THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
PRESS CONFERENCE
WEDNESDAY 28 AUGUST 2024
SUBJECTS: Newspaper recycling, McPhillamys Gold Mine, CFMEU.
TORY MAGUIRE, CHAIR NINE PUBLISHING: I’m the Managing Director of publishing at Nine. I would like to welcome everyone here today and I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Dharug people. I would like to pay my respects to their elders, past and present.
I would also like to very much welcome the Minister for Environment, Tanya Plibersek. Lovely to see you again. I was very lucky a couple of weeks ago to have you at our recycling round table at the Sydney Morning Herald where we spent a lot of time talking about the importance of the circular economy and recycling.
I’d like to thank Michael Miller very much for hosting us today. I'm here with my Sydney friend and board colleague, Vanessa Lyons, CEO of ThinkNewsBrands. Australia's major news media publishers are very proud of the product stewardship scheme. It is called the National Environmental Sustainability Agreement for newspapers and magazines. The fact that it has been accredited by the Federal Government. We have reached this point after 35 years of industry collaboration, $350 million of investment, and newspapers to landfill reduced to just 0.2 per cent in 2023. The scheme has put Australia at or near first in the world when it comes to recycling newspapers and magazines and we're very proud of it. I'd now like to hand over to the Minister. Thank you, Tanya.
TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Thanks so much, Tory. It's wonderful to be here and thank you for acknowledging all of these special guests today.
This is a terrific example of how industries can cooperate to reduce their environmental impacts. We know that news media organisations are fierce competitors when it comes to chasing the news, but what we see today is a wonderful example of the cooperation to better protect the environment.
The Federal Government's accreditation of this voluntary industry product stewardship scheme comes after many decades of work from the media organisations to reduce the environmental impact of their products. We see the benefits of those decades of work in some of the figures that Tory was just mentioning a moment ago. Almost 100 per cent of newspapers are diverted from landfill. They're recycled for the most part.
An industry stewardship scheme like this, an industry that has a stewardship scheme like this, really requires industries to think about the whole life cycle of their products. That's what we see today. Media organisations have had to take steps in the design of their products and that includes, for example, using less toxic inks so that it is easier to recycle the newspapers, if it goes to doing things like using more recycled content in the paper that they're using, so that there is demand for the recycled paper that they're generating.
And, of course, the cooperation that you see here doesn't come at the expense of competition indi. It's a great example of how the industry has been able to compete where it's important, to compete and cooperate where there's public benefit in doing so.
I wanted to say it's particularly admirable to see the news organisations doing this at a time when the environment for newspapers is becoming increasingly difficult. We see that huge organisations like Meta are once again saying that they're not prepared to pay for the news they use. We know how unfair that is, and we know the way that it impacts on the models that news media and organisations are trying to get running in this incredibly competitive environment. So real credit to the organisations that are cooperating in these brands.
I know that government accreditation of this voluntary industry product stewardship scheme comes at the end of a very long journey of cooperation, and what it means is that the organisations will now be held to account for the commitments they make. It means that there will be transparency around whether they're meeting their targets. But, of course, it comes at the request of the industry itself. This is not something that the government has imposed, and I think that is a real credit to the organisations participating. Any questions?
JOURNALIST: Minister, there’s some self-regulation that’s happening in some industries but it’s becoming more and more difficult in other areas.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah, it's very interesting. There are some industries that work very well with self-regulation. Self-regulation, for example, is something that we're working with the clothing and textiles industry on at the moment with the Seamless product stewardship scheme that has been set up by the fashion industry itself. But it doesn't work in every area. And so, for example, the previous government set some very ambitious targets for packaging, for reducing waste, for reusing and recycling packaging. And the packaging industry themselves have said to me, it's impossible to meet the targets set by the previous government, and they believe that the problems that they see with free [indistinct] industry means that regulation is a better approach for their industry.
So we are currently working with state and territory governments and with the packaging industry about how to regulate packaging to reduce the amount of virgin material going into packaging, to reduce the harmful, particularly harmful types of plastics, additives in some packaging, and to make sure that we've got a whole-of-life cycle of packaging in Australia where we see it increasing recycled content and less harmful packaging entering into the environment. It's something that we're doing with the industry because they've identified that self-regulation has not worked in their area.
JOURNALIST: Minister, what are the benefits of a company being accredited by the scheme?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, the benefits to the companies involved having the scheme accredited is a very important reputational benefit. I think Australian consumers are increasingly determined to know that the products that they're buying and using have the lightest possible impact on the environment. And so an industry scheme like this means it's the industry themselves that find the most practical way of reducing their environmental footprint. It means that consumers can be confident when there is accreditation, that there's no greenwashing in the industry. That gives an added degree of confidence to people who are thinking of buying these products.
JOURNALIST: Minister just on the McPhillamys gold mine project. It's obviously dominating news headlines for the last couple of days. The company is saying, Regis is saying, any attempt to move that tailings dam will incur time and also money. Can the Federal Government help out by guaranteeing that won't take amounts of time, that it can be done in weeks, months, not years; and secondly, would the government entertain the idea of potentially giving the company financial assistance to go through that process?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, look, I'm not surprised that the company is trying to find the cheapest and easiest solution for their tailings dam. That's what companies do. That's their responsibility to their shareholders. My job as the Federal Environment Minister is to make sure that projects can go ahead in a sensible way with little or no environmental impact, and in this case, that we don't ignore the cultural heritage concerns of the local Wiradjuri people.
I've got a responsibility as a Minister to properly apply the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. That's what I'm doing.
To be very clear about the McPhillamys project – I've not said that the gold mine can't go ahead. This is a 2,500 hectare site and I've said they can’t have 400 hectares where the company proposes to builds the tailings dam on the headwaters of the springs of the Belubula River, that that part of the project needs to be redesigned. The company itself has told me that they've looked at four different locations for the tailings dam with around 30 different design proposals. If what the company has said about there being around $7 billion worth of gold in the ground is correct, then I think it's in their interests to look at one of the other sites that they've already investigated.
Can I say there have been a lot of concerns expressed about the impact on the river itself of the tailings dam being built on the springs and the headwaters of this river and, as the company has said, there are alternatives that they've already looked at.
The company has said that they need to go back to the drawing board, this could take 5 or 10 years. That's just nonsense, because the bulk of the project has been approved. The mine itself has been approved. I've looked at the whole 2,500 hectares of the site and made it very clear that the cultural and heritage protections apply to about 400 hectares of the site. I think that's about 16 per cent of the site. The State Government has said that they're happy to work with the proponents on a redesign proposal, and certainly I stand ready to ensure that any redesign of the proposal can be quickly assessed.
This is standard business procedure. We see proponents in many instances that redesign projects to avoid or minimise the impact on nature or cultural heritage. A much better approach for companies is to consult early on with the appropriate - in this case, the appropriate traditional owners to make sure they get their environmental studies done. Just recently, I approved a wind farm in just nine weeks because the proponent had designed it in a way that took into account its potential environmental impacts. So projects can be approved very quickly. In fact, since coming to government, I've doubled on-time approvals. Projects can be approved very quickly if they're designed right to avoid those negative impacts.
JOURNALIST: What do you say to those that say you're simply pandering to the Green voters in your electorate, rather than the general economy, particularly in Blaney?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I would say that the community of Blaney, notwithstanding the recording of some support in the community of Blaney, the community has quite diverse views on this project. And in fact, I had a lot of people from the local area suggesting that the project should not go ahead. As you would know, there's been a lot of concern from local farmers about the impact this might have on their sheep, their goats, their honey production. We've had plenty of alternate views as well.
The decision I made is according to the information of thousands of pages of information I've received and the considered assessment I've made of that information. I made the decision based on facts.
JOURNALIST: Now that that decision has been made, there are many concerns that you’re not attending the Bush Summit.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I have actually been to the Bush Summit just last Friday, I was at the Bush Summit opening night dinner. I was at the first day in Townsville of the Bush Summit. Unfortunately, I'm not able to accept every invitation I'm issued to attend such things. I've got a full day of meetings planned in Sydney and one of those meetings indeed was with a News Limited journalist who has changed our arrangement. But I have a full day of meetings planned around that. So, I plan to be in Sydney that day.
JOURNALIST: In response to that decision of the gold mine project, the NSW government wants it to go ahead. What's your reaction to that?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I feel a bit like a broken record. The mine can go ahead. I've made no decision to stop the gold mine. What I've said is that the tailings dam can't be built on the headwaters of a river. Once you destroy this river, it is destroyed forever.
JOURNALIST: They've had these four years of studies they've done beforehand, and they've approved it. What do you know that they didn't?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, they've had different rules that relate to cultural heritage. I've made an assessment based on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act of 1984 and the information before me.
JOURNALIST: Minister, given the way this played out, we understand that the Orange Aboriginal Land Council didn't have an issue with these plans, but traditional owners did, do you think there needs to be a reworking on how approvals are granted?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: So just to be very clear, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council originally opposed the whole mine project. In more recent times they've said they are neutral on the mine project, not that they are supporters. The Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation have opposed the mine. They asked me to protect the whole 2,500 hectares of the project footprint. I haven't agreed with that request either. I'm protecting 400 hectares of the 2,500 because it meets the bar for significance.
I think it's very clear - or two things I'd say about this. The first is after the destruction of Juukan Gorge, the whole government said that such a thing must never happen again. That we have to take into account the thousands of years of cultural heritage we have in Australia and better protect it. We haven't done a particularly good job of protecting it until now. And after Juukan Gorge, the Liberals, Nationals, Labor, the whole parliament, and many of you said that we couldn't allow that kind of destruction of cultural heritage again. So, the second thing I'd say is most people agree, and I certainly agree, that the cultural heritage legislation from 1984 should be updated and we're working through that process of updating that, which, in essence, says let's talk much earlier to traditional owners, and people who would have interest in the project. Let's make sure it's easy to identify who those people are. And in this case, you've got two different organisations in a single area who have slightly different views. It is important for proponents to be able to identify who the appropriate people are.
And in this instance, in this specific case, I've listened to the Orange Local Land Council, but I've, in the end, taken the advice of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. Which I have to point out is exactly the same organisation that the previous Environment Minister, Sussan Ley, listened to and accepted the advice of when she agreed to a Section 10 application to prevent work on the top of Mount Panorama about 50 kilometres away.
So, same group, under the same laws, for the same reasons as the previous government. So apparently it was okay to listen to these people at that time and now, to listen to the Coalition, it's no longer right to listen to this group. Same group, same rules, same reasons, about 50 kilometres away.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify, are you going to review the Act?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: We have been working consistently with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance that was first contracted by the previous government, again by Sussan Ley, to look at cultural heritage law. We want to give business certainty. We want to make these decisions much earlier in the piece. Our whole objective is to remove this sort of uncertainty that people are dealing with to make it clear who speaks for the country. That work is continuing, and I think, you know, there's room for a lot more common sense in this area.
JOURNALIST: I just wanted to ask if you’ve spoken to the NSW Government?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I haven't individually had conversations with my state counterparts, but I understand their position. Their position is they want the project to go ahead, and my response to that is, there is nothing to stop the project going ahead. What I expect is that the tailings dam should be built in another location.
The project proponent has chosen the cheapest and easiest location. The cheapest and easiest location has unacceptable impacts on cultural heritage. And just incidentally, has also raised all sorts of concerns with local farmers about water quality. The location that they have decided would destroy the Belubula River forever. It will never go back to what it was before the tailings dam was built there. And that is an unacceptable impact.
I repeat myself, it's a 2,500 hectare site and I made declaration over 400 hectares. It's now really in the proponent's decision to, whether they want to redesign their project to move the tailings dam, they continue to tell people that there are billions of dollars, they say there's $7 billion worth of gold in the ground. If that's the case, it's probably worth their while to redesign the project. I would note that since I've made my declaration, in the first two days of trading share price was up two percent. Last time I saw it reported, it's now at nine per cent. I think it had got 12 per cent higher at one stage. It seems to me that there are a lot of people who believe it is possible for this project to be sensibly redesigned.
JOURNALIST: Can I just ask, what do you make of the CFMEU's threat, in their words, to destroy the Labor Party?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, you know, you've got an organisation here that's been put into administration because it's been penetrated by criminal elements and one of the concerns raised about the activity of those criminals is that they're making threats on building sites. I think making a threat like that does show you that the culture is not the sort of culture that we'd like to see in our unions.
I am the first person to defend the role that unions have played in Australia. We wouldn't have the eight-hour day, we wouldn't have sick leave, we wouldn't have holiday leave, we wouldn't have industrial manslaughter laws. There's plenty of things that Australians take for granted that have been hard fought and hard won by unionists in this country. I'm proud of that. And I think it's a really important part of our history that I wish more Australians were aware of.
What we can't accept are criminals penetrating unions and using those unions for their own ends, and that is a trail of union members. We certainly saw it with some of the behaviour of parts of the HSU in Victoria in the past, or see them in parts of the CFMEU. It cannot be allowed to continue because it is a betrayal of the ordinary hard-working members of those unions, and because it is a smear on all Australian unionists. If we turned a blind eye to that sort of behaviour, we would be saying that that is acceptable behaviour in the unions. It's not. It's not acceptable anywhere.
I would also say this: this is a very small proportion of people doing the wrong thing. The average unionist in Australia today is a middle-aged woman. She looks like me. She's probably a nurse or a teacher. Those union members are relying on their union every single day to argue for pay increases, like the pay rises that have been won for aged care workers and early childhood educators in this country because their union was fighting for them. Those ordinary union members are betrayed, if we allow criminals and thugs to continue to be the face of unions in Australia. Thanks.
MICHAEL MILLER, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN AUSTRALASIA OF NEWS CORP AUSTRALIA: Thank you all for joining. I want to quickly thank the Minister for visiting our facility today but also the federal government, for accrediting this very important scheme. Thank you, Minister, also for your words of support for Australian media, and a sustainable Australian media. There's no doubt, that the Australian media is an important trade partner in certain social platforms, and Meta's decision to walk away from paying for news is a threat to giving Australians a choice of the type of media they want to consume. Also, having Australian voices, having trusted Australian voices.
Today we're here to talk about the sustainability of our environment. Throughout our 7 print centres nationally, we've published 257 different mast heads. 15 of those were News Corp, and 27 of those are Australian community media. We also publish 211 independent publishers. Together we bring in paper, together we distribute paper to Australians who rely on that news every single day.
Particularly want to thank our partners at Are Media as well, as the Australian community media, for their collaboration and cooperation as an industry, as we look at how we can ensure we have the right carbon footprint and that we, too, have a sustainable environment for all Australians along with sustainable Australian news. Thank you all for joining us today.
END
