Critique Is Not an Obstacle: Lessons from Australia's Extractive History for Indonesia's Mining Policy
"Developed countries also built their economies with natural resources, with mining, but they were never criticised by their own people the way Indonesia is today." This statement was not merely a social media opinion, but was delivered directly by the Minister of Investment and Head of BKPM, Bahlil Lahadalia, in his official remarks at a formal event.
As an Indonesian student currently studying in Australia—a country with its own long history as an extractive economy—I feel compelled to respond to this statement honestly and historically. Is it true that developed nations such as Australia built their economies without criticism of resource exploitation? And is criticism of mining in Indonesia today truly an obstacle to development?
**A History Full of Resistance and the Evolution of Environmental Law in Australia**
Australia is known as a country with extraordinary mineral wealth. Mining has long been the backbone of its economy. However, behind this success story lies a long history of public resistance, intergovernmental conflict, and friction between the state and its citizens—particularly Indigenous communities—demanding ecological justice.
Initially, environmental matters fell under state jurisdiction, in line with Australia's federalist system. A turning point came in Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983), when the federal government blocked a dam project threatening a World Heritage area. The High Court ruled that the federal government had authority to act in fulfilment of international environmental obligations. Federal environmental law began to develop from that point.
One of the key regulations that subsequently emerged was the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, which became the legal umbrella for species and habitat protection. Despite two decades of operation, this Act has continued to attract criticism for its slow procedures and weak substantive protections.
The crisis peaked when Rio Tinto destroyed the Juukan Gorge caves in 2020—a sacred and archaeological site for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people. This tragedy sparked national outrage and prompted the Samuel Review, which recommended the establishment of binding national environmental standards and an independent oversight body.
Criticism of the EPBC also reflects a broader pattern: major mining projects are frequently carried out on Indigenous land without proper consent, displacing Aboriginal communities and damaging their cultural sites. The extractive industry in Australia, particularly coal and uranium, has left deep ecological and social scars.
Meanwhile, another important milestone was the passage of the Climate Change Act 2022. This process was not instantaneous but traversed decades of tug-of-war between science, activism, and political interests. After long being labelled a "laggard" in climate policy, the 2022 election became a turning point. Environmental issues dominated public debate and drove the election of the Teal Independents—non-partisan candidates demanding decisive climate action. They succeeded in defeating incumbents from major parties deemed too accommodating towards the fossil fuel industry.
This victory demonstrated that environmental policy is no longer a peripheral issue but a primary electoral agenda driven by public awareness. Although the Climate Change Act still faces criticism, its passage stands as proof of the power of organised and consistent civil society pressure.
As an Indonesian citizen, I once viewed Australia as a country with ideal environmental governance. However, studying here has opened my eyes: behind the legal and policy advances lies an ongoing, unfinished struggle. Australia still grapples with legal weaknesses, uneven protections, and the powerful influence of extractive industries.
This is where I realised that progress does not mean perfection. It is born precisely from the courage to be continually criticised and improved. When Indonesian citizens today criticise mining projects and environmental destruction, I see this not as an obstacle but as an essential part of genuine development.
**Critique Is Not an Obstacle, But a Counterbalance**
One of the landmark moments in Australian environmental law was the Rocky Hill decision (Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning, 2019). In this case, the court rejected a coal mine permit due to its conflict with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). This principle is rooted in the cross-governmental Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) of 1992.
In Rocky Hill, Justice Preston stated that the project was inconsistent with a low-carbon future and incompatible with responsibilities towards future generations. This ruling saved the local community from pollution and social impact, demonstrating that sustainability is not merely an ideal but can serve as a legal basis protecting citizens' rights.
The Rocky Hill decision showed that public criticism carries legal force when framed within sustainability principles. It proved that resistance to exploitation can prevail, and that communities can fight for their right to a healthy and just living environment while maintaining their economic resources.
**A Changing World and the Challenge of Global Ecological Justice**
Arguments such as "developed countries mined first, so why are we being prohibited?" frequently arise. It is true that developed nations built their economies at high ecological cost. However, the answer to injustice is not to repeat their mistakes. If all developing nations were to follow the same path, the damage would become irreversible.
Global ecological injustice is real: developing countries inherit crises caused by the industrialisation of developed nations yet are asked to share the burden of solutions without adequate support. However, this cannot be used as an excuse for negligence. Developing nations must be bolder in shaping international law and policy.
Indonesia has ratified the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). But these commitments must be implemented consistently, not merely symbolically. We need to restructure natural resource management from upstream to downstream, and hold developed nations accountable in a strategic and measurable manner.
Criticism of carbon market mechanisms, often deemed unfair for allowing polluters to purchase "rights to pollute", must be balanced with alternative proposals: transparent carbon monitoring systems, protection of Indigenous peoples' rights, and projects grounded in climate justice.
Ecological justice will not be achieved through protest alone. It is born from the courage to set new standards and invite the world to respect them.
**Building in the Right Direction**
If we learn from Australia, we know that good development is not development without criticism. Rather, criticism demonstrates public maturity and a healthy democracy. Instead of silencing critical voices, Indonesia should form alliances with Indigenous communities, scientists, and environmental activists as strategic partners.
This step is important not only for managing natural resources fairly but also for pressing developed nations to fulfil their responsibilities: fair climate funding, green technology, and recognition of nature-guarding communities.
We need not replicate the destructive path of developed nations. Indonesia and the Global South have the opportunity to pioneer just and innovative development if they stand with the people and nature. Building is not merely about extracting minerals; it is also about transparency, a diversified economic vision, and the moral courage to choose a future that does not destroy.
As an Indonesian student currently studying in Australia—a country with its own long history as an extractive economy—I feel compelled to respond to this statement honestly and historically. Is it true that developed nations such as Australia built their economies without criticism of resource exploitation? And is criticism of mining in Indonesia today truly an obstacle to development?
**A History Full of Resistance and the Evolution of Environmental Law in Australia**
Australia is known as a country with extraordinary mineral wealth. Mining has long been the backbone of its economy. However, behind this success story lies a long history of public resistance, intergovernmental conflict, and friction between the state and its citizens—particularly Indigenous communities—demanding ecological justice.
Initially, environmental matters fell under state jurisdiction, in line with Australia's federalist system. A turning point came in Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983), when the federal government blocked a dam project threatening a World Heritage area. The High Court ruled that the federal government had authority to act in fulfilment of international environmental obligations. Federal environmental law began to develop from that point.
One of the key regulations that subsequently emerged was the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, which became the legal umbrella for species and habitat protection. Despite two decades of operation, this Act has continued to attract criticism for its slow procedures and weak substantive protections.
The crisis peaked when Rio Tinto destroyed the Juukan Gorge caves in 2020—a sacred and archaeological site for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people. This tragedy sparked national outrage and prompted the Samuel Review, which recommended the establishment of binding national environmental standards and an independent oversight body.
Criticism of the EPBC also reflects a broader pattern: major mining projects are frequently carried out on Indigenous land without proper consent, displacing Aboriginal communities and damaging their cultural sites. The extractive industry in Australia, particularly coal and uranium, has left deep ecological and social scars.
Meanwhile, another important milestone was the passage of the Climate Change Act 2022. This process was not instantaneous but traversed decades of tug-of-war between science, activism, and political interests. After long being labelled a "laggard" in climate policy, the 2022 election became a turning point. Environmental issues dominated public debate and drove the election of the Teal Independents—non-partisan candidates demanding decisive climate action. They succeeded in defeating incumbents from major parties deemed too accommodating towards the fossil fuel industry.
This victory demonstrated that environmental policy is no longer a peripheral issue but a primary electoral agenda driven by public awareness. Although the Climate Change Act still faces criticism, its passage stands as proof of the power of organised and consistent civil society pressure.
As an Indonesian citizen, I once viewed Australia as a country with ideal environmental governance. However, studying here has opened my eyes: behind the legal and policy advances lies an ongoing, unfinished struggle. Australia still grapples with legal weaknesses, uneven protections, and the powerful influence of extractive industries.
This is where I realised that progress does not mean perfection. It is born precisely from the courage to be continually criticised and improved. When Indonesian citizens today criticise mining projects and environmental destruction, I see this not as an obstacle but as an essential part of genuine development.
**Critique Is Not an Obstacle, But a Counterbalance**
One of the landmark moments in Australian environmental law was the Rocky Hill decision (Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning, 2019). In this case, the court rejected a coal mine permit due to its conflict with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). This principle is rooted in the cross-governmental Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) of 1992.
In Rocky Hill, Justice Preston stated that the project was inconsistent with a low-carbon future and incompatible with responsibilities towards future generations. This ruling saved the local community from pollution and social impact, demonstrating that sustainability is not merely an ideal but can serve as a legal basis protecting citizens' rights.
The Rocky Hill decision showed that public criticism carries legal force when framed within sustainability principles. It proved that resistance to exploitation can prevail, and that communities can fight for their right to a healthy and just living environment while maintaining their economic resources.
**A Changing World and the Challenge of Global Ecological Justice**
Arguments such as "developed countries mined first, so why are we being prohibited?" frequently arise. It is true that developed nations built their economies at high ecological cost. However, the answer to injustice is not to repeat their mistakes. If all developing nations were to follow the same path, the damage would become irreversible.
Global ecological injustice is real: developing countries inherit crises caused by the industrialisation of developed nations yet are asked to share the burden of solutions without adequate support. However, this cannot be used as an excuse for negligence. Developing nations must be bolder in shaping international law and policy.
Indonesia has ratified the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). But these commitments must be implemented consistently, not merely symbolically. We need to restructure natural resource management from upstream to downstream, and hold developed nations accountable in a strategic and measurable manner.
Criticism of carbon market mechanisms, often deemed unfair for allowing polluters to purchase "rights to pollute", must be balanced with alternative proposals: transparent carbon monitoring systems, protection of Indigenous peoples' rights, and projects grounded in climate justice.
Ecological justice will not be achieved through protest alone. It is born from the courage to set new standards and invite the world to respect them.
**Building in the Right Direction**
If we learn from Australia, we know that good development is not development without criticism. Rather, criticism demonstrates public maturity and a healthy democracy. Instead of silencing critical voices, Indonesia should form alliances with Indigenous communities, scientists, and environmental activists as strategic partners.
This step is important not only for managing natural resources fairly but also for pressing developed nations to fulfil their responsibilities: fair climate funding, green technology, and recognition of nature-guarding communities.
We need not replicate the destructive path of developed nations. Indonesia and the Global South have the opportunity to pioneer just and innovative development if they stand with the people and nature. Building is not merely about extracting minerals; it is also about transparency, a diversified economic vision, and the moral courage to choose a future that does not destroy.