SARAH FERGUSON: Staying with the energy transition, there's a race going on across the globe to secure supply of the critical minerals needed for renewable energy technology. And beyond that, the array of technologies required by every modern economy. Australia is home to some of the largest deposits anywhere in the world. And the Albanese government wants to provide billions of dollars in tax incentives to mining companies to develop the industries here. Tonight, the government is close to a deal in the Senate to pass legislation to make this happen. Madeleine King is the Minister for resources and an MP from Western Australia. Madeleine King, welcome to 7:30.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Pleasure to be here. Thanks, Sarah.

FERGUSON: Can you begin just by reminding the audience what the purpose is of this $7 billion in tax incentives for miners of rare earths and critical minerals?

KING: Well, the production tax credits for critical minerals and rare earths is a tax support and incentive to help companies process and refine critical minerals and rare earths here in Australia. And that's important because critical minerals and rare earths go into modern technologies that we use every day, like mobile phones, laptops, batteries, but also for green energy technology, like solar panels and wind turbines, but also for defence applications. And it is a $7 billion package, but at that it is, of course, much cheaper than the Coalition's $10 billion long lunch policy.

FERGUSON: Now, lots of people will remember that the opposition made a decision at the budget to oppose it straightaway. And their slogan from that point was taxpayers breaks for billionaires. It is true that there is some very wealthy companies and individuals will profit from this, will benefit from these credits. Why do they need help from the taxpayer?

KING: Well, by and large, the exploration companies and other companies moving into this processing are not the massive companies that the coalition have portrayed them to be.

FERGUSON: Some of them are, however.

KING: Some of them are, however. That's right. And we have very wealthy Australians that are investing into these projects. Ms Rinehart. Gina Rinehart of Roy Hill is a classic example. Ms Rinehart her wealth has grown out of the iron ore sector, she has created, and her family has created a lot of jobs, helped the economy and a lot of people work for her. And to be honest, Mrs Rinehart is exactly the kind of person we would want to invest into this quite risky area.

FERGUSON: I understand why you will want people investing, but why does the taxpayer need to help those companies?

KING: Well, a lot of the companies in fact do not have that level of investment from wealthy Australians. And of course in that shareholding, it's a rather a low one. What it is about addressing the challenges that critical minerals and rare earths processing have due to international market pressures. So, whilst these minerals and rare earths are in demand, their production and their pricing is dominated by an international market that is not clear, it is entirely opaque. It doesn't reflect the true costs of what it takes to bring these critical minerals into a processed form, to go into the everyday things we all want to continue to have.

FERGUSON: So, for you that's justification for putting taxpayers money into this kind of exploration, refining, processing.

KING: The justification for me is to create a new industry in Australia that will create new jobs and will diversify supply chains for Australia. We should be competing in the processing of minerals, critical minerals and rare earths here in Australia. We should be competing and being involved in that. And this is what it takes. Just like it took government involvement to start the iron ore industry-

FERGUSON: Yeah

KING: …and the gas industry for that matter.

FERGUSON: Let me just ask you about this though, because aside from the opposition slogan that I just referenced, tax breaks for billionaires, one of the other major criticisms of the scheme is that it comes with an obligation to meet a set of vague community benefit principles, including promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions. Does that mean that obligatory deals with unions will be a condition of receiving these tax breaks. 

KING: As we have discussed it will be taxpayers money going in to this scheme to incentivise the production of these minerals here in Australia. So, it is only fair and right that the community does benefit from that.

FERGUSON: But in that particular case, we're talking about promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions. You already have an industrial relations policy to secure that, so why do you need that as part of this?

KING: I understand. The community benefit principles are there. They're exactly what they say they are. The community should benefit from this tax incentive. There is no requirement anywhere in this legislation or the regulations around union agreements. And not that they're anything to be scared of, I might add, but this is a fictitious, you know, fantasy that the coalition make up because they're just anti worker.

FERGUSON: So, who's going to decide if a company is or isn't complying with these community benefit principles?

KING: Well, of course everyone has to go through a process and it won't be onerous about just like we all do when we do our tax returns. When you're eligible for a tax deduction, companies go through this process as a matter of course. So, they will go through a process of eligibility. It will be all set out. It is something that Treasury will be working on and the ATO will be working on. This is not out of the ordinary as a tax support and it is an entirely positive investment of a federal government, in fact the biggest investment of any Federal Government into the resources industry.

FERGUSON: So, you think those requirements are just standard.

KING: I think they're just and fair, and the community would expect nothing less and workers should expect nothing less.

FERGUSON: Is it going to be electorally popular, do you think?

KING: I think the Australian people, and particularly there are parts of this country that have more of these critical minerals and rare earths - Queensland in particular, but also Western Australia - and the citizens of those great mining states understand how difficult some of these projects are because they live and work in them all the time. So, you know, support of the Federal Government for the resources sector is welcome. And it being the biggest support ever for the resources sector by Federal Government makes it even more popular. And that's why it is quite frankly staggering that the coalition, you know, dismissed this policy without even reading it. Let's be frank, they dismissed it within hours of the budget announcement. They didn't think or care to look at it or to think how it might affect what is an industry-led policy response to the challenge of thin markets in critical minerals.

FERGUSON: Are you relieved that the nature positive laws have been shelved ahead of the election?

KING: I think environmental reform is really important, in fact, it's a bipartisan position-

FERGUSON: Back to the question, are you relieved it's gone?

KING: Well, nature positive is an environmental law reform. So, the truth is we had the Greens political party putting more and more extreme demands around that really important reform which would make approvals quicker and the coalition being entirely obstructionist when indeed in the last government, last term of Parliament they wanted to enact similar reforms. So, I'm not really particularly relieved. I would rather we had achieved environmental reforms-

FERGUSON: From an electoral standpoint in WA, does it make it easier for you going into the election that those nature positive laws are not there?

KING: Not necessarily easy I think reform to make the system work better for industry and the environment is very important. I'm really disappointed that the coalition didn't engage with it and I'm even more disappointed that the Greens political party are willing to let this go on the altar of their ideology. But you know, we know the position of the West Australian government. They've been very clear. I think there is an opportunity for us to, there's always an opportunity for us to consult more.

FERGUSON: So, you don't think, you don't think Anthony Albanese should have fought harder to keep those positive nature laws?

KING: Well, we've a limited time in Parliament and we have to make judgments. The Prime Minister has to, his whole team has to make judgments about what can go forward. But when you have an obstructionist coalition, outrageous demands from the Greens, it becomes unworkable.

FERGUSON: And very quickly, do you have a deal on this bill tonight?

KING: On production tax credits? We're working very hard on that. The Parliament generally sees this as an advantage to create a new industry with good Australian jobs.

FERGUSON: Right now, do you think you're going to get it through?

KING: I think we will get it through. And I welcome a reconsideration of the coalition's opposition to this great policy.

FERGUSON: Madeleine King, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

KING: Thank you very much, Sarah.