but there are many projects that are taking much, much longer to work their way through the system. CHAIR: How does that compare to other jurisdictions which we compete with, particularly in relation to oil and gas? Ms Constable : I think that that question on oil and gas would have to be asked of the oil and gas industry. We can specifically answer questions in relation to mining. Jurisdictions around the world are very competitive now in the mining industry. They're putting forward assessment and approval processes as an area of competition compared to Australia. We've got new jurisdictions like Saudi Arabia coming forward and saying, 'We can get this done in a very short period of time compared to countries like Australia.' I've been at numerous meetings and conferences where I've heard that said, as I have of other jurisdictions. Canada is coming through very fast, the United States is coming through very fast, and we need to keep up. While they're strategic partners, let's not lose our comparative advantage in Australia, because it all starts with mining or farming. Mining or agriculture fuels this economy, and we can get better. We should be better and staying at the lead of the pack, not falling behind. CHAIR: How many projects are currently caught up in EPBC? Mr McCombe : I might just suggest that's a difficult figure to come up with, and we're certainly happy to take that one away on notice. Access to that sort of data is actually quite difficult from an external perspective. However, it's something that I'm sure the department would be able to provide you with a current status of, and I know they're appearing a little later on today. Then the question is around 'stuck'. I guess it depends on the timeframes that we're talking about. For example, I would consider timeframes of more than five years to be problematic for a major project. CHAIR: I would think so. Your sector and the business sector generally said it was a good thing that the parliament was able to make some changes to the EPBC Act in November last year, which is fair enough. Six months on, we have no bilateral deals done and we have no regulations made, so are you still confident this is going to work out? Ms Constable : We would like to be positive about the EPBC reforms being a positive contributor to projects around Australia. I think the real win for our industry and every industry is to ensure that the accreditation between the states and the Commonwealth occurs as quickly as possible, and that should be— CHAIR: You don't have that? Ms Constable : We don't have that, and that's where the real gains can be made. At the moment, the department is working on Commonwealth standards to accredit the states, and those standards need to be as flexible as possible to ensure that we get an outcomes based focus for approvals. CHAIR: Isn't there a risk to investment certainty when you have so much of the principal elements of these laws delegated through regulation? Mr McCombe : One hundred per cent. In many ways, it'll be the make or break of whether the reforms achieve their business efficiency outcomes. We raised a range of those issues when we appeared last before the Senate inquiry into the reforms. In terms of how business is looking at it, I would expect—and it's certainly what we're hearing from our members—that there are a lot of companies in this time of uncertainty moving towards getting their projects referred ahead of the reforms to be assessed under the existing act versus the reforms that are forthcoming. We'll have to see how that plays out and whether it does play out in fact like that. It'd be interesting to see how that looks over the next six months or so. CHAIR: I want to move on to others, but, basically, there have been no bilateral deals done with the states, have there? Ms Constable : No, not at this stage. CHAIR: And then, in terms of the regulations, none of the regulations have actually been made. We only have draft regulations in some cases. Ms Constable : That's correct. But I think it's really important that it's done properly and that any work in relation to this is done in conjunction with industry and broad industry, because you need to understand what is going to happen on the ground to projects. So case studies and workshops are important when putting this legislation into practice. CHAIR: I understand that, but it's six months on now, and we have problems in our economy and our society which would benefit from having swift actions. In terms of the transparency issues here with EPBC, is there any reason that we couldn't have a dashboard or something that would show how many projects are before EPBC approval or something that at least engenders a bit more transparency and vigour? Mr McCombe : Yes, I would fully support that. That said, to be fair, the department have made some inroads on trying to support that transparency through changes to their own website and portal. It's still a bit difficult to navigate and very difficult to compare and contrast. But they have made some steps in that direction. We certainly fully support fulfilling that vision completely. CHAIR: I'll go to Senator Ananda-Rajah first. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One aspect of productivity in the mining sector which I think probably doesn't get enough discussion is that of talent acquisition and skills acquisition. We've seen a decline in geoscience graduates coming out of Australian universities. I've heard that some Australian universities are, in fact, departing the field, and this seems crazy when mining is such a dominant industry in this country. I think part of the problem, reflecting on it, is that we have such a highly urbanised population, so kids are growing up in places which are far removed from the action. I want to draw out, firstly, your reflections on this. Secondly, what is industry doing to reverse this decline, and what else do you think government should be looking at to attract more kids into this industry? Ms Constable : I couldn't agree more. I think talent acquisition and skills acquisition are important for our industry and a number of regional industries. The mining industry has been demonised over time. I think that we are working very hard to make sure that (1) we tell the good news stories about the industry that is the backbone of the economy, along with the agriculture industry; (2) we talk about all of the great opportunities, because there's not a single occupation that does not exist in the mining industry, so that's important; (3) the conditions and the high-paid jobs are talked about more; and (4) importantly, our social licence to operate is very clear. We continue to work on that all of the time. We don't always get it right, but we fix our mistakes and then talk about what can be done. We've worked for a long time with the university sector to try and make sure that undergraduates and postgraduates are very aware of what is available in the mining industry. Courses have dropped over time, which is really disappointing. Our view is that you need to also start at primary school level. Our state chambers are in charge of primary- and high-school-level opportunities. The Minerals Council provides a lot of collateral material for careers days, providing it to careers counsellors and to our state chambers. We also make sure that we try to do as much as possible, as I said, with the university sector. We recently put together an experiential program where we have a few companies that provide a two-week opportunity every year—we've been doing this for the last couple of years—to get undergraduate students into a program. They learn about the industry and go and experience the industry on different projects. They are paid for the two weeks. For the last couple of years we've received over 500 applications, and we've been putting about 70 kids on the ground. I think the success of that is that we're now starting to see students take up majors in the mining industry. They are swapping over to engineering programs and geoscience programs. So we need to get those good news stories out, and we are. I think there are also things we can do across industry with groups like Engineers Australia. They have a lot of engineers that are just sitting idle, sitting on their books but not in industries like mining and construction. We need to make sure that they are prepared and that they're culturally capable of working within the mining industry, because it's a hard industry; it's remote. We've got to create an environment that says that this is the sort of industry you want to be in. Where we've had a deficit of people, we've been relying on highly skilled professionals to come into Australia. So they're some of the things we're doing. There are a whole raft of activities, but they're some of the major activities that are actually seeing success on the ground. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: On notice, if you could supply the committee with the undergraduate program so we can advertise it, that would be great. Also, on notice, could you provide a list, a flavour, of who these highly skilled migrants are that you're trying to attract, the kinds of occupations. That would be most helpful. My second question—if we're running short of time, I'm happy to put this on notice—speaks to cost and energy use in the mining sector. Mining is obviously a diesel-dependent sector. I am interested in knowing, in the context of this fuel crisis, this oil shock, what thinking is now going on in the sector around reducing its reliance on imported fuel. It speaks to mining electrification and to the uptake of and development of low-carbon fuels. What else do you think the government should be considering to supercharge this? Ms Constable : We haven't waited until the fuel crisis to think about what to do to reduce our overall use of diesel. We're diesel prone, and so is the nation. We are extremely reliant on diesel. We have been working for a long period of time, through research and development, to look at alternatives for diesel. We are not at that stage at this point. The providers of equipment, trucks et cetera cannot get electric trucks across Australia—or, indeed, anywhere in the world—any time soon. We're not even going to see that in the early 2030s. No matter what people say, that is not something we can do. We've been working on electrification on mine sites. We have been fuel switching for quite some time to lower emissions energy sources like solar and wind. Because we always look for the most efficient outcome for mine sites, we've been reducing the use of diesel—actually, of all energy—where we can, because it's a high input cost for us. But the gains that can be made are being made. We've been supporting and participating in the low-carbon liquid fuels working group. We would like to see that occurring in Australia, but it needs to be voluntary—not pushing industries to something that they actually can't cope with. We have a safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions, and that's the major area of activity for the mining industry in terms of reducing emissions so that we can optimise our fuel use but also reduce our emissions. That regulatory reform is where we spend our time and is the most applicable to the industry at this particular stage. But we're working all the time on reducing emissions. I will say, in the context of the fuel supply crisis that we have, that the mining industry is working as a whole, as we did in the pandemic, in terms of planning. We're working alongside government, participating every week with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, looking at activities to get fuel into Australia, providing detail on our usage and trying to come up with a plan. And we're undertaking that at the moment, looking at an overall plan in the stages that have been represented by government—the four stages that move from planning to what to do if we can't get fuel into Australia. We're doing that planning now, alongside the government, and we're trying to be as responsive as we possibly can to try and make sure that we're supporting communities, as you've seen recently with BHP and Rio Tinto, and making opportunities available. But across the industry, that's our total focus. We're trying to get fuel to keep our industry going so that people remain in jobs, that we have regional Australia running and that that revenue is there to help with Australia as a whole. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: Just on notice, Chair: if we could get from the MCA a bit of an update on what the big players—BHP, Rio, Newmont, Glencore and so on—are doing in reducing their long-term reliance on imported fuel, that would be most helpful. CHAIR: Senator Grogan. Senator GROGAN: I want to take you back to the EPBC for a minute. I've engaged with your organisation on this since way back in 2013, when Labor first tried to harmonise the system and speed things up. It was signed off in November. What's your engagement through that process been? We were grateful for your support back in November, where you told the Environment and Communications Committee that you 'strongly supported the bill's intent to deliver a system that protects Australia's unique environment while enabling responsible and efficient project development'. One of those core elements is that harmonisation between the state and the feds to speed things up and make it easier for business to understand what's going forward and to get through that process quite swiftly. There are a lot of changes in there that have to come to bear. How have you found that first couple of months of trying to get through that process? Are you engaging with the department and with the taskforce? Ms Constable : Yes, we are. There are weekly meetings of a technical working group. We've been engaged all the way through in trying to ensure that we move from the legislation to implementation so that the system works as a whole. That's really important, to make sure that whatever is put into practice will actually work and that we get a good outcome for the environment, but that we also speed up the approvals process and provide confidence to the community. It's moving so rapidly that sometimes we lose sight of the fact that what might be put into practice is not going to achieve what we need to, overall, for the system. As I mentioned right at the start, workshops and case studies are really important to get that movement from legislation over to the practical outcome. The engagement has been very good. I will say personally, too, that the minister has had regular discussions with CEO-level people across a range of industries. We haven't had that for a number of weeks, but he has been very good at providing that opportunity. It has fallen down with the department in providing information. It has become a little bit of a black hole. Where does it go? It's not really two-way. It hadn't been two-way in last year's process, in what they might do with the information, and it's come out a lot different, in some respects, than we probably had hoped. But that's important, to keep reinforcing and ensuring that we are engaging with the department so that they understand what is going to happen in practice. What happened last year was a disconnect between the people that were writing the legislation and the group that was sitting with the assessment and approvals responsibility of getting things done, in a policy sense. I think that the department has since recognised that and has sought to change what they are doing so that, in this next stage, we don't get that disconnect. But, like any process, it's going backwards and forwards so that the understanding of what happens in different industries is understood. Hopefully, we get legislation and regulation that matches up and, importantly, as I said, that the states have the responsibility for the assessment and approvals, because we want those to occur only once. We don't need the duplication of effort, because that doesn't get us good outcomes for the environment or for industry. Mr McCombe : If I could add to that, engagement is extremely good, as Tania points out, but there are concerns around the process and the timeframes. Things are moving very rapidly. Stakeholders are receiving bundles of material 24 hours before a briefing meeting and being asked to respond to that by the end of the week— Senator McKENZIE: Really? Mr McCombe : week on, week off. Things are moving quickly. Everyone is well intentioned, but the timeframes are very short, which is why we need more speed and less haste. Let's ensure that we properly test the regulations. The success of the legislation is going to fundamentally depend on the regulations, the subordinate regulations and everything else. That's important. The engagement is excellent; however, everyone is working to a very rapid timeframe. There are a lot of pressures there. Let's work through it slowly together. Let's pilot test it together, with a range of stakeholders and industries. And let's ensure it's as successful as possible when those regulations come into force towards the end of the year. Senator GROGAN: We'll have them here this afternoon, so we'll try to unpack some of that. Unidentified speaker: That would be great. Senator GROGAN: Obviously, we know critical minerals are essential to batteries and a lot of the new technologies that we're seeing across the world. Do you see a role—and we're talking about productivity and we're talking about the future of your industry—for doing more onshore processing rather than just the exporting that we see quite a significant percentage of at the moment? Where do you see the opportunities? Ms Constable : Where it makes sense, where we have a competitive advantage to do that, because not every single sector is going to be suited to that. Senator GROGAN: Indeed. Ms Constable : We are, as you know, geographically dispersed. We have hubs around Australia. Where we can plug into those hubs and ensure that we have the right infrastructure available, that we've got roads, rail, ports linked—you can't get projects on the ground unless you've got the infrastructure to support them. We think there is an opportunity across the north of Australia—around $3 trillion, so $1.3 trillion in Western Australia, $750 billion in the Northern Territory and about $1 trillion in Queensland. If we link up that infrastructure then we will see critical minerals on the ground, defence on the ground and construction on the ground, and manufacturing and agriculture. All of those industries will benefit. In terms of processing, you would do that where it makes sense. We're a great lithium country, doing some processing on lithium. China has the highest concentration of rare earths in the world. A lot of the processing is done in China. We have an opportunity with the Linus Projects over in Western Australia, and we've started to do some processing there, but we have another couple of projects. There are the Arafura project, Nolans Bore project in the Northern Territory, the Iluka project and the Eneabba project over in Western Australia. They are great projects to get off the ground, and we need those in Australia for alternative supply chains. But it should be recognised that we can't do this by ourselves; we need our strategic partners. We need to recognise that we are very good, that we have a comparative advantage in mining and that we will do some processing in Australia and then we'll rely on partners like Japan, Korea, the EU, the United States and Canada, as examples, in that supply chain. They might do more manufacturing. So it's closing that supply chain to ensure that we are utilising that and getting the best for our industry, our country and our partners as a whole. It is being done. I would like to call out Minister Madeleine King and Minister Don Farrell, who have led on those issues. But it doesn't take just a couple of ministers; it takes a whole parliament, and there has been much support for the critical minerals mining industry. But there's not a single politician that I speak to that doesn't say that critical minerals are important and that we need to do more mining and some processing within Australia. I'd like that support to continue. In fact, I'd like it across the mining industry as a whole because I think that iron ore, coal and other minerals like gold and base metals are equally important to Australia. CHAIR: Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE: Thank you very much, Chair— Senator GROGAN: I have more questions, but I'll put them on notice. CHAIR: Sorry. We have another witness to get to. Senator GROGAN: No worries. Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. It's great to see you. I'm just wondering if you've seen a recent ad using a nurse concerned about her power bill going up and then blaming the diesel fuel rebate for her power bill going up. Ms Constable : I have seen the ad. We're very disappointed in the ad. I think it's very misleading, and it talks about a tax grab on the industry by the mining industry as a whole. It goes to the heart of what the fuel tax credits are all about. Originally the excise was designed as a user-pay charge for public roads. Mining, agriculture, seafood industry and livestock—those industries use roads, but, where we're off road, we receive a fuel tax credit. That is appropriate because we build our own roads and we maintain our own roads, and therefore we shouldn't be paying that road user charge. So this particular ad is extremely misleading. It's very disappointing that it is coming from somebody in the sector that has an agenda to even the playing field. I know that because I sat at a conference with the chair and one of the leading shareholders in that company who said, 'My goal is to level the playing field,' noting that promises have been made to electrify the vehicles within that company. That is not achievable, in our view, in the timeframe that is being suggested. The only way to achieve that is to level the playing field and have things taken away from the rest of the industry. All we do is weaken the best industry, the highest paying industry, the leading taxpayer in the country. This industry provides jobs not only to the industry. For every mining job, there are six jobs within the supply chain that are created. Senator McKENZIE: Ms Constable, just for anyone playing along at home, we're talking about Twiggy Forrest's public campaign using a nurse's power bill and somehow attributing the diesel fuel rebate to the reason power bills have gone up. I would suggest it's more likely due to the 100 per cent renewable energy grid pursuit policies by the Labor government. Can I just confirm that your evidence here today is that the Minerals Council continues to support the fuel tax credit scheme as it operates? I would like to know what conversations you've had with the government about maintaining this tax credit scheme going forward into the next budget. Ms Constable : We're a diesel-prone industry. We're a diesel-prone nation without the substitutes available for quite some time, but we continue to work on that over time. We absolutely support the retention of the fuel tax credit scheme in its current form with no changes to it because it would be detrimental to regional Australia, and that has an impact across the whole of Australia on every Australian. Again, we've seen senior ministers come out in support of the retention of that. I'm not getting any indication that there will be changes to the fuel tax credit. Again, just to confirm, we've had numerous conversations—in fact, the government is probably sick of seeing me on this particular issue, as I'm sure many senior ministers will attest to—on the importance of the fuel tax credit. It's not just important to our industry; it's important to regional Australia. Senator McKENZIE: It's farmers, it's truckies, it's fishers and it's miners that rely on this scheme. Ms Constable : That's right. Senator McKENZIE: Mr Forrest claims the fuel tax credit scheme is a subsidy. Is that how you would term the scheme? Ms Constable : It's certainly not a subsidy. Treasury and the Productivity Commission have previously recognised that it is not a subsidy. It is an administration activity. The excise is paid into the tax office, and it's rebated, as I said, because the regional industries don't use the roads that have been created. Senator McKENZIE: Having seen this, I just find it outrageous. Isn't it the case that this is simply Twiggy Forrest wanting to give Fortescue a leg up against his competitors by somehow trying to build a political campaign around the fuel tax credit scheme being responsible for everyday Australians' power bills going through the roof? Ms Constable : Yes. It is very disappointing that a company within the mining industry would run such a campaign that would destroy the industry but also impact regional Australia. That's based on his own evidence at the AFR Mining Summit—and that was two years ago—where he did say that his intention was to level the playing field on this issue. If Dr Forrest thinks that that is so important, he always has the opportunity to forfeit a fuel tax credit and make a donation directly to the tax office. Senator McKENZIE: I might ask the ATO on notice whether he's done that. Going to the National Fuel Security Plan stages 3 and 4, we only have 30 days of jet fuel available onshore. I know you have a huge workforce that's FIFO. In questions to the other industry sectors—like trucking, aviation or shipping—I'm in contact with, it doesn't seem that there's a lot of clarity about what industries are going to be prioritised as critical industries when and if we get to stage 4. You're engaged in these conversations regularly with government, as you outlined in answers to an earlier senator's questions. Will the mining operators be prioritised should we get to stage 4? What feedback are you getting from your FIFO servicing operators? Ms Constable : We're very concerned about getting diesel into the country. We're very concerned about jet fuel for the reasons that you have mentioned. At this stage, we're moving people and there has been limited impact on a lot of the industry. I recognise that, in some quarters, the movement of people is impacted, particularly as they get smaller and smaller. I don't want to diminish that in any way. It's really important that we have a fuel crisis plan and that we look at how we can try and prioritise. What would it look like if we had to prioritise the projects that are producing at high levels versus other parts of the industry? Every company is looking at their own operations and looking at their business continuity plans. What would those different stages look like in business continuity? As a whole, the industry is going down the track of starting to produce our own fuel crisis plan across industry so that, once again, we can plug into what is occurring with the taskforce on this issue. Senator McKENZIE: But, to that point, are you confident your industry will be deemed a critical industry when we get to—if we get to—stage 4? Ms Constable : We are not confident. We are not deemed a critical industry under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act. But I would say that our industry and regional Australia need to be prioritised, because we've got to keep this country going. If we can't keep the country going, every Australian is impacted. CHAIR: Thank you. We've now got Mr Pearce online. I think he may have been a bit delayed in joining. Tell us who you are, and then we'll ask you a few questions. Mr Pearce : As the chief executive of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, I represent around 550 companies across Australia. Our members tend to be junior miners, mid-tier miners, exploration companies and project developers. A large portion of my membership is in the critical minerals space and, indeed, in base metals and precious metals. CHAIR: I'll ask you a few questions. Effectively, in terms of the EPBC position, do you think that the latest reforms are going to make a material difference to getting approvals done quickly? Mr Pearce : If the assessment bilaterals are put in place with each state and territory government, yes, I believe they will, and I believe that will make a substantial improvement in timeframes to receive federal environmental approvals. Right now, we are waiting on national standards to be presented to us. We expect them in the next month. That will give us a clearer picture of the increased environmental protections we'll be signing up to and how that will operate in terms of our industry and how governments will assess them. Yesterday or the day before, an MOU was signed with the Western Australian government to have an assessment bilateral in place by the end of the year. That, I understand, is the first MOU to be put in place. There are a couple of bilaterals already in place across Australia, in New South Wales and Northern Territory, under the existing EPBC legislation. Our goal is to see all states and territories sign new assessment bilaterals with the Commonwealth, with the new EPBC legislation, as soon as possible into the new year. CHAIR: How many of your members have projects currently caught up in EPBC? Mr Pearce : I can't tell you an exact number, but anyone in the project development window largely finds himself in some way triggering federal environmental legislation and largely finds himself in that space. A lot of critical minerals projects, particularly those in rare earths or related minerals, tend to find they trigger the nuclear trigger, in terms of natural occurring radiation, and so are pulled in, perhaps unnecessarily. It is naturally occurring radiation; it's not dangerous. It's well understood how that is managed. So one important change in the EPBC regulations will be to ensure that that threshold is lifted so that critical minerals projects don't necessarily trigger federal legislation unless they come into contact with other parts of the national standards. CHAIR: If the bilateral deals aren't done, then where does that leave us in terms of our competitiveness? Who are we mainly competing with to get swift access to these resources? Mr Pearce : We're competing with upstream industries in continents like Africa and South America. We obviously have peers in places like Canada and the United States that have very sophisticated regulatory frameworks, but, ultimately, when it comes to exploration, what we are competing for in the critical minerals game is money to come into exploration to go out and look for critical minerals, and right now, if that investment proposition doesn't look risk free or doesn't look particularly appealing to investors, they look at places that have less developed regulatory frameworks and easier pathways to get on ground and undertake exploration activities. Ultimately, if discoveries are made in Africa or South America—indeed, in the critical mineral spaces, a lot of companies are looking in those continents—then those discoveries are the ones that will be developed, as opposed to the ones that aren't being made here. So, from our point of view, we need to make Australia as attractive for investment as possible, and we need to do that from the start of the exploration industry to getting people on ground, getting them through the processes with cultural heritage and native title, and working with landowners. We need to be getting the exploration projects done and making the discoveries that ultimately feed the pipeline, which are sometimes developed by my members and sometimes turned over to larger companies to invest that capital and build those projects here in Australia. Ultimately, that's where the real benefits arrive for Australians: in the royalties, taxation and jobs that come with large mining projects. CHAIR: Thank you very much. If you could just provide on notice any information you have on our competitors and how fast it is to get approvals done, that'd be great. I'll go to Senator Grogan now. Mr Pearce : We will be pleased to do so. Senator GROGAN: Thank you, Mr Pearce, for your time. I look forward to seeing the reforms with the EPBC rollout as intended and as swiftly as we can, while getting it right. I have a range of questions, but we do not have the time, so I'm just going to ask you one. We'll probably put the rest on notice. I am particularly interested in how mining productivity gains translate into regional jobs and that notion of building the resilience of a regional community, supporting the people and the industry at the same time, and lifting their living standards. What ways do you see to actually pull that off and improve opportunities for regional communities? Mr Pearce : What I'm keen to talk to the committee about is that, when I look at what's happening in productivity around our nation, I look at land coexistence and land use. Australia's big established industries—mining, exploration, agriculture and pastoral—are all large land users. If we look to the future, our proposed big industries will be renewable energy—solar and wind farms. They are large land users. We are finding they are very much now in the same space, which means established industries are coming into contact and conflict with emerging industries. From our point of view, that's a significant productivity problem. What we worry about in mineral exploration and mining is that these projects in renewable energy—solar and wind—will take up large tracts of land—much larger than are taken up by mineral tenements—and essentially sterilise the resources that may sit in the ground underneath them. We don't oppose the development of renewable energy projects. We support that. We know that'll help our industry decarbonise as well. But what we want to see is a situation where all industries have the opportunity to work through a process, as they advance their own projects, to find out, if they're a miner or an exploration company, whether there is a mineral resource that can be developed, or, if they're a renewable company, whether there are suitable wind conditions or solar conditions for a renewable project. But, up until the point someone makes a final investment decision and starts to build that project, there is no reason I can see why all of those proponents can't work together with landowners and communities to advance those interests. Ultimately, the highest value land use will be multiple land use, and what I fear is taking place is a desire to see renewable energy projects turned on and a race to do that as quickly as possible. In that time, not a lot of thought is being given to the consequences for established industries, which are the industries that have continued to provide an overwhelming amount of prosperity for our nation. So, from my point of view, it's about making sure we get all industries working together with land users, landowners and communities. If we do that, we'll be creating more economic opportunities to choose from and obviously finding ways where these industries can advance together. That's where the big advantages are going to be for regional communities: finding ways to turn on more projects in our industry and other industries, rather than getting in each other's way. Right now, what you're seeing is a substantial amount of conflict being caused with communities who feel they're not being consulted with and don't understand the projects that are moving forward and what the implications might be for their industries and their communities. I fear that, much like our industry experience in the past, where our practices weren't as good as they should have been in terms of community and landowner consultation, what you'll get is a lot of pushback from regional communities that start to shut out renewable projects and mining projects. So we're very fearful that, if we don't take a coordinated approach across the nation, indeed that productivity loss around land use could be quite substantial. Senator GROGAN: That just opens up a whole bunch of other questions. I'll be really quick, Chair, I promise. I hear you. It sounds like you're not enjoying the competition. I mean that jokingly; I'm not having a crack. With the exploration licences, there are a lot of those that are untapped, unused and sitting there. Obviously your organisations rightly go forth and think about where rich deposits might be and where opportunities might be, and then my understanding is that you then purchase licensing for that so you have coverage. Are there areas of the country where there is fierce competition for one body or another to get there first? Mr Pearce : There is. I don't know how to explain this, but, regrettably, what we're finding is that areas that are highly prospective for minerals tend to also be highly prospective for solar and wind. So you're seeing a lot of these things happen in the same place. Senator GROGAN: Is there a coexistence piece, there, though? CHAIR: We have to move on. Mr Pearce : There is not. I'll answer this quickly, Chair. We produced a report called Congested &contested, which I've sent to the committee. I'd encourage you to read it. One of the big issues is that there's not a clear mapping of where all these projects are. If you want to know where a mining or mineral exploration tenement is, it is mapped across the country. You can see it online at state websites. You cannot do that for renewable projects. We need to be able to see that so that everyone involved in advancing projects can understand who else is out there and so they can engage with each other. There are a range of other recommendations as well, but I think this is one of these places where the states hold the land use planning authorities, and so the Commonwealth has a limited role. As a consequence, we have now six different systems in six different states, all of which are not addressing the issues effectively, and we need the Commonwealth to step in and try and lead a coordinated approach to this issue. This is very important for our established industries but also for our future industries. We've got to find a way of getting this right. Senator McKENZIE: I've got one question, Chair, and I'll be really quick. Senator GROGAN: Let me just finish. I'll be putting more questions on notice. I'd really like to unpack this further. CHAIR: You guys can just run it in Canberra then. Mr Pearce : I'll be happy to speak to the committee offline or any member of the committee, Chair. Senator GROGAN: Thank you, that would be really helpful. Senator McKENZIE: Mr Pearce, what about mapping overlaying on those renewable solar and wind projects and the critical mineral projects in the main—an agricultural land index? Would your industry be comfortable to have that sort of a mapping matrix? Mr Pearce : Yes. We should never oppose mapping. We should all understand who's out there and what we're doing. For example, the mining exploration and agriculture industries have had a somewhat uneasy alliance around land use issues. In some places that's more conflicted than others, particularly with high-value— Senator McKENZIE: Yes, I'm Victorian, so it's pretty contested at the moment. Mr Pearce : You're in the same space. If you're in WA— Senator GROGAN: I'm South Australian. We all get along really well. Senator McKENZIE: I would argue about the quality of your agricultural land. CHAIR: We need to move on. I'm sorry, but we've run out of time. Have you completed your answer? Mr Pearce : I have. CHAIR: Thank you very much for being there. We would seek your responses back by 7 May..