Chapter 3Indigenous communities, local communities and national security
Indigenous communities
3.1The construction of Project Iron Boomerang (PIB) would cross several native title determinations across the planned rail corridor, particularly in Western Australia (WA). Figure 3.1 shows the current set of native title determinations (by existence, non-existence, exclusivity and extinguishment) as at 1 April 2023.
Figure 3.1Native Title Determinations as at 1 April 2023
Source: National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Determinations as at 1 April 2023.
3.2As noted in Chapter 2, the project proponents specified that applications to ‘multiple’ Aboriginal Land Trusts would be required.
3.3The Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation (KNAC) is the registered native title body corporate for the Nyiyaparli People. It includes Newman, WA in its Determination Area of around 40,000km2, as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation Determination Area
Source: KNAC, About Us.
3.4KNAC’s submission to the inquiry outlined its ‘significant concerns’ regarding the lack of PIB information and consultation, the short submissions timeframe for the inquiry, and the lack or absence of detailed social, cultural and environmental impacts assessments or studies. These issues would need to be addressed for KNAC to provide a detailed submission.
3.5East West Line Parks (EWLP) was further questioned about its engagement with traditional owners at the first hearing. Mr Condon gave evidence that EWLP had met with traditional owners through the Northern Land Council:
We had a meeting with them in Alice Springs about three or four years ago with the Northern Land Council. I often state how good is Australia. We deal with one council and get a thousand kilometres of east-west corridor. That to us is a great event. My approach to them was we're going to be fifth generation, we're coming into your neighbourhood, and we'll become part of it, not fly-in fly-out, permanent.
3.6EWLP representatives advised at the second hearing that they would engage with Indigenous groups in the project’s construction phase. Mr Colin Donegan, director of EWLP’s resources division, said that EWLP would ensure that ‘cultural officers’ from Indigenous groups would be present during exploration along the route.
3.7During the first hearing, representatives of EWLP suggested that gas, water and telecommunications services and infrastructure developed along the railway would be ‘critical’ to development in Indigenous communities.
3.8Potential benefits for Indigenous communities were characterised in terms of the potential economic and employment opportunities discussed in the previous chapter. At the second public hearing, Mr Alexander Hinde, an advocate for PIB, linked rail infrastructure, access to resource deposits, and benefits for Indigenous communities together:
One of the really key things it does, apart from shipping and steelmaking—which brings back Australian self-sufficiency in steel construction—is that it opens up the interior. There are a lot of valuable mineral resources out there, including rare earths, not just lithium, that are currently very difficult to access. The rail corridor will provide access to that, and it will also open up opportunities, particularly in the Aboriginal sector, for Aboriginal-owned businesses that are already extant across the rail line to enhance and open up opportunities for their logistics.
3.9Mr Hinde further described PIB as ‘unlocking the potential of the centre and the north’, potentially broadening the scope of benefits for Indigenous businesses to several agricultural and tourism industries, in addition to businesses in the resources sector.
Local communities
3.10The Australian Mining Cities Alliance (AMCA) outlined the value of resources projects in its evidence to the inquiry. As with Indigenous communities, AMCA linked local community engagement to potential economic and employment benefits. AMCA suggested that the viability of some local communities was tied to the economic prospects of resources projects, and any decline in the latter as a result of the ‘global commitment to decarbonisation’ would necessarily affect the former. Consequently, AMCA spoke of the need to ‘open opportunities for transformation’ from either public or private sector projects to meet these challenges.
3.11EWLP representatives acknowledged that construction of the rail line could affect existing sites of importance to local communities, and mitigating this risk would require consultation. Mr Michael Darby, EWLP’s rail division director, said that once approvals and funding have been secured, the first priority for EWLP would be to survey the rail corridor. Mr Darby said EWLP would work with local communities to ensure that local heritage sites are not destroyed and that communities are happy. He described cooperation as ‘very, very critical.’
3.12An issue with such projects is determining where industrial facilities, for example, a steel mill, are located. In response to questioning about the optimal location in the Pilbara for a steel mill, Cr Long of AMCA described himself as ‘neutral’ on the location. While noting the different logistical requirements in Newman versus Port Hedland, Cr Long suggested the specific location was a less important factor compared to the overall benefit from having a steel mill constructed in the region.
3.13Regarding what would be required from EWLP as the project moves further, CrPhil Barwick from AMCA suggested that local communities and traditional owners should be engaged further, and that such engagement would be assisted by mining communities’ favourable disposition towards prospective projects:
Look, serious engagement with the local government areas just to work out what those impacts might be, good or bad, and also, of course, with the traditional owners.
So we welcome all mines and mining in our area. We think it's well suited for it. The traditional owners are on board, for the most part. I think the engagement would be very positive.
3.14EWLP summarised the relationship of local communities to PIB bluntly, contextualising it in the question of socioeconomic viability raised by AMCA:
Employment prospects would inject new-found vitality into local communities which are now struggling, bolstering their economies and providing a much-needed boost to regional development. By promoting job creation and fostering economic growth, the revival of Australian steel manufacturing through the Iron Boomerang would play a pivotal role in reinvigorating our regions and laying the foundations for a prosperous future.
National security
3.15The national security implications of PIB relate primarily to three outcomes from the project—an increase to domestic steelmaking capacity and supply, the impacts to Australia’s regional and international engagement, and the enhancement of logistics across central and northern Australia from the development of transport infrastructure.
Domestic steelmaking capacity and supply
3.16An increase to Australia’s steelmaking capacity and supply of steel would become a factor in defence policy and planning. EWLP drew a link from the increased production of steel to defence in the first hearing. Mr Condon highlighted the importance of steel for both industrial and defence use, stating that ‘industrial national security not only for industrial steel but for defence is a very carefully managed national agenda in any country’.
3.17Defence placed steel in the context of defence industry capability and policy. When asked whether Defence was doing any work to look at the broader industrial economy in Australia, Air Commodore Matt Hegarty referred to Defence’s ongoing development of a Defence Industry Policy Strategy, which as of April 2023 was expected to cover:
the strategic rationale for a sovereign defence industrial base;
more targeted and detailed Sovereign Industrial Capability Priorities;
a plan to grow industry’s workforce to deliver a viable industrial base and increase Australia’s defence exports;
reforms to defence procurement to support the development of Australian defence industry and respond to the Defence Strategic Review;
mechanisms to improve security within defence businesses; and
a detailed implementation plan.
3.18In response to whether the strategy would provide guidance down to the raw material level, in this case for steel, Defence explained that it ‘regularly examines first and second tier suppliers’, and has the capability to ‘examine supply chains at the component level where there is a requirement.’ On its analysis of supply chains specifically, Defence confirmed that its analysis includes components like steel and that it considers national security ‘in line with Defence acquisition requirements and industrial capacity’.
3.19In relation to the Australian Government’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, Defence advised it was analysing the need for steel in this procurement. Mr Hinde, a PIB advocate, raised the prospect of ‘many benefits to national security’ from the project, suggesting that there would be benefits right through to Australian Defence Force uniform procurement.
3.20It was noted that economic benefits and security benefits are not mutually exclusive nor strictly divided. For instance, Defence agreed that Australia’s economic productive capacity is also a strategic and security imperative, while noting the economy was not Defence’s ‘main remit’.
Regional and international engagement
3.21EWLP portrayed the increase to steelmaking as a lever with which Australia could enhance its regional leadership and gain global influence. Arguing that Indonesia, India and Vietnam would all benefit and that the project would support United Nations decarbonisation commitments, EWLP stated PIB is a ‘huge regional leadership opportunity for Australia’ with ‘geopolitical competitive advantage attributes on a global scale’. Through the project, EWLP asserted that Australia would be uniquely positioned to support economic development during the so-called ‘Asian century’.
3.22China was repeatedly referenced as a dominant player in the world steel market, suggesting that any gains realised in Australia’s position as a steel exporter could come at a reduced share for China. Regarding China, Mr Condon variously suggested that:
PIB would have greater efficiency than China’s steelmaking operations;
PIB steel would have a 20 per cent advantage over the China benchmark world steel price; and
China’s 54 per cent share of world steel production was a ‘monopoly that’s not healthy for the world’.
3.23Mr Condon also gave evidence that he had discussed the planned construction of steel mills with builders in China, among other countries.
3.24Mr Hinde asserted PIB would achieve a 15 per cent cost advantage over China’s steel production. However, he argued China would not necessarily be opposed to PIB based on lost production alone, stating that China’s investment in the program would run counter to any incentive to subsidise its own steelmakers, and that it would also be accessing ‘high-quality steel’ for its own purposes. MrHinde raised the prospect that China might eventually purchase all of PIB’s steel output.
3.25Mr Andrew Trotter, from Aussie Farmers Mutual, indicated that PIB would help limit Australia’s exposure to any changes in China’s source countries for iron ore imports:
Just to add to your point, if we're producing steel domestically, then the nation is not as sensitive to the exports of iron ore to China. I think that goes to your point. If they do ramp up with buying iron ore from other parts of the world, if we're actually ramping up to produce steel here, that derisks our nation. That would be my angle on it.
Transport infrastructure in central and northern Australia
3.26The third aspect of national security affected by PIB would be the development of infrastructure across central and northern Australia. Unlike steelmaking capacity, which Australia already possesses, Professor Shulman from EWLP advised that the introduction of heavy-haul rail traversing central and northern Australia would allow defence equipment to be moved ‘fairly efficiently in a way that we cannot do now’.
3.27Defence endorsed the proposition of additional rail across Australia for defence planning and logistical purposes. Air Commodore Hegarty said the PIB rail corridor would provide ‘more agility and more options for the movement of people and materiel across the country’, potentially across defence exercises, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, or in a wartime scenario.
3.28Air Commodore Hegarty added that the Pilbara end of the planned rail route was less likely to be useful than a possible connection between the north-south Adelaide to Darwin rail corridor and PIB’s eastern end, near Townsville. He summarised the opportunity as potentially expanding Defence’s logistics ‘across a very large country.’