FROM THE CMPA SECRETARIAT (Issue 71)

DSDBI set up Earth Resources Steering Committee

DR ELIZABETH GIBSON, General Manager CMPA reports on the Earth Resources Reform Steering Committee Meeting.

THE Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (DSDBI) has set up a steering committee made up with representatives from CMPA, CCAA, MCA, PMAV and DSDBI as detailed in the last issue of Sand & Stone 70.

The Chair of the committee is currently CCAA but this position will be rotated on an annual basis. Originally the committee was set up to only review work plan approvals under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development Act 1990 (MRSDA) but the brief has now been expanded to incorporate the Government Response to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into Greenfields mineral exploration and project development in Victoria; and review the rehabilitation bond system.

The committee has been renamed the Earth Resources Reform Steering Committee. It is anticipated that work will progress on the two issues in parallel with each other through working groups. The Work Plan review working group will be initially split into two: the mining industry and the extractive industry.

The rehabilitation bond review working group will review the necessity of splitting into two groups based on the industry at the first meeting.

The following are issues with Work Plans and Work Authority Applications put forward by some Members:

• There are inconsistencies across each of the DSDBI inspectorates and even between inspectors.
• There is confusion as to the timing of the submission of the application fee; the correct application fee and, including, the correct application form.
• There are different interpretations of the triggers in the legislation and the need for a Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
• There are contradictions between the “stamped” Work Plan and the Work Plan conditions.
• There is separation of the “stamped” Work Plan from the Work Plan conditions.
• There are inconsistent requests for additional information, sometimes Work Plans are overly detailed whilst others go through with minimal detail.
• Whether there is a need for a 1:3 batter when all that is legally required is “safe and stable”.
• There is an overly conservative approach to geotechnical requirements leading to a lack of common sense approach, i.e. 1-2 bench basalt quarry or shallow sand extraction sites.
• DSDBI is reluctant to support the application with Council i.e. DSDBI always requests Council opinion regardless of what the planning permit states.
• There is reluctance on DSDBI’s part to support/defend the application with the referral authorities.
• There is a contradiction between wanting simplified Work Plans, staged rehabilitation and setting of rehabilitation bonds.
• In the setting of bonds, the impracticality of not giving any consideration to the value or life of the resource; the value of any fixed plant; or associated infrastructure.
• Without any common sense, the blind adoption of the Geotechnical Risk Zone approach.
• No consistent approach with factors of safety or probability of failure for geotechnical assessments.
• There are often contradictory requirements to be dealt with from referral agencies under the statutory referral process with no support from DSDBI.
• Insistence on community engagement before a Work Plan is granted.
• DSDBI overly risk adverse approach to new Work Plans.
• There are inconsistencies between Work Plans and Planning Permits. Often there are changes or compromises required to get a Planning Permit through that are not reflected on the “stamped” Work Plan.

If members would like to raise any further issues please contact the CMPA Secretariat.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login