On 15 September 2026, legislation was tabled in the Queensland parliament which, if passed, will make significant changes to the assessment of mining lease and associated environmental authority (and progressive rehabilitation and closure plan (PRCP)) applications in Queensland.

According to the material provided with the proposed amendments, the Mineral Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (MROLA Bill) seeks to address “inefficiencies in the current regulatory framework” by:

• reducing duplication between the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MR Act) and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act);
• streamlining the notification and objection processes; and
• limiting hearings in the Land Court of Queensland (Land Court) to matters considered to warrant independent consideration.

Scope of MROLA Bill amendments

A summary of the proposed changes are as follows:

•  Reducing duplication

Under the existing MR Act, the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Minister) is required to consider whether a proposed mining operation will have adverse environmental impacts when deciding whether to approve a mining lease application. This is in addition to the environmental assessment undertaken for any mining lease grant under the EP Act.

The proposed changes will remove the requirement for the Minister to separately consider environmental impacts in making a decision under the MR Act.

• Amending notification processes

Pursuant to the existing framework, where a mining lease application requires a site-specific or major amendment application for an environmental authority, separate public notification processes apply under the MR Act and the EP Act.

The MROLA Bill proposes one combined public notification process for both applications – so that one timeframe for potential community participation applies.

For proposed mining operations that are considered to have a lower environmental risk (which are defined as standard or variation applications), the MROLA Bill proposes the removal of all public notification, submission and objection processes.

• Limited objection rights

Currently, any person can object to a mining lease application or an associated environmental authority application for a proposed mine.

The changes proposed to the MR Act will mean that: only an “eligible entity” can object to a site-specific mining lease application; and the grounds of an objection must relate to stated criteria in the MR Act (which are largely limited to technical mining related matters – such as the level of development utilisation of the mineral resource and whether the lease area applied for is appropriate, for example).

An “eligible entity” means:

– an affected person – such as the owner of land the subject of the proposed lease area or land necessary for access, an owner of adjoining land to the proposed lease area, a relevant local government or an infrastructure provider within the proposed lease area; or

– an owner or occupier of land wholly or partly within a 125km “eligibility zone” for the proposed mining lease area.

The intent of these changes is to limit the number of persons who can object to the potential grant of a site-specific mining lease to those that are likely to be directly impacted by the proposed mine.

An “eligible entity” will also be able to object to any proposed draft environmental authority or PRCP under the EP Act. It is proposed that the only valid grounds for an objection to the draft documents will be the draft documents themselves or the decision criteria stated in the EP Act.

While the EP Act will also enable a submission (as opposed to an objection) to be made by any person about a draft environmental authority or PRCP on broad environmental grounds, the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) will have a discretion in terms of whether they will be considered. Submissions of this type will not be  a matter for consideration by the Land Court, discussed further below.

• Land Court referral changes

Under the existing framework, before the Minister or DETSI can make a decision whether or not to grant a mining lease or an associated environmental authority respectively, if a properly made objection is made about those applications and the requirements of the MR Act or EP Act are met, the objections were automatically referred to the Land Court for hearing and recommendation to the decision-maker.

The MROLA Bill removes the requirement for every objection to automatically proceed to a Land Court hearing and will instead provide for the relevant decision-maker with a discretion to refer a matter to the Land Court where independent consideration is determined to be warranted by the Minister or DETSI. Specific criteria for any referral to the Land Court is not proposed and is expected to depend on the circumstances of each particular matter.

This means that it will only be the case that if the Minister or DETSI decides to refer a matter to the Land Court that objectors will have the opportunity to promote the merits of their objection in that forum and have a court hearing about the merit of expert evidence advanced by the proposed mining proponent.

Next steps

The MROLA Bill changes to the mining lease and environmental authority/PRCP processes will significantly change existing notification and objection processes and how third parties, including the Land Court, are involved in that process.

The MROLA Bill has been referred to the Primary Industries and Resources Committee for consideration. Public submissions to the Committee close on 12 October 2026 with the committee’s report due to be tabled by 6 November 2026.

Please let us know if you want to discuss the potential implications of these reforms or if we can assist you in preparing a submission.

Written by Anna Vella.

All references to legislation are references to the legislation current as at 24 Sept 2026. This is general advice only. Specific advice should be sought in each instance. © P&E Law Pty Ltd 2026