Critical minerals: The who, what and why for Australia and New Zealand - The West Australian

The West Australian has published an overview of critical minerals policy for Australia and New Zealand, examining which minerals are strategically important, who controls supply chains, and why governments are paying attention to the issue.

Where this fits

Australia is betting the transition on wind, solar and batteries. Each depends entirely on processed minerals: silicon for panels, lithium, cobalt and nickel for batteries, rare earths for turbine magnets. The article frames critical minerals as a geopolitical issue, which is correct. But the energy transition has made Australia's grid dependent on supply chains it does not control. Renewables are cheap per megawatt-hour to build, but that low cost is partly because processing happens in China, where coal power is cheap and environmental regulation is light. A renewables-only grid locks in that dependence.

What it means

Australia has world-class mineral deposits. It also has the option to process and refine them domestically, which would cost more and take time. The transition as currently planned does neither: it buys processed panels and batteries from China. This trades short-term capital cost for long-term strategic risk. If supply tightens, or if a strategic rival restricts exports during tension or conflict, Australia's grid becomes a lever against it. A nuclear grid would require fuel (uranium, readily stockpiled and diverse in supply) and reactor components, but would cut the critical-mineral footprint per gigawatt and break the dependence on China's coal-powered factory floor. The minerals issue is real. So is the choice being made not to address it.