State Government proposes making ‘residual risks’ acceptable for abandoned mines it rehabilitates

A proposed policy overhaul by the State Government would allow abandoned mines in WA to be declared “rehabilitated” even if they pose ongoing “risks”.

The Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration quietly plans to override mine closure regulations in a move critics argue would undermine essential safeguards designed to ensure the State properly remediates mined-out land.

DMPE’s Mining Rehabilitation Fund — a pooled industry fund to which all of WA’s miners contribute — foots the clean-up bill for a mine site if its owner cannot pick up the tab.

Such a site could be signed off as “managed or rehabilitated” if a “residual risk is deemed acceptable” by the department’s director general, according to a proposed addition to the Abandoned Mines Policy.

What constitutes a “residual risk” was not outlined.

A department spokesman said the intent of the addition was reflected in the current Abandoned Mines Policy (AMP), which was introduced in 2016.

“While the exact wording varies, both documents [the current AMP and proposed AMP] focus on a risk-based approach to ensure decision-making effectively reduces threats to community safety and the environment,” the spokesman said.

Yet there is no reference to residual risks being acceptable for a rehabilitated mine site in the current AMP or in the Mining Rehabilitation Fund Act.

A mine is considered rehabilitated under the current State regulations if it is “physically safe to humans and animals, geo-technically stable, geo-chemically non-polluting/non-contaminating, and capable of sustaining an agreed post-mining land use”.

Conservation Council WA executive director Matt Roberts said the clear standard for mine closure was “completely at odds with the idea that residual risks can be approved” by the department.

“It is disappointing that a WA Labor Government, which defends its own environmental credentials, would weaken mine closure laws established under the Barnett Liberal Government,” Mr Roberts said.

“Including the residual risk clause in mining policy would be a dangerous and irresponsible backwards step in standards for mine closures in this State.

“If companies can’t meet these standards, they should not be allowed to operate, or we should bring back mine closure bonds to ensure the State has enough funds to properly remediate these sites.”

Public submissions regarding the updated Abandoned Mines Policy closed in late February and the department is currently evaluating feedback.

Industry insiders believe the State Government is keen to introduce the residual risk clause as a “get out of jail free card” if clean-up costs for a rehabilitation project jeopardise the MRF’s viability.

Rigorous remediation of mining pits, tunnels and waste dumps is a relatively new phenomenon in WA and cost blowouts have plagued pioneering projects.

The MRF’s biggest undertaking to date — the Ellendale diamond mine — is glaring proof of a rehabilitation money pit.

Ellendale’s clean-up liability was estimated to be approximately $40m when its owner collapsed in 2015, but the MRF has so far been forced to sink more than $120m into the site.

Based on Ellendale’s ballooning expenses, The West Australian in January revealed that two derelict nickel mines near Kalgoorlie are set to cost the State more than $300m to rehabilitate.

The MRF received $62m during the 2025 financial year and its balance stood at $356m by June 30.