For decades, Queensland’s Land Court has been the battleground for ideological disputes over mining projects. Any objector, on any ground, can force a full hearing and bring any new mining project’s timeline to a standstill. That era may be about to end.

The Queensland Government has introduced the Mineral Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) (Bill). The Bill proposes the most significant changes to the State's mining lease (ML) objections framework since the Newman government's short-lived reforms (repealed by the subsequent government). The Bill amends the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MR Act) and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act) to cut duplication, cost and delay in assessing ML applications and their associated site-specific environmental authority (EA) applications.

The Bill sends a clear message that the Queensland Government is intent on delivering quicker and simpler approvals processes for the mining industry. The Bill comes 18 months after the Attorney-General formally withdrew the Queensland Law Reform Commission's 'Mining Lease Objections Review', which tasked the commission with reviewing and making recommendations about Land Court mining objections processes.

This alert covers four changes that matter most:

1. removing duplicated environmental assessment;
2. narrowing who can object and on what grounds;
3. ending automatic Land Court referral; and
4. removing the Land Court's "any good reason" refusal power.

We also address the transitional rules for applications already on foot.

Summary of key changes

1. Removal of duplicative environmental assessment processes

Environmental impacts of a mining project are regulated primarily through the grant of EAs under the EP Act, and more recently, progressive rehabilitation and closure plan (PRCP) schedules (which impose binding rehabilitation conditions). This process involves comprehensive review of detailed information about all aspects of the project, prompts public notification in most cases, and calls on the EP Act Chief Executive to decide the application and on what conditions.

Currently, the Mines Minister must also separately weigh up adverse environmental impacts when deciding an ML application – effectively assessing the same question twice.

The Bill removes this duplication. The proposed new section 271 of the MR Act would no longer require the Mines Minister to separately consider environmental impacts already assessed under the EP Act. The Mines Minister must still consider whether the public right and interest will be prejudiced, and whether there is any other good reason for rejecting the ML application.

The Bill would also change the public notification process for ML and EA applications.

ML and related EA applications would also be publicly notified in a combined process, with a single notice covering both applications.

2. Introducing objection eligibility requirements: who can object now, and who no longer can

Currently, any person may object to an ML application and associated site-specific EA application on any ground. In practice, this has historically meant that many Land Court mining objections hearings have been brought by environmental NGOs and other third parties who may have had no direct connection to the land that is the subject of the project.

The Bill narrows this considerably, with the Government's express intention to limit 'lawfare'.

Objections to an ML application would only be made by an 'eligible entity' including:

• an affected person under section 252A(7) of the MR Act – being an owner of the subject land, an owner of land necessary for access to the subject land, an owner of adjoining land, the relevant local government, or an entity that provides infrastructure wholly or partly on the subject land;
• an occupier of land wholly or partly within the area of the proposed mining lease; or
• an owner or occupier of land wholly or partly within a new '125km eligibility zone' for the proposed mining lease.

The same 'eligible entity' concept would apply to objections to a draft EA or PRCP schedule. Any person would still be entitled to lodge a submission during any public notification period for these approvals, but only eligible entities would be entitled to have their submission heard as an objection. Submissions made during public notification periods for an EA or PRCP schedule application may still be considered in the final decision on the application, but it would not be mandatory for the decision-maker to do so.

The explanatory notes to the Bill confirm that the effect of the amendments would be to remove objection rights for First Nations people, unless they hold exclusive native title rights within the project area or the 125km buffer, or are otherwise a relevant owner or occupier of land. The explanatory notes go on to state that, despite this narrowing of objection rights, the ultimate decision on the ML application or associated EA application would remain subject to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and must be made in a way compatible with human rights, including cultural rights (that relate to Aboriginal tradition and/or Island custom).

The Bill would not prevent environmental NGOs and public interest groups from funding and facilitating objections by persons who remain within the remit of 'eligible entity'.

Grounds for objection are also proposed to be narrowed. Currently, objections to an ML application or EA application can be made on any ground.

Under the Bill, objections to an ML application must relate to the decision-making criteria in section 271(1) (such as compliance with the MR Act, appropriate use of the land, tenure size and term, or the applicant's capability and track record). As environmental impacts would be removed from this MR Act criteria, objections on environmental grounds must be made under the EP Act.

Objections to a draft EA or PRCP schedule must relate to the conditions of the approval itself, or the matters in sections 176 and 176A of the EP Act (which include standard criteria that engage concepts around environmental harm). The stated intent of these changes is to better align objections with the decision-making process that the regulators must work through, and in the EP Act context, to assist decision-makers to better formulate final approval conditions to address the objector's specific concerns.

Notably, 'public interest' would remain a relevant ground of objection under both the MR Act and EP Act. This catch-all may leave the door open for broader, ideological objections.

3. Removing the automatic trigger for Land Court referral

This is, in our view, the most operationally significant change in the Bill. It would bring to an end the automatic referral to the Land Court of a properly made objection against an ML application or associated EA application.

Currently, any objection made during the objection window for an ML application must be referred by the Mines Minister to the Land Court for determination.

In relation to an application for an EA or PRCP schedule (or major amendment of these instruments) in relation to a mining activity, persons who made submissions on the application are provided with notice of the decision on grant or refusal of the application and may then elect to have their submission heard as an objection to the approval decision. Any objections must be referred by the decision-maker to the Land Court, to be heard along with any related ML objections.

Under the proposed reforms, a Land Court referral for an ML, EA or PRCP schedule objection would no longer be automatic. The decision-maker has the discretion to determine whether referral to the Land Court is required to conduct a hearing on the application generally, or on a specific matter stated by the Minister or decision-maker.

The goal here appears to be to allow for more streamlined hearings where a hearing is necessary. In practice, a well briefed decision-maker would carefully consider the issues raised in an objection. This would allow the decision-maker to filter out aspects of the objection and reduce the cost and complexity of the hearing.

The ordinary approach under the current regime is that by the time an objection is referred to the Land Court, the project and the terms of the approval have generally already received support from the decision-makers.

An interesting nuance under the new regime is that:

• the decision-maker would still decide the application having reviewed all submissions;
• submitters would then have an opportunity to have their submissions heard as an objection; and
• the decision-maker would then be called on to make another decision, without the benefit of any new information, about whether court intervention is required.

Should the Bill pass as proposed, we would expect fewer matters to reach a full hearing, and potentially faster, more tightly scoped hearings where they do.

The true extent of any reduction in the number of objections that the relevant decision-makers refer to the Land Court will only be known once we see the discretion exercised in practice. The legislation is deliberately vague on the specific considerations a decision-maker should take into account when exercising this discretion, specifying the same criteria as is imposed on the approval decision. The explanatory notes offer an explanation: "Each MLA and EA application is unique, the extent to which the decision-maker may need assistance from the Land Court will depend on the circumstances of the particular matter."

In a related, broader change, when deciding whether to approve, refuse or refer to the Land Court a site-specific mining EA or PRCP schedule application, the decision-maker would only be required to consider the relevant criteria 'to the extent the decision-maker considers necessary'. The explanatory notes go on to say that this is to remove any doubt about the decision-making framework for each type of decision at each stage. For example, if the decision-maker's decision is to refer the matter to the Land Court, a full assessment of the regulatory requirements and possible changes to the draft EA or draft PRCP schedule is not necessary.

Recently, the Land Court has been a forum for objections to be heard against major EA amendment applications. This has opened to challenge matters relating to final landforms and early works and could expose anything else that may trigger a major EA amendment to Court challenge. Combined with the rights of an objector to be heard as a non-active participant in proceedings, EA amendment applicants have been left to respond in court to objections filed without evidence or legal submissions. It seems likely that some of these sorts of matters would no longer make their way to Court if the Bill is passed.

Importantly, the Land Court has determined that it is a public entity under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and nothing in the Bill would have any effect on that status. As a result, the Land Court would still be required to satisfy itself that any limit on human rights arising from an approval is demonstrably justifiable. In the context of current jurisprudence, that means that Land Court would likely consider, for example, the climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions created by Australian coal being burnt to produce steel or power overseas.

Under the reforms as proposed, objectors may still bring evidence about climate change impacting those human rights, and applicants may still see the need to put on evidence demonstrating to the Land Court’s satisfaction that any resulting limit on human rights is justified.

4. Removal of 'any good reason for refusal' under the MR Act

Currently, the Land Court's recommendation on a referred ML application can rest on a broad, open-ended catch-all: whether there is any good reason for refusing to grant the ML, in addition to the specific statutory criteria.

The Bill replaces section 271 in its entirety and does not carry forward that catch-all as a basis for the Land Court's consideration. The criteria are now confined to the itemised matters in new section 271(1).

However, a narrower version survives at the Ministerial level only: new section 271(2)(c) lets the Minister refuse an application for 'any other good reason', alongside any objection and Land Court recommendation.

The practical effect is a real tightening of what objectors (and the Land Court) can rely on, even though the Minister retains a residual safety valve.

5. Transitional provisions: retrospective application to applications already on foot

The new regime is not just prospective. Transitional provisions apply the new objection eligibility, grounds and discretionary referral framework to applications already on foot:

This matters immediately: an objector with standing under the old 'any entity, any ground' framework could lose that standing altogether if no hearing has commenced by the date the changes commence, and a proponent facing an on-foot objection may suddenly find referral discretionary rather than automatic.

Parties with a live ML application, EA application, objection or Land Court proceeding should map their matter against this dividing line as soon as the Bill's progress allows, so procedural strategy can be adjusted accordingly.