Heffernan, E & Bell, J 2026, 'A comparison of East Coast Australian rehabilitation planning statutory regimes', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_106
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_106_Broadway/)
Abstract: Ahead of the commencement next year of Victoria’s new ‘duty-based regulatory model’ for the regulation of mines, quarries and exploration activities, it is timely to consider the Victorian statutory regime, together with the Queensland and New South Wales (NSW) statutory regimes for rehabilitation planning.  
Currently, the statutory regimes in Queensland, NSW and Victoria share strong similarities, particularly as regards front-loading rehabilitation planning into the approvals’ life cycle, setting enforceable end states (final landforms), and maintaining post-closure accountability backed by rehabilitation bonds and financial assurances. The Victorian reforms, commencing 1 July 2027, are intended to shift towards an outcomes-based approach and reposition rehabilitation plans at the centre of the regulatory framework (particularly for ‘medium’ and ‘high’ risk activities).
All 3 regimes, including the new Victorian model post-1 July 2027, have broad alignment with the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide, which was last updated in 2025. 

Keywords: mine rehabilitation, mine closure, progressive rehabilitation, regulatory approvals, legislative reform