‘No certainty’ to ‘no impediment’: Blayney mine’s future under Labor spin

Newly released documents show Labor’s call of ‘30 sites’ to save the Blayney Mine was never proven feasible, damaging future prospects at trial.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese have repeatedly assured the McPhillamys goldmine could be relocated, running contrary to newly released departmental advice. Picture: Martin Ollman/NCA NewsWire

There was “no person” on Tanya Plibersek’s staff who could tell if the Blayney goldmine could recover from her heritage decision, department documents show, despite later assurances there was “no impediment” to it.

In newly released advice, Department of Climate Change, Environment, Energy and Water staff detailed the “extensive process” needed to assess alternate sites for a tailings dam attached to the McPhillamys goldmine, which threw the project into disarray after it was blocked by a heritage protection declaration.

“Given the extensive process involved in assessing areas from a number of different perspectives, performing consultations and obtaining a number of approvals, and the time and expense involved, no person is in a position to advise the minister whether an alternate location is feasible,” states a departmental analysis, provided to inform Ms Plibersek’s final decision and released under Freedom of Information laws.

It sits in contrast to statements from Ms Plibersek and Anthony Albanese, who grew increasingly emphatic over the weeks following the decision in downplaying the financial impacts upon mine developer Regis Resources.

At a September 1 press conference in Collie, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared there was ‘no impediment’ on the Blayney mine. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

When Ms Plibersek wrote her subsequent statement of reasons, she conceded she was “satisfied that a partial declaration would make the proposed mine unviable in the state in which it is currently proposed and approved”, though left the door open for an alternate proposal.

By August, when her decision was made public, she would argue it was in Regis’s interest “to put a bit of time and energy” into a ­solution.

“This is a large company. They’ve got geologists and hydrologists and engineers available to them,” Ms Plibersek said in September, denying having axed the project.

In addressing the decision, the Prime Minister gave the most emphatic defence yet.

“There’s no impediment to the mine,” Mr Albanese said. “There are other proposed sites for the tailings dam.”

Though the departmental advice provided no certainty of a viable alternate proposal, it still recommended Ms Plibersek declare she was “satisfied that it may be possible for the proponent (Regis) to assess the more than 30 alternative options to find a suitable alternative location”.

The department’s recommendation runs counter to independently selected heritage assessor Ruth Elvin’s summation that protection to the Belubula river waterways would “likely mean the project is not feasible, as the mine itself cannot be moved”.

Regis has maintained since the site was blocked that it left the project non-viable. In September, The Australian reported from four sites spruiked by government; three overlapped with the heritage site, and the fourth was assessed as having the most detrimental impact to the surrounding community, river and environment.

A reassessment of the site’s viability and value to the local economy could be especially pertinent if the mine developer is successful in its Federal Court bid against Ms Plibersek.

Victory in the judicial review would leave a different Labor minister with the task of going back through the full evidence of the proposal and re-evaluating the heritage decision under Section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.

While the mine’s future viability would likely have little bearing on whether the site was found to have Indigenous cultural significance, it could change whether the minister opted to provide heritage protection to the site.

Under the act, if an alternate minister finds the mine is of great community value and has no alternate form, it could be decided the project may still go ahead on the grounds of its local value, despite disrupting a site of cultural significance.

Regis may face an uphill struggle in lobbying such a decision, however, with the same trove of documents indicating debate had emerged late in the decision-making process over whether the value of the project had been correctly estimated.

A social impact report by academic Alison Ziller, commissioned by environmentalists with the Belubula Headwaters Protection Group, argued Regis had overstated the project’s economic benefits, saying the “community is better off if the project does not go ahead”.

Additional submissions pointed to a November 2021 Regis AGM at which the chief executive of the time speculated “the McPhillamys project may not result in a profit for the company, but the surrounding satellite projects have prospect”. This AGM took place before Regis had completed its own viability assessment for the project.

The projected value of the project fluctuated between submissions and accounts, with the final departmental advice estimating the mine’s blockage would “sterilise” $3.8 billion in gold, while representing a $253-371 million shareholder loss and $231-$366 million in regional job losses.

In a June submission, Regis estimated the value of unmined gold at $7bn, to be extracted over 11 years with a total project life of 15 years, though suggesting additional exploration could provide more longevity, as was the case with the Cadia mine located northwest of Blayney.

The DCCEEW also identified “inconsistencies with the quantity and way the proponent has represented the potential employment opportunities” the mine offered.

Regis chief executive Jim Beyer. Picture: Rohan Kelly

In June, when Regis became aware the government would seek to block part of its proposal, chief executive Jim Beyer made a final appeal to Ms Plibersek in which he argued the multiple unprecedented aspects of her decision should give the government pause.

Mr Beyer compared the Blayney decision to the only three ongoing Section 10 decisions at Mount Panorama, Butterfly Cave and the Bellwood sacred site in Nambucca Heads, all of which were declared in NSW.

It was the only one to override the rulings of equivalent state ministers, a prior federal minister, a state-approved development decision, and the DCCEEW’s own independent heritage reporter. It is also the most expensive development stymied by a Section 10 declaration.

The DCCEEW found these facts to be insignificant.

Ms Plibersek, Mr Albanese and Regis all declined to comment due to ongoing legal action.