Thursday, 5 February 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:33): The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025 is a bill that the opposition will not oppose, but the opposition has some serious reservations about this bill, and I will detail those thoughtfully over the next few minutes. The bill’s main purposes are to introduce a trailing liabilities scheme relating to the rehabilitation of declared mine land, to clarify the operation of rehabilitation plans and declared mine rehabilitation plans, to provide additional mechanisms for the variation of rehabilitation plans and declared mine rehabilitation plans and to require notice of any change in control of corporate declared mine licences.

Effectively what the bill introduces is a call-back provision. This nominates a personal entity to whom the minister can give a remedial direction. A remedial direction is a direction to take certain actions or responsibility to rehabilitate or remediate a particular site. A remedial direction means a direction given by the minister, so effectively this enables a minister to direct a set of works to occur, works that may be on a historical site, may be on a site where mining has occurred previously and may relate to a site anywhere in the state. There are a number of matters that the government have said here. They have said this is fundamentally aimed at the brown coal sites in the Latrobe Valley. That is their intention, but that is not what the legislation says. This is an important point to make – that it actually could apply to any site in the state. It could apply to any situation where there has been mining that has occurred historically.

The bill amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, and this is designed to implement the government’s public commitment, announced on 6 May 2022, to introduce such a trailing liabilities scheme in relation to the declared mines, which comprise the three Latrobe Valley coalmines – that is, ENGIE’s Hazelwood mine, EnergyAustralia’s Yallourn mine and AGL’s Loy Yang mine. The provisions aim to ensure the mining industry remains responsible for the rehabilitation and closure of the coalmines as Victoria transitions away from coal-fired energy.

The bill is similar to provisions passed by the Commonwealth for decommissioning offshore infrastructure. But note that there is an important difference with Victoria’s situation where the department and the ministers can monitor mines, take rehabilitation bonds up-front and otherwise intervene earlier if it looks as if there is a need to guarantee a proper rehabilitation effort by a particular mine. The government has said:

The trailing liabilities scheme is a measure of last resort to provide financial assurance to the State of Victoria where there is no feasible alternative to enforce existing rehabilitation obligations against the current or former declared mine licensee.

The trailing provisions do not change existing rehabilitation obligations. Those obligations remain. The government said:

The scheme will enable the Minister to –

so-called –

‘call back’ a party, via a remedial direction, to carry out or pay the costs of rehabilitation and post-closure work where the Minister is satisfied it is appropriate to do so.

A person subject to a call back can only be called back if the minister is satisfied that it is reasonably appropriate to do so after considering whether they have or may receive significant financial benefit for work authorised under a declared mine licence and/or they have a degree of influence or have acted jointly with the mining licensee. This has the intention to capture people who may be involved – it is a joint and several liability kind of model, in that sense. The government claims this is modelled on the Commonwealth legislation and the decommissioning of facilities, for example, in the North West Shelf. It excludes employees and contractors.

The second part of the bill also amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act to provide an additional mechanism for rehabilitation plans and clarifies rehabilitation to declared mines. The bill claims to address longstanding inefficiencies in the minister’s power for work authorisations. It seeks to provide for more clarity in how a code of compliance applies under the new duty-based regime introduced in the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023. The department officials devised the recall power to address a so-called missing link in the powers required to ensure mine rehabilitation is effectively implemented. They have indicated a review will be conducted at 10 years, and there are some requirements around it. Before making a remedial direction, the minister is required to consult with a wide group of people, including persons subject to the call back to whom the minister proposes to give the remedial direction, the Premier, the Treasurer and a list of others. A number of entities are protected from the bill and cannot be subject to call back: the state of Victoria, a minister of the Crown, departments or administrative offices, bodies under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1992 and local government.

It is interesting here that the government is prepared to take a retrospective stick to the private sector but it is not prepared to apply the same requirements to itself. Let us be clear: these three coalmines all have a long history, going back deep into the last century, when they were all publicly owned. For a large period of their time they were owned by the state of Victoria. Ministers and departments and agencies were responsible entirely, 100 per cent, for what happened there. They have been onsold to private groups. However, given the wide gamut of this, it is curious that the government has sought to protect the public sector but is prepared to take a stick to private sector entities and individuals – and note it is individuals and entities. If in a retrospective look a public sector individual or a public sector agency was seen to have done the wrong thing, why should they be exempted? Why should they not contribute when in fact that might be the conclusion? So it is a very curious point that this double standard is applied here, where it does not matter what error or what evil was done by a public entity, they can never be held responsible according to this legislation, yet a private body can be retrospectively held to account. I understand what the government is trying to do here. I understand the objectives of the rehabilitation, I understand that there are entities and individuals who behave wrongly and dishonourably and I understand what the government is seeking to attend to here. However, it is always a concern where there is clear retrospective legislation of this type.

There is no doubt that the bill will inevitably add uncertainty and cost for new mines and established mines, and whilst the government says it intends this to apply only to the three coalmines, that is not what the legislation says. The legislation could apply to any mine or any former mine anywhere in the state of Victoria. That has had the effect of chilling a number of parts of the private sector. They have certainly spoken to me. I have met with a number. A key industry participant is critical of the government’s amendments and is opposing the bill. Their concerns are (1) they are looking to redevelop their mine site and in doing so providing a benefit for the local community that has hosted their operations for generations. The pathway to achieving rehabilitation is already complex, and the framework makes it even harder to support new investment in the region. Concern (2) is that retrospectively applying a legal obligation that continues indefinitely is excessive – a last-resort measure that will introduce greater risks for accommodating new investment. This opens the door to a new kind of sovereign risk. Who would want to invest in Victoria, knowing that the government is ready, willing and able to change the rules after the fact? These are legitimate points that have been directly raised with me. Concern (3) is that they are working towards creating a positive legacy – that is, they just consulted on a declared mine rehabilitation plan, but it is inefficient and ill-conceived responses like this that erode the trust about what is needed to make a legacy last.

Cement, Concrete & Aggregates Australia expresses concerns with the bill. These concerns are that the bill should (1) provide practical definitions of reportable events – clause 7; and (2) provide a meaningful consultation process and clarity around the definition of a significant burden when varying work authorities – clauses 16 and 17 specifically. They oppose clause 56 on codes of compliance in that it should include proportional flexibility for lower risk sites, applying a risk-based approach rather than strictly mandatory actions. A number of groups made the point to me that Victoria’s regulatory regime has got to remain internationally competitive to attract investment, support productivity growth and contribute to a number of the other key objectives that we all have for the economy and jobs.

The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies is critical of the government’s amendments. Their concerns are – and I am going to step through these – about the trailing liabilities scheme in division 8; there is an unclear statute of limitations, and retrospective application could expose companies, directors or individuals to significant financial risks. There is ambiguity about who qualifies as a person subject to call back, and liability for former operators is unclear. They say in relation to declared mine definition and scope that the criteria for declaring a mine are broad and uncertain, creating potential future regulatory or financial exposure. This is my point. Whilst the government says it is only going to apply this to the three coalmines, that is actually not what the legislation allows; the legislation is much broader. For licence variations, removal of the consultation requirement reduces procedural protections and raises concerns about natural justice. Concern 4 is about recognition and settlement agreements: the bill introduces new terminology linked to the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010, but the meaning of recognition and its implications for operators is unclear. Concern 5 is about former holder liability: ambiguity exists over who qualifies as a former holder of a lower risk authority. The retrospective period, from 6 May, and any statute of limitations could create ongoing liability from past operators.

So we did consult widely. I thank the department and the minister for the briefing, which was held on 5 November. We did talk to the minerals council, the minerals sector and individuals. We consulted energy producers, small and large businesses and people from the Melbourne Mining Club, the Construction Material Processors Association and Cement, Concrete & Aggregates Australia. Many in the sector have expressed concern about the bill.

As I say, we will not oppose this – we understand why the government wants to introduce this – but we are very uneasy about the application of this bill. It is one of those situations where, even when the minister may give assurances about what is intended and what the minister may do, the minister may not be the minister forever, and a new minister at a future time may look at the plain words of the act and choose to proceed on the basis of those plain words rather than effective undertakings that are being given at this time. There are real questions about the call-back provisions and the trailing liabilities scheme in relation to the declared mines in the Latrobe Valley. There are legitimate objectives in ensuring those mines are satisfactorily rehabilitated. The bill contains clearly retrospective provisions. There are concerns not just in the Latrobe Valley but from other miners, as I have said. We will certainly ask some questions briefly in committee. As I say, we have some genuine concerns about the bill and how a future minister may choose to apply the bill.

The purview of the bill, as I say, is very wide if it is read in a plain reading, so the concerns are there. Victoria has got to ensure that its energy sector, mineral sector and extractive industry sectors are competitive, that there is investment and that those sectors bring forward not just the minerals, energy and building materials that are required but contribute to the growth of the state. The uncertainty created by this sort of bill is increasingly worrying those who would invest in the state. I put those points on the public record. We will see what the minister has to say, particularly in his summing-up, and we will decide at that point whether we need a committee stage or not.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:51): I rise to speak to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. The Greens will be supporting this bill, which will introduce a trailing liabilities scheme for Victoria’s three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley: ENGIE’s Hazelwood mine, EnergyAustralia’s Yallourn mine and AGL’s Loy Yang mine. We absolutely believe that polluters must pay for the damage they are doing, to both our environment and climate. That is why the Greens secured the inquiry into cleaning up oil and gas infrastructure, and it is why we are calling for laws to make the big polluters pay.

Trailing liabilities create a fail-safe against fossil fuel giants shirking their obligations to rehabilitate mine sites by selling them off to some other company. We know private fossil fuel companies will do whatever they can to maximise profits and minimise cost, regardless of what it means for either the environment or the general public. That is why the Commonwealth government had to introduce their trailing liabilities scheme in the first place, because Woodside sold off an ageing, decrepit oil vessel, the Northern Endeavour, to a company that could not afford to decommission it. That is bad for the climate, it is bad for the immediate environment, and it was bad for taxpayers; we were left on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs.

The Greens support the government’s plan for a trailing liabilities scheme for Victoria’s three big coal mines, but we cannot let oil and gas companies off the hook. With Labor still approving new oil and gas projects, including a new gas import terminal in a state that is a net exporter, the scheme should at the very least cover all mining projects. That means oil and gas mines, gold mines, antimony mines and future mines for critical minerals. These sorts of mines are proliferating across Victoria, particularly across regional Victoria in electorates like mine. The lack of robust trailing liabilities schemes is amongst the many concerns local communities have about projects like the Donald project in Minyip in the northern part of Western Victoria. I have spoken in this place about the serious concerns that communities have around this particular mine. There is also the gold mine expansion that is happening with the Fosterville Gold Mine near Bendigo.

While there are obviously significant concerns from these communities about the environmental and health impacts during the operation of these mines, there is deep scepticism that they will be held accountable when it comes time for cleaning up their mess. That is why the Greens commonsense amendments expand the scheme to cover all mining projects in Victoria. This includes offshore projects, which we believe should be consistent with the federal scheme. I ask if the clerks could kindly circulate my amendments now. The amendments we are proposing would fill a loophole stakeholders already explained at the Greens-initiated inquiry into offshore oil and gas decommissioning. We know trailing liabilities schemes are only one component of ensuring companies properly rehabilitate their mines. The Greens are also going to have questions during committee stage relating to the ministerial discretion when it comes to the declaration of mines and the quality of the earth resources regulator as well as the strength of the EPA’s general environmental duty.

I thank Tracey Anton and the Friends of Latrobe Water for advocating on the actual integrity of mine rehabilitation. When we talk about mine rehabilitation, what many people may not appreciate is that for many mines, especially the designated mines in the Latrobe Valley, it means filling them up with water. That is what mine rehabilitation actually looks like. That water can currently come from groundwater or river water, and the broader environmental impact of this cannot be understated. For anyone who has not seen those mine pits in the Latrobe Valley, it is worth going and taking a look. They are simply enormous. The volumes of water required to fill them are absolutely mind boggling. If this water comes from the Latrobe River or groundwater – and those systems are connected, as groundwater is connected to our river systems – the downstream flows to systems like the Gippsland Lakes and all the ecosystems that depend on those waterways all the way downstream will be existentially threatened. This is not to mention the impact of toxins that are very likely to leach out of the mine pits themselves into our groundwater systems, because with these big pits, the stuff that sits at the bottom of them is absolutely toxic. When it mixes with water and leaches into the groundwater systems, it then ends up in our waterways.

Further, there is current consideration of the creation of data centres in this region. Now, I know that is not immediately relevant to this bill, but when you think about the amount of water that they are going to need for their operations, I think we are going to have a serious problem when it comes to water security in an area that historically has probably been one of the areas in Victoria that has had less stress on some of its waterways. I mean, they are all stressed, but compared to some other parts of Victoria that have been in quite protracted droughts – we have got massive threats to our water security, even in the slightly wetter parts of our state, because of projects like this, because of these mine sites and because of things like data centres. I think what it raises is this idea that we have to start holding industries accountable. Water – our river water and our groundwater – is not just an infinite resource that we can just buy and sell. It is finite in its availability, and it is more than just a resource; it is a life source for all living creatures, including us.

We know that as populations are growing, and as Victoria’s population grows, we are going to have to find other sources of water to meet our needs. The current sources we have will not meet our everyday needs just for our everyday consumption, and that is before you add in industry needs. Industries should not be using potable water, river water or groundwater to meet their additional needs above what people and our environment need. If they need water to support their businesses, whether it is to fill a mine pit or whether it is to cool a data centre, they should be responsible for investing in the infrastructure to produce it from other sources, like recycled water. As we move into a hotter, drier future, we are going to need water from diverse sources, and we cannot continue to decimate our river systems to meet this need. The most extractive industries should have to contribute to the cost of these alternative sources, and they should be the ones that have to rely on that, not just assume by-right access to our rivers and our groundwater.

Looking forward, the Greens are also devastated to hear that Labor intends to abolish the independent Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority and transfer those functions to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. The point of the authority when it was set up in Morwell in 2020 was to be an independent authority working with government, industry and the community. Losing that independence, those staff members and those relationships could be devastating for the Latrobe community and environment. We call on the government to make that transition with care, compassion and a long-term view that ensures the valley does not lose that crucial capacity.

I will speak a bit later in further detail about our amendments, but as I mentioned before, the main purpose of our amendments is to expand the application to all mines across Victoria. We believe this is the responsible thing to do. We think this bill is overall a very positive step forward, but it is the very least that we should be doing in this space. We should be going much further to protect our environment and to protect the local communities that are going to have to live with the consequences of these mining projects for many decades to come.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:00): I am very pleased to speak on this bill. For generations coalmining has played a significant role in powering Victoria and supporting regional communities. Communities have grown around these industries, and workers and their families have contributed enormously to the prosperity of our state. That contribution must be recognised and respected. But when mining comes to an end, that obligation does not end with it. Rehabilitation and reinstatement are essential. It is essential to ensure that land is made safe and stable, that water systems are protected and that environmental damage is minimised.

The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025 is a bill that provides contemporary environmental rehabilitation requirements in relation to the decommissioning of coalmines. Coalmine closures in Victoria are currently the result of decisions made by privately owned companies responding to market forces, ageing infrastructure and the global energy transition. Any government’s responsibility is to manage that transition in an orderly, fair and responsible way, one that protects workers, communities and the environment. The private sector understands the reality of climate change. Governments – federal, state, here and around the world – understand it too. Climate change must be managed, and denial does nothing to protect jobs, communities or regional economies.

In my brief contribution I just want to sum up by saying that this bill amends the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to create a trailing liabilities scheme, specifying whom the minister can call back to rehabilitate or fund rehabilitation if a declared mine licensee cannot meet the rehabilitation obligation. There are a number of parties that can be called to take responsibility for that, and they are specified in the bill. In conclusion, I just want to say that this is a very logical amendment to the bill and a very useful tool to make sure particularly that communities surrounding coalmines are able to experience a more beautiful environment or perhaps even a partial return to the environment that was there before the coalmine existed. I commend the bill to the house.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:03): I also rise to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. This bill reaches directly into my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region, and it rewrites the rules after the fact for three major sites in the Latrobe Valley: Hazelwood, Yallourn and Loy Yang. These places, with history, labour and sacrifice behind them, were the backbone of a thriving Latrobe Valley. They powered Victoria, they put food on the table for thousands and thousands of families, they powered this state for generations and their employment provided thousands of families with security and a future. In fact it was cheap energy in Victoria that made Victoria the place to be, to come, to get ahead, to start a business, to buy a farm, to invest, to break the cycle of poverty and to have hope for a future. In some way, shape or form every single one of us in Victoria owes a debt of gratitude for that. Respecting that contribution means ensuring these sites are properly rehabilitated. Proper rehabilitation of mines is a legitimate objective. The community expects that these sites will be made safe and restored. It is also reasonable to expect that this will occur without a huge burden on the Victorian taxpayer.

My concern is not the goal, it is the mechanism this Labor government is proposing. This bill introduces a trailing liabilities scheme with call-back powers, meaning liability can follow parties long after they have exited the project. These powers apply retrospectively to May 2022 and extend beyond current operators. Further, they allow the minister to issue directions not only to former owners but to parties the minister deems related as well. This is an absolutely extraordinary step. Retrospective obligations always demand a very strong justification, especially when their targets are broad and undefined.

This government says the powers are intended only for the three Latrobe Valley coalmines – and Mr Davis mentioned this before – yet the drafting allows them to reach much further than that. It extends into broader extractive industries. At the same time, the government claims it does not intend to use these powers more widely. This, to me, is an incredible contradiction. If the powers are not intended to be used, surely their inclusion in this bill is completely redundant. If they are necessary, the government should be honest about how and when they intend to use these powers. Legislating permanent broad powers while promising not to exercise them is either extremely reckless or deliberately deceptive.

There are also serious risks in retrospective revenue raising. The bill relies on whether a party is deemed to have profited or benefited. That is very vague, and it is a very subjective test. It opens the door to financial liability long after activities and contracts have ended. It allows governments to reach back in time and impose new costs under the banner of rehabilitation. We have seen this logic before. Renters and business owners near the Suburban Rail Loop were left to pay the government’s new windfall tax simply for living close enough to the SRL. The concern is that similar reasoning could be applied here, not just to companies but potentially across communities and industries.

There is also a glaring imbalance in this bill. The call-back powers do not apply to the state of Victoria, regardless of the fact that the three sites that we are talking about used to belong to the state of Victoria. They do not apply to ministers. They do not apply to government departments, state-owned enterprises or local councils. Parliament and the public sector are excluded from the very powers this Labor government is desperate to impose on others. I think that is hypocritical.

The people of the Latrobe Valley understand what that means. They have seen how contracts and taxes for their mines and power stations have been changed overnight. They have seen their energy industry completely dismantled. They have seen thousands of livelihoods destroyed through the closure of Victoria’s world-leading renewable native timber industry. They have lived through the continual heavy-handedness and the decisions imposed from here in Melbourne with a cold disregard for, and just no ability to understand what it is like to live in, regional communities. These are the lessons learned the hard way.

The Latrobe Valley is trying to rebuild. Our communities are desperate for redevelopment. They are desperate for new industries. The Latrobe Valley wants a future beyond the coal industry and what was stripped away under the Labor government. This situation is already difficult. Adding further uncertainty makes it even harder. Investors will think twice if obligations can be extended indefinitely, even after compliance. This debate speaks to stewardship in the fullest sense: care for land, care for communities and care in the exercise of power. Caring for the environment does not require punishing the same communities again and again. For 10 years – a decade – Latrobe Valley residents have borne the cost of ideologically driven decisions made far from their homes. Rehabilitation must be done properly, but it must also be done fairly, with clear limits, with transparency and with respect for people who carried this state for many generations. For these reasons, the coalition’s position is an on-balance one. We recognise the importance of rehabilitation; we absolutely do. We do not seek to undermine it. But this bill does not deserve unequivocal support. It demands scrutiny, restraint and accountability before such extraordinary powers are normalised.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:11): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. This legislation seeks to create a trailing liabilities scheme for declared mines in Victoria, meaning that mine operators that have been running declared mines have the financial responsibility to rehabilitate them. We know that declared mines are some of the most complex and risky to rehabilitate, and they present a truly significant challenge, one that our government takes extraordinarily seriously, particularly when it comes to ensuring that declared mines will be rehabilitated in full and without risk to the Victorian taxpayer. You see, this legislation will further ensure mining is done in a way that protects the environment and cultural and social values and is in line with the expectations of traditional owners.

It is worth saying that this increased level of safety is vitally important, because this government understands that Victoria’s critical minerals are one of the keys to our state’s renewable energy future. Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries simply cannot be built without them. The communities that supply us with these critical raw materials and will in fact power our state’s future deserve protection, safety and new economic opportunities. This bill will, importantly, provide all of those things, implementing a trailing liabilities scheme that will specify whom the minister can call back to rehabilitate or to fund rehabilitation if a declared mine licensee cannot meet their obligations for rehabilitation. This means the minister will now have the power to make sure that mining operators are held responsible for the rehabilitation of their own declared mines. It will protect Victorian taxpayers from having to foot the bill to rehabilitate these declared mines, and most importantly it will ensure that retired mines are not only safe but are made into assets for the local community.

Non-rehabilitated declared mines represent a genuine risk to local communities – communities that in some cases were built around these mines. They are inherently risky landscapes due to their physical and chemical characteristics, and their interactions with both the natural environment and humans do present those risks. It is imperative that at the end of their lives they must be rehabilitated to be made safe by those that derive the greatest financial benefit from the mining projects themselves, and that is why, importantly, this is before us and we are here getting this legislation right.

But it would be remiss of me to talk about mining without recognising the importance of critical resource mining to our state and letting you all know that this government knows very, very clearly that critical mineral mining is key to building renewable energy projects across the state – projects like the SEC’s renewable energy park in Horsham that will utilise more than 200,000 solar panels and will power more than 50,000 homes. There are projects like the renewable energy hub in Plumpton in Melbourne’s north-west, which I have had the good fortune of visiting. It is one of the biggest batteries in the world. It will soak up abundant renewable energy during the day, and it will use it to power over 200,000 homes at night when demand is high. There are also projects like the Delburn wind farm, which will sit next to the Hazelwood power station and will ensure that the Latrobe Valley remains the beating heart of the SEC and Victoria’s energy generation. None of these renewable energy projects are possible without mining and resources. This bill will make sure Victoria’s critical minerals can continue to be a key component of our state’s renewable energy future and that the SEC will have adequate steel for wind turbines, copper for solar panels and cobalt for batteries, which will slash household energy bills and cut our state’s emissions.

There is so much that we could reflect on, but I just want to tell a little story about Spain. It is a little far from here, I know, but it is worth saying that in Spain there is a Lake Meirama in the province of A Coruña. Now, what I have learned about this place is that it is a former open-cast lignite mine, which has been transformed into a huge man-made lake and protected natural area. This former mine is now home to an abundance of flora and fauna and hundreds of thousands of trees. It is now designated as a carbon dioxide sink and 862 animal and plant species have been identified as calling that former mine home. Maybe, just maybe, we can have some stories like that here, and you know what, they are underway. Part of the Fosterville Gold Mine, which is still operational, has been returned to a box-ironbark forest, and part of the Splitters Creek evaporation facility has been restored to its original wetlands landform, providing a home for native species. The rehabilitation of the Davis Pit near Stawell is well underway, with the site being backfilled and seeded. These are some of the examples just here in our own backyard, but rehabilitation prevents some critical risks to the safety of local communities. That is why doing rehabilitation matters, and if you do it right, it can have enormous environmental benefits.

I am very pleased to have read this bill and provided some commentary on it today. I hope that with the bill we can see some more tacit social benefits that this legislation will provide and opportunities for the beautiful Latrobe Valley, as it continues to be part of our renewable energy future in that most beloved SEC. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:17): I am pleased to rise to make a short contribution on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. It was introduced, I think, last October and it is making its way through the house. As my lead speaker Mr Davis said when he spoke for the Liberals and Nationals, we will not be opposing this bill, but we do want to make some very valid points around some of the concerns that we have in relation to the trailing liabilities scheme, the call-back persons and the fact that this bill is certainly retrospective but only insofar as the private companies are concerned, not of course going all the way back into government, where –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): We are going to suspend the sitting.

Sitting suspended 4:18 pm until 4:38 pm.

Melina BATH: I rise again to speak on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025, and I want to continue some comments on this very important region of our state, very important to the history of our state, a very important economic powerhouse, literally, of our state, and indeed then on the present and looking to the future. The other day we had a condolence motion on the tragedy in Bondi, and I mentioned a very important figure in Australia’s history, very much so in Victoria: Sir John Monash. At the end of the First World War, when our community was re-engaging in what could be seen as normal life, the opportunity, the need for power and for unified electricity, was the perfect spot, perfect placement, for Sir John Monash to come and use all of his engineering and technical skills, so it was formed back around the 1920s. I am not going to go through chapter and verse of all of the decades, but what I will say is that I have a very proud connection to the mines and indeed the SEC and that my grandfather was a regional engineer in the SEC and put power on right throughout the state in the 1950s and 60s. He travelled around the state. His primary love of course was Gippsland and the hills in Gippsland.

The mines have had an evolving history. As our state grew and our needs for power grew, so too did the depth of the mines and the extent of the mines, to the point where they are some of the deepest in the world. I take the point that we could look around the world at other regions, whether it be Germany in Europe or other places, for rehabilitation options and plans, but we are quite a unique space in that our mines are very deep. Of course, part of that rehabilitation plan must be feeding back in and making them, as Hazelwood was when Hazelwood was decommissioned and then removed, ‘safe, stable and sustainable’ – the slogan is a very real one. That is an important slogan, in effect, or mantra, but it is also very important to implement.

When you look at those three mines, the Hazelwood mine, the Yallourn mine and the Loy Yang mine with their respective companies that have had in the past and now still have jurisdiction over them as the private companies that own them, they have some serious work to do. I know they take that very seriously indeed. When Hazelwood was rapidly closed in 2017, and then subsequently there was deconstruction of the actual power station, as opposed to the mine, great care was taken when the power station was decommissioned and deconstructed to the nth degree. I know I had some of ENGIE’s personnel and highly regarded decommissioning staff in my office explaining, degree by degree, the level of scrutiny and safety of unpacking a very old power station with asbestos throughout and making sure that that part of it was done safely, both for those in the decommissioning process and of course for the town’s people, a very important aspect. It went down, and the stacks went down, as planned, in April a few years later, but also then there is the decommissioning of that whole environment and area so that it can be rehabilitated. This is the issue that we are looking at today in terms of this bill, and also the depth of the Hazelwood mine.

As people have said, when it first happened there were many ideas about what to do with the mine. One of them I know was a Jurassic Park–like landscape and regrowing trees down there, and it sounded like a wonderful idea in concept. But of course, a mine void has to be depressurised consistently in order to remain stable. Once you have stopped doing the mining per se, then the companies, and indeed the state as the important oversight mechanism, have to ensure that the mine is stable. And one of the best ways to do that – unfortunately for people who wanted to have a Jurassic Park or parkland and activities down in the mine, that is not going to fly in the long term, because you have got to be able to provide pressure. Contention still reigns about a half pit lake or a full pit lake – these are all things that have to be worked through, not only for Hazelwood but for EnergyAustralia’s Yallourn mine, which is coming up – it has had a river divergence through it – and then into the long term, the Loy Yang mine. These are all very important issues that must be addressed. I reject the overtones of the Greens saying that the companies want to get away with as much as they can in terms of absconding from the correct thing to do in the rehabilitation.

From my experience dealing with ENGIE and Hazelwood – and I have no affiliation with them whatsoever – they took that role very seriously, and I have seen no evidence to say that EnergyAustralia or Loy Yang A would not do the same but would be serious and sincere in what happens. Also, in relation to some of the commentary around being safe, sustainable and stable, water is a very precious resource, and I agree entirely on that. Of course there were mining licences to do with Hazelwood and the other associated factories, and when that has turned, what to do and how to fill that lake mine pit is a very important issue. There are environmental water and downstream water and wetlands that need to be facilitated and supported into healthy states – that is absolute. There is also the Latrobe River and there are irrigators that need to be supported and have their share, we will say, to grow our food and fibre in Gippsland, one of the most productive food bowls of the country. There is also then what to do with the water. I am not going to pretend to be an expert, but all of these competing requirements, competing tensions, need to be balanced.

I note that after the mine fire and then the mine fire inquiry we had the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority established at some stage. I have great respect, certainly, for the scientists and the commissioner that were set up there and the subsequent members there. In the Silver review, I might say, the government has now deemed that it is going to be phagocyted and absorbed back into the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. Whether that is a good idea or not is to be determined. But certainly that oversight was independent. It was an authority, so it was an independent voice, with scientists. They had, I hope, a level of – without fear or favour – discussion, interrogation and recommendation and commentary back to government. That might have been a reason why they were reabsorbed back in and disassembled. That is happening as we speak, I believe. But there are important issues that the mine rehabilitation authority dealt with, and these issues still exist and will exist into the future. As I say, all companies need to deliver a climate resilient, environmentally safe and fully costed and water feasible rehabilitation plan. That is in legislation, and that is not going anywhere.

For me, I am very passionate about the Latrobe Valley – indeed, my office is there, and I spend a lot of time there. I cherish the people that have made that region, and I cherish the people that live there now, that want direction from government. One entity that the government did instigate – it came and blossomed and produced a wonderful report at the end of it that had lots of recommendations, but they were not recommendations, they were lots of aspirations with no detail – was the Latrobe Valley Authority. I will not go any further than to say it came and went, and I am not actually sure of the net benefit overall, other than the initial transition packages, or what it did. Go and look up the brochure – lots of aspiration but nothing on the ground that I could see. This region certainly deserves our nurturing and care and respect and not any mudslinging on it.

Then of course we had the SEC. I do not think the Liberals or the Nationals – I will speak for myself – would mind if the SEC came and went, because it was not well received back in 2022. It was not universally loved – we would not see Martin Cameron there as a starter point. The Labor candidate was a very nice person, but it certainly did not resonate with the people of that electorate. However, one of the things that is certainly important to note with this trailing liabilities legislation – and I know Mr Davis has prosecuted this quite well – is that it is retrospective only to the private companies. Some would say that is great. Others would say, ‘Why are you stopping at government?’ because of course, as I have just said, government started this back in the day – decades, a hundred years ago – and then, for the record, Joan Kirner began the privatisation and Jeff Kennett finished it off. So let us not try and manipulate the truth; I like just speaking the facts. What we want to see is that there is a fair system. It defines the persons who may receive a call back and remedial directions from the minister. The minister has quite a lot of power within this bill, and I note that the Liberals and Nationals are quite concerned with some of the aspects.

I will leave my contribution there, but I will say finally that I do not believe I have seen any evidence where mining companies to date are not complying in the Latrobe Valley and are not complying with their requirements under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990. I have not seen anything other than the utmost care and consideration about what to do with the mines and the planning that needs to happen there. I guess my one call on government would be that, as this government is rolling out these bills and putting additional requirements or additional sticks into the future, let this government not be tardy in the way it plans and brings about rehabilitation. Let this government not be the dragging-of-the-chain entity that stops the development, the redevelopment and the rehabilitation. Make sure this government is doing the right thing by the environment, by water, by sustainability and by the people of Latrobe Valley and the wider Victorian population.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:52): I stand to support the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. It was interesting to listen to the contribution from the Nationals, who of course privatised so much of our energy and mining resources and who have had nationally – I will not talk about Victoria of course – very questionable actions in the space. But anyway, we will leave that there.

This bill will amend the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, introduce a trailing liabilities regime for declared mine licensees and make various other technical amendments to the regulatory framework governing mines and quarries in Victoria. Obviously we know that minerals and resources are incredibly important to our state and our nation, so it is important that we are able to access them and use them to better our quality of life and better our economic position. However, that must always be done while balancing the needs of the state and good, sustainable management of the land and outcomes for local communities.

It is good to see this bill in this place and the fact that a trailing liabilities regime will be in place. It will be a measure of last resort, but it is there so the minister has the ability to direct the rehabilitation and the costs that apply to it. I am going to keep my contribution short, but I just want to put on the record my support for it and my support for ensuring that we have adequate legislation in place for what is a critically important sector in our state and one that we have got to make sure strikes the right balance for this generation and for others to come.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (16:54): I thank all members for their contributions this afternoon on the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment (Financial Assurance) Bill 2025. The three Latrobe Valley coalmines at Hazelwood, Yallourn and Loy Yang are all preparing for rehabilitation over the next decade. Hazelwood was decommissioned in March 2017. ENGIE is now progressing through an environment effects statement process for rehab of that mine. The Yallourn power station is scheduled to close in 2028. EnergyAustralia has recently consulted publicly on a draft declared mine rehabilitation plan for Yallourn, and AGL has announced a committed closure date of 30 June 2035 for Loy Yang A. The significant risks associated with the stability and safety of the Latrobe Valley coalmines to the community, the environment and infrastructure led to them being classified as declared mines under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 in September 2010. It is these same risks and the scale of the rehabilitation requirements, so much greater than for a typical mine, that have led the government to seek to establish the trailing liabilities scheme to ensure that those companies who have profited so greatly from these mines also pay the cost of their rehabilitation, not the taxpayer. I think that goes to some of the contributions from members of the opposition around why this only applies to these three mines. That is the key driver here.

The bill provides for the act to be amended to create a trailing liabilities scheme, specifying whom the minister can call back to rehabilitate or fund rehabilitation if a declared mine licensee cannot meet their rehabilitation obligation. The parties that can be called back include former declared mine licence holders who held the licence on or after 6 May 2022; a related body corporate of the current declared mining licence holder or former licensees who held the licence on or after 6 May 2022; and a related person, as determined by the minister, considering whether that person benefited significantly financially, influenced rehabilitation compliance or acted jointly with the declared mine licensee. The bill includes procedural fairness requirements and information-gathering powers as part of the process for the minister to determine who is a related person, and further, the bill specifically excludes employees and contractors from being able to be determined by the minister to be a person subject to call back, to address public concerns that they could be captured.

The bill introduces a notification requirement for declared mine licensees to report changes in ownership control to the department head. The bill makes clarifying minor technical and consequential amendments to the act and the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023, including amendments relating to rehab plans and declared mine rehab plans, the minister’s power to vary mineral licences and extraction industry work authorities, and the code of compliance under the new duty-based regime to be introduced by the 2023 amendment act. This is a measure of last resort and fills in a gap in the protections for Victorians when it comes to ensuring that the corporations who have benefited from these mines pay the costs of rehabilitating them, rather than the taxpayer. Trailing liabilities reforms do not add new rehabilitation requirements but help ensure existing ones are delivered.

Mr Davis, you raised a couple of issues in your contribution, and I would like to thank you for that, but I am also just going to respond to a few of those issues, which might be helpful to you. First and foremost, I just want to point out that you are incorrect on a critical matter. The bill applies a trailing liabilities scheme only to a declared mine or quarry. The minister cannot declare just any mine or quarry to be a declared mine or quarry; they must meet those strict requirements around geological or water risks that pose a significant risk to public safety, the environment or infrastructure. There are only three declared mines, and there are no declared quarries. In relation to your concerns regarding the retrospectivity of this bill, this is because the government’s intent was announced on 6 May 2022, and it was announced that it would apply to the three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley, thereby providing a really lengthy lead time for these companies to prepare for such a provision. In relation to ambiguity on who may be called back, as noted in the minister’s second-reading speech in the other place, it is intended to be rare for an individual to be captured by the bill, and employees and contractors are specifically excluded. The reality is that specific ownership and management arrangements of mining operations can vary greatly. However, the intention clearly remains that this bill will capture parties who have a sufficiently significant relationship with the declared mine licensee through financial benefit, degree of influence or joint action for it to be reasonable for them to contribute to the rehabilitation. In relation to amendments within this bill that clarify how the new duties model will work, they clarify the operation of codes of compliance under the new duty regime so that some elements in the codes can be mandatory and other elements can be optional but if complied with amount to compliance with the duty.

The government does not support the amendments from Dr Mansfield and the Greens in relation to expanding a trailing liabilities scheme to all mines, not just declared mines. The scheme is designed to be a measure of last resort targeted at the highest risk sites, where licensee default would result in significant costs being borne by Victorian taxpayers. The scheme is not appropriate or applicable for the majority of mine licensees, where the rehabilitation requirements are much less complex and onerous. To treat every single mine in the same risk category as a declared mine would represent an unacceptable burden on resources projects in Victoria which carry significantly less risk to the state.

This bill also has a retroactive effect. For the past three years there has been a clear and loud signal that it would cover only the three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley. This has allowed three organisations many years to prepare for the eventuality that such a scheme would come into effect. To retroactively apply this complex legal burden on every current and future operating mine in the state of Victoria would significantly undermine the resources industry just as we are on the cusp of securing hundreds of billions of dollars in critical minerals and rare earths vital for the renewable energy, technology and energy transition. The three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley are simply the largest, most significant rehabilitation risks to the taxpayer and therefore, unlike other operations, require additional tools to secure their rehabilitation in line with their declared mine rehabilitation plans.

Finally, a solution to this problem already exists. If a mine did present a greater rehabilitation risk, the minister could declare it and it would immediately be subject to the scheme and the other enhanced rehabilitation requirements for declared mines. It is a requirement that every mine must be properly rehabilitated, and the costs of this rehabilitation must be borne by the mine operators. The three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley are different only in the size, scope and cost of this requirement.

This bill adds a crucial tool for the Victorian government to ensure that these mines are rehabilitated in accordance with their rehabilitation plans and at the cost not of the Victorian taxpayer but of those who have profited from them for many, many years. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (17:05)

David DAVIS: I just want to put on record my thanks to the minister for the summing-up contribution, which was helpful. It had, I might say, the effect of confirming to me that the government intends that the scheme apply only to the three declared mines. I had accepted that already and had made the point in the second-reading discussion, but my reading of the legislation was – and the minister, I think, confirmed this in her contribution – that if the minister or perhaps a future minister felt at a future point that a mine met the criteria and needed to be a declared mine, they could make such a declaration about other mines that met reasonable criteria at a future point.

Ingrid STITT: I think in my summing-up I did indicate that there would be a number of prerequisites required in order for a minister to take such a step, and it would need to be of a reasonable nature, having regard to those predetermined requirements.

David DAVIS: I again thank the minister for confirming that there would be thresholds but nonetheless this could occur. I am not going to labour this point, but I simply want to make the point on the record that we see this as a really very negative signal to the whole sector. And it is not just us making that up – they say that, the aggregates groups, the mining groups. Widely people have said to us that they are concerned with this additional power. They understand about the three coalmines; they do not like that. I understand why the government might want to do that. As I said, I understand the desire to ensure that rehabilitation occurs. But I also just want to put on record that we are very concerned about the signal that this sends and we think that it needs to be more tightly scoped – not something easy to do from opposition, but in government we would look to make sure that in this section there is some greater transparency in some way about the thresholds and the requirements. I will just leave it with that and note our serious concerns.

The other point is that the government has exempted itself – ministers, government agencies and so forth – from any responsibility. And yet ministers, for example, might well have significant oversight and impact on a site. Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical to, as it were, go after the private sector with a big stick but not hold ministers or government agencies responsible where they may have not carried through with matters that they should have?

Ingrid STITT: The bill explicitly excludes the state of Victoria, including ministers and state departments, from being a person who can be subject to a call back, and that is to ensure that the mining industry remains responsible for the rehabilitation and closure of the coalmines as Victoria transitions away from coal-fired energy. That is a very deliberate aspect of the bill. We do not want taxpayers on the hook for the rehabilitation costs of private operations.

David DAVIS: I understand the intent, but I also do understand that a minister or an agency may make errors, may contribute to a difficulty rehabilitating or may actually worsen a rehabilitation situation, yet such individuals would escape free under this regime. Again, I am not going to labour the point. I am just making the point that there are two standards being applied here.

Ingrid STITT: I would just reiterate the fact that rehabilitation plans are required of the operator, which they must adhere to.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a number of questions that, if the minister is okay with it, I will just ask all at clause 1. That makes it easier. In 2020 the Auditor-General released a damning audit of what was then called the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and the Earth Resources Regulator. Systemic regulatory failures encompassed using outdated cost estimates; not periodically reviewing bonds for their sufficiency, including a four-year bond review moratorium for which there is no documentary evidence that it was duly authorised; failure to assure that site rehabilitation had actually occurred before returning bonds; and approving inadequately specified rehabilitation plans with a lack of enforcement activities. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) found that these failures exposed the state to significant financial risk because some sites have been poorly rehabilitated or not treated at all. In response the Earth Resources Regulator acknowledged that it had not effectively discharged its responsibilities and was working to rectify identified issues. Following the recommendations of the 2014 and 2016 inquiries into the Hazelwood mine fire, the Earth Resources Regulator began improving its regulatory performance. However, its early reforms were very broad, and it was not until mid-2018 that the ERR started specifically addressing rehabilitation issues. What assurances can the minister provide to Parliament that the government’s regulator is fit for purpose and will fulfil the government’s expectations and directions as outlined in this bill?

Ingrid STITT: I will seek a bit of advice from the box, Dr Mansfield, in relation to the regulator, as I believe it is not strictly within the scope of the amendments that are before us today. But what I would also indicate is that there are enforcement and compliance elements of the bill which include an offence for failure by a call-back person to comply with remedial direction, and there are penalties for a corporation failing to comply with a remedial direction. But just let me get a little bit of advice from the box.

I am instructed that we are not seeking to change any of the regulatory architecture with this bill. Your question is a little outside the scope of the bill before us, but what I am advised is that the department is acting on the recommendations that are contained in and the findings of the VAGO report.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to new section 84AZZN, which outlines a range of exceptions, state-owned enterprises are listed as exemptions. What assurances can the government provide that the regulator is resourced to ensure members of the government do not hold a political or financial interest in declared mines?

Ingrid STITT: Again, that is not strictly within the scope, but there are obligations on ministers and senior department officials to declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest. There are codes of conduct in place for both ministerial office holders and senior public servants, so there are already mechanisms in place to avoid any such conflict.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With regard to new section 84AZZO, it provides for the minister to determine whether a person is subject to a call back. However, subsection 2 requires that the minister make several considerations when making that determination, for example, whether a person received significant financial benefit. How would the government investigate and consider financial manipulation of declared mines that did not provide an obvious immediate financial benefit, for example, where a mine might be run at a loss, especially for tax purposes?

Ingrid STITT: The regulator would manage that investigation in accordance with the act, and the discretionary power is really necessary to ensure that there is flexibility to consider which persons are appropriate to be issued a remedial direction. There are large-scale companies, as you know, in this sector, who adopt a wide range of corporate structures and joint ventures. That is why that discretionary power exists. The regulator would need to manage an investigation, and the purpose of the bill is to allow us to investigate exactly that issue that you are describing.

Sarah MANSFIELD: There are also exceptions listed under subsection 3, which I have indicated. How would the government ensure, say, consultancies engaged by mine licensees do not use these exceptions by including them as disclaimers to get out of requirements for appropriate testing and modelling?

Ingrid STITT: Could you just repeat that scenario for me, Dr Mansfield?

Sarah MANSFIELD: With the exceptions listed under subsection 3 of 84AZZO, how would the government ensure consultancies engaged by mine licensees do not use disclaimers to get out of requirements for appropriate testing and modelling?

Ingrid STITT: It could be tried, but the trailing liability comes back to the licensee.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just moving on to the new section 84AZZQ, which sets out when a remedial direction can be given, in subsection 1, which is page 10 of the bill, it provides that the minister can make a direction if the minister is satisfied that the minister is not likely to be able to recover rehabilitation costs from the declared mine licensee. Can you explain, generally, how these calculations will be made?

Ingrid STITT: That is quite a detailed scenario or hypothetical there. Just give me one moment.

There is a bond calculation process that happens that is assessing the rehabilitation plan, and that is how that risk is managed and accounted for in the bond scheme.

Sarah MANSFIELD: So with regard to future declared mines, how does the government expect these calculations might need to evolve if and when there are reduced rehabilitation bonds and financial assurance funds?

Ingrid STITT: Do you mean for any of the three existing declared mines now, or do you mean in the future?

Sarah MANSFIELD: In the future.

Ingrid STITT: Right. As I am instructed, they are always changing to reflect the current liability.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Earlier I asked about the potential for financial manipulation for potential financial benefit that was not necessarily obvious. How would the government investigate and consider who profited and when if a remedial direction is necessary?

Ingrid STITT: Through the regulator’s investigation powers.

Sarah MANSFIELD: On page 13 proposed new subsection 84AZZQ(2) provides that in deciding whether to give a remedial direction the minister must take into account any prescribed matter, must follow any prescribed process and may take into account any other matter that the minister reasonably considers appropriate. How does the government define the legal term ‘reasonably’ here, and how does the bill ensure it cannot be manipulated by the licensee or future ministers in ways that make the intended scheme less effective?

Ingrid STITT: It is the common legal meaning of the word ‘reasonable’.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I guess it will be one of those ones where we leave it up to courts, potentially, to interpret. New section 84AZZR sets out requirements for the minister to undertake consultation before making a remedial direction. Now, we know that consultations can be open to all kinds of hypothetical manipulation. People with a vested interest can manipulate the timeframes, certain groups can be excluded, there can be assurances behind closed doors which the public may have no insight into or have any way of investigating. So what kinds of guardrails does this bill have to ensure that consultations are done in good faith with all relevant stakeholders, including core community and environmental groups and within reasonable timeframes?

Ingrid STITT: There are procedural fairness requirements for an individual who might be subject to a call back.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will take that; I will accept that response. But the core of the question was really around ensuring that consultations are genuine, and many communities I think have experienced consultations that were held over Christmas, for example, for a three-week period, with poor notification, which often very much serves the interests of the corporation or private entity that has an interest in things being found in their favour. But we will leave it at that.

With respect to remedial directions, on page 15 of the bill, proposed subsection (1) sets out options for a person subject to a remedial direction. This includes requirements ‘to take out public liability insurance in respect of the rehabilitation of the declared mine land’ or ‘to make a genuine effort to obtain any approval, permit or licence (however described)’, and then it goes on. Shouldn’t mine operators already be required to hold public liability insurance?

Ingrid STITT: Their general duties include the need to rehabilitate throughout the life of the mine and beyond, and they are required to have public liability insurance.

If you do not mind, can I just go back and clarify my answer to your previous question, which is that this bill does not deal with consulting widely in the community. It is about informing the persons being called back that they are being called back, because the whole intent of this bill is to hold those corporations and individuals to account so that the taxpayers are not footing the bill for rehabilitation of declared mines.

Sarah MANSFIELD: How will the government ensure insurance companies agree to public liability insurance required, potentially after the fact, when a remedial direction is necessary?

Ingrid STITT: That is outside the scope of this bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I would just like to say I think it is within the scope. I referred before to the subsection that includes the requirement to take out public liability insurance in respect to the rehabilitation of the declared mine land. So if for whatever reason they did not have adequate public liability insurance and had to then seek it after remedial direction was given, how do we know that will be able to be obtained by the mine licensee?

Ingrid STITT: I am advised that is something that could be dealt with in the remedial directions.

Sarah MANSFIELD: How does the government currently ensure a company holds appropriate funds for all parts of a mine’s life cycle, including future funds for rehabilitation?

Ingrid STITT: I think we touched on this a little earlier in relation to the rehabilitation bond process. The three declared mines of the Latrobe Valley certainly are subject to that process, and that is how we ensure that there are sufficient funds held.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to variations for remedial directions, subsection (2) outlines requirements for the minister to consult certain groups before varying or revoking the remedial direction. Subsection (3) provides that subsection (2) does not apply if the minister considers that the proposed variation or revocation is of a minor or technical nature. How will the government ensure variations and revocations will give proper weight to local communities and the environment above things like the financial interests of the mining company?

Ingrid STITT: Today we are dealing with setting up the trailing liabilities scheme. There are already mechanisms within the existing legislative framework to deal with the scenario that you have just outlined.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The new section 84AZZZA provides for the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to compliance with new section 84AZZV. Doesn’t this potentially create a significant loophole for companies who might seek to exploit the legal notion of ‘reasonably practicable’ during mining operations?

Ingrid STITT: The way in which I would answer that is that this is all about ensuring that there cannot be any artifice in getting around the requirement for declared mines to be liable for the rehabilitation costs that this bill sets up the trailing liability for.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to ministerial variation in clause 16, which amends section 77M of the principal act, there are a whole range of variations that can be made. For example:

…the Minister may, by instrument served on the holder of the extractive industry work authority –

(a) vary an extractive industry work authority …

(b) vary, suspend or revoke a condition of an extractive industry work authority or add a new condition; or

(c) vary, suspend or revoke a condition of a specified class of extractive industry work authority or add a new condition to a specified class of extractive industry work authority.

A vacuum of regulatory oversight in Victoria currently means that disused quarries are used for dumping dodgy clean fill. What does this new ministerial power do to address that regulatory gap?

Ingrid STITT: The bill before us today, Dr Mansfield, is about setting up the trailing liabilities scheme for the three declared mines. It is not intended that quarries are subject to those provisions.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Clause 18, subclause (7) sets out that, for the purposes of new section 84AZWA:

minor variation, in relation to a declared mine rehabilitation plan, means a variation to any part of that declared mine rehabilitation plan that –

(a) does not significantly increase the risk that work set out in the declared mine rehabilitation plan poses –

(i) to the environment; or

(ii) to any member of the public; or

(iii) to land, property or infrastructure in the vicinity of that work …

These questions are in relation to that particular section. We know that because of especially poor actors and regulation, rehabilitation for certain mines is either not possible or safe. You know that we have seen, for example, the explosion of arsenic around farmlands at Woodvale Evaporative Ponds. So how does this bill foster genuine mine regulation so it never gets to a point where a rehabilitation plan carries risks to the environment and/or the community so intense that it cannot be done properly or safely?

Ingrid STITT: This is the whole purpose of not just the amendments before the house today but the legislative framework contained in this act. It is all about setting up rehabilitation plans, holding operators to those plans and setting up a bond system for them so that there are sufficient funds to enable the rehabilitation plan to be adhered to.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I certainly appreciate that that is the intention and welcome that aspect of the bill. I think there is just some understandable concern in the community about the ability of our regulators to ensure that that intent is actually properly fulfilled. Which brings me to my last few questions. Moving on to clause 37, which is related to foreseeable risks, there is a new subsection 12BA(2), which provides that:

Without limiting subsection (1), the duty to eliminate or minimise risk does not apply to a called-back person taking an action required by a remedial direction.

So it recognises that a person issued a remedial direction by the minister under the new trailing liabilities scheme is responsible for meeting rehabilitation obligations in accordance with the remedial direction rather than general obligations of mine licensees. Where are the assurances that the ERR and the EPA are actually capable of assessing foreseeable environmental risks throughout mining operations?

Ingrid STITT: Can I clarify your question? Do you mean for existing mines, or do you mean for future projects that may be subject to approvals through various regulatory mechanisms?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I am talking about the mines that this bill relates to, so the declared mines. At the moment basically there is a new clause that is related to foreseeable risks for those mines. What assurances can you provide that the ERR and the EPA are able to and are capable of assessing those foreseeable environmental risks through the declared mining operations?

Ingrid STITT: I am advised that the regulator has quite significant powers to be able to enforce the legislation and, importantly, to hold operators strictly to delivering what the rehabilitation plan sets out.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think, again, while this is very welcome legislation, there is some understandable concern in the community about the way they have seen regulation work in this space. How will things like foreseeable environmental or health risks be determined? Will it be, as often happens in these cases, that the owner or licensee hires a consultant who does a desktop analysis and provides a written report about future risks, and then that goes to the EPA or ERR and they tick a few boxes to say, ‘Yes, this has been submitted,’ or is there going to be a more fulsome independent analysis of foreseeable risks to the environment and human health?

Ingrid STITT: The rehabilitation plans involve quite extensive work, including ground analysis and expert advice from within the public service. The rehab plans are required to be updated as necessary. I think it is fair to say that the whole basis of the trailing liabilities scheme and the way that we have approached it is very squarely around the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Frankly, it is the job of the regulator to ensure that the work that they do holds these operators to account in relation to all of the issues that you have raised but in particular, for the amendments that are before us today, the necessary financial capacity and the necessary plans to rehabilitate the mine throughout its life and beyond.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Hopefully that is what we will see with these mines as part of this new scheme. Some final questions: clause 56 amends section 14 of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 (MRSDA) to introduce a new part 1A into the principal act, and it introduces a new duty to eliminate or minimise risk of harm for duty holders under the act. A duty is an excellent and overdue reform, but broadly, what assurance can the government provide that these new duties and standards are fit for purpose and relevant for genuine rehabilitation?

Ingrid STITT: I mean, the general duty is a well-known principle in a number of different legislative arrangements, as I know you are aware, Dr Mansfield. I do not know if I can be prescriptive in answering that question, because it is really about the whole system operating in a way to hold operators to account for their general duties to keep the environment safe and clean and keep the community safe. It is a way of ensuring that those things are delivered upon in a flexible and dynamic environment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think one of the concerns about this general duty is that we have heard stories of miners already openly contravening what they can do, even just in the exploratory phase. So how will the ERR ensure that they uphold this new duty throughout all aspects of a mine’s life cycle?

Ingrid STITT: In the first instance I would say that members of the community that might be raising these concerns with you should report any operator who they believe is not complying with their requirements, and it is the job of the regulator to investigate those matters. They have compliance and enforcement powers – quite significant powers – and they can also levy penalties on any operator found to be in breach of their obligations.

If I could just add to that answer, there are higher penalties under this general duty provision in the act.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions, I invite Dr Mansfield to move her amendment 1, which tests all her remaining amendments.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 1, lines 7 to 8, omit “declared mine land” and insert “land covered by mining licences”.

I will speak to all the amendments in a block here. Our amendments, as I mentioned in my second-reading contribution, essentially expand some of the changes that are made in this bill to all mines, not just the three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley. Our amendments would extend the new call-back powers to all mines basically by replacing all references in the bill from ‘declared mine licences’ and ‘declared mine land’ to ‘mine licences’ and ‘mine land’. Specifically, the trailing liabilities scheme set out in the bill is designed to link new liabilities to persons with a licence relating to declared mine land, with those liabilities relating to obligations under a rehabilitation plan. So with these amendments, liabilities could be extended to all mining licences within the meaning of the MRSDA, as an existing scheme for licences and rehabilitation plans is already in place. I think this is quite a natural extension. It fits well within existing schemes.

Our amendment also creates a new part 7D of the MRSDA. This scheme is being inserted into the existing part 7C and, as I said, that only relates currently to the rehabilitation of declared mine land. Our amendments also require definitions to be included for that new part, so that explains our amendment 9.

Finally, there are amendments that change new divisions 9 and 10 which are being inserted into part 7C of the MRSDA, but after the trailing liabilities scheme to new standalone parts 7E and 7F. They are really all just consequential amendments to make that broader change around extending the trailing liabilities scheme to cover all mines, not just the three declared mines.

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated in my summing-up, the government will not be accepting Dr Mansfield’s amendments. The scheme is designed to be a measure of last resort targeted at the highest-risk sites, where licensee default would result in significant costs being borne by the Victorian taxpayer. The scheme is not appropriate or applicable for the majority of mine licensees, where the rehabilitation requirements are much less complex and onerous. To treat every single mine in the same risk category as a declared mine would represent an unacceptable burden on resources projects in Victoria, which carry significantly less risk to the state.

The bill also has a retroactive effect. For the past three years there has been a very clear and loud signal that we would cover only the three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley. To retroactively apply this complex set of arrangements on every current and future operating mine in the state of Victoria would be a significant burden for the resources industry, and it is at a time where we want to have confidence in the sector. We are on the cusp of critical minerals and rare earth, which are vital for renewable energy technology and the energy transition. This is really, again, just about the three declared mines in the Latrobe Valley. They are simply the largest, most significant rehabilitation risks to the taxpayer, and therefore, unlike other operations, require those additional tools that the bill sets out to secure their rehabilitation in line with their declared mine rehabilitation plans.

Council divided on amendment:

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (18:00): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (18:00): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:00): I just want to reiterate our concerns about the misuse of these powers in the bill. I am not pointing directly at the minister on this, certainly not this one. But our concerns are that those powers can be broadened and used across a wide variety of mines in the state and that that is a significant –

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President, Mr Davis had every opportunity to ask me questions in committee and make a contribution in the second-reading debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis is entitled to make a statement on the third reading.

David DAVIS: I have made my points, Deputy President.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.