Administrative Review of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act (1990)
DR ELIZABETH GIBSON, General Manager CMPA reports on the administrative review by the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation.
Department of State Development, Business and Innovation, Earth Resources Regulation Branch (ERR) has engaged KPMG to undertake a review of the way in which ERR administers the Earth Resources Regulatory Framework.
This will include bench marking Victoria against other jurisdictions considered “best practice” including South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Canada (Alberta and New Brunswick) and a like regulator in Victoria, EPA. ERR is pursuing opportunities for streamlining regulatory requirements and administrative processes and reducing requirements, burden and costs for industry.
The aim of the review is not to build a new regulatory framework but to draw on existing knowledge, research and documentation to identify opportunities for process improvement without the requirement for legislative change. Dr Elizabeth Gibson met with Jennifer Duke of KPMG in December 2013 to answer a series of questions concerning the extractive industry.
The discussion initially focused on the extractive industry’s experience of obtaining work approvals. CMPA Members find the work approvals process to be long and drawn out with multiple referrals required to other Government agencies due to the complexity of requirements of applicable legislation.
The process of the application impacts on the ability of proponents to raise capital due to the unpredictability of the outcome; the cost and time involved; and then being saddled with conditions that may make the quarry unviable to operate.
There are no set timelines for the proponent. DSDBI will be implementing a 30 day response to applications for the statutory endorsement of work plans and work plan variations but have no similar control over referral authorities.
The regulator may be complying with the 30 day response but due to the range of referrals it is a long drawn out process. It is near impossible to have a work plan submitted to be correct first time with the “clock stopping” for the regulator each time further information is required or amendments to be made and the clock restarts again once the work plan is re-submitted.
There are variations in the requirements for further information or amendments to work plans between officers as well as variations across regions. Proponents are required to respond to numerous requests for further information or inclusion of new requirements which may be to a lack of skill of the regulator.
Multiple approvals are also required from the various referral authorities for example, EPA, water regulator, native vegetation, cultural heritage management plans.
Time and effort is required for the reporting obligations required by regulators. For example, the requirements of information for ERR are complex, difficult to tabulate and have set time lines for reporting.
One quarry has had to build special software programs that provide the required information but it still takes the quarry several days to compile each year.
This information may not be used by ERR for years with lengthy delays in releasing the data.
The discussion also focused on what could be improved to make the process simpler. It was proposed that the range of requirements need not be re-proved each time. It should be easier to obtain a positive outcome amid the regulatory burden, however, politics tend to intervene over science in the decision making.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login