Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Streamline WA Steering Committee:
Environmental approvals in mining
Nous Group
September 2019
2
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
Executive summary
Our approach and methodology
Project summaries
Implementation roadmap
5 Case study
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Methodology: The double diamond approach was used to lead workshop attendees through a structured
process to understand the current experience and future needs of government, industry and the community
throughout the environmental approvals process. Attendees identified and prioritised the solvable problems
and generated a set of proposals.
Key insights: Submission to the Streamline portal and feedback from industry and community identified six
key insights. There is a lack of visibility and transparency in the approvals process, there is unnecessary
duplication in effort, approvals timeframes are not met, regulation is inconsistently applied, application of a
risk-based approach is not evident, and I.T. systems and processes are not meeting user demands.
Recommendations: Nine proposals were developed covering visibility of the user journey through the
approvals process, risk-based triage, and streamlining reporting requirements, regulatory policy and regulatory
process and practice. An indicative approach was created for each proposal and a three year roadmap was
developed to guide implementation. Multiple deliveries are suggested for short, medium and long term using
accelerated design methodologies.
Streamline WA is a whole of government approach to regulatory reform to make it easier to do business in
Western Australia (WA) by improving regulation and regulatory practice. A priority focus of Streamline WA is
environmental approvals in mining. A series of workshops, facilitated by Nous Group, were held with
representatives from state and local government, industry, business, and environmental conservation to
develop a set of practical and implementable recommendations for consideration by the Streamline WA
Steering Committee.
5
Streamline WA is a whole of government approach to make it easier to do
business in Western Australia
In 2017, the government announced an independent review into the WA public sector’s functions, operations and
culture. The purpose of the review was to drive lasting reform of service delivery, accountability and efficiency in
the public sector. A key area of focus was regulation. The review highlighted environmental regulation as a
significant regulatory delivery for the WA economy, noting that approvals reform remains a priority, there is a lack
of alignment between regulatory approval processes at all levels of government, reporting requirements are
burdensome, and outcomes based regulation and regular reviews are needed. In response to the findings of the
review Streamline WA was one of 20 initiatives commenced.
Streamline WA is a whole of government approach, led by a Steering Committee, to make it easier to do business
in WA by improving regulation and regulatory practice. Streamline WA has received numerous submissions with
one of the initial key themes relating to mining environmental approvals and the challenges industry faced when
trying to navigate related processes.
Workshops were held on 23 and 30 August to explore ideas and priorities for regulatory reform for improving the
environmental approvals process in mining. Attendees considered all aspects of reform; legislative, culture,
practice, process and systems. The primary legislation considered included the Environmental Protection Act 1986,
Mining Act 1978, and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Workshop attendees developed a set of practical and implementable reform proposals for consideration by the
Steering Committee.
2. OUR APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
7
We have used an abbreviated form of the human centred design double
diamond methodology
Builds an understanding of
the current experience,
and future needs and
wants of businesses
throughout the approvals
process, without
exhausting the stakeholder
environment.
Synthesis of findings of
the discovery phase to
identify patterns and
insights which are then
translated into a specific
area of focus for
problem solving and
design.
Generate a broad range
of ideas and
prototypes to address
this problem, that can
be refined, tested and
developed further.
Further refine a narrower
set of ideas and deliver
solutions which address the
needs of users.
8
To develop this plan we worked with stakeholders using five steps
Validate key
insights
Identify positive
outcomes for
successful
reform
Generate
initial
solutions
Prioritise
solvable
problems
Define
solvable
problems
9
There is a lack of transparency limiting ability
to manage user expectations1
There are instances of duplication in effort
involved in the approvals process due to lack
of accountability from agencies
2
Inconsistent interpretation of regulation
requires greater user effort3
Approval timeframes are not being met
resulting in delays in user progress4
I.T. systems and processes are not capable of
consistently meeting user demands5
The application of a risk-based approach to
regulatory practice is not evident to users6
Workshop attendees agreed to six key insights to guide problem statement
and solution development
The insights were developed using data provided to Nous through online submissions to the WA Government/Streamline WA portal. Nous gathered
further data by receiving feedback from key players in the mining industry. Collation and prioritisation of all data lead to six key findings which were
then further amended by the attendees of the workshop, forming the above six insights.
10
• Lack of visibility
• Expectations
THEME FEEDBACK
• “Very difficult to know where you are in the process, there is no
visibility.”
• “Need for open and consistent communications regarding
expectations and requirements.”
• “Lack of clearly defined and well understood procedures for
referring assessments to other agencies for advice.”
• “It would be better if timeframes are longer and are being met
rather than short timeframes that are not being met.”
1. There is a lack of transparency limiting ability to manage user
expectations
11
• Duplication
• Lack of accountability
• “Multiple agencies assessing the same topic. You receive
primary approval but still need secondary.”
• “With so much duplication you get into the situation that no
department takes responsibility.”
• “You get all these departments looking at it but no one owns
the process.”
• “We aren’t looking for a free ride, just a single ride.”
• “Instances of duplication exist across various assessment
processes and statutory reporting obligations.”
2. There are instances of duplication in effort involved in the
approvals process due to lack of accountability from agencies
THEME FEEDBACK
12
• Inconsistent interpretation
of regulation
• “No standardised policy framework used by officers across
different agencies to inform risk-based assessments.”
• “There are some particular assessment officers that are so
pedantic, that they can add months on to the process.”
• “FY18 AERs (Annual Environmental Reporting) were submitted
consistent with previously approved AER but DMIRS found ‘AER
does not meet the requirements of regulation 16’ of the
regulations.”
• “Inconsistency of formal protocols has contributed to ‘referrals
within referrals’ and enabling agencies to ‘stop the clock’ and
draw out timeframes.”
3. Inconsistent interpretation of regulation requires greater user
effort
THEME FEEDBACK
13
• Timeframes • “Approvals timeframes is the biggest problem.”
• “Timeframes, people plan their projects around that.”
• “’Stop the clock’, don’t get me started.”
• “Huge delays in getting post-approval approvals (can take up to
two years)
• “Mining operations have been suspended due to awaiting post-
approval approvals.”
• “Excessive timeframe for exploration licences to be granted.”
4. Approval timeframes are not being met resulting in delays in user
progress
THEME FEEDBACK
14
• System and process
efficiency
• “Resolution of issues can take quite a while so there needs to be
a process to solve issues.”
• “DMIRS online system (PGR) is the only means to lodge a
pipeline license application which is consistently unreliable.”
• “Format of requested files can’t be uploaded into PGR causing
further delays.”
• “Although pipeline licenses were eventually granted, this matter
still remains unresolved.”
5. I.T. systems and processes are not capable of consistently meeting
user demands
THEME FEEDBACK
15
• Capability
• Culture
• “Culture of risk-aversion favours a practice of disproportionate
overregulation.”
• “We need to be clear about what we mean by risk-based.”
• “Addressing agency’s ability to respond to industry demands.”
• “The lack of performance data about the department. I’ve raised
it before and have been told it’s not a priority.”
• “Need for improved staff culture.”
6. The application of a risk-based approach to regulatory
practice is not evident to users
THEME FEEDBACK
3. Proposal summaries
17
Summary of proposals
Proposal 1: Improve experience and visibility of user journey
• 1A: Provide visibility for applicants in the approval
process with a clear user journey map
• 1B: Interagency pathways parallel processing
• 1C: Integrate internal workflows of individual agencies to
increase visibility and real time status
• 1D: Integrate systems across government to create
seamless approvals process
Proposal 2 : Develop policy to establish a risk-based,
outcomes-focused regulatory stance
Proposal 3: Automate low-risk exploration approvals
Proposal 4: Define consistent environmental standards and
frameworks
Proposal 5: Define secondary approvals and amendments
to primary approvals instruments
Proposal 6: Triage process and mechanisms for various risk
levels
• 6A: Early screening (triage) of all applications to ensure
any issues are addressed early in the process
• 6B. Establish cross-agency ‘sandbox’ mechanism for
managing complex planning issues
• 6C: Automate low-risk approval applications
Proposal 7: Streamline and automate regulatory reporting
requirements
Proposal 8: Consolidate and simplify approvals application
guidelines
Proposal 9: Establish inclusive cross-agency training
We have prioritised solutions by assessing the extent of positive user impact vs the implementation effort
P7. Reporting
requirements
P1. Visibility of
user journey
Regulatory policy
and process
PROJECT TYPE
P6. Risk-based
triage
MEDIUM
PRIORITY
HIGH
PRIORITY
Prioritisation framework
EFFORT
US
ER
IM
PA
CT
LessMore
Hig
hLo
w
5. Secondary
approvals
1B. Interagency
pathways
7. Streamline
reporting
3. Exploration
approvals4. Environ.
standards1C. Integrated
workflows
1D. Integrated
systems
8. Guidelines
9. Training
1A. User
journey map
6B. Sandbox
for complex
6A. Cross-
agency triage
6C. Low-risk
approvals
2. Regulatory
stance
18
1 2 3 4User journey mapInteragency pathways
parallel processing
Develop live
tracker capabilities
and integrate
internal workflows
Integrate cross-agency
workflows
Proposal 1B Proposal 1C Proposal 1DProposal 1A
Proposal 1: Improve experience and visibility of user journey
19
Problem statement:
How might we improve understanding of the approvals process and increase availability
of application status forecasts in real time for users so that the next steps are clear,
timeframes are well understood and the approvals process is transparent?Timeframe:
• Short-term
Type:
• Process
• Systems
• Practice
No dependencies
Proposal 1A: Provide visibility for applicants in the approval process with a clear user journey map
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Work with industry to
understand complete
approvals application
process across all agencies
Map out approvals
application journey and
identify timeframes at each
stage
Using design sprints with
industry, prototype map of
whole approval journey
using online tool
Build and release user
journey map
20
Problem statement:
How might we make interagency pathways transparent and seamless for mining
companies so that companies can prepare upfront for information requirements and
submit information in the most efficient way (submitting it once and concurrently)?
Timeframe:
• Medium-term
• Long term for any
legislative changes
Type:
• Process
• Systems
• Culture
• Practice
• Legislative
Dependencies:
• 1A - User journey
map
Proposal 1B: Interagency pathways parallel processing
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Conduct review of referral
pathways including Part 4
into Part 5 to assess
whether there is legislative
overlap or
misunderstanding of roles
Review MOUs between
agencies to check for areas
of duplication, unclear
responsibilities and lack of
transparency for referrals
Identify opportunities to
reduce duplication
Select pain points and
opportunities for solutions
including opportunities for
parallel processing
Determine which items
need to be referred and
when
Define each agency’s role
Identify legislative changes
required
Using design sprints,
redesign process with
industry to remove any
instances of duplication
Design parallel processing
where possible (inter and
intra departmental)
Revise MOUs between
agencies
Undertake legislative
drafting for selected
changes as required
Implement new processes
including guidelines and
training
Undertake legislative
change process
21
Problem statement:
How might we increase availability of application status forecasts in real time for users
so that users are clear about next steps and can avoid irreversible investment decisions?
Timeframe:
• Long-term
Type:
• Process
• Systems
• Practice
Dependencies:
• 1A – User journey
map
Proposal 1C: Integrate internal workflows of individual agencies to increase visibility and real time status
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review the user experience
of the journey map
Identify relevant workflows
within each relevant
agency
Using user feedback on the
experience of the user
journey map
Identify priority areas to
accelerate live-status
tracking
Identify and prioritise the
problems to solve within
each workflow, and the
workflow steps to
integrate.
Design sprint with industry
to prototype real time
tracking tool
Using design sprints with
industry, each agency
designs integrated
workflow steps for selected
streamlined workflows
Deliver live tracking
capabilities
Establish integrated
workflow processes into a
single portal
Include guidelines and
training
This may include practice
and legislative change
22
Problem statement:
How might we improve understanding of the approvals process so that the requirements
and possibility of success is clear before an investment is made into starting a new
project?
Timeframe:
• Long-term
Type:
• Process
• Systems
• Practice
Dependencies:
• 1A - User journey
map
• 1B - Interagency
pathways
• 1C - Integrated
workflows
• 2 - Regulatory
stance
• 4 - Environmental
standards
• 5 - Secondary
approvals
Proposal 1D: Integrate systems across government to create seamless approvals process
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review user experience of
whole system for a specific
topic
Identify opportunities to
improve whole system
process
Take the lessons learnt
from 1A, 1B and 1C into
account as guidance in
defining the problems to
solve
Define the target operating
model for systems
Design workflow to align
with the target operating
model
Prototype components of
the new system
Release system changes in
a phased approach to
integrate systems across
government for a seamless
approvals process
23
Problem statement:
How might we determine an integrated regulatory approach (or stance) so that the
requirements and needs of regulators, proponents and the community are met?
Timeframe:
• Medium-term
Type:
• Systems
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
• Legislative
Dependencies:
• DMIRS to prioritise the
progression of the
Mining Legislation
Amendment Bill to
implement a risk-based
outcomes-focused
regulatory stance
Proposal 2: Develop policy to establish a risk-based, outcomes-focused regulatory stance
PROPOSAL PLAN
Define regulatory
outcomes
Information
collection
and collation
Prioritise
regulatory
activities
Engage with
stakeholders
Measure
performance
Understand the
purpose of
regulation
Develop a
comprehensive
evidence-base
Develop
risk profiles
Systematically
engage
stakeholders
Monitor and
report
performance of
regulatory
activities
By identifying
outcomes that
regulation should
seek to achieve that
are tied to a
regulator’s legislative
mandate
To understand the
costs, benefits and
burdens of
regulatory activities
By identifying risks,
assessing their impact
and likelihood, and
prioritising activities to
treat the most
significant risks
To understand how
regulated entities
are affected and
the broader
legislative and
policy context
To embed a focus on
continuous
improvement and
improve the
evidence base for
future initiatives
24
Problem statement:
How might we streamline low-risk exploration approvals for mining companies so that
departments can deal with them more efficiently (including automatically) and focus on
higher risk projects and issues?
Timeframe:
• Discover and Define
are short-term
• Design and Deliver
are medium-term
Type:
• Process
• Systems
Dependencies:
• DMIRS to prioritise
the progression of
the Mining
Legislation
Amendment Bill to
implement a risk-
based outcomes-
focused regulatory
stance.
Proposal 3: Automate low-risk exploration approvals
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review existing exploration
approvals scope and
opportunities for
automation and the
establishment of ‘default’
timelines
Define what is deemed as
‘low-risk’
Define risk-based criteria
and default timelines
Agree on selected
opportunities for
automation using a risk-
based approach within
current legislative
framework
Using design sprints,
prototype improved
exploration approvals
process and online solution
Build and release a
technical solution including
guidelines and training
25
Problem statement:
How might we define clear environmental decision making criteria that are well
understood by industry, the community and government to ensure consistent decision
making and outcomes across government?
Timeframe:
• Discover and Define
are short-term
• Design and Deliver
are long-term
Type:
• Legislative
• Culture
• Practice
No dependencies
Proposal 4: Define consistent environmental standards and frameworks
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review environmental
standards that are relevant
to the industry to see what
agencies currently have in
place
Identify gaps and overlaps
Prioritise and set objectives
for environmental
standards
Identify consistency that
can be achieved easily
Identify legislative changes
required
Using design sprints,
prototype new/changed
environmental standards
derived from objectives
Define regulation strategies
approach
Undertake legislative
drafting for selected
changes as required
Implement new/changed
environmental standards
that will ensure consistency
of standards across
agencies
Include guidelines and
training with industry
Undertake legislative
change process
26
Problem statement:
How might we avoid a secondary authorisation, be it post-assessment, or further
regulatory requirement, which stop or duplicate the process so that mining companies
can ensure productivity and remain cost-effective?
Timeframe:
• Short-term
• Long-term for any
legislative
amendments
Type:
• Process
• Culture
• System
• Legislative
No dependencies
Proposal 5: Define *secondary approvals and amendments to primary approvals instruments
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review the current
secondary approvals
process and primary
approvals instruments
Identify primary
instruments that are
causing duplication
Define risk assessment
criteria to determine what
is a primary and secondary
approval
Define pain points and
opportunities to streamline
for process improvement
Using design sprints with
industry, prototype the
optimal secondary
approvals process and
identify any required
amendments
Draft amendments as
required
Deliver defined secondary
approval process without
amendments, including
guidelines and training
Undertake process for
regulatory amendments to
primary approvals
instruments
*Definitions:
Secondary approvals – approvals needed as a result of conditions set on your primary approval (e.g. management plan
conditions on Ministerial Statements).
Amendments – amendments to approvals required because the mining operation is being modified in some form.
27
1 2 3Cross-agency triage
mechanism
‘Sandbox’ for managing
complex issues
Automate low-risk approval
applications
Proposal 6B Proposal 6CProposal 6A
Proposal 6 - Triage process and mechanisms for various risk levels
28
Problem statement:
How might we implement a process for early issue identification and resolution so that
delays experienced in the approvals process are minimised?
Timeframe:
• Discover, Define and
Design are short-
term
• Deliver is medium-
term
Type:
• Systems
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
No dependencies
Proposal 6A: Early screening (triage) of all applications to ensure any issues are addressed early in the process
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review the current risk-
based processes for issue
resolution and approval
pathways for projects of
different risk profiles
Segment activities based
on recent trends according
to risk
Define criteria for
segmenting activities by
risk to low, medium or
complex levels
Using design sprints,
develop and prototype a
triage operating model (i.e.
changes to process, tools,
people, practice)
Establish triage process for
each entry point used by
proponents, including
process changes,
guidelines and training
29
Problem statement:
How might we establish a cross-agency mechanism for resolving complex planning
issues so that proponents can efficiently progress projects?
Timeframe:
• Medium-term
Type:
• Systems
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
Dependencies:
• 6A - Cross-agency
triage
Proposal 6B: Establish cross-agency “sandbox” mechanism for managing complex planning issues
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
See project ‘6A’ See project ‘6A’
Once planning issue has
been identified as ‘complex’,
involve third-party
stakeholder in issues
investigation
Using a cross-agency
design sprint, develop the
operating model (i.e.
process, system, people,
authorising environment)
for a ‘sandbox’ mechanism
for handling high
complexity matters such as
new types of projects or
complex issues
Establish and trial ‘sandbox’
for resolving matters of
high complexity
30
Problem statement:
How might we reduce effort in processing low-risk cross-agency approval applications so
that proponents can efficiently progress projects?
Timeframe:
• Long-term
Type:
• Systems
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
Dependencies:
• 6A - Cross-agency
triage
• 3 - Exploration
approvals
• DMIRS to prioritise
the progression of
the Mining
Legislation
Amendment Bill to
implement a risk-
based outcomes-
focused regulatory
stance
Proposal 6C: Automate low-risk approval applications
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review exploration
approvals project and
develop lessons learned
Identify all applicable low-
risk cross-agency approval
pathways
Use lessons learned from
exploration approvals
project to prioritise
approval pathways based
on risk and ease of
implementation
Using design sprints with
industry, prototype the
simplification and
automation of one
pathway using an online
approach
Establish online auto-
approvals for matters of
low risk and complexity
that can be resolved
quickly with no / little
consultation
31
Problem statement:
How might we make annual compliance reporting (e.g. AERs) less burdensome for the
industry and enable departments to focus on higher risk projects and issues?
Timeframe:
• Medium-term
Type:
• Process
• Practice
• Systems
No dependencies
Proposal 7: Streamline and automate regulatory reporting requirements
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review all compliance
reporting arrangements for
one pathway
Discover opportunities to
streamline (e.g. simplify
processes, digitize forms,
etc.) or remove reporting
requirements working
within the existing
legislative framework
Explore opportunities to
further progress field
automation in compliance
reporting
Select opportunities for
streamlining or removing
reporting requirements
working within the
legislative framework
Using design sprints with
industry, prototype change
reporting processes
Release new streamlined
processes for regulatory
reporting, including
guideline development and
training
Repeat for further
pathways
32
Problem statement:
How might we simplify the approvals application guidelines for proponents so that
regulators are able to efficiently and consistently assess applications?
Timeframe:
• Short-term
Type:
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
Dependencies:
• 1A - User journey
map
Note:
• Information
requirements
guideline already
has momentum
Proposal 8: Consolidate and simplify approvals application guidelines
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Identify current approvals
application guidelines and
pain points in one area
Identify opportunities for
improvement taking a user
and cross-agency
experience perspective
Prioritise and assess
selected approvals
applications guidelines
based on criteria
developed in the Discover
phase
Modify selected guidelines
taking into account user
feedback
Publish clear, consolidated
guidelines and train
regulators and industry
Repeat process for other
areas (this is an ongoing
delivery for other projects)
33
Problem statement:
How might we reduce duplication and inconsistency in the assessment process for
approvals for mining companies so that miners can increase their efficiency and
continue to progress?
Timeframe:
• Short-term
Type:
• Process
• Culture
• Practice
No dependencies
Note:
• Revising training is
also a Deliver
component of
many of the
regulatory review
projects in the
program
Proposal 9: Establish inclusive cross-agency training
PROPOSAL PLAN
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DELIVER
Review current programs
and practices for training
of staff in environmental
approval processes for
mining across all relevant
agencies
Identify opportunities to
improve training and
involve government,
industry and other
stakeholders
Refresh programs and
practices for training staff
Establish departmental KPIs
and performance
management
Expand refreshed training
program and include the
industry, government and
other stakeholders in order
to align assessment
practices within agencies
and help all stakeholders to
develop a clear
understanding of
expectations
Training is an ongoing
delivery for other projects
4. Implementation
35
Solutions can be delivered progressively over a three year period, 2019-2022
6 months 12-19 months 3 years
Short Medium Long
1A. User journey Discover Define Design Deliver
9. Training Discover Define Design Deliver
8. Guidelines Discover Define Design Deliver
5. Secondary approvals Discover Define Design Deliver
6A. Cross-agency triage Discover Define Design Deliver
4. Environmental
standardsDiscover Define Design Deliver
3. Exploration approvals Discover Define Design Deliver
1B. Interagency pathways Discover Define Design Deliver Legislative changes
2. Regulatory stance Pre-work Discover Define Design Deliver Legislative changes
6B. Sandbox for complex Discover Define Design Deliver
7. Streamline reporting Discover Define Design Deliver
1C. Integrate workflows Discover Define Design Deliver
6C. Low-risk approvals Discover Define Design Deliver
1D. Integrate systems Discover Define Design Deliver
Ongoing development/ delivery for other projects
Ongoing development/ delivery for other projects
Ongoing real-time tracking development
Legislative changes if needed
5. Case study
37
Background
In 2010, the Queensland Government undertook a
reform to streamline regulation. The government
produced a public report outlining 23
recommendations called ‘Supporting Resource
Sector Growth’.
In response to this review, a Government-Industry
Implementation Group (GIIG) was formed
consisting of members from both government
and the resources industry. The GIIG developed
the ‘Govt and Industry Implementation Report’
which solved specific problems raised in the
‘Supporting Resource Sector Growth’ report. The
Queensland Government and industry were very
successful in working together and were able to
develop many recommendations that were acted
upon.
Some key recommendations made by GIIG:
• Parallel processing rather than sequential
approvals processes.
• Improving accountability for timeframes by
providing targets at each stage of the
approvals process.
• Improving transparency of QLD’s approval
process by publishing a scorecard that tracks
average time to make a decision for each
category of application.
• Virtual model of a one-stop shop, through the
confirmation of DEEDI (Department of
Employment, Economic Development and
Innovation) as lead agency responsible for
managing overall project approval processes
from end to end.
Example of streamlining in another jurisdiction: mining and petroleum approvals processes in QLD
Key changes/outcomes
• Exploration permit approvals granted in half the time (the time taken to process an exploration permit application was reduced from 22 months to 12 months.
Permits not subject to native title can be determined in 6 months).
• Established the Mines Legislation (Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2012 which aimed to improve the efficiency of the regulatory framework for the resource sector in
QLD.
• Implemented single, streamlined assessment process for all environmentally relevant activities, including resource activities under the Greentape Reduction Act.
• Established different levels of assessment proportionate to the risk under the Greentape Reduction Act.
• Agreement to set target and milestones and report against milestones to ensure accountability for timeframes.
• Case managers appointed and funds allocated for electronic workflow and data-management system for the virtual one-stop shop.
Nous is the largest Australian-founded management consulting
firm with over 400 staff across Australia and the UK.
About Nous
We partner with leaders to
shape world-class businesses,
effective government and
empowered communities. PEOPLE PRINCIPALS COUNTRIESLOCATIONS
400 50 9 2