Regulatory Reforms and the Challenges Facing Mineral Explorers in WA

Introduction

WA has long stood as a global leader in mineral exploration and development, underpinned by geological richness, political stability, and regulatory maturity. However, the regulatory landscape is undergoing rapid and profound change. The establishment of the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration (DMPE), structural reforms within the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the federal government’s Nature Positive Plan represent a confluence of policy shifts designed to modernise environmental governance and improve regulatory outcomes. While these reforms aim to improve sustainability and efficiency, they also pose substantial challenges for mineral explorers. Explorers now face growing uncertainty, administrative burdens, and investment risks at a time when agility and access are paramount.

This essay explores the evolving legislative and regulatory environment impacting mineral exploration in Western Australia, with particular focus on the workload and structural transitions within DMPE, the new outcomes-based assessment model adopted by the EPA, and the implications of the federal Nature Positive Plan. It also draws on industry perspectives voiced during the 2025 AMEC WA Regulatory Forum to contextualise how these changes are being received by the exploration sector.

Regulatory Complexity and Institutional Transformation: The Case of DMPE

The reconfiguration of the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration (DMPE) in March 2025 emerged as part of a broader state government initiative to refine the focus of regulatory institutions. Succeeding the former Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS), the DMPE was established to provide a clearer mandate for facilitating exploration, ensuring environmental compliance, and promoting resource sector innovation. However, while the restructuring reflects a renewed commitment to efficiency, it has yet to resolve many of the long-standing operational challenges.

The department continues to grapple with an overwhelming administrative workload. In 2024, DMPE received over 3,472 tenure applications and 9,472 dealings, with thousands more carried over into 2025. As of early that year, the department was already facing more than 6,400 unresolved applications—a pattern consistent with previous years. These figures indicate a systemic backlog that continues to hinder the timely progression of exploration projects. For explorers, particularly junior companies operating under tight budgets and time-sensitive investment windows, these delays can compromise the viability of projects and erode investor confidence.

Further compounding the issue is the uneven rollout of DMPE’s digital transformation strategy. Initiatives such as the Resources Online platform aim to streamline application processes and provide real-time transparency. However, transitional problems persist, with users reporting inconsistencies in data handling, unclear workflows, and insufficient departmental support. In many cases, new regulatory frameworks—such as the Eligible Mining Activity (EMA) and Mining Development and Closure Proposals (MDCP)—have been launched concurrently with digital tools still under development. This mismatch between legislative ambition and institutional capacity places additional strain on industry proponents already navigating a complex approval system.

Environmental Reform and Procedural Reorientation: The EPA’s Outcomes-Based Model

In parallel with DMPE’s restructuring, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is implementing a major procedural shift from prescriptive, plan-based environmental assessments to an outcomes-based model. This reform, articulated through recent strategic guidance and presentations by EPA leadership, emphasises environmental outcomes over process compliance. Proponents are now expected to demonstrate not just mitigation strategies but tangible and measurable environmental results that align with EPA objectives.

While the intent of these reforms is to streamline assessments and enhance accountability, the transition has introduced considerable challenges for explorers. The shift demands a level of scientific rigour and predictive modelling that is often beyond the reach of small and mid-sized exploration companies. Explorers are increasingly required to undertake cumulative impact analyses and develop environmental baselines during the earliest stages of project planning—well before the potential impacts of a project are fully known.

Moreover, the EPA’s move to minimise the volume and frequency of Requests for Information (RFIs), though conceptually aligned with efficiency, may inadvertently limit the opportunity for proponents to clarify regulatory expectations. Explorers must now present highly complete submissions at first instance, placing a premium on environmental expertise and upfront investment in documentation. In practice, this risks favouring larger proponents with internal environmental teams and legal support, to the detriment of smaller explorers who traditionally drive early-stage discovery.

Federal Overlay: The Nature Positive Plan and Its Implications

The third major pillar of regulatory reform comes at the federal level, with the introduction of the Nature Positive Plan. Developed in response to the 2020 Samuel Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Plan proposes the creation of two new federal bodies—Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia—to enforce and support a suite of new National Environmental Standards. These changes are designed to strengthen environmental protections and address perceived weaknesses in existing compliance mechanisms.

For mineral explorers, however, the introduction of the Nature Positive Plan raises critical concerns. Chief among them is the risk of regulatory duplication. Explorers whose projects intersect with Matters of National Environmental Significance may now face dual assessments—one at the state level through the EPA and another federally under the EPBC Act. Despite the existence of bilateral assessment agreements, there is insufficient clarity about how the proposed reforms will interact with existing state processes, potentially leading to delays, increased costs, and conflicting decisions.

The requirement to adhere to national biodiversity metrics, standardised offsets, and potentially more stringent approval thresholds under the federal regime further complicates project planning. These changes come at a time when explorers are also adjusting to state-level procedural reforms, creating an environment of layered compliance that is both resource-intensive and unpredictable.

Industry Perspectives: Insights from the AMEC WA Regulatory Forum

These concerns were front and centre at the 2025 AMEC WA Regulatory Forum, where representatives from DMPE, EPA, and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) addressed an audience of industry stakeholders. Explorers expressed deep concern about the lack of coordination between concurrent reform agendas. While the goals of improved environmental accountability and procedural clarity were broadly supported, industry participants highlighted practical challenges such as inconsistent implementation timelines, insufficient consultation, and the absence of transitional support for smaller proponents.

Several speakers noted that the reforms place increasing reliance on proponent-driven science and Aboriginal heritage consultations without equivalent increases in public sector resourcing. Additionally, participants raised questions about the long-term viability of bilateral approvals under the Nature Positive Plan, and how these would be reconciled with WA’s own outcomes-based assessment regime. These concerns underline the importance of regulator-industry dialogue and the urgent need for cross-jurisdictional policy alignment.

Conclusion

Western Australia’s mineral explorers are entering a period of unprecedented regulatory transformation. The realignment of the DMPE, the EPA’s shift to outcomes-based assessments, and the federal Nature Positive Plan each aim to modernise approvals, improve environmental outcomes, and reduce duplication. Yet, for those on the front lines of exploration, these reforms currently translate into greater uncertainty, longer approval timelines, and increased costs of compliance.

While the sector recognises the importance of responsible environmental stewardship and sustainable development, there is a pressing need for transitional support, improved inter-agency coordination, and clarity in compliance expectations. Exploration—the foundation of future mining—is particularly vulnerable to regulatory friction, and failure to address these issues risks stifling discovery and innovation.

If Western Australia is to remain a leading destination for global exploration investment, it must ensure that its reform agenda is not only ambitious, but also coherent, coordinated, and inclusive of those who will carry its mineral future forward.