Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642805248.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities GREENPEACE'S SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS REFERENCES COMMITTEE 13 April 2017 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 Contents 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.

3.
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 4 Terms of reference (b) the adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and institutional 4. arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation; ............................................................. 5 Term of reference (c): the adequacy and transparency of financial mechanisms, including 5. assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances; ....................................................................................... 7 6.
Term of reference (e): the effectiveness of existing abandoned mines programs, with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health; .................................................... 8 7.

Term of reference (g): the potential social, economic and environmental impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation ... 8 8.
Term of reference (i): international examples of effective rehabilitation policy and practice .. 11 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 1.

Introduction Greenpeace Australia Pacific (GPAP) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Environment and Communications References Committee in response to the inquiry into rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities (the Inquiry).
Our submission addresses the following terms of reference: b) the adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and institutional arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation; c) the adequacy and transparency of financial mechanisms, including assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances; (e) the effectiveness of existing abandoned mines programs, with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health; g) the potential social, economic and environmental impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation; i) international examples of effective rehabilitation policy and practice.
2.

Summary The Australian mining industry has a very poor record when it comes to mine rehabilitation.

Three quarters of mines in Australia have undergone premature or unplanned closure and the country is riddled with abandoned mining pits.

Without government action and leadership, this problem will only continue to grow and the multi-billion dollar clean-up bill will undoubtedly be left with the taxpayer.
In addition to reducing the blight of the mining industry on the landscape, effective rehabilitation long-term environmental sustainability.

Although state governments have primary responsibility for mine rehabilitation, there is a need for coordination at the national level.

important for is A national framework should include minimum standards that enshrine the polluter pays principle and ensure that mining companies cannot escape their obligations with regard to rehabilitation.
Preference should be given to in situ ecological restoration whenever environmental conditions allow.

Obligations should be outlined at the outset of a mining operation and rehabilitation should be a continuous practice throughout the life of the mine, rather than an afterthought when it becomes economically unviable.

Community concerns should be taken into account in this process, but this does not mean that the bar for rehabilitation standards should be lower in remote areas.
GPAP recognises that all forms of mining create sites requiring rehabilitation, with potentially significant implications for human health and the environment if mine closure is not carefully planned and implemented.

However, we are especially concerned about the legacy of the coal mining industry and therefore highlight some issues that surround the rehabilitation of coal mines in this submission.
Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 3.

Recommendations 1.

The creation of a national database that provides the public with accessible information on how much land has been disturbed by mining, how many sites have been abandoned, how many have been rehabilitated, and how successful the rehabilitation has been.
Data on the estimated costs of mine rehabilitation for each site and how this compares with the financial assurances in place to cover these costs should also be included.

2.

The creation of a national framework for mining rehabilitation that includes minimum standards for the assessment of mine closure plans and clearly defines what “adequate” or “successful” rehabilitation entails.
(a) National standards should give preference for in situ ecological restoration of mine sites when environmental conditions permit and otherwise the objective should be to reinstate ecosystem function to the maximum extent possible.

(b) Backfilling of voids should be made mandatory for all open-pit coal mines.

(c) Development consents for mining should include conditions related to rehabilitation and such rehabilitation should be undertaken progressively over the life cycle of a mine.
(d) Limits should be placed on how long a mine can remain in ‘care and maintenance’ mode.

(e) Environmental liability should remain with the polluter and rehabilitation obligations should be transferred to future owners.

Companies should be legally required to report their liabilities for each mine in their annual financial statements.

(f) Closure plans should require financial assurance to guarantee the execution of the closure plan and to fund any required post-closure costs.
Where bonds are used they must annually reviewed and adjusted to ensure they will cover 100% of rehabilitation costs.

Where trust funds are used they should be accompanied by other mechanisms to incentivise companies to fulfil their obligations and penalise those that do not.

3.

Additional funding for abandoned mine programs.

4.

The EPBC Act should be amended/strengthened: (a) to make conditions to mitigate damage distinct from repairing damage, separating s 134(1)(b).
(b) To require the Minister to consider principles of ecologically sustainable development before imposing conditions or making approvals.
Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 Terms of reference (b) the adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and 4. institutional arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation; Adequate Rehabilitation At present, the public cannot easily access information on how much land has been disturbed by mining, how much of this has been rehabilitated and how successful the rehabilitation has been.1 Our first recommendation is that a publicly accessible national database should be created to address this issue.
The evidence that is available in the public sphere indicates that there are very few mines in Australia that have been successfully rehabilitated.2 This is despite the fact that in most states, a legal obligation to undertake rehabilitation has existed for at least several decades.3 Rather than being successfully closed (where the polluter pays for and undertakes effective rehabilitation)4 it is becoming commonplace for mines to enter ‘care and maintenance’ mode for indefinite periods.
It is clear, despite the PR attempts of the Minerals Council of Australia to suggest otherwise5, that mining companies do not prioritise rehabilitation.

It is also evident that current state and federal regulatory frameworks are inadequate to meet community expectations for mine rehabilitation.

As noted by Lamb et al.


(2015): The present situation represents a major ecological and financial risk to the nation as a whole and regulatory authorities need to develop more rigorous approaches to ensure effective rehabilitation standards are achieved.6 Mining rehabilitation is primarily the responsibility of the states and territories.
Policies and funding arrangements differ substantially across jurisdictions.7 A number of experts argue that there is a role for national coordination and leadership on the issue.8 Our second recommendation is that a national framework for mining rehabilitation be developed.

In setting minimum national standards, the Federal Government could provide clearer objectives for what constitutes ‘adequate’ or ‘successful’ mine rehabilitation.
Existing standards are in many cases vague and difficult to quantify.9 Some are so poorly worded that they could imply that any kind of vegetative cover at the mine site will be acceptable.10 Standards should be clear at the stage of mining approval and not left to be resolved in the course of negotiations between companies and governments.

Such negotiations leave the community out of the process.
Our view is that communities should be actively engaged in rehabilitation planning to ensure that their expectations are met.
However, we would emphasise that a national set of standards should not be framed in such a way as to lower the bar for rehabilitation in remote areas where the population is sparse and there are few local stakeholders.11 Research indicates that generally speaking the public has a preference for ecological restoration in situ upon closure of a mine, rather than the company engaging in a compensatory biodiversity offset programs.12 GPAP also holds this view.
Ecological restoration is the practice of restoring the “original native biota and ecosystems that were present before Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 mining.”13 The Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia has recently developed standards that were not specifically designed for the mining industry but could be useful in developing appropriate national mine rehabilitation standards.14 When environmental conditions have been altered by mining operations to the point that the site is no longer suitable for full restoration, companies should be required to “reinstate ecosystem functioning to the maximum extent possible” with the objective of developing “a resilient and self-sustaining new ecosystem.”15 A particular characteristic of coal mining is the prevalence of open-cut mines that leave void spaces in the landscape.
These void spaces pose numerous environmental hazards including; slope stability, water run-off and the difficulty of encouraging the regeneration of natural vegetation (in particular trees) to grow back.

GPAP submits that a clear prerequisite for adequate rehabilitation is the backfilling of voids.
This has been a requirement for coal mines in the United States since the 1970s.16 Timely Rehabilitation GPAP considers that rehabilitation is not something that should only be thought about once a mine comes to the end of its economic life.

It is widely agreed that success is more likely if planning takes place when a mine is in the design phase.
Planning at this stage eliminates the need for double handling of overburden while addressing the safe containment of toxic materials that may contribute to acid mine drainage.17 Furthermore, integrating the rehabilitation process with extraction can bring significant social, economic and environmental benefits.

Additionally, concurrent rehabilitation with extraction can introduce more sustainable employment into communities facing fewer skilled miner work opportunities.
A case study of Blair Athol, a mine not worked since 2012, demonstrates that there are 1166 hectares to rehabilitate and only 14 workers left on the site.18 Estimates suggest that a proper rehabilitation of this mine could generate 40 full time positions over the next 10 years.

If the same rehabilitation occurred across all of the mines in the Bowen Basin, around 2000-3000 jobs would be created in regional Queensland.19 Early planning and concurrent rehabilitation are not common practice at present.
Instead, rehabilitation targets are often established only near the end of a mine’s life.20 Companies clearly prioritize production over rehabilitation and this makes sense from a business perspective.21 However, from the viewpoint of the public, waiting until the end of a mine’s life to consider rehabilitation increases the risk that the company will simply put the mine into ‘care and maintenance’ mode or sell the mine to a smaller company with less capacity and resources to conduct proper rehabilitation.22 There should be a limit on how long mine sites can remain left in a state of ‘care and maintenance’ without rehabilitation.
Explicitly including rehabilitation into business accounting practises may be a way to achieve this.23 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 Term of reference (c): the adequacy and transparency of financial 5. mechanisms, including assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances; Some states utilise a system of rehabilitation bonds to cover the costs of mine rehabilitation.
In theory, bonds can act as an incentive for the mining company to rehabilitate a site, especially if it is large enough to cover the full costs of rehabilitation and is accompanied by a strong enforcement regime including options for criminal liability.
However, in practice there are a number of problems with existing bond programs in Australia: 1) there is a lack of transparency in the administration of the bonds; 2) bonds are typically not large enough to actually cover all rehabilitation activities in the event that the company defaults; and 3) they are tied to individual tenements and therefore cannot cover damages outside of the designated zone.24 Additionally, the financial benefits of bonds are largely captured by the banking sector rather than governments.25 Available evidence suggests that at present, state governments hold inadequate financial assurances for the rehabilitation of mining operations.
For example, it has been estimated that the bonds held by the NSW government for the entire state would not even cover the costs of filling the voids created by the Mt Thorely-Warkworth and Maules Creek mines.

Other mines would likely also cost hundreds of millions for the voids to be filled.26 In Queensland, the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) estimates that only 1.5% of the true cost of rehabilitation is currently secured.27 According to Pepper et al.
(2014): The only way to ensure a bond does not fall short is to develop a system that can accurately calculate the cost of mine closure and for this to be annually reviewed and adjusted reflecting performance milestones or non-compliance with any incremental mine closure requirements and to legislate that all mines need a bond equivalent to 100% of actual closure costs, rather than an optimistic or best case scenario.28 The inadequacy of current financial assurance mechanisms in states such as NSW increase the risk that companies, with no incentive to rehabilitate, will place mines in ‘care and maintenance’ mode indefinitely or sell their assets to a smaller company that is not legally bound to meet rehabilitation obligations.29 In 2013, the QAO noted that in Queensland, 96 sites had been placed under ‘care and maintenance’ mode since 2006.
In response to these concerns, some states have developed specialised funds that mining companies are required to pay into.

For example, Western Australia established such a fund under the Mining Rehabilitation Fund Act 2012.30 Such funds may provide a more secure form of assurance, if properly designed, while also freeing up funds to deal with the existing legacy of abandoned mines.
However, these funds also have several disadvantages, namely that: 1) unless accompanied by other measures, they provide no incentive for meeting rehabilitation objectives and a lack of consequences for not meeting them; 2) they implicitly endorse new mining to generate funds; and 3) they fail to provide a clear time frame on investments, returns and the allocation of funds for rehabilitation.31 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 Term of reference (e): the effectiveness of existing abandoned mines 6. programs, with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health; Abandoned mines are largely historic, have no clear ownership and rarely meet current community and regulatory mine rehabilitation and closure expectations.
This means that the task of managing abandoned mines largely falls to governments and the community.

Estimates suggest that there are now around 50 000-60 000 abandoned mines across Australia.32 After a mine is abandoned, there remain risks to human health including those relating to contaminants from poorly maintained mines, tailing dams and tailings.
In addition, there are safety risks to humans, including those as a result of open holes from pits and shafts, collapsing tailings, impoundments, machinery and machinery parts.33 In terms of the environment, there are a number of legacies of abandoned mines that can be particularly harmful.

One of the most significant is acid mine drainage, which can result in the contamination of groundwater, streams, and soil in surrounding areas.
On the other hand, research has highlighted that some types of derelict mines can provide important habitats for the conservation of threatened species.

An important consideration when it comes to the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites is the preservation of ecological assets that have emerged since abandonment.

An example of this is a number of endangered bat species that have taken up residence in abandoned mine shafts in south-east Australia.
Derelict mines should be managed in order to improve subterranean bat habitats wherever possible (balancing this with the need to minimise risks to human safety).34 The Queensland Auditor General estimates the cost of rehabilitating the 15 000 abandoned mines in that state alone is around $1 billion.35 Some of these abandoned mines have had to be treated by governments because downstream leachates were simply too damaging to downstream water users.36 In 2012, the NSW Auditor General declared that “derelict mines may represent the largest category of contamination liability for the state”.37 He also noted that the “derelict mines program has many thousands of hectares of degraded and contaminated land where mining companies abandoned mines without cleaning up or stabilising the sites.” It is clear that a present, insufficient funding has been allocated to the task of rehabilitating Australia’s abandoned mines.
Our third recommendation is that the Federal Government should provide additional resources to the states and territories to address the problem.
Term of reference (g): the potential social, economic and environmental 7. impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) regulates certain activities that will have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance (MNES).
The EPBC Act protects MNES by prohibiting a person from taking an action that could significantly affect MNES without prior approval from the Minister, unless there is either a pre-existing bilateral agreement or declaration to the effect that an action does not require approval.
The MNES are outlined in Chapter 2, Part 3 of the EPBC Act, as follows: Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● World Heritage property; National Heritage values of a national heritage place; wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Convention); listed threatened species and communities; listed migratory species; protection of the environment from nuclear actions (uranium mines); marine environment – commonwealth marine areas; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and, protection of water resources from coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.
For the purposes of rehabilitation of mining and resource projects, it is conceivable that all of the above listed MNES could possibly be adversely affected by inadequate or unsuitable remediation efforts.

This will depend on the location and size of a mine's operations.

The primary issue that arises for the purpose of this submission, is that environmental impacts, particularly for mining and resource projects, can significantly affect MNES beyond the time at which the original "action" is taken.
The issues that arise are therefore: (a) (b) how well the EPBC Act caters for anticipatory "damage" due to inadequate rehabilitation of mining and resource projects; and, what procedures are currently in place to repair damage that is caused by unanticipated or secondary issues that arise because of inadequate rehabilitation of mining and resource projects?
Anticipatory damages The Minister may attach a condition to the approval of an action in accordance with s 134 of the EPBC Act, if satisfied that the condition is necessary or convenient for protecting MNES (Part 3).
Subsection 134(1)(b) provides the Minister with the power to attach a condition if it is necessary for "repairing or mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or is likely to be caused by the action)".

This section has been relied on for anticipatory damage.
In the case of Tarkine National Coalition Inc v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,38 the Minister placed a condition under s 134(1)(b) on the approval of a mine in northwest Tasmania to protect the Tasmanian Devil, a threatened species under the EPBC Act.

Section 134 has also been lawfully used to place conditions on mines to ensure that rehabilitation is addressed before the closure of the mine.
For example, the expansion of the Olympic Dam copper, uranium, gold and silver mine and processing plant and associated infrastructure in South Australia Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 and the Northern Territory, included a condition that that rehabilitation and closure commence within a 10 year period before the expiry date of the approval.39 Importantly, s 134(1)(b) of the EPBC Act does not currently separate conditions to mitigate damage as distinct from repairing damage under the EPBC Act.
The issue of inadequate rehabilitation goes directly to damage under s 134(1)(b).

However, there is no specific impetus for the Minister to impose conditions that ensure the adequate rehabilitation of activities beyond when the activity ceases.
In any event, the Minister is not currently bound to consider the long term environmental effects of mining activities under the EPBC Act.40 Unanticipated future impacts on MNES While s 134 can been used to protect MNES, more could be done to strengthen this provision under the EPBC Act for unanticipated damages.

In particular, s 134(1) should include conditions on the principles of ecologically sustainable development as described in s 3A of the EPBC Act.
The inter-generational equity, precautionary and polluter pays principles are of particular importance.

The Minister is not bound to consider the inter-generational or long-term effects of approvals for activities that could affect matters under Part 3, beyond what is considered at the time of the approval "will be or likely to be caused by the action".
There are inherent difficulties with the phrasing of s 134(1)(b) that limit the Minister from imposing conditions that could take into account damage that is unanticipated but could arise at a future time, having both inter and intra- generational effects.

The precautionary principle should be incorporated into the existing approval mechanisms to enable the Minister to enforce conditions on a precautionary basis, strengthening that which is described in s 391, for approvals under s 133.
The Minister should also be bound to consider the polluter pays principle when determining the approvals of activities that could affect MNES.

Particularly, the holder of the approval should be held accountable for the rehabilitation of mines, and not future generations.

There should be in- built enforcement mechanisms that ensure that the holder of the approval is held responsible for all future remediation or rehabilitation of mining or resource activities.
Based on the above, our fourth recommendation is that conditions to mitigate damage should be distinguished from those on repairing damage under the EPBC Act.
Article s 134(1)(b) should be separated into two sections as follows: (a) repairing damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or is likely to be caused by the action); and, (b) mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or is likely to be caused by the action).
This separation would make clear that the Minister should take into consideration that conditions may be required to specifically repair or rehabilitate projects that could impact on MNES protected under Part 3.

Furthermore, the Act should be strengthened to require the Minister to consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development before imposing conditions or making approvals that could potentially affect matters as described in Part 3 (MNES).
In particular, the precautionary, polluter Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 pays and inter-generational equity principles should be included.

Term of reference (i): international examples of effective rehabilitation policy 8. and practice Canada Canada has a similar regulatory approach to Australia in that mining and minerals are generally the responsibility of the provinces.
The National Orphaned and Abandoned Mines Initiative (NOAMI) "has the role of assessing key abandoned mine issues" and making recommendations to the Mines Ministers of Canada.41 One of the key aims of NOAMI is to work towards eliminating future mine abandonment by tightening regulatory approaches.

NOAMI is also actively working to improve the legislative tools and policy approaches in relation to current operating mines.
NOAMI has adopted a goal when it comes to closure objectives from the Whitehorse Mining Initiative.42 It states that closure objectives should be the development of "comprehensive reclamation plans that return all mine sites to viable" and where practicable, development of "self- sustaining, ecosystems".
The objectives include the adequate financing, implementation and monitoring of these goals, in all jurisdictions.43 NOAMI has outlined the "main components related to mine closure and post closure site management".

One component is the submission of mine closure plans prior to receiving approval to commence mining activities.
Another component is the financial assurance to support the mine closure plan in the form of cash, bonds or other instruments, in an amount estimated to be required to execute the closure plan.

The Canadian example could be helpful in developing a national framework in Australia.
Prepared by: Dr. Kyla Tienhaara Research & Investigations Coordinator Greenpeace Australia Pacific Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 References 1 Lamb, D. and P. Erskine (2016) “What are appropriate rehabilitation standards?”, AusIMM Bulletin, Oct: 58-61.
2 Lamb, D., Erskine, P. and A. Fletcher (2015) “Widening gap between expectations and practice in Australian minesite rehabilitation” Ecological Management & Restoration 16:3: 186-195, at 186.

3 Lamb and Erskine, note 1 above.

4 Roche, C. and S. Judd (2016) Ground Truths: Taking Responsibility for Australia’s Mining Legacies, Mineral Policy Institute.

5 Mattiske, A.

(2016) Mine Rehabilitation in the Australian Minerals Industry, Minerals Council of Australia.
6 Lamb et al., note 2 above, at 186 7 The various regulations and practices in place in the states and territories are summarised in Roche and Judd, note 4 above.

8 Roche and Judd, note 4 above, at 4.

9 Lamb and Erskine, note 2 above.

10 Ibid 11 Ibid.

12 Burton, M., Zahedi, S. and B.

White (2012) “Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation.

The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia” Resources Policy 37: 1–9.

13 Lamb et al., note 2 above.


14 Society for Ecological Restoration (2016) National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia, http://www.seraustralasia.com/standards/contents.html 15 Lamb et al., note 2 above.

16 Walters, A.

(2016) The Hole Truth: The Mess Coal Companies Plan to Leave in NSW, Energy Resource Insights.

17 Commonwealth of Australia (2006) Mine Closure and Completion; Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra, ACT.

18 Hutton, D. (2016) “New economy, new democracy and coal mine rehabilitation” in The Green Institute, The End of Coal: How Should the Next Government Respond?, pp.

37-41, at 40.

19 Ibid.

20 Lamb et al., note 2 above.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid, at 191.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid at 187; Gorey, P., Morrison-Saunders, A., Doepel, D., Mtegha, H. and M.P.
McHenry (2014) “Dealing with mining legacies: from bonds to a central mining rehabilitation fund in Western Australia”, in I.M.

Weiersbye, A.B.

Fourie, M. Tibbett and K. Mercer (eds) Mine Closure (Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand).

25 Ibid.

26 Campbell, R., Linqvist, J., Browne, B., Swann, T. and M. Grudnoff (2017) Dark side of the boom (NSW) What we do and don’t know about mines, closures and rehabilitation in New South Wales, The Australia Institute; Walters, note 16 above.
27 Queensland Audit Office (2014) Environmental Regulation of the Resources and Waste Industries, 45.

28 Pepper, M., Roche, C. and G. Mudd (2014) “Australia’s mining legacy challenge”, Paper Presented to the Life of Mine Conference, 16-18 July, Brisbane.

29 Ibid; Campbell et al., note 26 above; Lamb et al., note 2 above.

30 Gorey et al., note 24 above.

31 Pepper et al., note 28 above.

32 Roche and Judd, note 4 above; Campbell et al., note 26 above.

33 Unger, C. and A.

Van Krieken.


(2011) “Abandoned Mine Management in Australia”, AusIMM Discussion Paper, https://www.ausimm.com.au/content/docs/abandoned_mine_management_in_australia.pdf 34 Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry, p 14.

Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25 35 Queensland Auditor General (2013) Environmental Regulation of the Environmental and Waste Industries.
Queensland Audit Office, Brisbane, Qld.

36 Lamb et al., note 2 above.

37 Audit Office of NSW (2012) New South Wales Auditor-General’s Report Financial Audit Volume Six 2012 Focusing on Environment, Water and Regional Infrastructure, Sydney, NSW.

38 Tarkine National Coalition Inc v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) 214 FCR 233; [2013] FCA 694.
39 See generally, Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and Others (No 2) (2012) 126 ALD 335.

40 Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and Others (No 2) (2012) 126 ALD 335 citing Minister for Immigration v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 and Drake- Brockman v Minister of Planning (2007) 158 LGERA 349.
41 Cowan, W., Mackasey, W. and J. Robertson (2010) The Policy Framework in Canada for Mine Closure and Management of Long-Term Liabilities: A Guidance Document, Prepared for the National Orphaned/Abandoned Mined Initiative (NOAMI), http://www.abandoned- mines.org/pdfs/PolicyFrameworkCanforMinClosureandMgmtLiabilities.pdf, p iv.

42 Mining Association of Canada at their annual conference at Whitehorse, September 1992.

43 Cowan et al., note 41 above at 4.


Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 25