Silicon Valley’s ‘move fast and break things’ mantra might work in software. But when it comes to lithium, rare earths and other critical minerals, where development times average 10 to 15 years, breaking things isn’t a commercial, strategic or economic option. The playbook of rapid exploration, aggressive spending and a fast-flip exit strategy doesn’t align with Australia’s national interest. If we’re serious about building sovereign supply chains, Australian early-stage resource developers, known as junior miners, need to adopt a more disciplined approach, and the government must support them.
Junior miners play a vital role in Australia’s critical minerals ecosystem, taking on the high-risk, early-stage work of exploration and feasibility. But structurally, they resemble startups more than stable suppliers. Many are thinly capitalised, operate on short runways and often lack strong financial or supply-chain discipline. The dominant incentive is to de-risk a resource, demonstrate value and position for acquisition by a major player. That might be viable for gold or copper, but critical minerals are a different proposition. The success rates from exploration to full scale production range from 1:1,000 to 1:3,000.
These resources aren’t just commercial inputs. They are strategic enablers of national security, energy transition and industrial resilience. Their importance is reflected in defence posture reviews, export controls and global resource diplomacy. From hypersonic weapons to batteries for electric vehicles, access to critical minerals is a national priority. That means the companies developing these assets carry responsibilities beyond shareholder value. But despite the assets’ importance, policy noise and public spending, success has been elusive.
This is where the current model falls short. Many junior miners are not equipped to support secure, transparent or resilient supply chains, and a number have no intention of ever making this transition. Capital spending is often ad hoc. Procurement is opportunistic. Logistics are reactive. In some cases, timelines slip due to internal churn or poor governance. The result is delay and uncertainty when Australia needs predictability.
The collapse of the Pinjarra Gallium Refinery in the 1980s was a cautionary tale. Even with government backing, critical minerals projects can stall or collapse, especially when approvals are slow and business models lack long-term depth. This pattern will persist unless expectations and support structures are redefined.
A better model would ask junior miners to demonstrate operational maturity from the outset. That means improved financial controls, clearer supply chain reporting, and forward planning for logistics and offtake. It also means aligning business strategy with national interest. If the endgame is always a trade sale to a multinational, Australia stays a passenger in its own supply chain.
If your exit strategy is a takeover, your operational model is someone else’s problem. That’s fine for copper. It’s a liability for dysprosium.
Critical minerals demand stewardship, not speculation. To build enduring value, we should include long-term roles in refining, storage and domestic supply in our objectives.
Of course, the burden can’t fall solely on industry in a market that has been deeply distorted. If government wants miners, junior or otherwise, to act like secure infrastructure providers, it must treat them accordingly. That means reforming how approvals, financing and procurement signals are delivered. Approvals need to be faster and more consistent. Offtake agreements and stockpile frameworks must act as real market signals, not theoretical tools. Financing should align with the actual cashflow profile of early-stage developers, including milestone-based loans and co-investment options that avoid excessive dilution.
Right now, junior miners are expected to build national capability using speculative capital and private debt. That is not a long-term solution.
This isn’t about handouts. It’s about establishing a framework that rewards coordination and readiness. If Australia wants to lead in critical minerals, it must shape the ecosystem, not just publish a list of resources. That means designing incentives for companies to act as long-term partners in industrial development, rather than as short-term asset holders.
The stakes are clear. A secure supply of critical minerals underpins energy stability, sovereign manufacturing and future defence capability. And the path from ore body to stockpile often begins with a small miner, a high-pressure operator with limited margin for error. If we want them to succeed, we need to provide the structure and incentives they need. They must recognise that they are not only economic players; they are contributors to national security.
Critical minerals are more than a commercial opportunity. They are a test of whether Australia can build and sustain strategic capability. Move fast and break things is no longer good enough.