\u201cThe historic framework signed today will assist both countries in achieving resilience and security of critical minerals and rare earths supply chains, including mining, separation, and processing, through use of economic policy tools and coordinated investment,\u201d an Australian government press release said. <\/p>\n
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of Apec last year. Photo \/ Pool<\/p>\n
Jane Kelsey, an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, earlier this month wrote that the Australian framework<\/a> would likely be the template for further US negotiations on critical minerals. <\/p>\n The Australian framework includes identifying \u201cprojects of interest to address gaps in priority supply chains\u201d, working \u201ctogether to develop new or bespoke mechanisms to strengthen critical minerals and rare earths supply chains\u201d and \u201ctaking measures to accelerate, streamline or deregulate permitting timelines and processes\u201d. <\/p>\n Trump this month issued a proclamation stating his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had found processed critical minerals and their derivative products (PCMDPs) to be \u201cessential to the national security of the United States\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cPCMDPs are indispensable to almost every industry, including national defence programmes and critical infrastructure. PCMDPs are embedded across defence and commercial supply chains and play an essential role in the production of advanced weapons systems, energy infrastructure and everyday consumer goods.\u201d <\/p>\n It was also found that the \u201cUnited States is too reliant on foreign sources of PCMDPs, lacks access to a sufficiently secure and reliable supply chain to PCMDPs, is experiencing unsustainable price volatility with respect to critical mineral markets, and is suffering from weakened domestic manufacturing and production capacity of PCMDPs\u201d. <\/p>\n This was described as a \u201csignificant national security vulnerability\u201d, with the US lacking \u201caccess to a sufficiently secure and reliable supply chain for PCMDPs\u201d. <\/p>\n That led Trump to direct his team \u201cto enter into negotiations with trading partners to adjust the imports of PCMDPs so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States\u201d. <\/p>\n Lutnick also said that \u201cit may be appropriate to impose import restrictions, such as tariffs, if satisfactory agreements are not reached in a timely manner\u201d. <\/p>\n In her piece, Kelsey said New Zealanders had \u201cheard nothing from the government about any demands from the Trump administration, and it is following a softly-softly foreign policy approach to the US\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cBut if New Zealand is a target of the latest Trump directive, there needs to be a full discussion about the implications \u2013 before, not after the fact.” <\/p>\n A memorandum filed to the Waitangi Tribunal on Tuesday said any such negotiations between New Zealand and the US would be relevant to the tribunal\u2019s Climate Change Priority inquiry.<\/p>\n The claimants raised concerns an agreement could \u201cbe finalised and signed without M\u0101ori, or anyone else in Aotearoa, being aware\u201d and may \u201dbreach the principles of rangatiratanga and k\u0101wanatanga”.<\/p>\n They sought the tribunal \u201cto seek information urgently from the Crown to establish whether the United States government has sought such an agreement and if so, the process for its development, the likely content, the role of M\u0101ori in that process, and the protections for M\u0101ori responsibilities, duties and interests and the Crown\u2019s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi\u201d.<\/p>\nProfessor Jane Kelsey has written about the potential consequences of Donald Trump’s proclamation. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n