The Queensland Government has introduced legislation that would significantly restrict the long-standing right of communities to have their concerns about proposed mining activities heard by an independent court.

The Mineral Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) (Bill) is now open for submissions.

For decades, any interested person could object to a mining lease, with objections considered by the Land Court, which then makes recommendations to government on the decision. This process is an important safeguard for transparent, accountable and evidence-based decision-making about mining and its environmental, social and economic impacts.

These rights have played an important role in protecting Queensland’s environment. They were central to the legal process that helped protect World Heritage-listed K’gari (Fraser Island) from sand mining and the Great Barrier Reef from limestone mining in the 1970s. Today, they remain an important mechanism for communities, landholders and First Nations peoples to have their interests considered on proposed mining projects.

The Bill would substantially narrow these rights and potentially have them all but extinguished due to unconstrained government discretion. See EDO’s detailed briefing note here.

The Bill proposes to:

  • restrict who can object and be heard in the independent Land Court to only landowners or occupiers on the mine site area or within a 125km radius of the area, infrastructure providers within the mining lease and relevant local government; and
  • give the government unchecked discretion to determine who and what issues can be heard in the independent Land Court – if at all. This means that even this limited group of possible objectors, being farmers, local governments, First Nations and nearby miners and infrastructure providers may not be able to have their objections heard by the independent Land Court. The government will be able to deny an objection from being heard in full, or can selectively choose which objections should be heard by the Land Court.

EDO strongly opposes these changes and recommends the Bill should not be passed.

The public should retain a meaningful right to have concerns about mining proposals heard independently and transparently in a forum free from political influence. These projects can be some of the largest developments in the state, often carrying complex, high impact and long-lasting effects. Decisions about Queensland’s mineral resources affect the whole community and should not be insulated from independent scrutiny.

Five reasons the Bill should not proceed:

  1. Independent merits review is an important safeguard for accountable decisions. The ability to have development decisions independently examined on their merits in a neutral court is an important safeguard for integrity and accountability. Independent scrutiny provides an additional check on decisions made by government and helps ensure that environmental, social and economic considerations are properly tested in the public interest. It also reduces the risk that decisions are inappropriately shaped by private lobbying of government decision-makers.
  2. Land Court hearings improve the evidence available to decision-makers. Land Court proceedings provide an opportunity for evidence, expert assessments and the potential impacts of a proposal to be independently tested. This often identifies mistakes and information gaps, exposes weaknesses in environmental assessments and improves understanding of the risks and benefits associated with a project. It regularly results in stronger and more appropriate conditions for better outcomes. Restricting access to this process risks reducing the quality of information that informs decisions on mining.
  3. Mining impacts do not stop at 125 kilometres. The impacts of mining can go well beyond the 125km radius proposed around the site, particularly with respect to downstream water catchment impacts and greenhouse gas impacts from the activities and the burning of fossil fuels – which matters for all Queenslanders. There are also potential impacts to First Nations rights where they have an interest in the area or downstream impacts of the proposal and do not live in the radius of the development.
  4. Decisions about Queensland’s mineral resources are of broad public interest. Mineral resources are held by the State Government on behalf of the people of Queensland. Decisions about whether and how those resources are developed therefore are inherently a broad public interest matter requiring balancing consideration of the economic, social and environmental impacts.
  5. The Bill could make it harder for impacted people to defend their rights. The limitation on objection rights could impact the ability for landholders or First Nations peoples to represent their interests in the Land Court jointly with others through an incorporated entity based outside the specified radius. This could expose them to greater risk of personal costs orders and likely reducing the amount of landholders who could afford to take the risk of having their objections heard in Court.

Have your say

Get your submission in by 10am Monday 12 October 2026. Submissions can be lodged on the Parliament Committee website here.

You may also consider writing to your local Member for Parliament, raising your concerns about the Bill and requesting they vote against the Bill.

See EDO’s detailed community briefing note here for more information.