Mining Amendment rushed through consultation, what are the consequences?

The consultation period was very brief, between 11 May and 9 June 2026. The changes, however, may be long-lasting and impactful on the surrounding environment, operators, and their responsibilities. Changes to the standard conditions of mining leases would amend the definition of “large mine”, alter the requirements upon operators to plan and detail rehabilitation of land during and after operation, and to provide significantly less transparent costing information as is presently necessary. The amendment would also allow mining operators to change their proposals while those proposals are still awaiting approval, and to provide their own statement on compliance with environmental and corporate standards.

NSW is one of the world’s leading coal exporters, with the majority of the state’s production shipped internationally (primarily to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China) through the Port of Newcastle, the world’s largest coal export port.

Two main legislative provisions relate to the regulation of mining and environmental impact. These are the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), which covers the assessment and approval of new mines and the extension of existing ones, and the Mining Act 1992 (NSW), which was amended in 2008 to reflect key environmental provisions.

What critics of the amendment may suspect is that these amendments cater to the mining operators who want to move fast, or to continue operations in lieu of a post-fossil fuels future, rather than encouraging comprehensive, thorough due diligence on the environmental and health impact in the medium and long-term. Some see it as a further erosion of environmental interests and legislative powers.

Director of the environmental law firm Johnson Legal, Elaine Johnson, spoke to LSJ Online about this amendment, the potential consequences for operators, the public, and why lawyers in corporate, resources, and environment should have their eyes on it, and whether the incredibly brief consultation period is unusual or has potential to be challenged and extended.

Johnson says, “Providing only a few weeks to comment on regulatory changes of this nature means that the Government can’t be satisfied that it has genuinely heard from the public on the proposed changes. It’s not clear what the basis for any urgency is on these amendments, and no justification has been provided. In order to ensure meaningful consultation, the Government should allow an extension of time for public submissions.”

As outlined on the NSW Resources website, the proposed regulation includes amendments which will:

• prescribe new notification and consent requirements for mining lease holders who seek to voluntarily suspend their mining operations
• provide legislative authority for applicants to:
  • amend applications for assessable prospecting operations they have submitted before the application is decided, and
  • rely on a statement of corporate compliance, environmental performance history and financial capability they have submitted with a previous application within the last 12 months, if the information has not changed.
• rename statements of corporate compliance, environmental performance history and financial capability to ‘probity statements’
• prescribe application fees for Group 12 minerals (hydrogen and non-metals).

A spokesperson for NSW Resources declined to answer each of the questions raised, but provided the following statement, and defended their short consultation period:

“The Mining Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation) Regulation 2026 proposes amendments that will improve the existing regulatory framework for sustainable mining operations in NSW, including greater clarity around mine rehabilitation requirements. The consultation period meets the requirements of the NSW Government’s Guide to Better Regulation.”

They advised that the consultation was widely advertised, and a public information session was conducted on 21 May 2026. Information about the session and an invitation to register was made publicly available on the NSW Resources website as well as the dedicated consultations page.

Johnson says, “It is important that information on the rehabilitation costs of mines is open and transparent – there is no justification for allowing mining companies to only disclose parts of their rehabilitation estimates, as the amendments propose.”

Indeed, despite the NSW Government’s NSW Coal Industry 2026-50 policy putting a ban on new standalone (“greenfield”) coal mines, it permits extensions and life-extensions for existing operations, subject to, according to the NSW Government, “robust environmental assessments and strict emission reduction requirements to support state net-zero goals”.

Johnson says, “In light of the energy transition and emissions trajectories, we know that in NSW coal mining must be phased out.”

Announced on 19 March, the NSW Coal Industry 2026-50 plan committed to supporting mine owners, operators and workers with no clear path to a post-fossil fuels future for the state.

The media release claimed: “Coal has supported NSW’s economy, powered local industries and sustained thousands of jobs in local communities in regional NSW for generations. While global demand for coal is expected to decline over time, coal will remain an important part of the NSW economy as renewable energy and industrial processes are deployed.”

The proposed regulations significantly diminish the requirements upon mine operators to provide comprehensive environmental impact reports and post-operation rehabilitation commitments, despite the same government media release claiming that the plan means: “Coal producers will be required to continue to play their part in meeting NSW’s emissions reduction targets, including by cutting onsite emissions using proven abatement technologies and meeting strengthened EPA regulatory controls.”

The plan, per the Minister for Natural Resources, Courtney Houssos, claims that coal mining is “a high-value industry in NSW, currently employing about 23,800 people directly and contributing $2.7 billion in royalties in 2025. It sustains many regional communities and helps fund essential services right across NSW. Coal remains one of NSW’s top exports by value, with $23.4 billion generated in exports during 2025, serving 21 trading partners globally.”

Johnson says, “A major concern for local communities who will remain in place long after the companies have gone, is how that transition takes place. What financial and environmental costs and liabilities will be left for communities and the government to pay for, after the mining companies have up and left?”

According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), there are a number of former coal-dependent nations that have transformed their fossil fuel dependence domestically and in terms of export reliance.

The UK and Belgium have already completely phased out coal, while other nations that rely strongly upon coal, such as Germany and South Korea, have committed to eliminating the fuel from their energy mixes by 2038 and 2040, respectively.

According to the Climate Action Tracker, coal supply must drop to four per cent by 2030 and then zero per cent by 2040 if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Though the U.S. has reversed its policies on the phase out of fossil fuels under the current administration, Europe has led the way.

Over eight years, from 2014 to 2022, Greece reduced coal power from 51 per cent to 10 per cent in 2022, which was the fastest transition to gas and renewables of any other country.  The UK reduced coal power from 39 per cent in 2012 to two per cent in 2020, mostly through transitioning to wind and bioenergy, along with gas. Denmark, similarly, has undergone a decades-long transition to renewable energy and stands out as one of the few countries where coal power was replaced exclusively by zero-carbon sources, rather than gas.

Johnson says, “Coal mines in NSW are continuing to apply for extension after extension, and the government is letting it happen, turning a blind eye to the reality of the phase out. This puts local communities at risk because we still don’t have a proper plan in place for the phase out of the industry on the ground.”

She is concerned that “there is now a real risk that instead of actually completing mining operations and rehabilitating the site, coal mines will simply suspend operations for a period of time and then leave, without cleaning up the site.”

In February this year, the Environmental Defenders Office announced legal action on behalf of NSW conservation group 4nature to ensure rehabilitation of Centennial Coal mine, which has had deleterious effect on Sydney’s drinking water.

Legal action by 4nature aims to ensure Centennial Coal rehabilitates its mothballed Angus Place coal mine near Lithgow, two hours west of Sydney on the edge of the Blue Mountains.

The group is alleging the original approval granted by the NSW Government expired in August 2024 and that the company was required to rehabilitate the mine by that date, which has not occurred.

They further allege that Centennial Coal continues to pump out mine water that ends up in the Coxs River, an important source of Sydney’s drinking water supply.

In October 2025, the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) granted Centennial Coal’s application to modify its development consent. 4nature is concerned this effectively permits the mine to defer its rehabilitation obligations to an unspecified future date.

The EDO case, on behalf of 4nature, is the first case to test laws passed in 2009 that were introduced to protect Sydney’s drinking water catchment.

Johnson says, “These [Mining Amendment 2026] amendments are aimed at trying to put new rules in place to fix that, but they still allow for long periods of suspension—with approval—of up to 10 years in total. With a phase out that is meant to be happening now, that doesn’t look like a real solution to the problem.”

There is also a lack of community engagement, she warns.

“There is no public process for engaging in suspension applications by mines and the community is going to be prevented from accessing the full rehabilitation costs estimates. Once again, these decisions, which affect local communities, are going to be made behind closed doors with little opportunity for those who bear the real costs of mine suspensions and extensions to be heard.”

The full Rehabilitation Cost Estimation (RCE) is presently required to be available to the public, including cost estimates of rehabilitation plans, but under the amendment, only “a summary” must be publicly available.

Johnson says, “When information about the costs of clean up for mines, in particular coal which is entering a phase out period, are kept from the public that disadvantages communities in being able to participate in decision-making that affects their lives and livelihoods.”

There is a real risk that without proper public engagement, decisions about rehabilitation will be made behind closed doors, shutting out landholders, local governments and Traditional Custodians – who will be left with a scarred landscape and major environmental risks and liabilities to manage, she laments.

“There is an urgent need for a proper transition plan that requires planned mine closures, not unrelenting expansions, planned rehabilitation, and planned jobs and future transitions.”