Queensland proposes major reforms to mining approvals and objections framework

Environmental assessment confined to the EP Act framework

One of the most significant reforms is the removal of overlapping consideration of environmental impacts under both the MR Act and EP Act.

Currently, environmental impacts are considered and assessed through both the ML and EA approval processes. The Bill proposes to remove the requirement for the Minister to consider adverse environmental impacts when deciding whether to grant a ML and, more significantly, would expressly prohibit the Minister from considering environmental harm as part of that decision-making process.

Environmental impacts would instead be assessed exclusively through the associated EA approval process under the EP Act, against the existing EP Act assessment framework and decision-making criteria.

The key change is therefore where environmental impacts are assessed, rather than how they are assessed.      

Changes to lower-risk EA applications

The reforms would remove public notification, submission and objection requirements for standard and variation EA applications. Those processes would remain only for site-specific EA applications for mining activities.

This represents a material reduction in procedural requirements for lower-risk EA applications and brings mining-related EA assessment processes more closely into line with the treatment of other environmentally relevant activities.

A single notification process

The Bill proposes to replace the current parallel notification requirements under the MR Act and EP Act with a single notification process for mining lease applications and associated site-specific EA applications.

A mining lease notice would trigger the relevant objection and submission periods for both the mining lease application and the associated draft EA and draft progressive rehabilitation and closure plan (PRCP) schedule. Public participation processes would therefore be consolidated into a single notification pathway.

Automatic Land Court referrals removed

Under the current framework, properly made objections are automatically referred to the Land Court.

The Bill proposes to replace that approach with a discretionary referral regime. The Minister (for ML applications) and the administering authority (for EA applications) would instead determine whether a particular objection should be referred to the Land Court for hearing.

This is a substantial departure from the current framework and has the potential to reduce the number of objections proceeding to a full Land Court hearing. The reforms would not only reduce the circumstances in which matters proceed to the Land Court, but also narrow the issues capable of being considered where a referral occurs.

Objection grounds narrowed

The reforms would significantly narrow the grounds on which objections may be made.

For mining lease applications, objections would be limited to matters relevant to the Minister’s statutory grant criteria. Environmental impacts would no longer form part of the mining lease assessment framework and would instead be addressed through the EA process.

For site-specific EA applications, objections would be limited to matters addressed by the draft EA, draft PRCP schedule and the relevant statutory decision-making criteria.

The reforms would reduce overlap between the mining tenure and environmental approval regimes and constrain objections to matters directly relevant to the statutory decision being made.

Objection rights limited to “eligible entities”

The reforms would also narrow who may object.

Currently, any person may object to a mining lease application or associated site-specific EA application. Under the proposed framework, objection rights would be limited to specified categories of “eligible entities”, including certain landowners, occupiers, local governments and owners or occupiers of land within the proposed 125km eligibility zone.

The reforms would therefore replace Queensland’s existing “any person” objection model with a standing regime confined to persons who fall within the statutory eligibility criteria.

Broad submission rights preserved

Notwithstanding the proposed changes to objection rights and objection grounds, the Bill preserves the right for any person to make a submission on an EA application.

The distinction between objections and submissions will therefore become increasingly important. While access to the formal objections process would be narrowed, broader public participation would continue through the submissions framework. 

The Bill contains extensive transitional provisions.

In some circumstances, ML and EA applications already progressing through the existing framework may transition into the new regime. Of particular significance, matters that have already been referred to the Land Court but have not substantively progressed may be removed from the current automatic referral process and reconsidered under the proposed discretionary referral framework.

Proponents and stakeholders involved in current applications should carefully consider the potential effect of the transition provisions on existing approval and objection processes.

Although the streamlining and objections reforms are the principal focus of the Bill, it also repeals the workforce accommodation provisions that currently apply specifically to the Byerwen mine.

Those provisions, introduced in 2023, require progressive accommodation of the workforce in Glenden. The reforms would remove those requirements and preserve operational flexibility in relation to future workforce accommodation arrangements.