Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill reforms Queensland's framework for rehabilitating land disturbed by mining and resource activities. It creates a statutory Rehabilitation Commissioner to independently advise on best practice rehabilitation and publicly report on how well mine sites are being restored. It also overhauls the residual risk framework so the State can better manage former resource sites after companies hand back their environmental authorities, including establishing a dedicated fund to pay for ongoing management and remediation.
Who it affects
Mining and resource companies face more rigorous requirements when surrendering environmental authorities, including standardised risk assessments and residual risk payments into a new fund. Landowners near former mine sites benefit from residual risks being recorded on land titles, and communities gain stronger public reporting on rehabilitation outcomes.
Key changes
- Creates a statutory Rehabilitation Commissioner, appointed by the Governor in Council for 1-5 year terms, with $8 million in funding over six years, to advise on best practice mine rehabilitation and publicly report on rehabilitation performance
- Requires mining companies to submit a post-surrender management report with a standardised risk assessment when surrendering environmental authorities, replacing the previous post-mining management report
- Establishes a Residual Risks Fund under the Financial Provisioning Scheme to pool and manage residual risk payments for the ongoing care of former resource sites into perpetuity
- Requires residual risks to be recorded on land titles so current and prospective landowners can see that ongoing management or remediation may occur on the land
- Allows project proponents to find out before lodging a formal application whether an environmental impact statement will be required, providing earlier certainty
- Removes residual risk payments at progressive certification stage, deferring them to surrender when the State assumes responsibility for the site
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee18 June 2020View Hansard
Referred to Natural Resources, Agricultural Industry Development and Environment Committee
The Natural Resources, Agricultural Industry Development and Environment Committee examined the bill over six weeks, receiving 14 submissions and holding a public hearing with representatives from the resources industry, farming groups, environmental organisations, and government. The committee recommended the bill be passed, while noting concerns about limited stakeholder consultation and the absence of a Regulatory Impact Statement. The committee made four recommendations, including that explanatory notes should disclose whether a RIS was prepared, and that the Minister clarify key technical details around residual risk notation on land titles and the definition of 'credible residual risks'. LNP members filed a statement of reservation criticising the rushed process and lack of legislative certainty.
Key findings (5)
- The committee supported the establishment of a statutory Rehabilitation Commissioner to provide independent advice on mine rehabilitation, despite resources industry concerns about duplication of existing departmental functions
- Resource industry stakeholders, including the Queensland Resources Council and APPEA, raised significant concerns about inadequate consultation, with some given as few as six days to review the draft bill
- The committee found the residual risk framework would ensure taxpayers are not left bearing the cost of managing risks on former resource sites after environmental authorities are surrendered
- Recording residual risks on land titles was contentious, with the petroleum and gas industry arguing it would unfairly affect properties with minimal or no resource activity, while environmental and farming groups supported transparency for prospective landholders
- The committee noted the Department of Environment and Science provided inaccurate information in its written response to the committee regarding the Regulatory Impact Statement process, which the department subsequently acknowledged
Recommendations (4)
- The committee recommends that the explanatory notes provided with a Bill note the existence or absence of a RIS and outline the process undertaken by the relevant department in consideration of the development of a RIS.
- The committee recommends the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 be passed.
- The committee recommends that in the second reading speech the Minister clarify that the notation of residual risks on the land title will occur at a Lot on Plan scale, not on a resource tenure or environmental authority scale.
- The committee recommends that in the second reading speech the Minister clarify that the term 'credible residual risks' will be included and described in the residual risk assessment guideline.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading11 Aug 2020View Hansard
▸17 members spoke9 support2 oppose6 mixed
As Minister for Environment, introduced the bill and outlined the Rehabilitation Commissioner role, residual risk reforms, and Great Barrier Reef protection clarifications. Defended the bill against criticisms in her reply speech.
“The Palaszczuk government is serious about Queensland being a world leader in rehabilitation standards for the resources sector to benefit the environment, the community and, importantly, our government's plan for jobs and economic recovery.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Confirmed the opposition would not oppose the bill but criticised the Rehabilitation Commissioner as an unnecessary $8 million bureaucracy when existing departmental staff could perform the role. Welcomed the reef regulation amendment as an admission of earlier government error.
“The commissioner has been given no compliance power but has been given a bureaucracy surrounding that role.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Raised concerns about duplication of functions between the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the mining regulator, and highlighted local issues with unrehabilitated mines in Willowbank being turned into dumps.
“My concern is that the Rehabilitation Commissioner, in relation to those local issues in Willowbank, will not have any power at all to deal with rehabilitation of mines.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As shadow minister for mines, acknowledged the need for rehabilitation guidelines but criticised the Rehabilitation Commissioner as another layer of bureaucracy. Noted the bill's failure to publish guidelines, undertake a regulatory impact assessment, or consult properly.
“Whilst I will not be opposing these pieces of legislation before the chamber today, I do want to put on the record the need for this government to do better.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the environmental protection bill for establishing the Rehabilitation Commissioner and improving rehabilitation outcomes in the resources sector.
“These legislative reforms are critical for the future of environmental protection and addressing equity issues to create economic opportunities for First Nation peoples.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Opposed the bill in its entirety on behalf of the mining, farming and resource industries. Argued the Rehabilitation Commissioner would be weaponised by the minister and that requiring environmental authorities for farming was appalling.
“I oppose this bill in its entirety. I do this on behalf of the mining and resource industries, the grazing and farming industries and everybody associated with them.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and highlighted positive rehabilitation examples in the Bowen Basin, including Coppabella mine's partnership with Barada Barna traditional owners.
“When I have attended functions that include mining companies, some of them have said to me that they would welcome more guidance and oversight in their rehabilitation. They want to get it right.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the Rehabilitation Commissioner role as vital for confidence in rehabilitation outcomes, while noting concerns about limited stakeholder consultation due to COVID-19.
“We all need to be confident about the outcomes for rehabilitated mine land. The role of the commissioner is vital in this, as is the funding and the ability to move forward in the rehabilitation of those sites.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and claimed credit for committing the government to establishing a Rehabilitation Commissioner during mine closure and progressive rehabilitation negotiations.
“Our track record when it comes to mine rehabilitation in this state needs to improve. That is just a fact. The best way to improve it is to have an independent gaze over how we ensure rehabilitation and progressive closures.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As committee member, raised concerns about the rushed process, unpublished guidelines, inaccurate departmental evidence, and questioned whether the Rehabilitation Commissioner was warranted. Would not oppose the bill but expressed low confidence in the government.
“Whilst we will not be opposing the bill, it is very hard to have a lot of confidence in this government to deliver any meaningful result out of such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a committee member, outlining the policy objectives around the Rehabilitation Commissioner and residual risk framework.
“Through these legislative amendments the government continues to deliver on our plan to unite and recover by improving rehabilitation outcomes and financial assurance provisioning in the resources sector.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Could not support the environmental protection bill, arguing it set a perception of cleaning up the government's flawed reef regulation legislation that should never have been imposed on farmers.
“The KAP cannot support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill as it sets a perception of cleaning up the reef regulation legislation implemented by this government.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a committee member, highlighting the Rehabilitation Commissioner's role in providing clear expectations for the community on mine rehabilitation.
“This is about ensuring that there are clear expectations for the community.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As committee member, raised concerns about unpublished guidelines, lack of regulatory impact assessment, inadequate consultation with only six days provided, and inaccurate departmental evidence about the RIS process.
“Even though industry requested more time to consult on the bill the request was refused by Labor, with only six days provided for detailed consideration.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported both bills as Minister for Transport, emphasising the economic and environmental benefits of best practice mine rehabilitation and the Rehabilitation Commissioner role.
“The establishment of the rehabilitation commissioner has been a thoroughly considered policy decision of the Palaszczuk government. The commissioner is the best way to support the implementation of these world-leading laws and to provide more certainty on best practice rehabilitation.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As committee chair, spoke in support of the bill, criticising the LNP for cutting environment staff by 33 per cent when last in government while now claiming concern about enforcement.
“The LNP have said that we do not need the Rehabilitation Commissioner and they do not believe it is warranted. That just shows that they do not really believe in any more protections.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Criticised the government's poor consultation record, the absence of regulatory impact statements, and the rushed committee process. Noted the Queensland Resources Council's scathing assessment of the consultation process.
“We are talking about a process which has given us the bill, but we do not have all of the accompanying instruments and details so our consideration in this House is incomplete at best.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
▸In Detail11 Aug 2020View Hansard
Amendments to clause 61 (new section 275B) to clarify that notation of residual risks on land title occurs at a lot-on-plan scale, not on a resource tenure or environmental authority scale, ensuring only affected lots with ongoing management requirements are noted on title.
Amendment to insert new provisions amending the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 to correct a drafting error replacing 'Regional Landscape and Rural Protection Area' with 'Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area' to support koala conservation land acquisition, with retrospective validation.
Assent date: 20 August 2020