On 23 February 2016, the Mineral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (Bill) was introduced to the Queensland State Parliament.

The Bill is consistent with the Government's election promise to reinstate broader community objection rights that were proposed to be limited under the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (Qld) (MERCP Act) enacted under the previous Government.

The Bill:

  1. repeals those parts of the MERCP Act that have not yet taken effect limiting the broader community's rights to object to mining projects
  2. includes key agricultural infrastructure in the definition of 'restricted land' and prescribes the distance thresholds for restricted land
  3. removes the ability for mining leases to be granted over restricted land where landholder consent has not been given and compensation has not been agreed
  4. removes the Minister's power to extinguish restricted land for mining lease applications where coexistence is not possible.

If the Bill is enacted, existing public notification requirements and objection rights for standard or variation applications for environmental authorities for mining activities will be retained.  Mining lease applications will be required to be publicly notified in an approved newspaper, so notification is not limited to directly affected persons.  The changes mean any entity can object to a mining lease application under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MR Act) on the existing grounds set out in the MR Act.

Under the MERCP Act, the grounds for objection were to be limited.  For example, the Land Court would not have had to take into account and consider whether the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease.

Not all of the changes enacted by the previous Government are proposed to be repealed.  Importantly, the Land Court will still have the express power to strike out all or part of an objection, to the extent it is outside the jurisdiction of the Land Court, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

The changes proposed by the Bill mean the potential costs and delays associated with environmental activism remain a significant risk to mining project proponents.  The broader community, including fully funded community interest groups, will retain rights of objection to the Land Court. 

The objection hearing process in the Land Court can be costly and lengthy.  The Land Court will have express power to strike out objections.  However, the onus is on proponents to apply to the Court and satisfy the Court an objection is beyond jurisdiction, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.

To mitigate the risk associated with potential environmental activism, proponents must adopt a proactive approach, including:

  1. monitoring social media to identify potential risks
  2. ensuring their social media strategy addresses the risks
  3. working closely with regulators during the assessment and approval processes to minimise exposure to judicial review proceedings or other third party actions
  4. engaging and consulting the community, indigenous and other stakeholders early in the process.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.