Mutual Recognition Act 1992 - Section 32 - Ministerial Declaration (05/12/2000)

This instrument is a joint ministerial declaration made under section 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) by the South Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy and the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy, dated November and December 2000. It declares that specific categories of mine management certificates issued under the respective state legislation are equivalent for the purposes of mutual recognition. The declaration has the legal effect that a person who holds a South Australian certificate identified in Part I or II of the declaration is deemed to hold the corresponding Queensland certificates, and vice versa, without needing to undergo further assessment of qualifications or competency. The recital states the explicit premise that no underground coal mines exist in South Australia, which explains the asymmetry in the equivalence mapping. Part I declares that South Australian Certificate Item B (first class mine manager’s certificate) is equivalent to the combination of Queensland Certificates Items D (first class metalliferous mines) and F (limited open-cut coal mines). Part II declares that South Australian Certificate Item C (first class underground mine manager’s certificate) is equivalent to Queensland Certificate Item E (first class underground metalliferous mines). The declaration thereby removes a regulatory barrier for mine managers who wish to practise across the two states, but it does not create a blanket equivalence across all mining domains. The schedule contains a table of domains showing which certificates apply to metalliferous and coal mines in open-cut and underground operations, with the shaded domain indicating there are no underground coal mines in South Australia. The declaration is a targeted fix to a specific gap: South Australia does not issue a certificate for underground coal mine management because no such mines exist, and a South Australian general manager certificate (Item B) covers open-cut coal and both open-cut and underground metalliferous, while Queensland splits metalliferous and coal into separate certificates. Without the declaration, a South Australian manager holding Item B would not automatically be recognised as competent for open-cut coal management in Queensland, and a Queensland manager holding Items D and F would not automatically be recognised in South Australia. The declaration resolves this by mapping the broader South Australian certificate to the narrower Queensland combination.

The core concept is equivalence determination under section 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (the MR Act). The MR Act generally provides for automatic mutual recognition of occupational registrations across Australian states and territories: a person registered in one state is entitled to be registered in another state for the equivalent occupation, subject to conditions. However, when an occupation is defined differently across states, or when a single state certificate covers multiple occupations that are separate in another state, automatic recognition may not apply neatly. Section 32 allows the relevant ministers of two or more states to jointly declare that specified occupations are equivalent, or that a specified occupation in one state is equivalent to a combination of occupations in another state. This declaration then binds the regulatory authorities in those states. The declaration here uses that power to create an equivalence mapping between four South Australian certificate categories and three Queensland certificate categories.

The certificate categories are defined by the state mining legislation referenced in Schedule 1. South Australian certificates: Item A (first class mine manager’s certificate restricted to coal mines), Item B (first class mine manager’s certificate, unrestricted by commodity but presumably covering both metalliferous and coal in surface and underground, except underground coal may be excluded), Item C (first class underground mine manager’s certificate). Item A was the subject of an earlier declaration on 25 August 2000 and is not part of this December 2000 declaration. Queensland certificates: Item D (first class mine manager’s certificate, metalliferous mines), Item E (first class mine manager’s certificate, underground metalliferous mines), Item F (limited mine manager’s certificate, open-cut coal mines). The schedule shows a domain matrix: for open-cut metalliferous, both SA Item B and Qld Item D apply; for open-cut coal, SA Items A and B and Qld Item F apply; for underground metalliferous, SA Items B and C and Qld Items D and E; for underground coal, SA Items A, B, C but Qld has no equivalent listed in the table (because Qld uses different certificates for underground coal not shown here, likely a separate certificate not declared). The shaded domain in the table indicates no underground coal mines in South Australia, so SA does not issue any certificate specifically for underground coal management. The declaration does not cover the full set of certificates; it only addresses the ones listed in the declaration text.

Another key concept is : the equivalence is not general but limited to the precise certificate numbers. A person holding SA Item B is deemed to hold both Qld Items D and F, but not Qld Item E or any other Queensland certificate not declared. Similarly, SA Item C is equivalent only to Qld Item E, not to Qld D or F. The declaration also implies a one-to-many or many-to-one mapping: SA Item B covers a broader scope than either Qld D or F individually, so the equivalence requires holding both Queensland certificates. In practice, a person who holds SA Item B can apply for registration in Queensland for both metalliferous mines and open-cut coal mines together, but if they only want to work in metalliferous mines, they might still need to demonstrate they meet the specific requirements for Qld Item D alone. The declaration makes the combined scope equivalent, not the individual certificates separately.

The primary affected group is mine managers who hold, or intend to obtain, one of the specified certificates in South Australia or Queensland. This includes existing certificate holders who wish to practise in the other state without going through a full assessment process, and prospective managers who are deciding which state to qualify in. For example, a manager with a South Australian first class mine manager’s certificate (Item B) can now work in Queensland as a manager of metalliferous mines (Item D) and also as a manager of open-cut coal mines (Item F) without needing separate Queensland certification. Similarly, a manager with a Queensland first class metalliferous mine manager’s certificate (Item D) and a limited open-cut coal certificate (Item F) can work in South Australia as a first class mine manager (Item B) for mines covered by that certificate (which includes open-cut coal and open-cut and underground metalliferous). A manager with a Queensland first class underground metalliferous certificate (Item E) can work in South Australia as an underground mine manager (Item C) for underground metalliferous mines.

The declaration also affects mining companies that operate across both states. A company employing a mine manager who holds certificates from one state can now transfer that manager to a mine in the other state without needing to sponsor a new qualification assessment or wait for a separate licensing process. This reduces administrative friction and potentially increases labour mobility, which can affect project timelines and costs. The declaration is particularly relevant to companies with operations in the Cooper Basin, Mount Isa region, or other cross-border mining areas where managers may be moved between South Australia and Queensland.

Regulatory bodies are also affected: the South Australian Department for Energy and Mining (or its predecessor administering the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920) and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines (administering the Mines Regulation Act 1964 and Coal Mining Act 1925). These bodies must accept applications for deemed registration under the MR Act based on the equivalence declared. They cannot impose additional competency requirements beyond what is already required for the equivalent certificate, except for conditions that apply generally to all registered persons (such as health, character, or local knowledge requirements allowed under the MR Act). The declaration creates an administrative obligation on regulators to process these applications efficiently.

Under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, a person who holds an occupation registration in one state has the right to apply for registration in another state for the equivalent occupation. The effect of this declaration is that the specified South Australian and Queensland certificates are deemed equivalent occupations. Therefore, a person holding a declared South Australian certificate has the right to be registered in Queensland for the declared Queensland certificates, provided they comply with the procedural requirements of the MR Act. Similarly, a person holding the declared Queensland certificates has the right to be registered in South Australia for the declared South Australian certificates.

The right is not automatic; the person must still apply to the relevant regulatory authority in the other state, provide evidence of their existing registration, and pay any applicable fee. The authority cannot require the applicant to undergo further training, examination, or assessment of competence, because the declaration establishes equivalence of qualifications. However, the authority may impose conditions that are generally imposed on all holders of that certificate in the state, such as continuing professional development, medical fitness, or specific requirements for certain mine types (e.g., gas management in coal mines). The MR Act also allows a state to impose conditions that are necessary to protect the health or safety of the public, but these must not discriminate against interstate applicants compared to local ones.

The duty of the applicant is to provide accurate information about their existing registration and to notify the regulatory authority of any change in their registration status (e.g., suspension or cancellation of the home state certificate). There is also a duty to comply with the conditions of the registration in the other state once granted. If a person holds SA Item B and obtains Qld registration for Items D and F, they must comply with Queensland mining laws, regulations, and codes of practice applicable to those certificates. The MR Act does not exempt them from complying with local safety, environmental, or operational laws.

For employers, the duty is to ensure that any mine manager they employ holds the appropriate registration for the state and type of mine. If a manager has obtained registration in Queensland under the equivalence declaration, the employer must verify that the registration covers the specific mine operations. For example, a manager registered in Queensland based on SA Item C (equivalent to Qld Item E) is only authorised for underground metalliferous mines, not underground coal mines. Employers must not assign such a manager to an underground coal mine, as that would be outside the scope of the declared equivalence.

The declaration itself does not prescribe penalties. Penalties arise from the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and from the state mining legislation that governs the certificates. Under the MR Act, it is an offence for a person to knowingly make a false or misleading statement in an application for mutual recognition (section 47, as in force at the time; more recent versions may differ). The penalty for such an offence can include fines. A person who falsely claims to hold a certificate that is equivalent, or who practices beyond the scope of their deemed registration, may also be liable under state mining laws for operating without the required certificate. For example, in Queensland, section 9 of the Mines Regulation Act 1964 (as referenced in the declaration) requires that a mine manager hold a certificate of competency. Operating without the required certificate is an offence carrying significant penalties, which may include fines and imprisonment for serious safety breaches. In South Australia, the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 similarly imposes penalties for unqualified persons acting as mine managers.

Enforcement of these provisions falls to the state mining regulators, who conduct inspections and investigations. The declaration does not change the enforcement regime; it only affects the basis on which a person is considered qualified. If a person has been granted registration in Queensland under the equivalence declaration, they are considered qualified for the declared certificates, and any enforcement action would need to consider that deemed registration. However, if the equivalence declaration is misapplied (e.g., a person uses SA Item B to claim registration as an underground coal mine manager in Queensland, which the declaration does not cover), the regulator can take action for operating without a proper certificate.

Additionally, the MR Act provides for a mechanism where a state can impose a condition on the interstate registrant if the occupation in that state has additional requirements that are not covered by the equivalence declaration. If the condition is breached, the person may face cancellation or suspension of their deemed registration, and potentially further penalties under the MR Act or state law. The declaration does not grant immunity from local occupational health and safety laws. A mine manager who causes a safety incident while practising under the deemed registration could face prosecution under the work health and safety legislation of the state where the incident occurred, independent of the mutual recognition status.

The declaration operates exclusively within the framework of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth). Section 32 of that Act specifically contemplates such ministerial declarations to resolve mismatches in occupational definitions. The declaration is not itself a legislative instrument; it is a ministerial declaration that has legal effect because the MR Act gives it that effect. The MR Act overrides any inconsistent state laws to the extent that state laws would prevent a person registered in one state from being registered in another state for an equivalent occupation. This means that the state mining legislation references in the schedule (the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 (SA), Mines Regulation Act 1964 (Qld), Coal Mining Act 1925 (Qld), and their regulations) must be read subject to the MR Act. However, the state laws still govern the substantive content of the certificates: what a certificate holder can do, the conditions of practice, and the ongoing obligations. The declaration does not amend or repeal those state laws; it only creates a deemed equivalence for recognition purposes.

The declaration also interacts with work health and safety laws in each state. A mine manager must comply with the WHS Act and regulations of the state where the mine is located. The declaration does not reduce those obligations. For example, a manager who moves from South Australia to Queensland under the equivalence must still undergo any site-specific safety induction required by Queensland WHS laws. The MR Act allows a state to impose conditions that are necessary to protect health and safety, as long as they are imposed on all registrants equally. So Queensland could require all open-cut coal mine managers, including those from South Australia, to complete a specific gas management course, provided it is a condition applied to all holders of Qld Item F. That would not breach the equivalence.

The declaration does not affect federal laws such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 or the Fair Work Act 2009. Labour mobility is supported by the declaration, but it does not override employment law. A mine manager employed by a company must still comply with the terms of their employment contract, enterprise agreements, and awards. The declaration is purely about occupational registration.

For other states, the declaration has no direct legal effect. However, it may be used as persuasive evidence in an application for mutual recognition under the general provisions of the MR Act. For example, if a person holds both SA Item B and Qld Items D and F, and wishes to be registered in New South Wales, they could point to the declaration as evidence that the certificates are considered equivalent between two states, but the NSW regulator is not bound by it. The general mutual recognition process in NSW would apply.

The source document is a single ministerial declaration made under section 32 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, dated 5 December 2000 (South Australia) and 8 November 2000 (Queensland). There is no indication in the source of any subsequent amendments. However, the schedule table notes that Item A was the subject of an earlier Ministerial Declaration on 25 August 2000, which is a separate declaration not provided here. That earlier declaration presumably declared equivalence for some other combination of certificates, possibly involving SA Item A (first class mine manager’s certificate restricted to coal mines) with some Queensland certificate. The current declaration does not amend that earlier one; it stands independently.

The legislation references in the schedule are to older acts: South Australian Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 and its regulations (1966 and 1998 versions), and Queensland Mines Regulation Act 1964, Coal Mining Act 1925, and Metalliferous Mining Regulations 1985. These have since been repealed or replaced in both states. South Australia now regulates mines under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) and the Mining Act 1971 (SA), among others. Queensland now has the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999, and various regulations. The declaration has not been formally updated to reflect these changes. The legal effect of the declaration depends on the continuing operation of the old legislation for the purposes of the certificates, which may have been saved or transitional. It is possible that the equivalence still applies if the certificates have been continued under new legislation, but careful legal advice would be needed to confirm.

The declaration itself could be amended or revoked by a subsequent joint ministerial declaration under section 32. No such amendment is shown in the source. If the factual premise (no underground coal mines in South Australia) changes, the ministers might need to issue a new declaration. As at the date of this analysis, no later declaration has been made public, but the user should check the current status.

The source document does not refer to any litigation. Given the age of the declaration (2000) and its narrow scope, there appears to be no publicly reported case law directly interpreting this specific declaration. However, there is general case law on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, including decisions on what constitutes an "equivalent occupation" and the limits of ministerial declarations. For example, the High Court in Re MIMIA; Ex parte Te (2004) considered aspects of mutual recognition, but not this declaration. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has also dealt with mutual recognition matters. For this declaration, the most likely dispute would arise if a regulator refused to accept the equivalence, or if a person was prosecuted for practising without a proper certificate despite claiming the equivalence. No such case is mentioned in the source.

The lack of litigation may indicate that the declaration has operated smoothly, or that its limited scope (only two states, specific certificates) has not generated disputes. It is also possible that the certificates are now rarely used because the legislation has been replaced. However, from an analytical standpoint, the absence of case law means that the exact boundaries of the equivalence have not been judicially tested. For example, it is unclear whether the equivalence of SA Item B to Qld Items D and F means that a person must hold both Queensland certificates simultaneously to be entitled to the South Australian certificate, or whether holding only one of them can give partial equivalence. The text of the declaration is symmetric: Part I declares that SA Item B is equivalent to Qld Items D and F. The plain meaning is that the two sets are equivalent, so a Qld holder of both D and F is entitled to SA Item B, and a SA holder of Item B is entitled to both D and F. But if a person holds only Qld Item D, they are not within the declaration and must rely on general mutual recognition, which may not grant them SA Item B because the scope differs. That could be a source of dispute.

Several hidden traps exist in this declaration that practitioners must watch for.

1. Factual premise may be stale. The declaration is premised on there being no underground coal mines in South Australia. That may have been true in 2000, but if any underground coal mine has since been established in South Australia (e.g., the Leigh Creek coal mine is open-cut, but there have been proposals for underground coal), the premise is no longer accurate. The declaration does not automatically become invalid if the premise changes, but the equivalence could become inappropriate. A person relying on the declaration should verify the current status of underground coal mining in South Australia.

2. Legislation references are outdated. The statutes listed in Schedule 1 have been repealed and replaced in both states. For example, the Mines Regulation Act 1964 (Qld) was repealed by the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. The Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 (SA) has been largely superseded by the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. The certificates may no longer exist under those names. It is unclear whether the equivalence survives under the new legislation. The MR Act probably requires the occupation to be substantially the same; a person should check whether the new certificate systems have directly equivalent categories. If not, the declaration may be ineffective or require a new declaration.

3. Item A is not covered by this declaration. The schedule shows Item A exists, and a separate declaration on 25 August 2000 covered it. This means a person holding SA Item A (first class restricted to coal mines) cannot use this December 2000 declaration to gain recognition in Queensland. They must rely on the earlier declaration (if it still applies) or general mutual recognition.

4. The scope of SA Item B is broader than the sum of Qld D and F. SA Item B is a first class mine manager’s certificate without restriction, which under South Australian law presumably allows management of any mine (coal or metalliferous, open-cut or underground) except possibly underground coal mines (since the recital says there are no underground coal mines). The Queensland equivalents are specific to metalliferous mines (Item D) and open-cut coal mines (Item F). This means a South Australian with Item B cannot automatically manage an underground coal mine in Queensland because the declaration only equates to Items D and F, and Queensland has a separate certificate for underground coal (likely Item G or another not declared). So the South Australian manager would need to apply for mutual recognition separately for underground coal, which may be denied because South Australia does not have an equivalent certificate.

Compliance with this declaration requires careful alignment of certificates and procedures.

For a mine manager seeking to move between SA and Qld:

• Step 1: Identify your certificate. Determine exactly which certificate you hold under your home state’s legislation. For South Australia: Item B (first class mine manager’s certificate) or Item C (first class underground mine manager’s certificate). For Queensland: Items D (first class metalliferous) and/or F (limited open-cut coal) jointly, or Item E (first class underground metalliferous).

• Step 2: Verify the declaration applies. Check that your certificate is one of those listed in the declaration. For example, SA Item A is not covered by this declaration. If you hold SA Item A, do not rely on this declaration; use the prior declaration of August 2000 or general mutual recognition.

• Step 3: Check scope of practice. Understand exactly what the declared equivalence allows. A SA Item B holder can work in Queensland in metalliferous mines (any method) and open-cut coal mines, but NOT in underground coal mines. A SA Item C holder can work in Queensland only in underground metalliferous mines. A Queensland holder of Items D and F can work in South Australia as a first class mine manager (Item B), which includes open-cut and underground metalliferous and open-cut coal, but not underground coal (since SA has no underground coal mines, but if they existed, the SA Item B would probably not cover them because SA does not certify for underground coal). A Queensland holder of Item E can work in South Australia as an underground mine manager (Item C) for underground metalliferous mines only.

• Step 4: Apply for mutual recognition. Submit an application to the regulatory authority in the other state under the Mutual Recognition Act. Provide evidence of your existing certificate (e.g., certified copy) and pay the application fee. In Queensland, the regulator is the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (or its successor); in South Australia, the Department for Energy and Mining. You do not need to provide additional competency evidence, but you may need to show that your home state registration is current and not subject to any restrictions that would prevent registration.

• Step 5: Comply with local conditions. Once you receive the deemed registration, you must comply with all conditions that apply to that certificate in the host state. For example, if Queensland requires all open-cut coal mine managers to complete a specific gas awareness course, you must complete that course even though you were not required to do so in South Australia. The MR Act allows such conditions if they are imposed on all holders of the equivalent certificate.