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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW supporting resource sector growth 30 April 2010 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. Industry working group recommendation o. Revisit the preliminary findings from the native title Protection Conditions Review and implement relevant improvement measures suggested by the industry. Environment and related approval issues 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. Industry working group recommendation 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
REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW supporting resource sector growth 30 April 2010 concurrently but companies have been advised by DERM that it could no longer do so. Industry working group recommendation 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.’ Industry submission page 21
Page 1: SUPPORTING RESOURCE SECTOR GROWTH I
Page 4 and 5: contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 6 and 7: A world-class approvals system woul
Page 8 and 9: REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATIO
Page 32 and 33: Case Study ~ unforeseen change in s
Page 38 and 39: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Phase 1 -

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?