The global critical minerals race is heating up, and by not collaborating more closely, Australia and Canada are letting down their partner nations.
Despite being the world’s two most reliable and like-minded mining giants, the pair are drifting apart just as they should be forging a united front. To secure global supply chains, counter coercion and boost economic and geopolitical influence, Australia and Canada must shift from caution to strategic collaboration.
The case for an Australia–Canada critical minerals alliance is obvious. Both nations possess exceptional geological endowments, world-class mining industries and global investment footprints. Together, they dominate mineral exploration and production outside China, their stock exchanges dominate global capital raising for minerals development, and their resident companies account for more than 70 percent of all mining firms headquartered in like-minded democracies. They are natural partners—geostrategic, economic and democratic twins.
Yet in practice, a worrying divergence has emerged. Despite overlapping interests and formal commitments to collaborate through initiatives such as the Minerals Security Partnership and the Canada-led Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance, Australia and Canada have taken different paths. Canberra’s recent internal signalling that collaboration with Ottawa is ‘not a priority’ because Canada is a competitor is not only short-sighted; it’s strategically counterproductive.
The reality is that collaboration does not preclude competition; it can enhance it. In fact, in the fragmented world of critical minerals, collaborative competition is essential. The race to secure stable, ethical and transparent supply chains is not a zero-sum game. Instead, it’s about building trust, increasing market share among like-minded suppliers, and strengthening economic resilience against coercive actors.
The demand signals are clear. The global surge in demand for critical minerals, driven by the energy transition, the digital revolution and accelerated defence rearmament, exceeds the supply capacity of any single country, even one as well-endowed as Australia. The challenge is too big, too fast-moving and too strategic to go it alone. For minerals buyers in the United States, Japan, the European Union and South Korea, Australian and Canadian cooperation is vital to building confidence in the reliability and scalability of non-China supply chains.
Second, Australia and Canada are already committed, at least on paper, to working together. Through a growing web of bilateral and multilateral agreements, both countries have pledged to support sustainable minerals development at home and abroad, invest in downstream processing, and build minerals governance capacity in developing countries. Both host mining companies with substantial investment footprints in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Yet, while Canada has embedded these commitments into its foreign and development policies, Australia has lagged.
There’s little to show for Australia’s participation in these initiatives. The Critical Minerals Office’s public reporting is minimal, and Australia’s once world-leading minerals governance capacity-building programs have faded from view. Meanwhile, Canada, through expanded minerals development assistance, has stepped into the void. Even the US, despite its battered aid architecture, is now doing more in minerals capacity-building across Africa and Southeast Asia than Australia is.
This matters. Australian companies operating abroad are often left navigating complex or unstable governance environments without coordinated government support. According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the stock of Australian outbound mining foreign direct investment reached $195 billion in 2022, 50 percent of the level of inbound investment. That’s not just capital; it’s influence, opportunity and responsibility. Supporting these companies doesn’t mean corporate welfare. It means promoting Australian standards, strengthening host-country governance, and securing long-term access to critical resources.
Canada has understood this for decades. Natural Resources Canada publishes regular data on the global footprint of its mining sector. In 2023, Canadian companies held overseas assets worth more than 220 billion Canadian dollars. Ottawa recognises that its mining sector’s global activity is as strategically important as what happens domestically.
Australia, by contrast, has been flying blind. The Australian Bureau of Statistics stopped tracking Australian companies’ overseas activity in detail between 2002 and 2018. That data gap meant that policymakers largely missed the strategic significance of the rapid growth of the Australian mining sector’s global presence. Worse, it has undermined efforts to build an integrated foreign, trade and investment policy that links economic opportunity with national interest, and with geostrategic opportunity and responsibility.
Third, Australia and Canada are the global leaders in sustainable mining practices. The Mining Association of Canada’s ‘Towards Sustainable Mining’ framework has already been adopted by the Minerals Council of Australia. The two groups are collaborating on a new global sustainability standard, which is expected to be released in 2026. If backed by both governments, this joint standard could give Australian and Canadian companies a global edge, assuring investors and customers alike.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to leverage the joint global minerals footprint and shared standards as strategic advantages is being missed. Without strong political backing and clear policy alignment, Australian and Canadian firms will continue to compete on uneven terms in unstable jurisdictions. At the same time, their governments pull in different directions.
Finally, time is short. At a meeting of Quad foreign ministers in July, a new ‘Quad Critical Minerals Initiative’ was announced, an effort that puts Australia, the only major producer in the group, at the centre stage. Australia then endorsed the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan, designed to accelerate building of new, secure and sustainable supply chains.
That should be a wake-up call. Australia cannot afford to treat its critical minerals strategy as just another domestic policy lever. It is a tool of geopolitical statecraft and international economic engagement—and one that needs a whole-of-government, whole-of-alliance approach.
A strategic convergence between Australia and Canada is already in place. What’s missing is coordinated action. We don’t need more memorandums of understanding. We need an operational alliance, one that supports joint ventures, secures supply chains, promotes shared standards, funds capacity building, and positions both countries as the leaders in the rules-based resources order.
Collaboration doesn’t mean surrendering sovereignty. It means amplifying influence. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, supply chain coercion and resource nationalism, Australia and Canada can either shape the future of critical minerals or get shaped by it. The choice is ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment