Rehabilitation and mine closure policies creating a pathway to relinquishment: an Australian perspective

Abstract

Mine closure practices have continued to improve over the last few decades; however, across the industry rehabilitation outcomes continue to fall short of community expectations. While examples of successful rehabilitation exist, there are still limited examples of mines closing, relinquishing, and transitioning to another land use. Barriers to relinquishment such as residual risk, land transfer liability, and limited next land use options are compounded by the lack of legislated mine relinquishment policy. Broader mine closure policy has evolved significantly over the last few decades in Australia, with recent changes in some states enhancing mandates requiring progressive rehabilitation and financial assurance mechanisms in an effort to continue to improve mine closure outcomes. Government authorities with legislative powers to report and influence rehabilitation activities in Queensland and Victoria are also considered a positive mine closure policy direction. Despite these recent legislative developments there is still no multi‐agency regulatory policy framework integrating mine closure and relinquishment in any Australian jurisdiction. This article explores how recent mine closure policy changes in Australia could be used by policy makers to enable relinquishment in the future and provides recommendations for an integrated multi‐agency relinquishment policy framework.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.