Mining industry slams 30-year secrecy order on axed Blayney goldmine

Government lawyers fighting for a secrecy order in a review of a mine decision have rocked the confidence of resource companies, the Mineral Council says.

Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek, who in effect blocked the Blayney mine in NSW, and opposition frontbencher Andrew Wallace, who says the use of taxpayer funds to defend a legal challenge gives citizens ‘a right to know why and what the government is trying to hide’. Pictures: News Corp.

A court order burying evidence related to the axing of the $1bn Blayney goldmine has rocked the confidence of resource companies by enforcing “a secret state which supports the interests of anti-­mining activists”, the Minerals Council says.

The peak mining body savaged a non-publication order brought by Federal Court judge James Stellios, who suppressed sections of the court file at the request of government lawyers and the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation – a vocal opponent of the McPhillamy’s mining project in the NSW central west.

“An extraordinary suppression order lasting more than twice the secrecy period applying to highly sensitive Australian cabinet documents will harm Australia’s future prospects by creating further uncertainty,” a spokesperson for the Minerals Council of Australia said.

“Not only does this create further uncertainty for a project which would create hundreds of jobs and boost the local, NSW and Australian economies, it makes Australia a secret state which supports the interests of anti-mining activists.”

The order keeps from public view until 2055 troves of evidence related to minister Tanya Plibersek’s decision to effectively axe the project based on the site’s purported connection to a blue-banded bee Dreaming story submitted by the Wiradyuri Corporation, with potential for further extensions on request.

Federal Court judge James Stellios, presiding over the Blayney mine case. Picture: Supplied/LinkedIn

Justice Stellios said it was “necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice”, “necessary to protect the safety of a person”, made to protect cultural sensitivities and to uphold Indigenous traditional law.

The MCA pushed back against the heritage protection playbook pioneered by the Environmental Defenders’ Office, which has previously supported the conservation efforts of the Wiradyuri Corporation.

“Certainty for mining project proponents is crucial in ensuring Australia remains competitive in attracting and securing long-term investment, which was recognised by the Australian government in its reforms to the EPBC Act,” the MCA spokesperson said.

“The ongoing weaponisation of Indigenous cultural heritage processes against mining by the ­taxpayer-funded EDO contradicts (its) claim to act in the public interest when it has been found to sabotage projects that deliver jobs, growth, and economic opportunities that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rely on to close the gap.

“When Australia needs investment to secure jobs and our future, the EDO and its taxpayer-funded economic sabotage would leave another generation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people dependent on welfare by denying jobs and stopping progress.”

The EDO is not representing the Wiradyuri Corporation in the Federal Court judicial review.

Justice Stellios accepted his suppression decision would have damaging impacts on open justice. It covers affidavits from departmental staff and oral evidence from the Wiradyuri Corporation.

The government argued a suppression order would protect the identities of two public servants for safety reasons.

Justice Stellios accepted the evidence from Wiradyuri Corporation director Jade Flynn, who argued “Wiradyuri traditional law” was not to be circulated broadly and was “meant to be shared only to other Indigenous people”.

Opposition environment spokesperson Angie Bell said it would “shut-out scrutiny”.

Opposition environment spokeswoman Angie Bell. Picture: Glenn Hampson

“A 30-year suppression order on the Blayney mine evidence is nothing short of extraordinary, and risks eroding public confidence in environmental decision-making and Indigenous heritage protections,” she said.

“For a government that pledged transparency and accountability, this is a deeply hypocritical act of secrecy that locks the public out until 2055.

“Australians deserve to know on what basis the blue-banded bee submission was accepted and if the government had nothing to hide, they would release this information immediately.

“It’s one thing to protect heritage but another entirely to shut out scrutiny. By refusing to make this evidence public, the Albanese Labor government is putting politics over transparency and undermining both trust and accountability.”

Her frontbench colleague Andrew Wallace said the use of taxpayer funds to defend the legal challenge gave citizens “a right to know why and what the government is trying to hide”.

Ms Plibersek’s original decision relied on a blue-banded bee Dreaming story submitted by a member of the ­Wiradyuri corporation late in the consultative process. The contents of the submission were never publicly disclosed and the mine’s developer, Regis, alleged it was not subject to sufficient scrutiny or independent assessment, amounting to a failure of procedural fairness.

Environment Department staff said the Dreaming was never independently assessed.

Regis will argue in court that Ms Plibersek’s decision was riddled with “irrelevant considerations”, failed to appropriately scrutinise evidence provided during consultation and used Indigenous cultural heritage as a Trojan horse for environmentalism.

The full Federal Court hearing will run from Wednesday to Friday.