{"id":"BILL-TAS-mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026","name":"Mineral Resources Legislation (Ban on Fracking) Bill 2026","slug":"mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2026-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446194,"registerId":"BILL-TAS-mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-08T16:48:33.895Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Mineral Resources Legislation (Ban on Fracking) Bill 2026\n\n[Bill 4]-VI\nTASMANIA\n__________\nMINERAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION (BAN ON\nFRACKING) BILL 2026\n__________\nCONTENTS\n1. Short title\n2. Commencement\n3. Principal Act\n4. Section 7A inserted\n7A. Application of Act to certain activities\n5. Repeal of Act\n\n2\n\n[Bill 4] 3\nMINERAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION (BAN ON\nFRACKING) BILL 2026\n(Brought in by Tabatha Anne Badger, MP)\nA BILL FOR\nAn Act to amend the Mineral Resources Development Act\n1995\nBe it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by\nand with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and\nHouse of Assembly, in Parliament assembled, as follows:\n1. Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Mineral Resources\nLegislation (Ban on Fracking) Act 2026.\n2. Commencement\nThis Act commences on the day on which this\nAct receives the Royal Assent.\n3. Principal Act\nIn this Act, the Mineral Resources Development\nAct 1995* is referred to as the Principal Act.\n_______________________________________________________________\n*No. 116 of 1995\n\nMineral Resources Legislation (Ban on Fracking) Act 2026\nAct No. of 2026\ns. 4\n4\n4. Section 7A inserted\nAfter section 7 of the Principal Act, the\nfollowing section is inserted in Part 1:\n7A. Application of Act to certain activities\n(1) In this section –\nhydraulic fracturing includes –\n(a) the process of injecting a\nsubstance, including\nwater, into a bore under\npressure for the purposes\nof stimulating a\ngeological formation; and\n(b) a process that is\nprescribed as hydraulic\nfracturing for the\npurposes of this\ndefinition;\nmining authorisation includes –\n(a) a lease; and\n(b) a licence; and\n(c) an authorisation under\nthis Act to undertake\nmining, investigation or\nresearch.\n(2) A mining authorisation under this Act\ndoes not authorise a person to undertake\nhydraulic fracturing while carrying out\n\nMineral Resources Legislation (Ban on Fracking) Act 2026\nAct No. of 2026\ns. 5\n5\nan activity, other than producing\ngeothermal energy, under the authority of\nthe mining authorisation.\n(3) A term or condition of a mining\nauthorisation is void to the extent that the\nterm or condition –\n(a) allows, permits or approves the\nundertaking of hydraulic\nfracturing while carrying out an\nactivity, other than producing\ngeothermal energy, under the\nauthority of the mining\nauthorisation; or\n(b) purports to allow, permit or\napprove the undertaking of\nhydraulic fracturing while\ncarrying out an activity, other\nthan producing geothermal\nenergy, under the authority of the\nmining authorisation.\n(4) For the avoidance of doubt, this section\napplies to a mining authorisation\nregardless of whether the mining\nauthorisation was issued, granted or\ngiven before or after the commencement\nof this section.\n5. Repeal of Act\nThis Act is repealed on the first anniversary of\nthe day on which this Act commenced.\nGovernment Printer, Tasmania","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This bill is narrowly scoped to impose a prohibition on hydraulic fracturing in connection with mining authorisations under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995, with a geothermal exception, retroactive effect, and a one-year sunset. It does not broaden the Principal Act into unrelated subject-matter; it instead inserts a focused constraint on a specific mining method. The temporary repeal clause limits the duration rather than expanding the original subject-matter. Therefore the bill does not appear to have grown beyond its original, narrow purpose of banning fracking within the framework of the Principal Act."},"complexity_factors":["Very short text (5 sections)","Introduces 1 new operative section (7A) into the Principal Act","3 defined elements in s.7A(1) (broad definitions: hydraulic fracturing; mining authorisation)","Broad/dynamic definition: 'hydraulic fracturing' can be expanded by regulation ('prescribed')","Retroactive application to pre-existing authorisations (s.7A(4))","Voiding of terms and conditions in existing authorisations (s.7A(3))","Exception carved out for geothermal energy (s.7A(2))","Sunset/repeal after one year (s.5) — creates temporal complexity for stakeholders","Cross-reference to the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (requires reading the Principal Act for enforcement details and interaction)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this bill does (mechanically)\n\n- Inserts a new section (7A) into the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 that forbids hydraulic fracturing (\"fracking\") in connection with mining activities except where the activity is for producing geothermal energy (s.7A(2)).\n- Defines key terms: \"hydraulic fracturing\" (covers injecting a substance under pressure, including water, and any process later prescribed as hydraulic fracturing) and \"mining authorisation\" (covers leases, licences and any authorisation under the Act for mining, investigation or research) (s.7A(1)).\n- Declares any term or condition in a mining authorisation that would allow fracking to be void (unenforceable) (s.7A(3)).\n- Makes the prohibition apply to authorisations issued before or after the section commences (retroactive application) (s.7A(4)).\n- Automatically repeals the Act one year after it commences (sunset clause) (s.5).\n\nWho is affected\n\n- Holders of mining authorisations under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 (leases, licences, and other authorisations for mining, investigation or research) — they can no longer lawfully undertake hydraulic fracturing in connection with mining except for producing geothermal energy (s.7A(1)–(3)).\n- Prospective applicants for mining authorisations: regulators must not grant authorisations that would permit fracking for mining (s.7A(2)–(3)).\n- The government and enforcement agencies: they retain responsibility for implementing and enforcing the prohibition through the existing regulatory framework in the Principal Act; the bill itself does not add a new enforcement regime.\n\nWhy it matters (practical effects, incentives and trade-offs)\n\n- Immediate prohibition: The ban removes the legal ability of mining authorisation holders to use hydraulic fracturing for mining activities (s.7A(2)). That changes the feasible set of extraction methods for projects that planned to use fracking.\n- Broad scope and retroactivity: The bill applies to existing and future authorisations (s.7A(4)) and voids any existing authorisation terms that would permit fracking (s.7A(3)). That creates immediate legal effect on current projects.\n- Exception for geothermal: Fracking remains permissible where the activity is \"producing geothermal energy,\" so the ban is not absolute (s.7A(2)).\n- Delegation and definitional breadth: \"Hydraulic fracturing\" includes any process later prescribed as such, which allows regulations to expand or clarify the activities captured (s.7A(1)). This gives future rule-makers scope to adjust the technical boundary of the ban.\n- Temporal limit (one-year sunset): The Act automatically expires one year after commencement (s.5). That makes the prohibition temporary unless replaced by further legislation or regulatory action, which introduces a predictable end-date but also creates policy uncertainty for investors and operators.\n\nCosts, incentives and likely behaviours\n\n- Who pays: title-holders and investors who planned to rely on fracking for resource development bear the direct economic impact (reduced recovery options, potential stranded investment). The public sector bears administrative and enforcement costs through the existing regulatory apparatus.\n- Compliance and administrative burden: The bill itself creates limited new paperwork, but it requires regulators and title-holders to adjust permits, operational plans and compliance checks to reflect the ban.\n- Legal and financial risk: Voiding authorisation conditions and applying the ban to existing authorisations (s.7A(3)–(4)) could give rise to legal disputes (for example, contract or compensation claims) because rights exercised or relied upon under earlier terms are altered.\n- Investment and planning incentives: The sunset clause (s.5) and the delegated \"prescribed\" element in the definition of hydraulic fracturing (s.7A(1)) create uncertainty about the long-term legal environment for methods of extraction that resemble fracking. Firms may delay investment or alter technical choices (switch to non-fracking techniques or target geothermal projects where allowed).\n\nImplementation risks and trade-offs\n\n- Enforcement relies on the Principal Act's existing compliance and enforcement powers; the bill does not create a separate enforcement mechanism, which could complicate immediate operational oversight.\n- The definition that allows prescription by regulation introduces flexibility but also uncertainty about what additional techniques might be captured later.\n- The one-year repeal reduces the ban's permanence unless further legislative action is taken; this reduces long-term certainty for both industry and communities.\n\nKey sections to read: definitions and prohibition (s.7A(1)–(3)), retroactivity (s.7A(4)), and repeal/sunset (s.5).\n\nNote on stated purpose vs effects: The instrument operates mechanically as a time-limited prohibition on hydraulic fracturing for mining (except geothermal). Any claimed policy reason for that prohibition would be separate from the mechanical effects described above and should be weighed against the immediate costs, legal risks and the regulatory discretion the bill creates (notably the ability to \"prescribe\" additional processes as hydraulic fracturing)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026","history":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026/history","analysis":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/mineral-resources-legislation-ban-on-fracking-bill-2026/documents"}}