Ms BADGER – Minister, the Mineral Resources Development Act (MRDA) is now 30 years old. I’m sure you’d agree a lot has changed in the past 30 years, and we’re seeing things changing very quickly, particularly in the resource space, with critical minerals coming online. Has that act ever undergone a full review and, if so, when?
Mr ELLIS – I didn’t know you were asking Dorothy Dixers today, but I’m very pleased that you have some interest in this matter because it’s certainly an interest that we’re interested in as well. As you characterise it, a lot has changed since 1995. There are some important areas where we think there may be opportunities for reform. Ultimately, we want to be cutting red tape for the industry while also ensuring that we are delivering a good outcome for the Tasmanian people, because they are the ultimate owners of much of the mineral resources that we have beneath our feet. I’ll pass to the team at State Growth, either the secretary or Mr Morton – or Ms Pinto.
Ms PINTO – Through you, minister. The last amendments were undertaken in 2017, so it is very timely for having a look at the MRDA. I also note that in the regulations there are obligations to keep the regulations updated. We’re in the middle of that process as well.
One of the things I would note is that State Growth’s mining policy team, as well as Mineral Resources Tasmania itself, keeps very actively engaged with stakeholders. Through those discussions we identify areas where there could be improvement, not just within that act, but across other pieces of legislation that impact on the industry. I might also note that there is actually going to be a roundtable, I think the timing of it is towards the end of this month, with industry, where there will be opportunity further again to garner their insights, feed into any potential areas of amendment within the legislation or within the regulations.
Ms BADGER – Thank you. For a Dorothy Dixer, minister, you couldn’t even answer it. We’re talking about past full reviews and I just want to know in terms of the act as it currently is, there are provisions for objections to the granting of exploration licences and mining leases. However, it’s our understanding – and please, do correct me if I’m wrong on this case – that these provisions are limited to those who own some or all of the affected land that the exploration and mining leases would be on, or for anyone who holds a mineral tenement in the area. This means that wider communities that are going to have adverse impacts aren’t easily available to have their say through the act. For example, what’s happening with the ABx bauxite mine at Reedy Marsh. So, communities that have limited legal standing should be able to make objections or see that there are amendments made. Don’t you think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, so communities can have formal input?
Mr ELLIS – Thank you, Ms Badger, I was really trying to note that we have some common ground in this matter, in terms of the Mineral Resources Development Act. Chair, can I just introduce to the table our Director of Mines, Mr Alastair Morton, who will be assisting us today as well.
Broadly speaking, we want to make sure that we’re cutting red tape and that we’re working, as we do currently, with affected parties and Tasmania’s mineral exploration and licencing system, I have to say, is quite a strong one. We’ve found that through the Business Council of Australia’s ‘Regulation Rumble’ – I think it is called – Tasmania is the second‑best jurisdiction in the country when it comes to a supportive business environment and certainly the work of Mineral Resources Tasmania is an important part of that. We want to make sure that we can get new mining operations operational and that we’re not overly –
Ms BADGER – Minister, just in the interests of time again, I didn’t ask anything about business, I’m asking about the act review and community input.
Mr ELLIS – Yes, thanks Ms Badger. Business is really important when it comes to mining because it’s businesses that do mining, but I’ll pass to Mr Morton to talk through some of these processes.
Mr MORTON – Thank you, minister, and through you. To start with, as a regulator, I obviously regulate the act that I’m given. As Ms Pinto mentioned, the act was last updated in 2017 and we’re always looking at review and continuous improvement. I think that what you’re referring to is there are objection processes under the act. There are processes where we need to notify and people with an interest can object so those places exist under the act.
It’s also worth noting that all mines require a mining lease, but they also require council approval, and in many instances EPA approval, and the council and EPA have their own public notification or public representation systems as well. So, there are multiple opportunities for people to provide input into mineral developments.
Ms BADGER – So, it was right in the instance in the question whereby a community that’s going to have adverse effects can’t appeal anything through this act? There are other avenues that may or may not be applicable depending on what’s being proposed, therefore is this going to be something that the minister will consider as a part of the reviews?
Mr ELLIS – Ms Badger, you’re asking about the Selbourne matter, from memory is that right?
Ms BADGER – No, the ABx4 proposed bauxite mine at Reedy Marsh.
Mr ELLIS – Sorry. Reedy Marsh, because they do have a proposal at Selbourne as well.
Ms BADGER – Yes.
Mr ELLIS – I’ll pass to Mr Morton if there’s anything further to add.
Mr MORTON – Nothing further, minister.
