supporting resource sector growth - Queensland Mining and Safety ...

SUPPORTING RESOURCE SECTOR GROWTH 

INDUSTRY PROPOSALS FOR STREAMLINING QUEENSLAND’S APPROVAL PROCESSES 

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES 

30 April 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I wish to extend my thanks to my fellow Industry Working Group members (listed at Appendix 2) 

for their input and counsel over the past five months. They all have busy day jobs but all 

realised that an invitation from the Premier to industry to advise on streamlining project approval 

processes does not come along very often. 

Thanks also to the broader QRC membership, which took advantage of the invitation to provide 

submissions to the working group. I must also acknowledge the enormous extra workload taken 

on by members of the QRC Secretariat (Andrew Barger, Archana Mishra, Russell Silver- 

Thomas and Frances Hayter) who provided the working group’s policy secretariat, ably assisted 

by Connie Stanley from the Department of Employment, Economic Development and 

Innovation, who provided excellent administrative support. 

Finally, I acknowledge the trust placed in me and the QRC’s wider membership by the Premier 

and her government to undertake this review. 

Michael Roche 

Chair 

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP 

REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES

contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ i 

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ iii 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 

Queensland’s trade exposed administration 1 

The role of resources in Queensland 1 

Review objectives 2 

Overview of working group processes 2 

CERTAINTY OF PACE .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Certainty of pace – the need for fast, predictable processes 3 

Reviewing and awarding tenure 6 

Native Title and Cultural Heritage issues 8 

Environment and related approval issues 9 

CERTAINTY OF SCOPE ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Certainty of scope – a review of relevant criteria rather than exhaustively all encompassing 

criteria 15 




REGULATORY CONTINUITY ............................................................................................................. 22 

Regulatory continuity – authorities and other negotiated regulatory instruments are only 

reopened under extreme (and well defined) circumstances. 22 




IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 28 

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX 1: Terms of Reference for the Review 36 

APPENDIX 2: Members of the Working Group 39 

APPENDIX 3: Industry proposed amendments to PGA received by DEEDI 41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In November 2009, the Queensland Premier 

appointed Michael Roche, Chief Executive of 

the Queensland Resources Council (QRC), to 

chair an industry-led review of Queensland’s 

exploration and development approvals 

processes. Announcing the review at the 

QRC’s annual lunch, the Premier said: 

‘Exploration expenditure in 

Queensland increased more than 

80 percent last year. It was $354 

million in 2005-06 and this was up 

to $640 million in 2008-09. Three 

years ago there were 432 

applications for exploration - and 

925 applications have already 

been received this year. 

‘That’s why we need to work with 

industry to deliver a better system 

to assess applications. So today 

we announce there will be an 

industry working group chaired by 

Michael Roche. They will be 

tasked with reporting back to 

government by April next year on 

best practice process to support 

future industry growth. A key 

outcome will be to determine how 

we can improve approvals 

processes; reduce assessment 

times; and increase transparency 

in the system.’ 

Premier Anna Bligh, 25 

November 2009 

An experienced cross-section of industry 

representatives joined the Industry Working 

Group (IWG). This report would not have been 

possible without ready access to industry 

commitment, enthusiasm and expertise. 

Industry’s perspective is that the existing 


processes have been mired in unnecessary 

delays, creating real costs for Queensland by 

delaying or deterring capital investment and 

consequently public benefits such as growth in 

employment and state royalties. Importantly, 

uncertainties and delays are not delivering 

better decisions. Each component of these 

complex decision-making processes needs to 

be systematically considered and potentially 

reviewed so that time savings can be achieved 

and investment can occur without undue 

delay. 

The size of the prize: 

A hypothetical new mine with production delayed by 12 months results in a substantial set of 

economic opportunities forgone for Queensland, including: 

• 700-800 construction jobs 

• 650 permanent on-site operational jobs 

• around 2200 new (indirect) jobs throughout Queensland 

• around $580 million in value added 

• around $340 million in wages and salaries 

• around $170 million in state royalties Export revenues of around $2000 million. 

While these estimates are significant they cannot quantify the damage done to Queensland’s 

reputation from a system that results in projects running behind schedule. This hidden reputational 

cost has two dimensions—to Queensland’s reputation as a reliable supplier of commodities and to 

Queensland’s reputation as a jurisdiction that is a safe and appealing investment destination. 

NB: The above estimates, (2007 dollar terms) are based on the then Department of Mines and 

Energy’s 2007 study of the central Queensland mining and minerals processing industries. It 

assumes a new 10Mmtpa open-cut coking coal mine exporting at a spot price of AUD $200/tonne. 

page i

A world-class approvals system would have 

the capacity to provide a more rigorous 

assessment process using fewer government 

resources. Such an approval system would 

deliver better social, environmental and 

economic outcomes. Key opportunities to 

accelerate decision-making processes that are 

highlighted in this report include: 

the elimination of unnecessary 

steps and parallel sequencing of 

steps without a reduction in 

assessment rigour 

giving full effect to the 

appointment of the Department of 

Employment, Economic 

Development and Innovation 

(DEEDI) as a lead agency by 

establishing dedicated project 

case managers to oversee key 

resource projects through 

approval processes, upgrading to 

a modern work management 

system and ensuring that all 

concurrence agencies have the 

resources and delegations they 

need to be effective 

automatic increases in 

departmental resourcing as 

industry activity grows, through a 

balanced system of fees and 

charges, incorporating the best 

elements of user-pays and public 

benefit 

improved accountability for 

approval timelines by providing 

targets for each stage of the 

approval process 

investigating a new legislative 

framework expressly designed for 

major resource projects. 

It is apparent from industry submissions to the 

review that the root of the problem is the 

complexity inherent in a system that has 

grown incrementally in response to the 

demands of the day, rather than to an 

overarching master plan. Successive 

governments have added new steps and 

approval requirements through legislation or 

departmental policies without fully considering 

how all the new elements fit together. The 

cumulative impact of these additional 

requirements has seen significant increases in 

approval times. When dealing with a multistep 

complex process, there is a real risk that the 

project uncertainty and delays will compound. 

There could be 45 separate steps in an 

approval process for granting a mining lease 

for example, and a one to two-week 

uncertainty around each of these steps can 

add between 45-90 weeks to the project’s 

critical path. 

Application process Circa 2005 April 2010 Increase 

Simple mining lease application ~ 6 months ~ 12 – 15 months Up to 150% 

Mining lease with native title ~ 9 – 12 months ~ 15 – 18 months Up to 66% 

Mining lease with native title and 

environmental impact statement 

Sources: Industry feedback and IRTM. 

Almost all industry submissions made mention 

of resource constraints, staff churn and 

inconsistencies between regional offices and 

an individual officer’s interpretation of their 

task. It is clear to industry that a major part of 

the uncertainty of the pace of approval and 

tenure processes stems from a shortfall of 

people and expertise within government to 

~ 18 months ~ 24 – 36 months Up to 100% 

administer the system. A world-class 

approvals and tenure system should be 

properly resourced with the people, processes 

and expertise to make decisions in a timely 

manner. Given the variations in workload 

through the cycle, industry is attracted to a 

model which provides a direct link between 

industry activity and departmental resources. 

page i

REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES 

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW 

supporting resource sector growth 30 April 2010 

In this report, a range of recommendations 

have been made with the aim of better 

integration of approvals processes between 

Commonwealth and Queensland agencies, 

among the different state agencies 

themselves, and between the proponent, state 

agencies and the community. 

Industry proposes a more streamlined and 

seamless system. It is one that can deliver 

necessary approval decisions within a 

reasonable timeframe and at reasonable cost 

and one that offers greater certainty to the 

proponent, without compromising standards of 

scrutiny of environmental performance and 

opportunities for the community to articulate 

their expectations. 

The recently released 2010 Fraser Institute 

Mining Survey of 72 global jurisdictions places 

Queensland in 10 th position for minerals 

prospectivity. 

However, on the all-important ‘policy potential 

index’, which factors into this rating the overall 

quality of our minerals sector regulation and 

administration, Queensland drops back to a 

disappointing 24 th ranking. 

The Industry Working Group is of the view that 

the adoption by government of this report’s 

recommendations will set Queensland on the 

path towards a closer match between our 

prospectivity and our reputation for having 

exploration and development approval 

processes geared to supporting resource 

sector growth. 

I commend this report to the government. 

Michael Roche 

Chair 

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP 

REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES 

page ii




KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Review Report highlights opportunities for 

improvement in individual parts of the 

approvals system with an overarching theme 

of delivering clarity and certainty in 

government processes. As such the issues 

raised have been grouped into three 

categories: 

1. Certainty of pace ~ improving 

the speed and predictability of 

approvals; 

2. Certainty of scope ~ regulation 

based on criteria which are 

relevant to the project rather than 

all encompassing 

3. Regulatory certainty ~ at any 

stage the ‘regulatory rules’ which 

have been so painstakingly 

developed, for example, in an 

environmental authority can be 

revisited, revised and updated. 

1. Certainty of pace 

Industry’s recommendations to improve the 

speed and predictability of approval processes 

include: 

a urgently resource and implement 

the recommendations of the state 

government’s internal review, 

Streamlining Approvals Project: 

Mining and Petroleum Tenure 

Approval Process, November 

2009, (or the ‘Grundy Report’) 

b a shift towards parallel rather 

than sequential approval 

processes wherever possible, 

particularly in regard to public 

notification processes 

c improve accountability for 

approval timeframes by providing 

for targets at each stage of the 

approvals process through some 

combination of: 

• Setting target times for 

approval—eg an 

environmental impact 

statement process 

(the components within the 

control of the government) 

should take no more than 

16 months 

• a clear process of agreeing 

a series of target project 

milestones (perhaps with 

the case manager) at the 

beginning of a project 

(having regard to 

departmental mandatory 

deadlines and 

benchmarked timeframes 

for action) 

• Setting deadlines with a 

‘deemed as approved’ 

clause (ie if the decision 

has not been made by the 

deadline, then the 

applications / licence / 

project is deemed to have 

been approved) 

• the opportunity to have a 

process or outcome 

independently certified (for 

example having land 

rehabilitation signed off by 

a properly accredited 

consultant). 

d to improve the transparency of 

Queensland’s approval 

processes, publish a scorecard 

that tracks average time to make 

a decision for each category of 

application as well as the number 

of applications received and 

processed each quarter. 

e examine the feasibility of bringing 

Indigenous Land Use Agreement 

(ILUA) negotiating cost with 

native title parties in line with 

compensation negotiations 

page iii




involving non-native title parties 

to ensure both indigenous and 

non-indigenous compensation 

issues are addressed in a 

consistent manner. 

f enable the project proponents to 

opt for either ILUA or the right to 

negotiate using the s.29 process 

for all the elements of the right to 

mine and future acts associated 

with the right to mine, such as rail 

loops, pipelines and other directly 

associated infrastructure 

g automatically increase 

department resourcing as 

industry activity grows, through a 

balanced system of fees and 

charges, with the right elements 

of user pays and public benefit 

h move to a virtual model of a one 

stop shop, through the 

confirmation of the role of DEEDI 

as the lead agency that is 

responsible for managing the 

overall project approval process 

from end to end. To realise the 

benefits of this lead agency 

model also requires: 

• the appointment of a 

dedicated case manager for 

each project to act as an 

important coordination point 

within government, as a 

contact point for proponents 

and to be responsible for 

stewarding the project 

through the application 

processes 

• the implementation of a 

modern work-flow system to 

provide seamless 

management of all aspects 

of the assessment and 

granting of tenure, including 

environmental and native 

title processes 

• appropriate resources and 

delegations are available 

within key concurrence 

agencies including 

resources for native title 

and the appointment of 

specialist officers within 

DERM to focus on mining 

projects. 

i eliminate the need for mining 

leases and renewals to be signed 

off by Governor in Council 

j engage with the prospecting and 

small mining sectors in the 

development of a regulatory 

framework which is appropriate to 

the scale of that industry’s 

operation rather than treating 

them to the same degree of 

scrutiny as major mines. 

2. Certainty of scope 

Industry’s recommendations to address the 

growing complexity of approval processes as 

new issues continue to be added to the list of 

elements to be considered: 

k Publish guidelines and templates 

to clarify departmental intent – 

further, industry recommends the 

development of a clear 

notification process to avoid 

confusion when these documents 

are being developed or updated. 

l Progress industry’s proposed 

technical amendments to the 

Mineral Resources Act including 

provisions under sections 129, 

181, 238, 239,279, and 318CN. 

m Finalise the review of Aboriginal 

Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and 

the Torres Strait Islander Cultural 

Heritage Act 2004 with timely and 

appropriate consultation with 

industry and all relevant 

stakeholders. 

page iv




n Investigate the process to enable 

a project proponent to issue a 

notice under section 29 of native 

title Act (NTA) similar to their right 

to commence ILUA negotiations. 

o Revisit the preliminary findings 

from the review of Native Title 

Protection Conditions and 

implement relevant improvement 

measures suggested by the 

industry. 

p Establish a government-industry 

taskforce to investigate feasibility 

of new purpose-built legislation 

for assessment and approval 

processes, incorporating all 

current processes, ensuring no 

duplication of assessment, public 

notification or approval – 

including on-and off-lease 

approvals and provision for 

declaration of ‘significant 

projects’. 

q Ensure that assessment 

processes under state and 

Commonwealth environmental 

legislation can again occur 

concurrently. 

r Develop a risk-based assessment 

process, particularly in 

establishing the terms of 

reference for an Environmental 

Impact Statement and the 

conditions of an Environmental 

Authority, so both reflect the 

likelihood of significant impacts. 

3. Regulatory certainty 

Recommendations to address industry 

concern that the ‘regulatory rules’ can be 

revisited, revised and updated: 

s Amend the current petroleum and 

gas legislation (which was 

designed for conventional 

petroleum operations) in a 

consultative and timely manner 

as a result of the significant 

growth of the coal-seam gas 

industry in Queensland. 

t Develop a capability certification 

process for applying for 

exploration tenures so that a 

company is not required to 

separately justify their bona fides 

with each new application. 

u Undertake an urgent and 

consultative review of DERM’s 

Guideline 4 for deciding the level 

of impact assessment for the 

mining industry and options for 

streamlining the EIS trigger 

criteria. 

v Recommencement of the review 

of model mining conditions for 

environmental authorities (EA), 

with a firm deadline for the 

satisfactory completion of this 

review during 2010 

w Examine the feasibility of greater 

consistency between the 

Petroleum and Gas Act and 

Mineral Resources Act for 

exploration tenements where 

applicable, while recognising the 

different nature of mineral and 

petroleum exploration (especially 

Coal Seam Gas) 

x Ensure that there is a genuine 

imperative for commercial 

negotiations to proceed in the 

development of coordination 

agreements when tenures 

overlap by developing a process 

for one party to instigate a formal 

request for a ministerial 

preference decision after a fixed 

period of perhaps six months. 

page v

SUPPORTING RESOURCE SECTOR GROWTH 

INDUSTRY PROPOSALS FOR STREAMLINING QUEENSLAND’S 

APPROVAL PROCESSES 

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION 

AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES 

INTRODUCTION 

Queensland’s trade-exposed 

administration 

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a 

world-class project approval and tenure 

system to the Queensland economy. The 

administrative scaffolding around approvals 

and tenure fundamentally shapes 

Queensland’s competitiveness on global 

commodity markets. As such, the 

effectiveness of these processes needs to be 

continuously improved, streamlined and finetuned 

to ensure that Queensland’s systems 

remain in touch with the best in the world. 

Why are approvals so important? The 

industry’s perception of the relative speed and 

complexity of an approval process in a 

resource jurisdiction like Queensland is key to 

informing the investment decisions that the 

industry makes in resource projects. A system 

that is fast, predictable and makes it easy to 

track progress means that companies can 

invest with some confidence that necessary 

decisions will be delivered in reasonable time 

and with certainty. 

While Queensland’s resource endowments 

are fixed, Queensland exports into global 

commodity markets and Queensland’s 

operations are increasingly funded from global 

finance markets. As a result, resource 

opportunities have to compete on a global 

basis, so opportunities are highly mobile. The 

role of approval systems in Queensland’s 

competitiveness is essential to understand, as 

it is rare to have an area of public 

administration where performance is so starkly 

trade exposed. 

The recently released 2010 Fraser Institute 

Mining Survey of 72 global jurisdictions places 

Queensland at number ten for our minerals 

prospectivity. However, on the all-important 

‘policy potential index’, which factors into this 

rating the overall quality of our minerals sector 

regulation and administration, Queensland 

drops back to a disappointing 24 th ranking. 

The Industry Working Group is of the view that 

government adoption of this report’s 

recommendations will set Queensland on the 

path towards a closer match between our 

prospectivity and our reputation for having 


processes geared to supporting resource 

sector growth. 

The role of resources in Queensland 

The Queensland resource sector’s value of 

production was $50.8 billion in 2008/09 with 

thermal and metallurgical coal exports 

accounting for approximately 60 percent of 

this value. In order, the sector’s largest trading 

partners are Japan, India, Korea, Taiwan, 

Germany, United Kingdom, Brazil, France and 

China. 

In 2008/09, the sector directly and indirectly 

employed some 12 percent of the Queensland 

workforce and accounted for approximately 20 

percent of the Queensland economy. 

The reward for Australia and Queensland in 

pursuing progressive reforms that allow the 

sector to build upon its comparative advantage 

in resource exports in increasingly competitive 

global markets is profound. 

page 1




The Queensland Resources Council (QRC) 1 

estimates that an approximate 60 percent 

increase in the value of production from $50.8 

billion on 2008/09 to more than $78 billion by 

2019/20 is feasible 2 . This would substantially 

increase the sector’s employment, gross state 

product, and tax and community contributions 

resulting in significant additional socioeconomic 

benefits. The sector’s growth has 

the potential to far exceed all other sectors of 

the Queensland economy. 

Review objectives 

The Premier appointed Michael Roche, Chief 

Executive of QRC, to chair an independent 

industry review to set out industry’s 

perspectives on reforming exploration and 

development approval processes. 

The government has set an ambitious target of 

creating 100,000 new jobs in Queensland. As 

the resource industry generates one fifth of all 

economic activity in Queensland and has good 

prospects for growth, the government has 

focussed on how to maximise the resource 

industry’s job creation potential. To put the 

sector’s role as an engine of job generation 

into context, the successful development of 

the LNG industry has been forecast to create 

some 18,000 new jobs in Queensland. 

1 QRC is a non-government organisation representing the 

interests of companies involved in exploration, mining, 

minerals processing and energy production in 

Queensland. The QRC works with governments, 

community groups and non-government organisations to 

ensure that the state's resources are developed profitably 

and competitively, in a socially and environmentally 

responsible way. 

QRC's mission is to secure an environment conducive to 

the long-term sustainability of the mineral and energy 

resources sector in Queensland. The QRC has a strong 

track record of providing governments with prompt, 

representative and strategic advice on policies and 

programs affecting the resources sector. 

2 Queensland Resources Council pre budget submission 

‘The policy agenda for a sustainable resources sector’, 

URL : 

http://www.qrc.org.au/_dbase_upl/Final%20Submission% 

20Qld%20Pre-Budget%20Submission%20- 

%20March2010.pdf 

One of these strategies has been to minimise 

delays in reaching decisions on resource 

project proposals. In delivering this world-class 

assessment process, it is essential to focus on 

(a) the performance and resources of each of 

the government agencies involved and (b) the 

coordination between these agencies. 

Overview of working group processes 

The Premier announced the Review at QRC’s 

annual lunch in November 2009. During the 

development of this report, the working group 

met regularly to advise, comment and oversee 

a process of calling for submissions from 

industry, the collection and collation of the 

common themes and also the successive 

refinement of a draft report. 

While the time was short, and the commercial 

expertise required for the process is in high 

demand, the extent and depth of the industry 

engagement in these processes reflects the 

seriousness of the task. A full listing of the 

working group members is at appendix 2. 

Companies have been willing to be candid in 

discussing their regulatory experiences, which 

has allowed the common themes and 

consequent recommendations to be identified. 

However, the QRC Secretariat was surprised 

at the industry’s consistent reticence to be 

identifiable in case studies or any public 

documents. There is an opportunity to address 

industry’s adverse perceptions of elements of 

Queensland’s regulatory culture by identifying 

and delivering a sustained stream of process 

improvements. Collaborating on identifying 

reform opportunities will build great confidence 

in the objectivity of regulatory processes. 

Across all these disparate discussions, the 

overarching concern from industry was the 

need for certainty. While there were lots of 

variations around this common theme, the 

issues raised by industry can be grouped into 

three broad categories: 

page 2




1 certainty of pace – improving 

processes to increase the speed 

and predictability of approvals 

2 certainty of scope – industry’s 

concern that approval processes 

get progressively more complex 

as new issues continue to be 

added to the list of elements to be 

considered 

3 regulatory continuity – industry 

fears that at any stage the ‘rules’ 

which have been so painstakingly 

developed, for example in an 

environmental authority, can be 

revisited, revised and updated. 

Developing a process to measure, manage 

and benchmark the overall time taken to reach 

decisions is seen as essential to wrestle back 

some of the causes of unnecessary delays 

which have seen significant increases in 

approval times (below). 

Application process Circa 2005 April 2010 Increase 

Simple mining lease application ~ 6 months ~ 12 – 15 months Up to 150% 

Mining lease with native title ~ 9 – 12 months ~ 15 – 18 months Up to 66% 

Mining lease with native title and 

environmental impact statement 

Source: Industry feedback and IRTM. 

CERTAINTY OF PACE 

Certainty of pace – the need for fast, 

predictable processes 

A number of industry submissions called out 

the need for a new approach to tenure and 

approval processes. Industry submissions 

variously described the current system as: 

onerous, cumbersome, disjointed, riddled with 

significant and unexpected delays, requiring 

multiple authorities from multiple agencies, 

inconsistent, slow, and confused. 

Certainty of pace relates to two key parts of an 

approval/tenure process. The first is the likely 

time taken to make the decision and the 

second is the variability around the time 

elapsed. A good process should have a fairly 

quick timeline to a decision and little variability 

around that timing. 

~ 18 months ~ 24 – 36 months Up to 100% 

When dealing with a multistep complex 

process, there is a real risk that the project 

uncertainty and delays will compound. There 

could be 45 separate steps in an approval 

process for granting a mining lease for 

example, and a 1-2 week uncertainty around 

each of these steps can add between 45-90 

weeks to the project’s critical path. 

Slow, stagnant approval processes, for 

example where a renewal for an exploration 

lease might take longer to secure than the 

actual two-year renewal period, have real 

costs to a resource business. Various 

submissions have identified that frequently, 

the endorsements for relinquishment, 

expenditure and renewals occur well after the 

date they are legislatively required to be in 

effect, and are backdated on the permit 

documents. The acceptance or not of a 

relinquishment variation often takes nearly a 

year to be received, at which time the 

companies are preparing the relinquished 

proposal for the subsequent year, causing 

page 3




issues for companies’ exploration and 

relinquishment strategies. 

If there is a question mark over a company’s 

tenure, then investors are going to think twice 

before investing in that company. More 

importantly, if those issues are systemic in a 

jurisdiction, then investors may be reluctant to 

invest in that jurisdiction. A good approval 

process should not stymie investment by 

creating regulatory uncertainty. 

Streamlining Approvals Project 

On 27 January 2009, the then Department of 

Mines and Energy, now within the Department 

of, Employment, Economic Development and 

Innovation (DEEDI), at the direction of the 

Premier, announced an initiative to streamline 


processes as they relate to the mining and 

petroleum industries in Queensland. 

The Streamlining Approvals Project 

recommended efficiency improvements to 

regulatory and other approval processes for 

mining and petroleum projects while 

maintaining strict environmental and land use 

approval processes. The project reviewed the 

legislative requirements and administrative 

systems for environmental, native title, and 

land use assessments. 

A key finding was that the assessment 

process is heavily reliant on paper files and 

hard-copy documentation that constrains the 

flow of information between proponents and 

regulatory agencies and between agencies. A 

paper based approvals system also limits the 

ability of agencies to maximise the pool of 

processing officers by reallocating work across 

its regional offices. 

An electronic document management and 

work flow system presents an opportunity to 

transform the administration of mining, 

petroleum and gas tenures in Queensland to 

best practice technologies and information 

solutions. 

Industry Working Group recommendation 

a. Urgently resource and implement the 

recommendations of the state 

government’s internal review, 

Streamlining Approvals Project: Mining 

and Petroleum Tenure Approval 

Process, November 2009, (the ‘Grundy 

Report’). 

Approval and tenure processes determine how 

far into the future the state’s pipeline of 

developments extend. Slow, inefficient 

approval processes can mean that the 

commencement of projects can be pushed 

back one to two years, which in some cases 

will mean that the market opportunity has 

passed. It increases the uncertainty for the 

company looking to invest. 

‘The uncertainty of the length of 

time an application may take to be 

approved means there is a 

fundamental inability for effective 

project planning for any related 

mining activities and an ability to 

reach specific project goals in any 

anticipated timeframe. Not only 

does this affect the applicant’s 

business but leads to slower or 

halted state development and 

economic growth. This also 

threatens a future ability to supply 

product and maintain a 

competitive edge in the 

marketplace’. 

Industry submission 

Unexpected regulatory delays bring an 

additional layer of uncertainty to the process. 

Surprises, which cause unforeseen delays – 

or push out approval timeframes, also bring an 

additional set of costs and frustrations for the 

industry. 

While it is expected that highly complex, large 

or technical proposals will take longer to be 

page 4




assessed, this complexity should be able to be 

reasonably anticipated. A good approval or 

tenure process should be characterised by few 

surprises and a low standard deviation of 

approval times around a benchmark. 

Industry’s feedback has been that a small 

mine project with no complex environmental 

approvals and no additional mining tenements 

required can take 18 months from the 

beginning of the EIS process to EIS approval 

and then a further two to three months for the 

grant of an amended Environment Authority 

((EA) (if no objections are made to the draft 

EA)). In many cases, this two-year delay rivals 

the construction time to actually have the mine 

up and operating. 

The slow approval process (and this in the 

best case small mine scenario) is particularly 

trying for industry as the EIS process cannot 

begin until project and engineering detail is at 

or about the end of pre-feasibility engineering 

standard. As a result, the EIS process comes 

after serious investments have been made in 

the pre-feasibility work, yet causes 

engineering progress to be paused while the 

regulatory processes play out. 

‘An approval timeframe of up to 

(or potentially exceeding) four 

years does not provide a firm 

foundation for capital investment 

in the resources sector, nor 

provide a timeframe which allows 

a rapid response to favourable 

market conditions’. 


A good approval process shouldn’t have these 

‘regulatory dead-spots’ where no other 

progress can be progressed in parallel. 


b. A shift towards parallel rather than 

sequential approval processes wherever 

possible, particularly in regard to 

notification processes. 

Case study ~ unnecessary delay 

A company had applied simultaneously for a number of mineral exploration permits in October 2006. One of the 

applications was proposing to explore in areas of Endangered Regional Ecosystems, which triggered a level 1 noncompliant 

EA. 

The Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) had written to the company, unfortunately at 

the wrong address, to request an amendment to the application. Queensland Mines and Energy (QME), not knowing 

anything about the error, was waiting for the environmental authority to be issued. Then DERM misplaced the 

application so neither QME nor DERM were taking care of the application. 

After following up with QME a few times and being told that they were still waiting for DERM, the company managed 

to find out what was happening, amended the EA application and provided the additional information required. 

During this time DERM changed the case manager several times, which meant that negotiations had to start over 

each time. The exploration permit was finally granted in November 2009. 

The application took 38 months to be granted. 

page 5




Reviewing and awarding tenure 

QRC members operating on petroleum 

tenures have consistently identified concerns 

with the protracted times to have applications 

acknowledged or granted. Under this 

legislation, companies tendered for land 

releases and submit competitive bids for 

exploration authorities. The last of these 

tender rounds finished in October 2009 and as 

at mid-March 2010, the industry was yet to 

hear of the outcome. 

A five-month wait carries real business costs. 

If companies have not heard whether their 

bids have been successful, it is difficult for 

them to know whether (and how much) to 

tender for other tenures – both in Queensland 

and other jurisdictions. 

‘For companies with multiple 

licences and/or approvals being 

delayed, they may think twice 

about investing in Queensland 

when similar opportunities exist in 

other states where such delays do 

not occur’. 


Queensland’s performance compares poorly 

to South Australia with respect to petroleum 

exploration tenders. One industry submission 

emphasized that a recent South Australian 

tender for exploration acreage was announced 

after 10 weeks. Moreover, the SA government 

had active Indigenous Land Lse agreements 

(ILUAs) in place over the gazettal areas so 

that the successful companies could 

immediately commence work. 

Compounding the industry’s frustration on this 

issue is the fact that until an application for an 

exploration permit has been acknowledged, 

the DEEDI tenure system does not generate a 

tenure number. This tenure number is needed 

before an application can be made to DERM 

for an environmental authority. 

Case study ~ unnecessary delays due to parallel 

processes and conflicting regulatory interpretation 

A proponent sought to supply mining tailings materials to 

the construction industry for use as fill or bedding 

material. Under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) 

and Environmental Protection Act 1994 all relevant 

approvals were granted and tenures were in place to 

conduct those mining activities. However, due to the 

distinction between minerals and quarry materials 

parallel approvals were necessary under the then 

Integrated Planning Act 1997 and now the Sustainable 

Planning Act 2009. Moreover, different regulatory 

systems exist under both Acts and different approval 

agencies are required (state and local government 

jurisdictions). 

Despite approval by the then Environmental Protection 

Agencies, the local government denied its approval on 

grounds that were already addressed by EPA for the 

mining activity. 

The project’s progress was also stalled due to the issue 

with the distinction between minerals and construction 

materials and despite working in good faith with the 

regulatory authority, part of the operations were 

suspended indefinitely since December 2008. This not 

only impacted on the organisation’s profit but also 

severely damaged its reputation. In addition, local 

employment was reduced and independent contracting 

firms put out of business pending the outcome of legal 

action by the state. 

The proponent believes much opportunity is lost through 

the disjointed approvals process and regulatory conflict 

created by the distinction between mineral and quarry 

material. 

One company referred to their experience of 

having a mine survey plan for a mining lease 

that was submitted in 2005, which still has not 

been registered. They also had a renewal for a 

mineral development licence, which had been 

lodged in 2008, but still no decision made and 

renewals of exploration tenures, which were 

page 6




taking 18 months to approve. They suggested 

that to avoid such protracted delays that 

additional resources would allow approval 

agencies could work to fixed deadlines. 

Several company submissions sought to 

reform the requirement to lodge lease 

applications in person at the nearest regional 

office, preferring to post them in within a given 

timeframe after pegging. The submissions 

also suggested consistencies between 

regional offices in this regard. Currently, some 

offices deal with applications over the counter, 

whereas others require a formal appointment. 

Another company cited an example where it 

applied to renew a tenement for three years, 

had no response or acknowledgement of any 

kind from DEEDI for over a year, only to find 

out the renewal had been approved, but for 

only two years. The tenement is now due to be 

renewed again without having had the 

opportunity to comply with tenement 

conditions. DEEDI’s response to the 

proponent was that it should assume that its 

tenements will be renewed and should 

continue to commit funds to exploration, even 

if the tenement is not guaranteed to be 

renewed. 

‘Although DEEDI accepts financial 

assurances and tenement rent in 

advance, DEEDI still takes 

significant time to grant the 

tenement. In addition, the 

tenement applicant may need to 

negotiate compensation with the 

landowner prior to conducting 

exploration activities, but will have 

no idea when the tenement will 

actually be granted and activity 

commence.’ 


For a seasonal industry like agriculture, the 

timing of when industry activity commences 

will have a major bearing on the impact on 

production and hence compensation. The 

uncertainty of when resource activity might 

start is an unnecessary source of friction with 

landholders. 

Industry Working Group recommendations 

c. Improve accountability for approval 

timeframes by providing for targets at 

each stage of the approvals process 

through some combination of: 

• Setting target times for approval – 

eg an environmental impact 

statement process (the 

components within the control of 

the government) should take 16 

months. 

• A clear process of agreeing a 

series of target project milestones 

(perhaps with the case manager) 

at the beginning of a project 

(having regard to departmental 

mandatory deadlines and 

benchmarked timeframes for 

action). 

• Setting deadlines with a ‘deemed 

as approved’ clause (ie if the 

decision has not been made by 

the deadline, then the 

applications / licence / project is 

deemed to have been approved. 

• The opportunity to have a 

process or outcome 

independently certified (for 

example having land 

rehabilitation signed off by a 

properly accredited consultant). 

How can reform progress be measured? 

Western Australia produces a quarterly 

scorecard, which sets out an aggregate 

picture of the process of renewing and 

awarding tenure. They have set targets for 

each process that are measured in weeks, not 

years. For example, the Western Australian 

Government aims to have a decision made on 

mineral exploration licence in 65 days. 

page 7




The WA scorecard reports the total activity 

levels in terms of new applications received, 

decisions made, decisions carried over and 

against a percentage of approvals secured 

within time targets. The Queensland resources 

sector commends the transparency that such 

a reporting initiative provides to the 

government. 


d. To improve the transparency of 

Queensland’s approval processes, 

publish a scorecard that tracks the 

average time to make a decision for 

each category of application as well as 

the number of applications received and 

processed each quarter. 

Native title and cultural heritage issues 

Native title issues continue to be a risk to 

projects by virtue of time, cost and uncertainty. 

Industry submissions note that this may be a 

relevant time to seek to resolve some 

significant issues in this area as it is 

understood that the federal government is 

currently looking at possible amendments to 

the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA). 

An example was cited in submissions of a 

resource company that spent in excess of $2m 

seeking to negotiate an ILUA with their native 

title parties. Negotiations are still continuing. It 

is acknowledged that there are a range of 

reasons that make it difficult to cap the cost of 

these negotiations. Industry suggests the 

same procedures be put in place to bring an 

ILUA to a conclusion as apply to failed 

compensation negotiations with non- 

Indigenous land holders. It is recommended 

that industry and DERM put together a joint 

submission for discussion with the 

Commonwealth Government addressing this 

issue to ensure that both Indigenous and nonindigenous 

compensation issues are 

addressed in a consistent manner. 

Another example was provided where a 

company negotiated a Cultural Heritage 

Management Plan (CHMP) and it took a long 

time to get the parties to agree. At present the 

company has a CHMP which has been signed 

by all signatories except one who seems to 

have disappeared and the company has not 

been able to locate that person. After all the 

efforts, the company still does not have a 

CHMP which is mandatory if a project is 

required to go through the EIS process. This 

could be a cause of significant unnecessary 

delay to a project. 

There are also well documented concerns 

over the difficulties in giving effect to 

government policies and regulation in the 

absence of a well organised and coherent 

native title party. A number of submissions 

mentioned industry’s frustration at delays 

caused by infighting and politics from native 

title parties. 


e. Examine the feasibility of bringing 

indigenous Land Use Agreement 

negotiating cost with native title parties 

in line with compensation negotiations 

involving non-native title parties to 

ensure both indigenous and nonindigenous 

compensation issues are 

addressed in a consistent manner. 

Current processes require a mining lease 

application to be deferred until native title 

matters are resolved. Industry suggests that 

these mining lease processes should be able 

to continue in parallel with native title, so that 

as soon as native title is resolved, the mining 

lease can be granted immediately. 

‘Grants of new exploration permits are 

taking significant amounts of time, even 

where native title is extinguished and 

there is no requirement for advertising. 

We currently have three applications 

lodged in December 2008, June 2009 

page 8




and November 2009 awaiting 

decisions’. 


One submission cited the example of an 

application for an authority to prospect (ATP) 

under Section 31 of NTA where the delay in 

public notification allowed an indigenous group 

to lodge a new claim beyond the otherwise 

prescribed period and hence put the company 

back into negotiation and further delayed the 

project. 

A number of submissions have noted the 

issues relating to the current requirement for 

an ILUA to be negotiated for mining 

infrastructure, such as rail loops servicing a 

mine. Whereas there are strict timeframes 

associated with the right to negotiate, no such 

timeframes exist for the negotiation of an 

ILUA. Industry recommends that provision for 

the right to negotiate using the s.29 process 

also applies to the right to mine and future 

acts associated with the right to mine, such as 

rail loops, pipelines and other directly 

associated infrastructure. This will ensure that 

all these issues can be dealt with as part of 

the same negotiation. 


f. Enable the project proponents to opt for 

either Indigenous Land Use Agreement 

or the right to negotiate using the s.29 

process for all the elements of the right 

to mine and future acts associated with 

the right to mine, such as rail loops, 

pipelines and other directly associated 

infrastructure. 

Environment and related approval issues 

Currently there is a requirement to advertise 

an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) or 

amendment that has already been advertised 

as part of an EIS process. This requirement 

seems unnecessary and only adds to delay 

without achieving any environmental outcome. 

A number of submissions identified concerns 

with the multiple public notification periods, 

each of which has a minimum period for 

comment of at least 20 business days, which 

is often extended. In some cases, these 

multiple notifications do not engage additional 

stakeholders but rather allow the same parties 

to lodge increasingly shrill and vexatious 

objections. 

Submissions have identified unnecessary 

delays in EIS and EA revision approvals 

process as a significant project (business) risk. 

This is because the project value is time 

sensitive and project value will be eroded if 

commencement is unnecessarily delayed due 

to approvals process. 

‘Whilst we endeavour to allow sufficient 

‘float’ in approvals timelines for DERM 

delays (acknowledging that occasional 

delays are reasonable) there has been 

at least one occasion where contractors 

were directed to alternative work (at a 

significant cost) as approvals were 

unreasonably delayed.’. 


The charts below set out part of the reason 

that the resource industry is so interested in a 

timely approval process. The stylised resource 

project below moves through three distinct 

phases. 

The first phase is the advanced exploration 

phase – in figure 1 that is around five years of 

exploring and proving up a target resource. 

The second phase is securing approval to 

move into operation and commissioning the 

project. In figure 1, this second phase also 

lasts around five years and is marked by major 

investments (and a corresponding fall in 

cashflow). The third and final stage is the 

operational stage, where the project is in 

production and cashflow is positive. In figure 

1, this phase lasts for around 20 years. 

page 9




Figure 1: Indicative resource project – 

cashflows and net present value (NPV) 

through time. 

The red line in figure 1, maps the change in 

the net present value (NPV) of the project 

during the different operational stages as 

cashflow changes. 

Figure 2: Delays destroy project value. 

Figure 2 provides a comparision between the 

economics of the original project (as described 

in figure 1) and the same project with a twoyear 

delay in securing approvals. The blue net 

present value (NPV) line describes the original 

project, with a final NPV of around $1.8 billion; 

whereas the red line describes the NPV of the 

delayed project, where the 

final NPV is $1.5 billion. The 

difference is around 21 

percent, a dramatic 

destruction of value. The 

graphs clearly demonstrate 

significant devaluation of a 

project’s NPV and due to 

delayed approvals, which 

then translates into delayed 

and diminished royalty 

returns for the state. 

Approvals delay have an 

even larger impact on the 

NPV of smaller shorter duration projects. A 12month 

delay to a project that has a 15-year 

development and production life is a major 

issue that impacts significantly on the project’s 

profitability. 

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that 

market cycles invariably 

impact on the success of new 

start-ups and forward planning 

is difficult with the current 

approvals situation. 

One submission cited an 

example where 

supplementary EIS (SEIS) 

responses were due in early 

November 2004. All were 

received except EPA which 

was received just before 

Christmas but a meeting 

could not be held until 

January 2005 as EPA staff 

was on leave. In the meeting 

when the opening point was 

discussed, it was noted that 

the response to EPA’s query 

was in the EIS, but the EPA 

officer said that he was requested to review 

the SEIS not the EIS. The meeting closed 

immediately and EPA took nearly four months 

to provide an updated response and the 

Coordinator General’s response was received 

in late March 2005. In another case, EPAs 

page 10




response to the EIS was four weeks late and 

its response to the SEIS was still not received 

15 weeks later. 

One company submission detailed a case 

where it was involved in a competing 

application with another company and the 

department informed them that due to the rewriting 

of departmental guidelines for 

assessing competing applications, all 

competing applications have been postponed 

since 2008. Lack of resources was cited for 

this delay. It is understood that once the policy 

has been finalised, assessment of the 

applications will commence. 

Resourced for industry growth. Almost all 

industry submissions made mention of 

resource constraints, staff churn and 

inconsistencies between regional offices and 

individual officers’ interpretation of their task. It 

is clear to industry that a major part of the 

uncertainty of the pace of approval and tenure 

processes stems from a shortfall of people 

and expertise within government to administer 

the system. A world-class approvals and 

tenure system should be properly resourced 

with the appropriately trained people, 

delegations, processes and expertise to make 

decisions in a timely manner. 

A perennial issue for the administration of 


processes is that industry activities are 

strongly cyclic. For departments which 

manage these processes their workload is 

largest at the time when industry’s imperative 

for prompt decisions is greatest. This is 

inconsistent with a system of fixed 

departmental resources. 

Industry can see the benefits of setting fees at 

a level where they provide a degree of ‘price 

signal’ to the department to secure additional 

resources. Any revenue raised needs to be 

applied to securing additional resources in 

order to maintain the timeliness of decisions 

being made. These revenues should 

supplement, not replace, the base level of 

public funding for administration to avoid 

theoretical debates over the efficiency of 

government processes and the degree of 

public good generated by the administration. 

The calibration of a system of fees and 

charges needs to be developed in close 

consultation with industry. Given the diversity 

of resource sector activity in Queensland 

across companies ranging from start-up to 

major global commodity producers, the system 

of industry contributions needs to be 

constructed so as not to distort industry 

structure or unfairly disadvantage one sector. 

Furthermore, industry’s willingness to consider 

a move towards a greater degree of industry 

funding would be contingent on securing 

government support for the whole set of 

reforms proposed in this report. 

Industry Working Group recommendations 

g. Automatically increase department 

resourcing as industry activity grows, 

through a balanced 

system of fees and charges, with the 

right elements of user pays and public 

benefit. 

Several industry submissions raised the issue 

of lack of accessibility for the proponents to 

discuss any change of scope with the relevant 

department, especially DERM. On a number 

of occasions, it is alleged that DERM has 

refused to meet with a project proponent to 

clarify or discuss the need or objective for 

such changes. 

‘DERM could benefit by adopting a 

policy of working with the project 

proponent to achieve the best 

environmental outcomes and 

particularly the best TOR for a project. 

Unfortunately their current approach 

seems to be to distance themselves 

from the proponent as much as 

page 11




possible, perhaps to maintain the public 

perception of impartiality.’ 


Industry submissions expressed frustration at 

the complexity of a multi-layered approval 

process, conducted by multiple agencies who 

fail to communicate effectively, so that 

proponents are answering repeated and 

overlapping information requests. The risk of 

such a complex process is that there is no one 

except the proponent with an interest in 

managing the time taken and monitoring how 

long each stage of the process has taken. 

Industry saw the solution to this complexity as 

a package of reforms which would deliver (a) a 

lead agency tasked with ‘owning’ the approval 

process, (b) the establishment within that 

agency of a pool of experienced case 

managers who would provide a consistent first 

point of contact for the project and also (c) 

system changes to deliver a 21 st century work 

flow system which would allow agencies to 

move from shuffling hard copies to a seamless 

electronic management system which would 

encompass all the processes surrounding the 

assessment and grant of tenure including 

environment, and native title processes. 

The Premier announced on 28 January 2009 

that the (then) Department of Mines and 

Energy would ‘...become the lead agency 

responsible for the coordination of timely 

assessments for Environmental Impact 

Statements that relate to mining exploration 

development and approval...’. 

Submissions made it very clear that industry 

saw real value in this approach of establishing 

a lead agency to ‘...guide projects through all 

parts of the approval process across all 

relevant agencies, particularly the Department 

of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP); the 

Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and 

Department of Natural Resources and Water 

(NRW).’ 3 Given the subsequent machinery of 

government changes, industry supports 

DEEDI continuing to play this critical role of 

lead agency. 

The industry is attracted to the model of 

having a case manager – an experienced 

official who is responsible for overseeing a 

project and its stewardship through the 

labyrinth of agencies, officials and offices. 

Further, industry recommends that these case 

officers should be empowered to suggest 

process refinements based on their 

accumulated experience in negotiating the 

whole process. As this process evolves, the 

case manager could be allocated relevant 

decision making powers. 

‘There is no single point of contact 

within a department with assigned 

responsibility for taking an application 

from submission to conclusion. Whilst 

departmental staff are helpful when 

contacted in relation to the progress of 

an application or a given query, 

information first has to be requested by 

the applicant, and there are often 

several people that will need to be 

spoken with depending on the nature of 

the application.’ 


3 Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, Queensland 

Government’s response to the Queensland Resources 

Council’s 2009 Election Policy Agenda, page 1, March 

2009. 

page 12




Case study ~ benefits of case management 

As part of the call for case studies and submissions, a number of companies who had been allocated a DEEDI case 

manager wanted to acknowledge the value that this approach had delivered for their project. None of the companies were 

able to quantify the time and money saved, but a typical comment was, ‘if you don’t fall down a hole, you don’t know how 

much damage it would have done to you.’ The common sentiment was that it saved projects from wasting time, money 

and effort on processes which were unnecessary. 

Clearly the experience of having a case manager had not only saved time for the project proponents, but that it had also 

greatly increased the transparency of the process. One company commented, ‘it was reliable as clockwork, every week 

we got a call from our case manager, just to update us on progress and to see if we had any concerns – that’s fantastic 

service’. 

Another said, ‘taking a project through an approvals process is hard work, but this is a really smart way for the 

government to acknowledge the importance of my project. It’s good PR for Queensland and it made me more confident of 

meeting my project deadline.’ 

The issues that industry submissions called out varied – some saved time, some appreciated the clear communications, 

others saw the value in the confidence of having someone in their corner. 

‘Every single resource project in Queensland should have a case manager – simple as that. It’s a great idea.’ 


Another important aspect of the reforms which 

industry sees as necessary to give full effect to 

the lead agency concept is to move to a 

modern work-flow system which would allow 

government to work electronically and online. 

The current paper-based system is thoroughly 

outmoded and must be complex, difficult and 

expensive to manage. A paper-based system 

lacks transparency and makes it difficult to 

track progress, whereas industry would like to 

see a modern customer-focused system 

whereby the progress of an application can be 

tracked online. 

The final aspect of the lead agency concept is 

to ensure the appropriate resources are 

available to administer the system. This 

requires not just more hands, but more 

experienced hands. The development of a 

lead agency will require more delegations to 

provide officers with the confidence to make 

decisions. Good examples of where industry 

can see the need for additional appropriate 

resources include in the native title area and to 

provide DERM with a pool of specialist mining 

officers to mirror the specialist capability which 

has been developed in petroleum and gas. 


h. Move to a virtual model of a one stop 

shop, through the confirmation of 

DEEDI as the lead agency that is 

responsible for managing the overall 

project approval process from end to 

end. To realise the benefits of this lead 

agency model also requires: 

• the appointment of a dedicated 

case manager for each project to 

act as an important coordination 

point within government, as a 

contact point for proponents and 

to be responsible for stewarding 

the project through the application 

processes 

• the implementation of a modern 

work-flow system to provide 

seamless management of all 

aspects of the assessment and 

granting of tenure, including 

environmental and native title 

processes 

• appropriate resources and 

delegations are available within 

key concurrence agencies 

including resources for native title 

page 13




and the appointment of specialist 

officers within DERM to focus on 

mining projects. 

The requirement for the grant of mining leases 

to be approved by Governor in Council adds 

two to three months to the granting of an 

(exhaustively reviewed) mining lease. 

Similarly, the renewal of a mining lease is also 

required to be approved by Governor in 

Council. As the grant and renewal of 

production leases under the PGA does not 

require such a high level of sign off, it is 

difficult to understand why this power is not 

delegated to the chief executive. 


i. Eliminate the need for mining leases 

and renewals to be signed off by 

Governor in Council. 

The inclusion of statutory timeframes for 

decisions under the Environmental Protection 

Act was strongly supported by Industry. This 

benefit is being eroded by the issuing of 

multiple Notices of Extension, often seeking 

minor points of additional information or 

seeking more time to complete the 

assessment. Consideration should be given to 

limiting the number of extension notices, or 

refining the grounds upon which they can be 

issued. The root cause appears to relate to 

resourcing levels and skills within DERM. 

Case study ~ lengthy delay due to several preapproval 

requirements 

A proponent proposes to establish a greenfield mine 

development. In order for the project to be executed, 

the following key approvals must be secured: 

• Coordinator General’s approval of the EIS 

• EA for Mining Activities 

• Mining Lease (ML) granted under the 

Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA). 

Whilst the EIS process is nearing completion, the 

project has experienced significant delays during the 

course of the process resulting from: 

• resourcing constraints within government 

agencies, including over-stretched project 

managers within DERM and the 

Department of Infrastructure and Planning 

(DIP) 

• insufficient coordination among government 

agencies. Until recently, when DEEDI 

appointed a case manager, no one within 

DEEDI was responsible for driving the 

process and ensuring that government 

agencies are performing their tasks or 

review in a timely fashion 

• government agencies not meeting 

reasonable timeframes 

• increased level of Social Impact 

Assessment in the absence of agreed 

guidelines or structure for Social Impact 

Management Plans. 

It is estimated that the project has experienced a two to 

four month delay as a result of the issues set out above 

which led to the lost market opportunity the company 

was targeting. It is expected that the remaining steps in 

the process will further delay the execution of the 

project. The process of reaching a decision on the 

application for a mining lease is expected to take 

longer than three years. 

The driver for this delay is the unnecessarily lengthy 

EA and ML processes (which follows what has already 

been a 20 month process of developing an EIS). 

Specifically: 

• draft EA and advertising of draft EA 

• referral to the Land Court for any objections 

to the grant of the ML (current schedule 

based on a lengthy Land Court process 

hearing multiple objections and the Land 

Court’s overcrowded docket) 

• grant process of ML (DEEDI briefing, 

ministerial recommendation, Governor in 

Council grant). 

An elapse of 20 months following the approval of the 

project EIS until grant of the EA and ML present a 

considerable lost opportunity to deliver the project 

earlier. 

page 14




The resource sector is a diverse set of 

industries and even within the mining industry, 

there are a wide range of operations 

encompassing prospecting for gems, small 

mines and the extractive industries. These 

smaller scale industries make a valuable 

contribution to the Queensland economy, yet 

the development of exploration and 

development approval processes tend to be 

designed with an eye to the large-scale highvolume 

commodities like coal, bauxite, copper 

and zinc. 

While members of the North Queensland 

Miners’ Association (NQMA), the Queensland 

Sapphire Producer’s Association (QSPA) and 

the Queensland Small Miners’ Council 

(QSMC) all made submissions to the industry 

review, they did not have the resources to 

participate as members of the industry working 

group. All three submissions raised similar 

concerns about the applicability and 

associated compliance costs of an approvals 

system which was developed for major mines 

being applied to these smaller operations. 

While it is likely that many of the 

recommendations in this review will resonate 

with the small mining sector, as neither QRC’s 

membership, nor the membership of the 

industry working group was sufficiently 

representative of these smaller mining 

operations, it is appropriate that these groups 

be consulted separately as to how their sector 

should be best regulated. 


j. Engage with the prospecting and small 

mining sectors in the development of a 

regulatory framework which is 

appropriate to the scale of that 

industry’s operation rather than treating 

them to the same degree of scrutiny as 

large-scale mines. 

CERTAINTY OF SCOPE 

Certainty of scope – a review of relevant 

criteria rather accumulate an exhaustive set of 

all encompassing criteria 

A number of industry submissions have 

highlighted concerns with changing 

departmental policies and rules without 

supporting information. Even worse, these 

new rules are being applied in the middle of an 

approval process for projects. 

Cases have been raised where the proponent 

was working on the basis of advice provided 

by the department only to later discover that 

such advice no longer applied or was 

changed. As a result, many companies find 

out that their painstakingly prepared 

application is dismissed out of hand because it 

refers to yesterday’s template. A good 

approval process should be characterised by a 

clear communication of expectations from 

regulatory authorities. 

A lack of industry-wide standards and/or 

guidelines for the provision of information adds 

to the ever-changing scope for providing 

information. This can be onerous on 

departmental staff when determining if an 

application is compliant (thus delaying 

acceptance). The development of 

departmental templates would help address 

this issue. 

Industry has expressed its appetite for clarity 

on departmental information requirements so 

that it is aware of exactly what information the 

department needs in order to assess an 

application. This will minimise the ‘to-ing and 

fro-ing’ between the applicant and the 

department for either further or additional 

information. Greater use of transitional 

provisions ensuring companies already 

committed to a course of action are not 

affected by changed procedures, and/or a 

process where companies could seek 

authoritative decisions on interpretations could 

assist in mitigating this issue. 

page 15




One company provided an example where it 

sought an amendment to an EA to allow the 

discharge of permeate from a reverse osmosis 

plant into a river. The amendment application 

was submitted in August 2009 on which the 

public review period closed in October 2009 

and no comments were received. DERM 

requested the company to address a draft 

hierarchy of assessment of discharge in 

January 2010, which was submitted in March 

2010. The company later learnt that the 

hierarchy was developed after the public 

review period was closed. To this date, DERM 

is still considering the application. Clearly, the 

assessment is delayed because the rules 

changed while the application progressed. 

Lack of coherent and sustainable guidelines 

for rehabilitation of exploration sites and other 

low-impact ground disturbances has been 

cited in submissions as a significant 

impediment for companies to ascertain what is 

required. One company recently experienced 

difficulty in dealing with DERM over 

rehabilitation of low impact disturbances in dry 

climates. According to the company’s 

submission, department-mandated criteria are 

suited to cooler, wetter climates and are not 

best practice or appropriate for all climates. 

The conditions imposed should reflect climatic 

suitability, resulting in better environmental 

outcomes. 

Examples were also cited of incidents where 

departmental guidelines became binding 

policies without prior knowledge of the project 

proponents. This practice erodes the inherent 

flexibility provided by guidelines to suit 

different projects based on their respective 

size, nature of operation, surrounding 

environment and other variability. 

‘Where Queensland guidelines for 

perceived issues are not available (for 

example ‘neutral mine drainage’ or 

‘radioactivity’) DERM appears to 

expect industry to develop the 

guidelines on a trial and error basis. 

This results in delays and significant 

costs to those companies that are at 

the forefront of those issues (or 

perceived issues). Should new 

standards/guidelines be required, 

DERM should commit resources to 

their development prior to ‘enforcing’ 

quantification and remediation of such 

issues on industry.’ 


Certainty of applicable regulation and policy is 

critical for making investment decisions. Any 

later addition of new scope has the risk of 

delay and confusion, adding expense and 

uncertainty to the process. 

‘DERM should not be able to change 

processes without some negotiation or 

at the very least notification to relevant 

operators. It is extremely embarrassing 

and potentially damaging from a 

business perspective, to advise a client 

a certain process will be accepted 

(based on what has been accepted in 

previous projects) then to have that 

client’s project delayed due to DERM 

changing that process without any 

notification.’ 



k. Publish guidelines and templates to 

clarify departmental intent – further, 

industry recommends the development 

of a clear notification process to avoid 

confusion when these documents are 

being developed or updated. 


During the then Department of Mines and 

Energy proposed technical amendments to 

MRA in early 2009, a number of issues were 

raised by the industry through the Queensland 

Resources Council to address inconsistencies 

in the legislation and allow for more certainty 

for both the industry and relevant 

page 16




stakeholders. Some of those issues are still 

unresolved and were raised again during this 

review, including: 

1. S 237 Drilling and other activities on 

land not included in surface area: 

a. Mandatory landowner consent for 

‘drilling and other activities’ on 

land not included in surface area 

Currently any ‘drilling and other 

activities’ undertaken on a mining 

lease (ML), but outside of surface 

area, are required to have prior 

written consent of landowners. 

Given that the MRA does not 

provide a framework to address any 

rejection from a landowner, this 

provides an effective right of veto to 

what are exploration related 

activities on a higher form of tenure. 

The current framework is 

inconsistent with exploration tenure 

rights. Regrettably this creates an 

adversarial approach to commercial 

discussions on access to land 

already covered by a ML. In effect, a 

ML holder has fewer rights to 

conduct such activities in those parts 

of a ML than if they held a lesser 

exploration tenure. 

It is recommended that rights to 

conduct exploration type activities, 

commensurate with the perquisite 

tenure, over land covered by a ML 

be enabled. This could be achieved 

through a transparent process to 

ensure that S 237 cannot be used 

as a right of veto over exploration 

activities undertaken on an ML. 

b. Greater flexibility for transfer of 

tenure 

Industry seeks a statutory process to 

enable the subdivision of exploration 

permits for coal. While currently 

there is a convoluted process to 

achieve this outcome through the 

use of conditional surrender 

processes, a transparent statutory 

process would be more practical and 

would use less administrative 

resources. 

c. Assignment of applications 

When applications for EPs are 

approaching grant there are 

circumstances that give rise to the 

ability to assign applications. For 

example, in certain situations where 

the progress of an application 

towards grant has taken a 

considerable period of time, there 

may be practical issues where the 

original parties no longer exist. 

Industry is willing to initiate further 

discussions with DEEDI to resolve 

this matter either through a set of 

policy guidelines or legislative 

amendments, if required. 

2. S 279 Clarification of renewals of MLs 

and Compensation Agreements 

Industry supports greater clarification 

surrounding the circumstances where the 

landowners may have changed and/or the 

process by which landowners are made fully 

aware of tenure processes. Industry could 

benefit from: 

a greater clarity on the effect of 

compensation (eg the extent to which 

the agreement is binding on 

subsequent parties) 

b Appropriate notification process - for 

example, Notation on Land Title - to 

inform new or potential landowners of 

the circumstances surrounding 

previous agreements. 

3. S 318CN Incidental coal-seam gasroyalty 

obligations 

Amendments contained in the Mines and 

Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, 

page 17




provided for the holder of a mining lease to 

provide incidental coal-seam gas to a 

petroleum lease holder. This has created the 

need for clarification regarding royalty 

obligations on MRA tenure holder for 

incidental coal-seam gas. While the policy 

intention of the amendment was to encourage 

the MRA tenure holder to avoid flaring or 

venting and maximise the resources benefit of 

the state, it is now unclear if the MRA tenure 

holder is responsible for the royalty payment 

on incidental coal-seam gas. 

Industry seeks further discussion regarding 

the point of royalty collection and the ability to 

release, or assign or transfer the obligation. 

4. S 129, S 181 and S 238 - Restricted land 

and tenure 

The current restricted land provisions which 

impact on production tenure are inconsistent 

with the overall policy framework provided by 

the MRA. There are already a range of 

protections within the policy framework to 

address issues relating to specific tenure for 

example, the ability of a minister to impose 

conditions at grant. Rather than providing 

certainty to industry and landowners, restricted 

land provision currently operate a strict veto 

power and also acts as a constraint for the 

minister. 

Industry working group recommendation 

l. Progress technical amendments to the 

outstanding issues under Mineral 

Resources Act (MRA) including 

provisions under sections 239, 279, 

318CN, 129, 181 and 238. 

Native Title and Cultural Heritage issues 

The introduction of the Aboriginal Cultural 

Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait 

Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 in 2004 is 

considered by industry to be a significant 

improvement on the previous Cultural Records 

(Landscapes Queensland and Queensland 

Estate) Act 1987. At the time, the new 

legislation was promoted on the basis that the 

assessment and management of Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage 

would be able to be addressed ‘with certainty 

in a timely and cost effective manner’ and 

most critically directly negotiated between the 

proponent and the Aboriginal party owning the 

cultural heritage. 

Industry supported the legislation on this basis 

as well as on the basis that the legislation 

would be reviewed after five years with a view 

to improving on, or adjusting, mechanisms 

within the legislation that aimed to achieve 

these outcomes. The current review of the Act 

by DERM is therefore acknowledged and 

supported by the industry. 

Various submissions urged the need for the 

review to be finalised as a matter of urgency 

and through a genuine and timely consultation 

with the industry and all relevant stakeholders. 

One company suggested that provisions be 

made to empower the Cultural Heritage 

Coordination Unit (CHCU) with compulsory 

mediation meeting power when negotiations 

are not progressing. Currently the only avenue 

for resolution is the Land Court, which should 

be the avenue for last resort and not the only 

option. 

The same company also noted that, recently, 

an amendment to the Cultural Heritage Act 

was introduced and passed by the parliament 

without Industry consultation. This created 

issues for the company in finalising a Cultural 

Heritage Management Plan for two significant 

projects because the amendment directly 

contradicted advice received from the 

minister’s office the week before the 

introduction of these amendments. 

This is not the only example of government 

making changes of significance to legislation 

without consultation with industry. This leads 

to significant issues where companies are 

page 18




‘mid-race’ and the rules are changed without 

warning. 

Case study ~ uncertainty due to conflicting 

advice 

Two distinctive Aboriginal groups had ‘Aboriginal 

party’ status under the cultural heritage legislation. 

In seeking to meet the duty of care, the land user 

sought the agreement of both Aboriginal party 

groups. One Aboriginal party group was happy to 

engage with the land user at reasonable cost. The 

other Aboriginal party group sought excessively 

costly mitigation measures. The land user was 

unable to negotiate a reduction in these costs to a 

more reasonable level. 

On advice from CHCU the land user proceeded 

with the agreement of one of the Aboriginal party 

groups as is apparently allowed under section 23 of 

the cultural heritage legislation. 

The other Aboriginal party group sought an 

injunction in the Land Court. Although not granting 

an injunction, the Land Court member indicated 

that in order to meet the duty of care under Section 

23 of the cultural heritage legislation a land user 

required the agreement of all Aboriginal parties for 

the area. On this basis the Land Court advised that 

mediation was the right way forward. 

Mediation resulted in the land user being required 

to involve the other Aboriginal party in excessive 

and costly cultural heritage management 

arrangements for the project. 

Every land user in Queensland has proceeded to 

meet the duty of care on the understanding that the 

agreement of an Aboriginal party was sufficient for 

this purpose. Advice from CHCU indicates that this 

is no longer clear. 

The implications of this flawed interpretation, and 

the uncertainty surrounding it, are serious not only 

for future attempts to meet the duty of care but also 

in relation to previous duty of care agreements. 


m. Finalise the review of Aboriginal Cultural 

Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait 

Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2004 with 

timely and appropriate consultation with 

industry and all relevant stakeholders. 

Industry submissions highlighted the issues 

arising due to the current arrangement where 

only the state can issue notices under Section 

29 of NTA, effectively giving control over the 

starting point of a projects’ timeframe to the 

state. 

The NTA also requires the state to be party to 

the negotiation even though the state could 

not provide any material contribution to the 

process. The state’s participation in the right to 

negotiate process is costly and utilises 

valuable resources that could be used 

elsewhere particularly in case managing 

mining tenement applications. 

In much the same way as a proponent can 

commence ILUA negotiations or initiate a 

cultural heritage management plan 

negotiation, there seems little reason why a 

proponent cannot issue a notice under section 

29 of the NTA themselves. The state should 

not be required to be party to a right to 

negotiate matter in much the same way as the 

state is not required to be party to an 

Indigenous Land Use Agreement or a cultural 

heritage management plan). There should be 

provision for the state to have the option of 

opting in or opting out of the right to negotiate 

process. 


n. Investigate the process to enable a 

project proponent to issue a notice 

under section 29 of the native title Act 

similar to their right to commence ILUA 

negotiations. 

page 19




The Native Title Protection Conditions (NTPC) 

were put in place as the tool for government to 

utilise the NTA’s Expedited Procedure 

process. 

In 2006, the industry contributed to the review 

of the NTPCs and various consistencies and 

other relevant improvements were suggested 

in several QRC submissions. One of the 

review issues was aligning the NTPCs with the 

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Duty of Care 

Guidelines to provide better cultural heritage 

protection and more consistent guidelines 

across different tenures. QRC supported the 

measure provided it does not introduce any 

more onerous and/or unnecessary conditions 

than the current requirements. 

A number of other improvements were 

proposed and industry provided relevant 

feedback for their implementation during the 

review. However, it is disappointing to note 

that the review has not made any further 

progress and it is relevant and timely for the 

process to be revisited and improvement 

measures implemented as appropriate. 


o. Revisit the preliminary findings from the 

native title Protection Conditions Review 

and implement relevant improvement 

measures suggested by the industry. 


Presently, in Queensland there is no 

legislation that provides for ‘whole of project’ 

approvals. Rather, a new mining project will 

require a range of approvals issued under 

various pieces of legislation, administered by 

different government departments. 

Whilst the MRA does provide exemptions from 

the requirement to obtain some approvals 

(such as most development approvals 

otherwise required under the Integrated 

Planning Act), no such relief is provided in 

respect of activities which occur outside the 

mining lease boundaries. 

A number of submissions point out that the 

current approvals process only provides an 

approval for ‘on-lease’ infrastructure and 

activities. In most cases, the development of a 

large resource project will also require 

approval for the construction of ‘off-lease’ 

infrastructure such as roads, power lines, 

fences and pipelines. 

Under the current system, ‘off-lease’ 

infrastructure must be approved under the 

Sustainable Planning Act (SPA). Having to 

separately seek approvals for ‘off-lease’ 

infrastructure under separate legislation can 

significantly delay major developments in 

Queensland. A ‘whole of project’ approval 

should also assess the subordinate approval 

requirements, such that they are not an 

impediment to the project proceeding. 


p. Establish a government-industry 

taskforce to investigate feasibility of new 

purpose-built legislation for assessment 

and approval processes, incorporating 

all current processes, ensuring no 

duplication of assessment, public 

notification or approval – including on- 

and off-lease approvals and provision 

for declaration of ‘significant projects’. 

Some companies have had recent 

disappointing experiences where the terms of 

reference for the Queensland approval have 

not been aligned with the Commonwealth 

approvals under the Commonwealth 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act (EPBC). 

Proponents could previously proceed under 

both state and federal regulations at the same 

time, thereby reducing the approval timeframe. 

Projects now have to undergo sequential 

approval requirements. For example, 

submission of draft Terms of Reference (TOR) 

under the Queensland Environmental 

Protection Act and EPBC Act were done 

page 20




concurrently but companies have been 

advised by DERM that it could no longer do 

so. 


q. Ensure that assessment processes 

under state and Commonwealth 

environmental legislation can again 

occur concurrently. 

Submissions have also reported that DERM 

has started requiring proponents to make 

technical changes to the draft TOR prior to 

their release, which previously was not the 

case. DERM has effectively now given 

themselves three opportunities to change the 

TOR, as opposed to their previous two. This 

change of scope does not seem to achieve 

any benefit for either party but can result in a 

delay of several weeks/months to a project. 

A number of consistent concerns have been 

raised about the power of interpretation that is 

vested in individuals within the granting of 

environmental approvals. Examples were cited 

whereby a change in the case officer, or a key 

decision maker within the regulatory authority, 

lead to a very different interpretation of the 

legislation. In some areas, there are only one 

or two officials in the whole state who have the 

experience to make technical decisions. 

Leave, illness or a surge in workload for these 

officials all translate into unforeseen delays. 

Whilst the need for detailed assessments is 

recognised, the TOR should focus on 

environmental risk. For example, where a site 

has experienced extensive clearing and 

grazing and has limited remaining vegetation 

of ecological significance, it should not be 

necessary to undertake extensive 

seasonal/temporal flora investigations but 

rather the investigations should be more 

limited in their nature. 

Further, if noise/vibration presents a low 

environmental risk due to the absence of 

nearby sensitive receptors then modelling of 

the potential impacts should be of a lower 

level compared to projects with numerous 

nearby sensitive receptors. More often, 

despite preliminary assessments confirming 

that the environmental risk may be low, 

departmental staff insists on detailed 

assessments being completed to prove the 

same. This exhaustive coverage of all issues 

frustrates the intent of the EIS process, by 

making the report too long and complex for 

many stakeholders to digest. When EIS 

reports are running to tens of thousands of 

pages and take upwards of three days to print, 

the relevant information is difficult to access. 

‘We strongly advocate that additional 

time should be spent in making the TOR 

more specific and relevant for the 

projects they are covering. 

Inconceivable amounts of time and 

money are wasted covering topics that 

have very little relevance to the project 

that could much better be spent on the 

issues that have most potential to 

impact on the environment, thereby 

making the EIS documents smaller in 

size, but more relevant and focused on 

significant impacts – rather than having 

to include details of every issue that has 

ever been required for some project 

somewhere in the country. 

‘This could also help prevent the 

situation whereby DERM indicate an 

EIS is too large to assess in their 

legislated timeframes - based on the 

TOR they have enforced as being 

necessary. 

‘We strongly support the EIS process 

and the underlying aims of the state and 

federal governments to minimise 

environmental impacts from proposed 

developments, however some logic and 

relevance criteria should be applied to 

the project’s TOR and the approval 

process.’ 


page 21

Case Study ~ unforeseen change in scope 

In July 2008, the (then) Environmental Protection Agency conducted a standard inspection of a mine and recommended 

three ‘small and straightforward’ changes to the EA. In February 2009, DERM’s regional office provided a redrafted EA. The 

draft contained significant variations to the original EA. These included changes through every schedule including the 

insertion of whole new schedules. This appeared to be an attempt to implement new ‘standard’ EA conditions for a mining 

operation. 

These unforeseen amendments created a period of uncertainty for the project while conditions were negotiated (another 

three drafts were provided by DERM for review before finalising the amendment in November 2009). The draft conditions 

contained significant implications for capital investment and mine resources that would be needed to meet the additional 

reporting and compliance requirements. It also affected the mine’s ability to implement existing conditions that were due to 

be superseded or removed by the draft conditions. 

Industry is concerned that any amendment, 

however minor, to an EA is used as an 

opportunity to refresh and update the entire 

document. Some of these changes involve 

dramatic new compliance and reporting 

responsibilities. Industry’s suggestion is that 

EAs should be left to stand, with operational 

amendments given effect (if necessary) 

through the environmental management plans 

(EMP). 

A more structured risk-focused approach 

would help to shift assessment effort into key 

areas of concern, and provide a formal and 

transparent mechanism for matching the 

assessment investment against areas of need. 


r. Develop a risk-based assessment process, 

particularly in establishing the terms of 

reference for an Environmental Impact 

Statement and the conditions of an 

Environmental Authority, so both reflect the 

likelihood of significant impacts. 

REGULATORY CONTINUITY 

Regulatory continuity – authorities and other 

negotiated regulatory instruments are only 

reopened under extreme (and well defined) 

circumstances. 

A recent DEEDI workshop on legislative 

reforms for the coal-seam gas industry 

identified a set of 53 reforms (appendix 3). A 

number of submissions from CSG companies 

expressed some concern with the progress of 

these reforms and suggested that these 

issues should be reinforced in this report. 

Given the commodity specific nature of these 

reforms, it would seem appropriate that the 

peak coal-seam gas industry group – 

Australian Petroleum Production and 

Exploration Association (APPEA) - be 

responsible for reviewing these reforms and 

developing an agreed industry approach. 

However, as there are a number of other 

sectors who will be impacted by these reforms 

– including oil shale and underground coal 

gasification – this initial set of industryproposed 

reforms should then form the basis 

of a formal government consultation process. 

Following issues under Petroleum and Gas 

(Production and Safety) Act 2004 (PGA) were 

identified by submissions from CSG industry 

members. APPEA may initially wish to 

consider those issues including: 

Petroleum Facilities Licence (PFL) 

There is a proposal to remove the 

requirement to have a Petroleum 

Facilities Licence (PFL) under the PGA 

in order to construct a Liquid Natural 

Gas (LNG) facility. A couple of 

companies have proceeded to invest in 

the development of the LNG projects in 

Queensland on the basis of regulatory 

certainty, including the requirement to 

hold a PFL. Unless a transition can be 

mapped out, industry will continue to be 

wary of the risks that such an 

page 22




amendment would have for some LNG 

projects. 

Lack of retention tenure 

Ministerial discretion is currently 

provided under the PGA to declare 

Potential Commercial Areas. However, 

implementation of formal retention 

tenure, equivalent to a mineral 

development lease (MDL) issued under 

MRA, would acknowledge the need to 

retain areas as a matter of routine rather 

than as a special case requiring 

intervention by the minister. Further, 

tenures administered under the 

Petroleum Act 1923 have no such 

provision, which is inequitable in 

comparison to both the PGA and MRA 

Relinquishment regime 

There is a requirement in the PGA for a 

rapid relinquishment timeframe, with 

33.3 percent reduction in area required 

each four years. It is clear that this 

approach is designed to ensure that 

ground is turned over quickly and 

thereby promote rapid exploration and 

development. This regulation has 

proven well suited to conventional 

petroleum exploration, where a 

discovery is either made or not made. 

However, the concept of discovery does 

not readily translate to CSG, since the 

delineation of production fairways, 

trialling of appropriate techniques and 

pilot production testing is the focus of 

exploration works. These activities 

require significant time. 

Statutory period for commencement 

of production 

Production leases are granted on 

condition that production commences 

within two years. The requirement to 

commence production is a short time 

period which does not recognise the 

industry’s needs to aggregate reserves 

to underpin supply arrangements that 

may cover a period of up to 25 years 

and the consequent need for staged 

production. 

Size of petroleum leases and inability 

to work as a project 

The petroleum legislation appears 

geared towards small scale and 

separate development, with a relatively 

modest size limit applied to PL 

applications and an inability to apply a 

‘project’ consideration that may 

encompass multiple PL’s operating 

together or sharing infrastructure. 

Overlapping tenure issues 

The lack of clarity around overlapping 

tenure under the current petroleum 

legislation does not provide a high level 

of security of tenure, which adds 

significant difficulty in providing the 

necessary investment confidence 

required to underwrite large scale 

projects. 

The tender process for authorities to 

prospect (ATP) 

The ATP assessment and award 

process is geared towards the size and 

value of proposed work and expenditure 

programs, with 85 percent weighting in 

determining the successful applicant. 

This has created a speculative 

environment, where winning bids can be 

ramped up to an unrealistic level simply 

to obtain tenure. 

CSG industry submissions also supported 

inclusion of water issues in this review. Water 

issues sit across different departments and 

pieces of legislation (PGA, Water Act and EP 

Act). This requires departments to work 

together but there seems to be a mismatch 

between the custody of the legislation and 

availability of expertise on this issue. 

One of the key issues around water remains 

the restrictions on transporting CSG water 

page 23




between PLs that have different ownerships. 

The water rules don’t mirror the gas pipeline 

rules. The current drafting of the PGA imposes 

different requirements upon petroleum lease 

holders when transporting gas and water 

across neighbouring tenures. This issue arises 

where ownership of neighbouring tenures is 

not identical - a common occurrence in an 

industry with numerous different joint venture 

arrangements and in a commercial 

environment of acquisitions causing 

companies to hold tenures in different 

company names. 

The asymmetry allows for transportation of 

gas across tenure boundaries without undue 

regulatory hurdles, whilst the transportation of 

associated water is heavily regulated, 

cumbersome and creates delays and 

uncertainty for petroleum operators. The 

heavy regulatory burden on the transportation 

of water is contrary to the government’s policy 

intent to assist the aggregation and beneficial 

re-use of water. 

The process of aggregating associated water 

across a project is an integral part of the 

petroleum operation and should therefore be 

defined as a ‘petroleum activity’ under the 

PGA. This will ensure a streamlined approval 

process and single regulatory requirement and 

land easement for both industry and 

landowners. Like gas, this process should 

apply to the point of distribution regardless of 

whether it is in a treated or untreated form. 

Minor amendments to PGA to allow the water 

transportation regulatory regime to mirror that 

in place for gas transportation would remove 

the problem and facilitate more efficient 

development of associated water 

management facilities. 

The length of time which elapses between 

announcements of a new policy’s 

implementation can be problematic for 

industry. For example, a proposed CSG water 

policy was first announced in October 2008. 

However, it has taken more than 18 months 

for the detail to be worked through and for 

policy positions to be finalised on issues such 

as dam design and performance and 

transitional arrangements for evaporation 

dams. Whilst the CSG industry has 

appreciated the opportunity to have input into 

the formulation of such policy, it is concerning 

that CSG to LNG proponents are attempting to 

finalise EIS and make Final Investment 

Decisions against such a backdrop of policy 

uncertainty. 


s. Amend the current petroleum and gas 

legislation (which was designed for 

conventional petroleum operations) in a 

consultative and timely manner as a result of 

the significant growth of the coal-seam gas 

industry in Queensland. 


One of the cases highlighted in submissions 

was the duplication of the provision of 

information identifying the applicant and 

detailing the applicant’s financial and technical 

resources and abilities. This requirement 

becomes onerous when it has to be provided 

with each and every application and in most 

instances, to multiple agencies: 

‘It took DEEDI 17 months to determine 

they needed further information, which 

they already had - as it was previously 

supplied to government with multiple 

earlier applications. The renewal is still 

outstanding.’ 


Under the petroleum legislation, with each 

application, the applicant must prove it 

complies with the ‘capability criteria’. The 

technical staff must assess this on each 

occasion and then the minister must consider 

the capability criteria and make a 

determination. This is not only onerous on 

industry, it is also onerous on departmental 

page 24




staff to have to assess this each and every 

time and then refer it to the minister. 

It seems the legislation allows an applicant to 

satisfy the capability criteria only once 

(determined by the minister) and have this 

recorded on the tenures database. However, 

this provision is not being used. Implementing 

this opportunity to recognise an applicant as 

Native title and cultural heritage issues 

‘capable’ would reduce the time to accept and 

assess an application. 


t. Develop a capability certification process for 

applying for exploration tenures so that a 

company is not required to justify their bona 

fides with each new application. 

Case study native title approvals ~ ability to apply the expedited procedures of the Native Title Act (NTA) to a 

specific ML activity 

A proponent sought to use the Expedited Procedure when making an application under s237 of MRA to conduct an 

exploration drilling program on a portion of a ML where surface rights had not been granted. Following legal advice and 

initial consultation with the regional Mining Registrar and Native Title Services, it was confirmed that Expedited Procedure 

could also apply. 

Native title Services assessment of the s29 submission was delayed while advice was sought from Crown Law. Crown 

Law provided verbal advice that the NTA s237 and Expedited Procedure did not apply on a ML where surface rights had 

not been granted. 

The elapsed period of time from lodgement of the original s29 submission to grant of the MRA s237 application was about 

15 months. Had the original advice that the Expedited Procedure applied the lapsed period from lodgement to grant would 

have been in the order of four months. 

Approval and process delays prevented the proponent from assessing a potential mineral resource enabling it to be 

factored into investment decisions with commensurate lost value opportunities. 

contained within Appendix C of this document, 

which outlines the trigger criteria and 

thresholds for requiring an EIS. At this time, a 

number of changes were proposed to the 

trigger criteria. 


Currently a proponent of a mining project will 

be required to prepare an EIS under the 

Environmental Protection Act 1994 if advised 

by DERM, or the minister determines, based 

on criteria in ‘Guideline 4 - Deciding the level 

of impact assessment for the mining industry’. 

In addition, if a proponent feels an EIS may be 

required, they may apply to DERM to prepare 

a voluntary EIS. Finally, should no EIS be 

determined to be necessary, the proponent 

may proceed in seeking project approval 

through preparation and submission of an 

EMP. 

In April 2008 government began a review of 

Guideline 4, and specifically the criteria 

However the review process appears to have 

stalled, with little progress seen over the past 

18 months. As a result, none of the anticipated 

improvements in streamlining of the original 

Guideline 4 EIS trigger criteria have occurred. 

This has created confusion due to a process 

which has commenced, but been left 

unresolved. When assessing the potential 

need for an EIS, project proponents are now 

unclear as to the criteria that should be 

considered, and are therefore uncertain as to 

page 25




which avenue for project approvals may be 

most suitable. 

Industry supports finalising the review of 

Guideline 4 and streamlining of the EIS trigger 

criteria and seeks the urgent 

recommencement of a consultative process to 

complete this activity. 


u. Undertake an urgent and consultative 

review of DERM’s Guideline 4 for deciding the 

level of impact assessment for the mining 

industry and options for streamlining the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) trigger 

criteria. 

DERM Guideline 8 provides direction to 

industry in preparing an EMP, and proposing 

conditions for an EA. A key component of this 

guideline are the EA model conditions 

(originally for mining), developed between 

industry and DERM as streamlined conditions 

to provide a set of standard conditions for an 

EA, which can then be used as a starting 

point, and applied and negotiated as 

appropriate for each site. 

In 2007 DERM commenced a review of these 

model conditions, to ensure they remain 

current and provide accurate guidance to 

industry as to the standard conditions desired 

by the regulator. Industry and DERM agreed 

to review the conditions through a consultative 

process, similar to that undertaken in the 

development of the original conditions. 

However due to a range of reasons, the 

review process has become protracted and 

remains incomplete. 

In the interim, EA conditions being issued to 

companies are reflecting less and less the 

previous streamlined conditions, resulting in 

greater uncertainty for new and continuing 

operations. 

Industry seeks urgent recommencement of the 

model conditions review process as soon as 

possible, and encourages government to 

identify and commit to timeframes for the 

completion of this review in 2010. 


v. Resumption of the review of model mining 

conditions for environmental authorities, with a 

deadline for the satisfactory completion of this 

review in 2010. 

Submissions noted that the petroleum and gas 

industries are regulated by two separate 

pieces of legislation and the approving officer 

for an approval under one Act may not be the 

same as for the other Act, ie Extended 

Production Testing under the 1923 Act is 

approved by the minister and under the 2004 

Act, the approval is delegated. This 

inconsistency should be resolved and industry 

suggests a delegation is the most appropriate 

approach. 

Further inconsistencies have been noted 

between the MRA and PGA. Applications for 

exploration permits lodged under the MRA are 

accepted and acknowledged, in most 

instances, on the date of lodgement (or soon 

thereafter). An application for a petroleum 

lease or pipeline licence or any other type of 

application under the petroleum legislation 

lodged with DEEDI can take weeks to be 

assessed, accepted, entered onto the register 

(for a tenure number to be generated) and 

acknowledged by the department. This delays 

the ability to apply for the required EA 

because a tenure number is needed in order 

to complete the DERM paperwork. 


w. Examine the feasibility of greater 

consistency between PGA and MRA for 

exploration tenements where applicable, while 

recognising the different nature of mineral and 

petroleum exploration (especially coal-seam 

gas). 

page 26




Overlapping tenures across a number of 

different Acts continues to be an issue with 

which the industry grapples. The general 

principle has been that the industry supports 

overlapping tenures as the best means of 

ensuring that exploration proceeds in order 

that the Crown gains the best understanding 

of the resource endowment of the state. 

However, this general principle is tested in 

specific areas where there are operational 

concerns about the sequencing of activities or 

on the possible adverse impact (including 

sterilisation of resources) of multiple or 

sequential resource activities. Industry’s 

preference in these matters has always been 

for commercial negotiations between parties to 

be the first recourse for mapping out a 

satisfactory solution. 

In order for these commercial negotiations to 

succeed, they need to occur in a clear 

framework of property rights (so that it is clear 

which tenures convey which property rights) 

and also a clear framework for resolution of 

negotiations. While a number of submissions 

called out concerns about areas where the 

allocation of property rights is still evolving 

(such as for underground coal gasification), 

most industry comment focussed on 

frustrations with the framework for negotiation. 

The issue identified in submissions was that 

there was no imperative to conclude 

negotiations, nor to conduct negotiations in 

good faith. Submissions from right across the 

spectrum of working group members called 

out frustrations at dealing with a party that had 

less imperative to resolve the negotiation. In a 

number of cases, submissions identified that 

this lack of a spur was being ‘gamed’ for 

commercial advantage whereby a lack of 

imperative was becoming a de-facto power of 

veto. 

The working group has suggested that the 

best mechanism would be to provide recourse 

for either party to a negotiation for a 

coordination agreement under Sections 318 

AT and 318 AX of MRA to be able to formally 

seek a preference decision from the minister. 

This recourse would only be available after 

negotiations had been under way for sufficient 

time to allow a commercial resolution, perhaps 

six months. Part of the application for a 

preference decision could be making a case 

that the other party was not negotiating in 

good faith. 


x. Ensure that there is a genuine imperative 

for commercial negotiations to proceed in the 

development of coordination agreements 

when tenures overlap by developing a process 

for one party to instigate a formal request for a 

ministerial preference decision after a fixed 

period of perhaps six months. 

page 27

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Phase 1 – Fast reforms 

PHASE 1: ‘Fast reforms’ 

Recommendations 

Urgently resource and implement the recommendations of the state 

government’s internal review, Streamlining Approvals Project: Mining 

and Petroleum Tenure Approval Process, November 2009, (the ‘Grundy 

Report’); 

Industry working group recommendation a 

Improve accountability for approval timeframes by providing for targets 

at each stage of the approvals process through some combination of: 

I. setting target times for approval – eg an environmental impact 

statement process (the components within the control of the 

government) should take 16 months; 

II. a clear process of agreeing a series of target project milestones 

(perhaps with the case manager) at the beginning of a project 

(having regard to departmental mandatory deadlines and 

benchmarked timeframes for action); 

III. setting deadlines with a ‘deemed as approved’ clause (ie if the 

decision has not been made by the deadline, then the 

application’s licence/project is deemed approved) 

IV. the opportunity to have a process or outcome independently 

certified (for example having land rehabilitation signed off by a 

properly accredited consultant). 

Industry working group recommendation c 

Lead: DEEDI 

Who When KPI 

Consult: DERM, 

QRC, APPEA 

Lead: DEEDI 


QRC, APPEA 

page 28 

Now ~ six months 

With funding package 

announced in the 

budget 

A progress report on implementing 

each of the recommendations back 

to industry. 

Now ~ six months A draft framework prepared for 

discussion. 

A final version agreed and 

implemented.






To improve the transparency of Queensland’s approval processes, 

publish a scorecard which tracks average time to make a decision for 

each category of application as well as the number of applications 

received and processed each quarter. 

Industry working group recommendation d 

Move to a virtual model of a one-stop shop, through the confirmation of 

DEEDI as the lead agency that is responsible for managing the overall 

project approval process from end to end. To realise the benefits of this 

lead agency model also requires: 

• the appointment of a dedicated case manager for each project to 

act as an important coordination point within government, as a 

contact point for proponents and to be responsible for stewarding 

the project through the application processes 

• the implementation of a modern work-management system to 

provide seamless management of all aspects of the assessment 

and granting of tenure, including environmental and native title 

processes 

• appropriate resources and delegations are available within key 

concurrence agencies including resources for native title and the 

appointment of specialist officers within DERM to focus on mining 

projects. 

Industry working group recommendation h 

Lead: DEEDI 

Who When KPI 

Consult: DERM 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: QRC, 

DERM 

page 29 

Now-six months Publication of Queensland 

scorecard of approvals. 

Now, with resources 

announced in the 

budget 

Recruitment of a sufficient pool of 

experienced case managers.






Eliminate the need for mining leases and renewals to be signed off by 

Governor in Council. 

Industry working group recommendation i 

Publish guidelines and templates to clarify departmental intent and a 

clear review and notification process when these documents are being 

developed. 

Industry working group recommendation k 

Develop a capability certification process so that a company is not 

required to justify their bona fides with each new application. 

Industry working group recommendation t 

Undertake an urgent and consultative review of DERM’s Guideline 4 for 

deciding the level of impact assessment for the mining industry and 

options for streamlining the EIS trigger criteria. 

Industry working group recommendation u 

Recommencements of the model mining conditions for EAs review 

process, with a deadline for the satisfactory completion of this review in 

2010. 

Industry working group recommendation v 

Who When KPI 

Lead: DEEDI Now Next set of legislative amendments 

include this new provision. 

Lead: DERM, 

DEEDI 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: DERM 

Lead: DERM 

Consult: QRC, 

APPEA 

Lead: DERM 

Consult: QRC, 

APPEA 

page 30 

Ongoing All existing guidelines online with an 

ongoing six-monthly review to 

ensure that that set of published 

guidelines remains current. 

Now - three months Capability Certification process 

implemented 

Now Announcement of the review 

completion date and key milestones. 

Now ~end 2010 Announcement of the review 

completion date and key milestones.




IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Phase 2 – Structural reforms 

PHASE 2: ‘Structural reforms’ 


A shift towards parallel rather than sequential approval processes – 

particularly in regards to public notification processes. 

Industry working group recommendation b 

Examine the feasibility of bringing ILUA negotiating cost with native title 

parties in line with compensation negotiations involving non-native title 

parties to ensure both indigenous and non-indigenous compensation 

issues are addressed in a consistent manner. 

Industry working group recommendation e 

Enable the project proponents to opt for either ILUA or the right to 

negotiate using the s29 process for all the elements of the right to mine 

and future acts associated with the right to mine, such as rail loops, 

pipelines and other directly associated infrastructure. 

Industry working group recommendation f 

Lead: DEEDI 

Who When KPI 

Consult: QME, 

DERM, APPEA, 

QRC 

Lead: DEEDI 


QRC 

Lead: DEEDI 


QRC 

page 31 

Three to six months DEEDI to consult with industry in 

mapping and identifying suitable 

processes. 

Amend regulatory framework to give 

effect to change. 

Three to 12 months ILUA negotiation costs as par with 

non-native title negotiations. 

Three to six months Proponents have the right to opt for 

either ILUA or the right to negotiate 

using the s29 process.






Automatically increase department resourcing as industry activity grows, 

through a balanced system of fees and charges, with the right elements 

of user-pays and public benefit. 

Industry working group recommendation g 

Engage with the prospecting and small mining sectors in the 

development of a regulatory framework which is appropriate to the scale 

of that industry’s operation rather than treating them to the same degree 

of scrutiny as large-scale mines. 

Industry working group recommendation j 

Progress industry proposed technical amendments to the issues under 

MRA including provisions under sections 129, 181, 238, 239,279, and 

318CN. 

Industry working group recommendation l 

Finalise the review of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the 

Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2004 with timely and 

appropriate consultation with industry and all relevant stakeholders. 

Industry working group recommendation m 

Lead: DEEDI 

Who When KPI 


QRC, APPEA 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: QSMC, 

NQMA,QSPA 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: QRC, 

APPEA 

Lead: DERM 

Consult: DEEDI, 

QRC, APPEA 

page 32 

Three to18 months Department resourcing matches 

industry activity 

Three to12 months Develop in conjunction with general 

industry recommendations, working 

to the same deadlines. 

Three to18 months Amendments implemented. 

Three to12 months Implementation of the review 

findings.






Investigate the process to enable a project proponent to issue a notice 

under s29 of Native Title Act similar to their right to commence 

Indigenous land Use Agreement negotiations. 

Industry working group recommendation n 

Revisit the Native Title Protection Conditions review preliminary findings 

and implement relevant improvement measures suggested by the 

industry. 

Industry working group recommendation o 

Establish a government-industry taskforce to investigate feasibility of 

new purpose-built legislation for assessment and approval processes, 

incorporating all current processes, ensuring no duplication of 

assessment, public notification or approval – including on- and off-lease 

approvals and provision for declaration of ‘significant’ projects. 

Industry working group recommendation p 

Ensure that assessment processes under state and Commonwealth 

environmental legislation can again occur concurrently. 

Industry working group recommendation q 

Lead: DEEDI 

Who When KPI 

Consult: QRC 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: QRC 

Lead: DEEDI 


APPEA, QRC 

Lead: DERM 

Consult: 

DEEDI, DIP 

page 33 

Three to eight months Provision for project proponent to 

issue notice under section 29 of 

NTA introduced. 

Three to18 months Improvement measures 

implemented. 

Three to12 months Formation of an industrygovernment 

working group working 

to implement new approvals 

legislation. 

Three to12 months DERM to ensure that EP Act and 

EPBC Act processes are once again 

aligned. 

DIP to consider the role of the 

SDPWOA Act.






Develop a risk-based assessment process, particularly in establishing 

the terms of reference for an environmental impact statement and the 

conditions of an environmental authority, so both focus on the likelihood 

of significant impacts. 

Industry working group recommendation r 

Amend the current petroleum and gas legislation (which was designed 

for conventional petroleum operations) in a consultative and timely 

manner as a result of the significant growth of the CSG industry in 

Queensland. 

Industry working group recommendation s 

Examine the feasibility of greater consistency between PGA and MRA 

for exploration tenements where applicable, while recognising the 

different nature of mineral and petroleum exploration (especially coalseam 

gas). 

Industry working group recommendation w 

Ensure that there is a genuine imperative for commercial negotiations to 

proceed in the development of coordination agreements under Sections 

318 AT and 318 AX of MRA by developing a process for one party to 

instigate a formal request for a ministerial preference decision after a 

fixed period of perhaps six months. 

Industry working recommendation x 

Lead: DERM 

Who When KPI 

Consult: 

DEEDI, APPEA, 

QRC 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: 

QRC,APPEA 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: 

QRC,APPEA 

Lead: DEEDI 

Consult: QRC, 

APPEA 

page 34 

Three to 12 months DERM to lead a consultative 

exercise of developing a risk-based 

assessment tool for informing terms 

of reference. 

Three to24 months Initially an APPEA-lead process to 

bring forward an agreed set of 

proposals to government. A DEEDI 

led process of negotiating the 

changes and drafting the 

amendments. 

Three to 24 months Develop in parallel with 

recommendation m (above), working 

to the same deadlines. 

Three to12 months Implementation of a process for 

instigating a formal request for a 

ministerial preference.




CONCLUSION 

During a five-month review of Queensland’s exploration and development approvals processes through 

various industry submissions, case studies and face-to-face interviews, industry has identified a range of 

opportunities for the state to deliver a world-class system of exploration and development approval 

processes. 

In this report, industry has proposed a more streamlined and seamless system that could result in the 

delivery of necessary approval decisions within reasonable timeframes, at reasonable cost and with 

reasonable certainty while ensuring the highest standards of environmental and social performance. This 

report provides recommendations that aim to achieve better integration of approvals processes between 

Commonwealth and Queensland agencies, amongst the different state agencies themselves, and 

between the proponent, state agencies, and the community. 

The recommendations are categorised under either (a) fast or (b) structural reforms depending on the 

need for legislative amendments. Industry’s intent, reinforced in the implementation schedule, is to 

provide opportunities for some ‘quick wins’ for the government to streamline the existing system. The 

structural reforms also signal industry’s interest in a more fundamental overhaul of the relevant legislation. 

Industry is confident that the adoption of this report’s recommendations will set Queensland on the path to 

having a quality of approval process recognised as being of the same world-class calibre as befits our 

resource endowment. 

30 April 2010 

page 35




TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REVIEW 

APPENDIX ONE: 

1. Timing 

Final Report – the working group will provide a final report to the minister by end April 2010. 

2. Scope 

The working group will consider all relevant government policies and administrative processes 

– this includes individual agencies actual and documented processes, the current level of 

agency co-ordination and communication and relevant key performance measures. 

The working group will consider the level of resources and expertise appropriate to deliver a 

world-class approvals system in Queensland with an eye to how other leading jurisdictions 

fund and resource their equivalent systems. 

It is not proposed to review the fundamental legislative regimes, rather only make agreed 

changes to legislation or regulations that are minor and/or universally accepted by the Working 

Group as necessary. 

3. Key objectives and deliverables of the working group 

Understanding existing approvals processes (environmental, tenure, planning, native title and 

Aboriginal heritage) necessary for mining and petroleum activity to occur in Queensland. 

Consider the state government’s internal review and provide industry’s views on the proposals 

identified. 

Identifying which impediments can be addressed through changes to government policies and 

administrative processes. 

Developing a framework to ensure better co-ordination across agencies to achieve quicker 

approvals. Understanding the benefits of the declaration by the Coordinator-General of 

‘significant projects’ and application to other resource project approval processes will be 

examined. 

Delivering a schedule of implementation actions required to address identified inefficiencies 

and potential improvements. 

Identifying and analysing the key issues that stakeholders have with the approvals processes 

and developing policies to improve Queensland’s reputation as the preferred destination for 

mineral and petroleum industries. 

Assessing the level of resourcing for regulatory agencies to perform current obligations and 

consider funding and service delivery options to improve operational processes and promote 

greater administrative efficiencies. 

4. Required activities of the working group 

Understanding existing approvals processes (environmental, tenure, planning, native title and 

cultural heritage) necessary for mining and petroleum activity to occur in Queensland, 

including: 

indicative timelines associated with these processes 

impediments, overlap and duplication by state and Commonwealth agencies 

mechanisms for review of decisions 

page 36




benchmarks against selected jurisdictions in Australia and relevant comparators. 

Consider the state government’s internal review and provide industry’s views on the proposals 

identified, including: 

proposed system and administrative improvements 

roles and responsibilities of regulatory agencies 

legislative amendments to improve approval processes 

Resourcing constraints and funding options. 

Identifying which impediments can be addressed through changes to government policies and 

administrative processes. 

It is not proposed to review the fundamental legislative regimes, rather only make 

agreed changes to legislation or regulations that are minor and/or universally accepted 

by the Working Group as necessary. 

Developing a framework to ensure better co-ordination across agencies to achieve quicker 

approvals. 

Consideration of the benefits associated with declaration as a ‘significant project’ and 

similar application to mineral and petroleum projects which are not subject to these 

legislative provisions. 

Reviewing decision-making and co-ordination processes within government. 

Reviewing the linkages between government agencies in terms of communication with 

project proponents and the relationship with agencies reporting and key performance 

measures. 

Providing a schedule for implementation of: 

administrative changes – which could be implemented as soon as possible 

a mechanism for ongoing review of implementation, with direct input from industry 

agreed changes to legislation or regulations that are universally accepted by the 

Working Group as necessary to overcome project delays. 

Identifying and analysing the key issues that stakeholders have with the approvals processes 

and developing policies to improve Queensland’s reputation as the preferred destination of 

choice for mineral and petroleum industries. 

It is envisaged that the working group will provide recommendations to address 

immediate and longer-term issues in relation to this matter. 

Examination of sustainable agency resourcing (including staffing and management systems) 

and assessing the appropriate level of resourcing for regulatory agencies. 

Evaluate the base-level resourcing requirements necessary for regulatory agencies to 

perform current statutory obligations. 

Identify resourcing requirements which may be necessary to implement proposed 

recommendations of the working group. 

consider a range of service delivery and funding options to improve operational 

processes and promote greater administrative efficiencies. 

page 37




INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP – MEMBERS AND SECRETARIAT 

Name Position/Organisation 

Mr Michael Roche (Chair) Chief Executive 

Queensland Resources Council 

Mr John Briggs Partner 

Blake Dawson 

Ms Kylie Gomez Gane Development and External Relations Manager 

Cougar Energy 

Mr Brian Martin Manager 

Hetherington Exploration and Mining 

Mr Matthew Paull Director - Queensland and NSW 

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration 

Association Limited (APPEA) 

Ms Sue Sara General Manager 

Corporate Affairs Queensland 

Xstrata Copper 

Mr Ross Willims VP, External Relations 

BHP Billiton Metallurgical Coal 

Mr Paul Travers Associate Director 

Maunsell AECOM 

Mr Ross Bannerman Manager Legal 

Xstrata Coal 

Mr Dennis Brown-Kenyon Deputy General Manager 

New Hope Coal 

Mr Ben Zillmann Partner 

Allens Arthur Robinson 

APPENDIX TWO: 

page 38




Name Position/Organisation 

Mr Dominic McGann Partner Infrastructure 

McCullough Robertson 

Mr Geoff Laing General Manager, Corporate and Project Development 

Exco Resources 

Mr Ross Evans Manager Commercial & Systems Development 

Origin Energy 

Mr Rod Cameron Manager Environmental Services 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia 

Mr Andrew Kozak Lead tenures Advisor 

QGC Group 

Ms Carolyn Collins 

Environment Manager 

Arrow Energy Limited 

Mr James Purtill Strategic Adviser 

Santos 

IWG SECRETARIAT 

Mr Andrew Barger Director Industry Policy Queensland Resources Council 

Ms Archana Mishra Industry Policy Adviser Queensland Resources Council 

Mr Russell Silver-Thomas Industry Policy Adviser Queensland Resources Council 

Ms Frances Hayter Director – Environment & Social Policy Queensland Resources Council 

Ms Connie Stanley Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director-General Department of 

Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) 

page 39




Industry proposed PGA amendments received by DEEDI 

No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 

Current situation/ 

Problem 

1. P&G Act Exploration Exploration authority imposes a rapid 

relinquishment timeframe with 33.3 percent 

reduction in area required each four years. It is 

clear that this approach is designed to ensure that 

ground [block] is turned over quickly and thereby 

rapid exploration and development is promoted 

which has proven well suited to conventional 

petroleum exploration, where a discovery is either 

made or not made. However, the concept of 

discovery does not readily translate to CSG, since 

discovering coal in a coal basin is not difficult. 

Instead, it is the delineation of production 

fairways, trialling of appropriate techniques and 

pilot production testing that is the focus of 

exploration works. These activities require 

significant time. 

2. P&G Act Exploration The 33.3 percent reduction upon each four year 

renewal period imposes a pace of reduction that 

exceeds the practical ability of companies to 

complete appraisal work, as well as put in place 

the necessary infrastructure and commercial 

arrangements needed to secure prospective area 

under long term tenure. 

3. P&G Act Exploration The rate of relinquishment of Authority to Prospect 

(ATP) area is accelerated by provisions that count 

relinquishment in sub-blocks, but also demand 

page 40 

APPENDIX THREE: 

Proposed changes 

Supporting information 

Review the four-year renewal period and 33.3 

percent relinquishment requirement, with 

recommendation to both increase the renewal 

period and allow for ministerial discretion to vary 

relinquishment conditions. 

Remove the duplication of relinquishment 

requirements currently imposed by need to 

relinquish both sub-blocks and blocks.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

that whole graticular blocks be relinquished. 

Example: if an ATP condition imposed a 26 subblock 

relinquishment, given that a graticular block 

is comprised of 25 sub-blocks, then two graticular 

blocks (comprising 50 sub-blocks) would need to 

be relinquished. 

4. P&G Act Retention There is no formal system of retention tenure. It is 

acknowledged that ministerial discretion is 

provided, under the P&G Act only, to declare 

Potential Commercial Area’s (PCA). However, 

implementation of a formal retention tenure 

(equivalent to Mineral Development Licence’s 

(MDL) issued under the Mineral Resources Act 

would acknowledge the need to retain areas as a 

matter of routine rather than as a special case 

requiring intervention by the minister. Further, 

tenures administered under the Petroleum Act 

1923 (eg ATP364) have no provision for PCA 

declaration, which is inequitable in comparison to 

both the P&G Act and the Mineral Resources Act. 

5. P&G Act Production Production leases are granted on condition that 

production commence within two years. The 

requirement to commence production is a short 

time period which does not recognise the 

industry’s needs to aggregate reserves to 

underpin supply arrangements that may cover a 

period of up to 25 years and need for a staged 

page 41 



Establish a formal retention tenure in petroleum 

legislation (both the Petroleum Act 1923 and the 

Petroleum and Gas Act 2004) 

Review the criteria for a PL application to be 

consistent with the timeframes and commercial 

reality of CSG and LNG projects (this is 

proposed particularly as a short term resolution 

to retaining tenure for CSG/LNG projects). 

Review requirement to commence production




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 

6. P&G Act Petroleum Lease 

application and 

assessment 


Problem 

page 42 



production methodology. within two years (may be unnecessary if 

retention tenure become available). 

The petroleum legislation appears geared towards 

small scale and separate development, with a 

relatively modest size limit applied to PL 

applications and inability to apply a ‘project’ 

consideration that may encompass multiple PL’s 

operating together or sharing infrastructure. 

7. P&G Act The changing nature of data capture, storage and 

communication may allow for some aspects of the 

petroleum legislation to be reviewed, with a view 

of removal. 

8. P&G Act Timeframe for Notification 

of discovery and 

For example, petroleum companies are required 

to submit cutting samples (Reg 48) and cores 

(Reg 49) to government. This requirement is 

unnecessary in that electronic data (eg wireline 

logs, photographs etc) has drastically reduced the 

need for original samples. 

Discovery and proving of CSG production takes 

longer than conventional petroleum discovery, 

Either increase the maximum size of PL 

application, or else allow for consideration of 

multiple and contiguous PL applications as a 

‘project’. 

Remove requirement to supply cuttings and core 

samples and place greater emphasis on 

electronic data capture and reporting. 

Facilitate data acquisition in frontier area and 

allow titleholders with 1923 tenure to acquire 

data outside their areas. DAAs under the P&G 

Act to allow granting without other titling 

requirements. 

Extend timeframe for notification of discovery 

and evaluation.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

9. P&G Act, Mineral 

Resource Act 1989, 

evaluation 

Title 

Overlapping tenure 

matters 


Problem 

therefore three days is not long enough. 

The petroleum legislation does not provide a high 

level of security of tenure, which adds significant 

difficulty in providing the necessary investment 

confidence required to underwrite large scale 

projects. 

Eg Mineral Resource Act 1989 (MRA) tenement 

holders are able to apply for petroleum leases 

within the area of ATPs held by petroleum 

companies. Under the MRA provisions, the 

requirements for making and justifying an 

application by the tenement holders are not as 

strict in terms of technical and economic 

justification and are not subject to the same size 

limitations. 

The provision for MRA tenure holders to be 

granted petroleum leases over petroleum tenures 

presents significant disadvantage, inequity and 

threat for CSG companies including: 

- Economic loss: gas resources and reserves 

estimates are the economic foundation of the 

CSG industry and are clearly factored into 

company market valuations. Therefore, loss 

of access to gas resources via grant of an 

exclusive petroleum lease to mining 

proponents within the area of a granted ATP 

page 43 



Requirements of consent from overlapping 

tenure holders who have no incentive to grant or 

no recourse for not engaging or giving consent 

generates lengthy delays. 

Amend legislation to provide timeframes by 

negotiation whereby the consenting party either 

gives reasons for objection, or if it fails to 

respond, then the application proceeds. 

Implement and communicate how the 

overlapping tenure policy for CSG and 

underground coal gasification (UCG) affects the 

requirement to give consent during the pilot 

period to 2011. 

Act on government policy regarding 

management of overlap with UCG proponents to 

provide for grant of PL applications held up by 

this matter.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

represents a significant economic loss. 

- Sterilisation of resources: CSG companies 

can extract full value from a petroleum lease 

area by accessing resources contained in all 

coal formations. On the contrary, gas 

production associated with mining operations 

is constrained to the mining seam (in 

underground mining) or seams in open-cut 

mining. In current mining districts such as the 

Bowen Basin, grant of exclusive rights to 

petroleum to a mining proponent will result in 

sterilisation of gas resources contained in 

non-mining coals seams or formations. 

- Ability for coordination of coal mining and 

CSG activities: mutually beneficial and 

cooperative arrangements between coal 

mining and CSG proponents have been 

demonstrated to work and provide the best 

option for maximising value from both 

petroleum and mining activities. Petroleum 

companies operate on the principle that CSG 

activities should be complementary to mining. 

There are proven examples of this operation 

which work without need for the mining 

proponent to hold exclusive rights to gas. 

10. P&G Act, Mineral Delay in application for There is disparity between the MRA and 

page 44 


Supporting information




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

Resource Act 1989 exploration area petroleum legislation, whereby petroleum 

companies are unable to apply for exploration 

tenements as opportunities arise, whereas, under 

the MRA coal mining proponents can immediately 

apply for available land. 

11. P&G Act ATP Award of ATPs: the ATP assessment and award 

process is biased towards the size and value of 

proposed work and expenditure programs, with 85 

percent weighting in determining the successful 

applicant. This has created a speculative 

environment, where winning bids can be ramped 

up to unrealistic level simply to obtain tenure 

12. P&G Act, Sustainable 

Planning Act 2009 

Pipeline and associated 

water management 

network 

Currently, the associated water produced on a 

tenure can only be transported by pipeline: 

- within the tenure area; 

- across contiguous petroleum leases where the 

title holder is the same; 

- across contiguous petroleum leases with 

different title holders providing a coordination 

agreement is in place. 

All remaining pipelines transporting associated 

water must be approved under the Sustainable 

Planning Act 2009, which results in significantly 

different approval processes and timeframes. This 

complicates the planning and approvals process 

page 45 



Tender process must be transparent - work 

programs for winning tenders for acreage 

release should be published. 

Review of the weighting system used to decide 

ATP applications, with recommendation to adjust 

weightings to 50 percent on proposed work and 

expenditure program, and 50 percent on 

applicant’s ability or credentials to complete. 

Amend petroleum legislation to clarify that 

aggregation of associated water within a project 

is defined as a ‘petroleum activity’ and to provide 

for transport of associated water across tenure 

boundaries with approvals as per gas pipelines 

for the purpose of aggregation. 

It should be clear that the transport of associated 

water is a ‘petroleum activity’ only to the point of 

aggregation, whether that is in a treated or 

untreated form. 

Once the water enters a pipeline to deliver to the 

customer or for beneficial use, the provisions of 

the planning and water legislation should




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 

13. P&G Act Registration of Easements 

for Infrastructure prior to 

grant of pipeline licence 

under P&G Act 


Problem 

for management of associated water across a 

project. 

Associated water management facilities are being 

installed to treat and transport water for a project 

which requires transport across multiple tenures, 

including ATPs, mining leases and agricultural 

tenures. Some of these stakeholders are subject 

to approval requests under both the petroleum 

and planning legislation due to the fact that the 

petroleum lease boundary finishes within their 

tenure area. 

Under current titles office practice, easements are 

not able to be registered until PLs are granted to 

proponents. 

To register easements over freehold and 

leasehold tenure in advance of the grant of 

pipeline licences to secure rights granted by 

landowners under option agreements. The early 

registration of these easements will allow protect 

proponents’ rights under the option agreement 

against any subsequent arrangements or dealing 

with the land. 

Easements are the preferred tenure required for 

the construction and operation of the gas 

transmission pipeline, water supply pipelines and 

page 46 

continue to apply. 



If this change is not acceptable to government, 

would seek to have the Land Title Act 1994 

amended to allow the registration of caveats 

protecting pipeline proponents’ rights under 

easement options. An alternative would be to 

allow an administrative dealing notice to be 

placed on the land title the subject of the option 

agreement.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

14. P&G Act, 

Land Act 1994 

Title 

Registration of easements 

in gross for linear 

infrastructure under P&G 

Act 


Problem 

underground power and data cables. 

Due to the length of petroleum pipelines and other 

associated infrastructure, the corridors for this 

infrastructure are generally held under easementin-gross. 

Traditional dominant – servient 

easements are not practical for linear 

infrastructure and generally conflict with titles 

office practice for this type of infrastructure. 

Under the Land Act 1994, easement-in-gross can 

only be registered for public utility easements. A 

public utility easement means an easement in 

favour of a public utility provider and defined 

under the Land Act 1994 as the state or an entity 

represent the state, the Commonwealth, a local 

authority, a person authorised by law to provide a 

public utility service, a person approved by the 

minister as suitable to provide a particular public 

utility service, a mill owner but not for the purpose 

of registration of a cane railway easement. For 

fully integrated LNG projects there is a potential 

argument that company X may not be categorised 

as a public utility provider within the meaning of 

the Land Act 1994. 

This would impose significant constraints on the 

project to the point that delays could be incurred 

or that land for linear infrastructure may not be 

secured 

15. P&G Act Service of notice under Statutory fallbacks will be necessary to ensure 

page 47 



Section 125A of the SDPWO Act may assist in 

the resolution of at least one of the issues noted 

#13 and #14, as this provision provides the CG 

with power to take a public utility easement. 

However, this doesn’t cover those easements 

taken by agreement with landowners which is 

the preferred acquisition process. 

Company X seeks amendments to the Land Act 

1994 to clarify that a holder of a petroleum 

licence is able to hold and register easement-ingross 

for linear infrastructure associated with the 

production and transportation of petroleum and 

associated water.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 

16. P&G Act Compensation payable to 

landowners for directional 

drilling under the surface 

of their land (without 

entering upon or 

disturbing the surface) 


Problem 

P&G Act access to land where company X has been unable 

to reach agreement with land holders after a 

reasonable period of good faith negotiations. 

Issues - where company X has been unable to 

agree on compensation with owners of land where 

ATP or PL activities are being conducted, 

company X may apply to the Land Court to 

determine the compensation payable. Company X 

is able to access the land to compensate activities 

once it has served the Land Court application on 

each owner and occupier of the land. There 

doesn’t appear to be any provision in the P&G Act 

which deal with service in overseas jurisdictions or 

where landowners are unable to be located or 

contacted. 

Company X is currently trialling directional drilling 

as a way of decreasing the surface impact of the 

activities on landowners. In some circumstances, 

this may involve locating the well pad and surface 

infrastructure on one property and drilling through 

coal seam located under another property. 

Under the P&G Act, it is likely that company X will 

be required to give an entry notice and agree on 

compensation prior to undertaking the activity. 

As a result, company X is in a situation where it is 

page 48 



Amendments to the P&G Act to remove the need 

to agree on compensation in this situation.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

required to agree compensation with a landowner 

for no conceivable disturbance to the surface of 

the land. 

17. P&G Act, Water Act Water transportation The Queensland Government has indicated its 

desire for associated water from petroleum 

activities to be reinjected back into suitable 

aquifers or beneficially reused. 

There is currently no statutory right under the P&G 

Act which allows petroleum tenement holders to 

transport water in order to achieve these stated 

objectives of the government (for example, 

transporting water outside of company X tenement 

area to an end user or to a suitable re-injection 

site). These rights should be created under the 

P&G Act and preferably through a pipeline 

licence. 

18. P&G Act, Water Act Associated water Expand the scope for consideration and facilitation 

of beneficial uses of produced water, including 

surface water release rather than consideration as 

regulated waste. 

Clarification that supply of produced water does 

not trigger classification as a water service 

provider. 

19. P&G Act Petroleum tenure Reducing the number of approvals required after 

assessment of the EIS. 

page 49 



Amendments to the P&G Act and the Water Act 

to transport CSG associated water. 

Amendment of the P&G Act to place a petroleum 

tenure on the same basis as mining




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

20. P&G Act, Integrated 

Planning Act 

(IPA ) 

Title 


Problem 

Streamline requirement for additional approvals 

through the Integrated Planning Act 1997. 

page 50 



Confirm ATPs, petroleum leases and pipeline 

licences to cover all related activities (eg STP, 

RO Plants, irrigation, buildings) so that activities 

do not also require separate the IP Act 

approvals, particularly where water is being 

transported across boundaries or is consolidated 

for treatment and/or disposal. 

21. P&G Act To facilitate early applications and approvals. Allow conversion of ATPs to PLs prior to EIS 

approval but subject to EIS conditions. 

22. P&G Act Part 6, Div 1, 2,3 Reduce number of approvals required where gas 

devices is not of significance. 

23. P&G Act 

Petroleum Act 1923 

S 110 

Construction and 

operation of pipelines 

24. P&G Act Pipeline licence To ensure that there are not differing regulatory 

regimes applying to different parts of a pipeline 

Include threshold limits of when gas work 

authorisation is required, rather than a gas work 

authorisation being required for any type A or 

type B gas device. 

Workload saving and alignment of processes. Extend the ability to run pipelines across 

adjacent PLs to include the scenario where the 

adjacent PLs are both Petroleum Act 1923 PLs 

(noting however that this may trigger native title 

issues). 

Provides alignment with process for pipeline 

between adjacent PLs where both are the P&G 

Act and the Petroleum Act 1923/or one P&G Act 

PL and one Petroleum Act 1923 PL. 

Extend application of the P&G Act to the 

‘offshore’ component of the pipeline so that a




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

particularly in a case where the offshore 

component is in the middle of two onshore 

components 

25. P&G Act Pipeline testing To reduce transportation impacts and elimination 

of reduction in localised water supply due to 

returning water. 

26. P&G Act - Policy To reduce application processing time once CG 

Report issued. Reduction in processing time 

through parallel development, with additional 

information of development provided at EMP level. 

This will result in reduced review times. 

27. EPBC Act s. 74AA To facilitate early works, which are not likely to 

have a significant impact, to allow the minister 

greater flexibility to authorise works in advance of 

the EPBC approval 

page 51 



proponent doesn’t have two different pipeline 

licences with differing regulatory regimes (ie one 

pipeline licence under the P&G Act for the 

onshore component and one pipeline licence 

under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act for 

the offshore component). 

Permit water to be extracted for testing (for 

example, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline), 

then treat and return the water to its resource. 

Enable access to water for testing purposes. 

Enable consideration of petroleum authority 

applications in parallel to CG report. 

28. EP Act Legislation Avoid duplication of advertisement process. Remove requirement to advertise Environmental 

Authority or Environmental Authority 

amendments that have been advertised as part 

of the EIS process. 

29. EP Act approvals Timely approval process. Legislation to simplify phased approach to 

approvals. Additional information would be




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

30. EP Act - Policy CSG water classification as a regulated waste has 

amplifications on dam design policies. 

page 52 



available to DERM at the time of approval due to 

phased approach enabling better definition to 

assist approval process. 

Implementation a threshold for classification of 

CSG water as a regulated waste where water 

has a lower salinity level. 

Better fit for purpose infrastructure based on risk 

level. 

31. EP Act - Policy Whole-of-government consistent regulatory 

timeframes to provide timely approvals and 

certainty of process for projects of state 

significance. Enable DERM to monitor and 

manage workload and allow industry to plan 

projects more efficiently. 

32. EP Act - Policy Noise Noise limits have implications for project design. Noise limits to be reviewed to be aligned with a 

manageable target. 

33. Water Act approvals To reduce the number of approvals required for 

various water uses outside of the stock and 

domestic purposes exemption. 

Extend water licensing exemptions to situations 

where the stock and domestic purposes 

exemption doesn’t apply. For example, where 

water is shipped to a central hub, fully or partially 

treated and distributed to various landowners. 

34. Water Act To reduce the number of approvals required Allow water to be moved to adjacent PLs within




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Title 


Problem 

35. Water Act To reduce the need to transport treated 

associated water. 

36. Water Act Inconsistent policy position in relation to brine 

(DERM). 

37. SDPWO Act To reduce the potential for duplication of EIS 

processes where seeking development approval 

for a MCU in SDAs. 

38. 

SDPWO Act EIS process To allow changes to the project during the EIS 

assessment or staging of the assessment. 

39. Nature Conservation To allow for removal of least-concern plants held 

page 53 



where water is to be transported across PLs. the project area without requiring a development 

approval or water licence (as is the case where 

water is moved within a PL). 

Allow treated associated water to be recharged 

to aquifer instead of piping elsewhere. 

It will be a potential to recharge aquifers as the 

medium to distribute water resource enabling 

water balance through natural means. 

Allow concentrated brine to be injected into nonuseable 

saline aquifers to improve 

environmental outcomes compared to 

encapsulated salt at land surface. 

Identify and progress policy and/or regulation 

changes not specific to the EIS process, but 

impacting on the delivery of a project in parallel. 

(ie camp on Curtis Island, material change of 

use issues).




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

Act 1992 or Nature 

Conservation 

(Protected Plants) 

Plan 2000 

40. Nature Conservation 

Act 1992 

41. Integrated Planning 

Act/Sustainable 

Planning Act 


Act/Sustainable 

Planning Act 


Act, and Sustainable 

Planning Act 2009 

Title 


Problem 

under a petroleum tenure or where otherwise 

authorised under an Environmental Authority. 

page 54 



Approval process To reduce approvals duplication. Streamline approval regime for dealing with 

protected plants and animals from the Nature 

Conservation Act 1992 to avoid duplication with 

approval regime under the Environmental 

Protection Act 1994. 

To reduce the number of approvals required when 

conducting activities under petroleum tenure. 

To provide certainty that current exemption will 

continue to apply. 

Reducing the number of approvals required after 

assessment of the EIS. 

Currently, DERM require tenure to be held before 

such a resource allocation can be granted. 

Broaden exemptions under planning laws where 

related to petroleum tenure activities so those 

exemptions are consistent with exemptions 

applicable to mining tenures. 

Will ensure consistency of approvals required 

across differing types of tenures. 

Ensure, at a minimum, all existing exemptions 

under planning laws for petroleum tenure 

activities are retained in new regulations for the 

Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 

Amendments of the IP Act and the Sustainable 

Planning Act 2009 to become law to remove the 

requirement for a resource allocation from a 

state agency before an application such as tidal 

works is made over state land or waters.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 


Act, Sch 8. 

Title 


Problem 

Reducing the number of approvals required after 

assessment of the EIS under the IPA eg tidal 

works, development in water courses etc. 

45. P&G Act Improvement in workload management and ability 

to deliver projects enabling DEEDI to monitor and 

manage workload and allow industry to plan 

projects more efficiently. 

46. P&G Act Policy Reduced contact with industry to provide low level 

feedback on progress. 

47. P&G Act Streamline the need for multiple approvals where 

particular activities the subject of those all from 

part of the one project. Also recognises the 

complexity of multiple ownership and operator 

models within the LNG industry. 

page 55 



Make petroleum tenures exempt from the 

requirement of the multiple ‘schedule 8’ 

approvals where the development has already 

been assessed by the EIS. 

Whole-of-government consistent regulatory 

timeframes to provide timely approvals and 

certainty of process for projects of state 

significance (DEEDI, DERM, DIP). 

Improve access to DEEDI’s electronic systems 

to allow industry to track the progress of 

approvals rather than making phone calls 

regularly or meeting with DEEDI. 

Tenure amendment approvals. 

48. P&G Act As above Later Development Plans. 

49. P&G Act As above Infrastructure approvals (eg dam design plan). 

50. AP Act As above Approvals to conduct environmentally relevant 

activities within an environmentally sensitive 

area or buffer area. 

51. AP Act As above Beneficial reuse approvals.




No. 

Legislation, 

Section 

52. Nature Conservation 

Act 

Title 


Problem 

page 56 



As above Approval for temporary and/or permanent 

clearing of remnant vegetation. 

53. Water Act As above Riverine Protection Permit. 

54. Water Act As above Water Licence. 

55. Forestry Act As above Permit to traverse.

INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES 30 April 2010

supporting resource sector growth - Queensland Mining and Safety ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?