Andrew Hutton is Managing Director of IEMA, an environmental and closure advisory firm based in regional NSW. He has nearly 30 years’ experience in mine closure strategy, regulatory approvals, and stakeholder engagement.
As New South Wales inevitably confronts the question of what becomes of our former mine sites is no longer academic. Across the Hunter and other regions, vast tracts of land previously dedicated to extraction are now nearing or at the end of their operational life. What happens next will define not just landscapes, but regional economies, investment pipelines, and community futures.
The good news? NSW is well-positioned to lead the nation in defining what successful post-mining land use looks like.
While mine closure has historically been treated as a compliance task focused on stabilising slopes, replanting vegetation, and ticking regulatory boxes, it is increasingly being recognised as an opportunity to reshape regions for the better. But realising that opportunity requires a shift in mindset, backed by a coherent policy framework and coordination across agencies and stakeholders.
From my experience advising on closure projects across Australia and internationally, I believe NSW’s path forward hinges on five strategic imperatives.
- Address the Residual Risk Barrier
- Define Post Mining Land Use at the start, not the end
- Coordinate the maze of Government Approvals
- Build on the strategic momentum already underway
- Learn from best practice across Australia and beyond.
1. Address the Residual Risk Barrier
The most persistent challenge in repurposing former mining land is the issue of residual risk. Even when a site is rehabilitated to meet regulatory requirements, uncertainty about long-term liabilities, such as tailings facilities, large dams, water quality in final voids, underground subsidence, or contamination. They can stall land handover indefinitely. This ambiguity deters both regulators and private investors.
NSW urgently needs a clear, proportionate framework to assess and manage these risks and, where appropriate, enable risk transfer mechanisms. Without this, many sites will remain in limbo, with potential unrealised.
2. Define Post-Mining Land Use at the Start, Not the End
A second, and often overlooked, challenge is the lack of early consensus on future land use. Too often, rehabilitation efforts are designed around technical parameters rather than a concrete vision for how land will be used post-mining. Is the goal agricultural productivity? Renewable energy generation? Biodiversity offsets? Community infrastructure?
Agreeing on this at the outset or during the operational phase of mining allows closure criteria to be tailored to real-world outcomes, streamlines approvals, and gives future users, whether developers, councils or the community, greater certainty. By achieving early approval for post mining land use enables the mining to partner with the developer and the “goal-posts” on hazards and risk are clearly defined. A pathway to approval certainty also makes investment attraction much easier.
3. Coordinate the Maze of Government Approvals
The complexity of the post-mining regulatory environment is well known. In NSW, responsibilities for closure touch at least a half-dozen agencies from Resources and Planning to the EPA and Water. With no single authority responsible for coordination, delays, duplication, and inconsistent advice are inevitable.
There is a strong case for a coordinating body perhaps a dedicated taskforce within a single Department with a clear remit to lead on post-mining land transition. This could include establishing a closure strategy review process at key planning and environmental assessment stages.
4. Build on Strategic Momentum Already Underway
NSW isn’t starting from scratch. The last 3-5 years has seen a material change in thinking and a real alignment to starting to strategically think about the post mining world. Not just by the miners, but by local governments, communities, think-tanks, Universities, now the wider community. For example, the Hunter Regional Plan 2041 explicitly addresses post-mining land use, highlighting the role of former mine sites in supporting energy transition and industrial innovation.
Meanwhile, the Hunter Joint Organisation (HJO) has developed a $20 million proposal to deliver:
- Place-based mine closure strategies
- A regional audit of mining lands and infrastructure
\Master plans for legacy sites in Singleton, Muswellbrook, and Lake Macquarie
This local-regional alignment with state planning signals a shift in how mine closure is approached, not just as environmental remediation, but as part of long-term economic development.
5. Learn from Best Practice Across Australia and Beyond
WA and Queensland offer useful templates. In WA, closure planning must now include an agreed post-mining land use, while Queensland’s residual risk payment scheme (whilst not without its challenges) aims to offe a transparent way to manage liabilities after relinquishment. Canada and Germany also offer structured models for verification, transition governance, and post-closure funding.
NSW can adapt these lessons, but also improve upon them by ensuring local governments, mining companies and private developers are part of the planning conversation from the outset.
Post-mining land use is not just about safe closure; it’s about successful transition. NSW has the vision, the groundwork, and the regional leadership to become the benchmark in this space. What’s needed now is execution.