Legacy matters: proactively managing risk for abandoned or unexpected mining environmental liabilities

Authors: Heffernan, E; Smith, R; Moller, J Download Paper Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_105

Cite As:
Heffernan, E, Smith, R & Moller, J 2026, 'Legacy matters: proactively managing risk for abandoned or unexpected mining environmental liabilities', 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. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_105



Abstract:
In recent years there has been a concerted effort within a number of Australian jurisdictions to strengthen regulatory frameworks for the minerals and resources industry, with a particular focus on ensuring that operators fulsomely address rehabilitation and environmental liabilities to prevent taxpayers being left to foot the clean-up costs. ‘Chain of responsibility’ laws under Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Government of Queensland 1994) have expanded the scope of liability for environmental obligations to ‘related persons’ of companies (which can include parent companies, directors, executives, shareholders, joint venture partners, financers, landholders and external administrators). In Victoria, the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Government of Victoria 1990) imposes additional responsibilities on the operators of ‘declared mines’ (being mines deemed to pose a significant risk of harm to the community, environment and infrastructure) and has recently been amended to introduce a ‘trailing liabilities’ scheme for the declared mines, allowing the minister to require ‘relevant parties’ on or after 6 May 2022 to complete rehabilitation where the current licensee has not or cannot do so. These mining-specific mechanisms supplement Victoria’s separate Environment Protection Act 2017 (Government of Victoria 2017), which allows for regulatory directions to be issued not only to polluters but also to former owners and occupiers of contaminated land in certain circumstances. Alongside common law claims on the basis of negligence and nuisance (both public and private), these legislative regimes can, and have, resulted in protracted litigation brought by both regulators and third parties regarding environmental liabilities; in some cases piercing the corporate veil to hold directors and executives personally accountable. With closure and rehabilitation being an inevitability for all mines, this paper provides an overview of the Queensland and Victorian regimes and litigation risks, and distils from them key measures that mining operators can implement to proactively plan for the end of a mine’s life cycle while identifying and managing environmental and compliance risks.

Keywords: chain of responsibility, mine rehabilitation, contamination, mine closure, closure liability, closure legacy, regulatory compliance

References: