The Mineral Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) (Bill), introduced on 15 September 2026, proposes significant amendments to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MR Act) and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act) to streamline the mining lease and associated environmental approvals framework. The reforms were introduced with the aim of reducing ‘red and green tape’ and therefore delays, for mining project approvals and increasing certainty for both stakeholders and industry whilst attracting more investment to Queensland.
Key reforms include removing duplicated environmental assessment, ‘reducing environmental lawfare’ by limiting objection rights to “eligible entities”, replacing automatic Land Court referral with a discretionary referral and introducing defined decision timeframes.
Removal of duplicated environmental assessment
Currently, the Minister must consider environmental matters when deciding a mining lease application (MLA) under the MR Act. This can overlap with the separate environmental assessment already conducted as part of the environmental authority (EA) process under the EP Act. The Bill removes this overlap by expressly prohibiting the Minister from considering criteria relating to environmental harm under the MR Act, leaving environmental assessment to be dealt with exclusively under the EP Act.
Discretionary Land Court referral
Currently, any objection to an MLA or associated EA application automatically triggers a Land Court referral. The Bill removes automatic referral. The Minister (under the MR Act) and the administering authority (under the EP Act) will each have discretion to refer matters where a ‘properly made objection’ has been received. Where no referral is made, the decision-maker makes its decision without any Land Court recommendations.
Limiting objection rights
The Bill narrows who may object to both an MLA and the associated draft EA and PRCP schedule. Only the following categories of “eligible entities” will have standing to lodge objections under both Acts:
- affected persons ((landowners of subject, adjoining, or access land, relevant local governments and infrastructure providers operating wholly or partially on the subject land);
- occupiers of land within the proposed mining lease area; and
- owners or occupiers of land within a 125 kilometre zone from the mining lease boundary.
MLA objections must relate to the statutory criteria under the MR Act.
EA objections under the EP Act are directed at the draft EA and draft PRCP schedule issued by the administering authority, and must relate to those draft documents or to the EP Act decision-making criteria.
The EA assessment process will involve a two-tier public consultation framework. Formal objections may be lodged by “eligible entities” on the specified grounds and may trigger a discretionary Land Court referral. However, any person may make a public submission on any grounds but they cannot be referred to the Land Court and the administering authority may, but is not required to, have regard to them.
Combined public notification process
Where an MLA requires a site-specific EA, the Bill introduces a single mining lease notice covering both the MLA and EA application processes, replacing separate notices under each Act. The objection period must be at least 20 business days. This results in a single notice and a single objection period for both applications.
Decision timeframes
The Bill introduces prescribed decision timeframes that apply to the administering authority’s decisions on site-specific EA applications and PRCP schedules under the EP Act. No equivalent prescribed decision timeframes are introduced by the Bill for the Minister’s decision on MLAs under the MR Act. The EP Act decision timeframes are:
- where objections or submissions are received but no Land Court referral is made: 30 business days from the last objection day, extendable by up to a further 30 business days;
- where a Land Court recommendation is made: 20 business days from the end of the period for the MRA Minister (and, if applicable, the State Development Minister) to advise the administering authority about the recommendation (that advisory period being 10 business days from receipt of the recommendation, or any agreed longer period); and
- where no objections or submissions are received: the EA and PRCP schedule must be issued within 5 business days after the last objection day.
Streamlined pathway for lower-risk EA applications
Standard and variation EA applications for mining leases will no longer involve public notification or objection processes. The Bill also creates an automatic approval pathway for amendment applications that are equivalent to standard applications — that is, where the amendment application relates to a new relevant tenure and the project meets the applicable eligibility criteria and standard conditions apply.
Transitional arrangements
Where an MLA has been referred to the Land Court, the new framework applies if the hearing has not started and no substantive order or direction has been made beyond fixing a hearing date. Otherwise, the existing regime continues. Where the Land Court has already made its recommendation before commencement, the Minister must decide the application under the existing regime.
Parallel, but not identical, transitional provisions apply to pending EA applications under the EP Act. Standard and variation applications move to the new decision pathway unless the Land Court has already made an objections decision before commencement. Site-specific applications move to the new framework where not yet referred, or where referred but the hearing has not started and no substantive order or direction has been made beyond fixing a hearing date. Where the hearing has started, or an objections decision has been made, the existing regime continues to apply.
Implications
The Bill indicates a policy shift towards facilitating project delivery while balancing environmental assessment and reducing duplication. The Bill reduces the scope for third-party challenges to mining projects by requiring a nexus to the mining lease, with the Queensland government stating a clear objective to reduce environmental lawfare. While proponents may benefit from greater certainty and faster decision-making, the reforms are likely to attract scrutiny from community and environmental stakeholders given the reduced opportunities for public participation and independent Land Court review.