China, explained.
Democracies such as Australia need to build resilient critical mineral supply chains quickly (Philip Gostelow/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
With mineral projects taking years to move from exploration to production, Australia must hasten carefully.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Critical minerals: Why fast-tracking undermines democratic legitimacy Critical minerals: Why fast-tracking undermines democratic legitimacy
Australia’s critical minerals agenda is unfolding in a moment of profound geopolitical change. The rules that once governed global economic engagement are now characterised by multipolar rivalry, weaponised interdependence, constrained supply chains, and diminishing certainty, according to Heather Smith in a recent address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
In this environment, critical minerals have moved from industrial commodities to instruments of national strategy. Decarbonisation, defence modernisation and technological sovereignty have made their development a central component of geopolitical competition.
This has triggered a worldwide acceleration effort, with countries deploying subsidies, tax credits, national stockpiles, export restrictions and domestic processing mandates. The intent is clear: build resilient supply chains quickly. But democratic states face a structural constraint that autocracies do not – public legitimacy.
How Australia and its partners pursue speed is now as important as speed itself.
The political and economic pressures are real. The Reserve Bank of Australia notes that critical mineral projects often take a decade or more to move from exploration to production. With global demand surging and allies expecting reliability, the desire for accelerated permitting is understandable.
When communities believe decisions are predetermined or opaque, they do not quietly accept them. They mobilise. They litigate.
But democracies operate according to rules that make unilateral acceleration difficult: transparent process, environmental scrutiny, Indigenous rights, judicial review and community participation. These are not administrative burdens – they are democratic infrastructure. Attempts to fast-track by weakening them rarely produce efficiency. As experience across democracies shows, the fastest approvals are the ones no one has to fight against.
When communities believe decisions are predetermined or opaque, they do not quietly accept them. They mobilise. They litigate. They escalate objections through every procedural channel available. Outrage arises not from hazard alone, but from loss of control: people interpret exclusion as disrespect, and disrespect as danger. Once trust collapses, timelines lengthen regardless of statutory deadlines.
In other words, fast-tracking does not require weaker standards; it requires trusted ones.
Across jurisdictions, the pattern is consistent:
These are not failures of engineering or finance. They are failures of legitimacy. Global institutions including the International Energy Agency, World Bank and leading market analysts estimate that the world needs more than US$1–2 trillion in new critical mineral supply, processing capacity and enabling infrastructure to meet decarbonisation goals. Much of this investment is currently stalled or delayed in democratic jurisdictions – not because the ore bodies are lacking or the capital is unwilling, but because legitimacy failures prevent projects from progressing.
Projects closest to production are also the most vulnerable to backlash. Early exploration attracts limited attention because impacts remain hypothetical. But as projects approach final approval or operation, impacts become visible, legal avenues open, and political stakes rise. Communities react most strongly when exclusion becomes tangible; courts can only intervene once decisions are formalised; and investors reassess risk when controversies materialise, not when they are theoretical.
In critical minerals, that insurance lies not only in geology or capital but in the legitimacy of the processes that govern development.
For democracies, the permitting crisis is now a geopolitical constraint. China does not dominate refining because of geological superiority; it does so because its system does not experience democratic contestation. The strategic risk for Australia and its allies is clear: without legitimacy, democratic states cannot convert deposits into operating assets at the pace geopolitics demands.
As Australia navigates a new global order – where supply chains are contested, coercive tools proliferate and democratic resilience is increasingly tested – the strength of its decision-making processes becomes a form of strategic infrastructure.
Smith warned that Australia risks drifting into this environment without the institutional “insurance policy” required to sustain national agency. In critical minerals, that insurance lies not only in geology or capital but in the legitimacy of the processes that govern development.
The question is therefore not whether Australia should accelerate, but whether the form of acceleration it chooses strengthens or undermines its democratic capability.
Fast-tracking that sacrifices legitimacy risks repeating the global cycle of backlash, paralysis and stranded value. Fast-tracking grounded in legitimacy offers something different: decisions that are rapid, stable, democratically credible and geopolitically resilient.
In a world defined by strategic competition, that may be one of Australia’s greatest advantages.
About the author
Katherine Teh
Katherine Teh is Executive Chair of Spektrum with more than 25 years of board and executive-level experience diagnosing system-level risks and renewing business and risk models.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
