The Contradiction and Legality of Resources Victoria’s New Stance on Section 7 Land

Last month, I released a video that caused a significant storm in the prospecting community. That video not only raised awareness about the unclear and restrictive status of Section 7 land but also spurred people into action. The outpouring of calls, emails, and posts that followed ultimately led to Resources Victoria updating their stance on Section 7 land. Let’s be clear: this was willed into existence.

However, while their updated guidance might seem like a victory on the surface, it also highlights a glaring contradiction between their position and the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSDA)—a contradiction that cannot be ignored.

 

---

What Resources Victoria Changed

Resources Victoria has now stated on their website that recreational prospecting is allowed on Section 7 land, unless explicitly restricted in an “exemption instrument.” For those unfamiliar, Section 7 land is historically categorized as “Prohibited Crown Land” under the MRSDA, explicitly excluded from prospecting and mining activities.

Their statement represents a stark departure from established interpretations of the MRSDA, creating a legal gray area and confusion among prospectors. While this update may appear to be a step forward, it doesn’t align with the Act itself, raising serious questions about its legality and the potential risks for those who rely on it.

 

---

The Contradiction with the MRSDA

The MRSDA is clear in its language regarding Section 7 exemptions:

Section 7 allows the Minister to exempt land from mining, exploration, or any authority under the Act. These exemptions are intended to protect land of significant environmental, cultural, or public safety value.

Section 55 explicitly states that:

"A miner's right does not apply to Crown land exempted under Section 6, 6A, or 7 of this Act."

This means that all land exempted under Section 7 is off-limits to activities authorized by a miner’s right, including recreational prospecting.

Resources Victoria’s reference to “exemption instruments” attempts to introduce an undefined concept not mentioned anywhere in the MRSDA. Their new guidance implies that unless a specific document explicitly prohibits prospecting, it is allowed—a complete reversal of the Act’s default position. This interpretation is not only legally baseless but also undermines the legislative intent behind Section 7 exemptions.

 

---

A Storm of Action and Its Outcome

When I released my video last month, my goal was to force clarity on this issue. I knew that by shining a light on the contradictions and inefficiencies, people would take notice and act. The response was incredible: emails, calls, posts—an avalanche of pressure that Resources Victoria couldn’t ignore.

But while they’ve made changes, they’ve done so in a way that raises more questions than it answers. The guidance now contradicts the Act itself, leaving prospectors in a precarious position. This is not the clear, lawful resolution we need—it’s a shortcut that only creates confusion.

 

---

Resources Victoria’s Contradictory Stance

Despite the explicit prohibitions outlined in the MRSDA, Resources Victoria has recently updated their website to state that prospecting is allowed on Section 7-exempted land unless explicitly restricted in an undefined “exemption instrument.” This new guidance introduces multiple legal and procedural contradictions:

"Exemption Instruments" Have No Legal Basis:

The term "exemption instrument" is not mentioned, defined, or authorized anywhere in the MRSDA. By law, Section 7 exemptions apply universally to all types of licences and authorities under the Act, including miner’s rights. The concept of "exemption instruments" appears to be an invention by Resources Victoria, lacking any legislative backing.

Direct Contradiction of Section 55:

The guidance ignores the plain language of Section 55, which explicitly prohibits prospecting on Section 7-exempted land. By allowing prospecting on such land, Resources Victoria is issuing advice that directly conflicts with the law.

Undermining the Purpose of Section 7:

Section 7 exemptions are intended to protect lands that hold significant environmental, cultural, or heritage value. Allowing prospecting on these lands undermines the rationale for their protection and risks irreversible harm to their integrity.

 

---

The Risks of Their Contradictory Stance

This inconsistency introduces several serious risks:

For Recreational Prospectors:

Prospectors acting in good faith based on Resources Victoria’s guidance may unknowingly violate the MRSDA, exposing themselves to legal and financial penalties.

For Protected Lands:

Section 7 exemptions are designed to safeguard environmentally sensitive areas, culturally significant sites, and public safety zones. Allowing prospecting on these lands without proper legislative amendments risks damaging these resources.

For Public Trust in Governance:

Issuing guidance that conflicts with the MRSDA undermines confidence in the lawful administration of Victoria’s mineral resources. The introduction of undefined terms like “exemption instruments” suggests a lack of transparency and accountability within Resources Victoria.

 

---

The Risks of Conflicting Guidance

The consequences of Resources Victoria’s contradictory stance are far-reaching and affect multiple partners:

For Recreational Prospectors

Prospectors who rely on Resources Victoria’s updated guidance may unknowingly violate the MRSDA, exposing themselves to legal penalties and financial liabilities. The confusion creates a precarious situation where individuals following official advice may still face prosecution under the law.

For Land Managers and Public Resources

Section 7-exempted lands often include ecologically sensitive areas, culturally significant sites, and lands designated for public safety. Allowing prospecting on these lands increases the risk of environmental degradation, disturbance to cultural heritage, and harm to public assets.

For Public Trust in Governance

By issuing guidance that contradicts the MRSDA, Resources Victoria undermines confidence in the lawful administration of Victoria’s mineral resources. The lack of clarity and adherence to the law raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and due process within the department.

 

---

The Broader Legal and Administrative Implications

Resources Victoria’s contradictory guidance also highlights broader issues in the administration of Victoria’s mineral resources:

Legal Precedent and Accountability:

Allowing prospecting on Section 7-exempted land without amending the Act itself sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of the MRSDA. If this interpretation is allowed to stand, it could open the door for further erosions of protections for exempted lands.

Administrative Overreach:

The introduction of the concept of "exemption instruments" raises serious questions about administrative overreach. By creating new terms and interpretations that are not supported by the MRSDA, Resources Victoria risks acting beyond its authority.

Clarity and Consistency in Public Communication:

The inconsistency between the MRSDA and Resources Victoria’s guidance creates confusion for prospectors, land managers, and other stakeholders. This confusion undermines the effectiveness of the regulatory framework and increases the risk of conflict and legal disputes.

 

---

What Needs to Be Done

To address the contradictions and restore clarity, several steps are urgently needed:

Immediate Amendment of Contradictory Guidance:

Resources Victoria should amend their statements regarding prospecting on Section 7 land to align with the MRSDA, or push to amend the MRSDA itself. Clear, lawful guidance must replace the current misinformation.

Public Clarification and Transparency:

The department should issue a public statement acknowledging the conflict and providing accurate information about the application of Section 7 exemptions.

Independent Review of Processes:

An independent review should examine how this conflicting guidance was issued and ensure that future decisions comply with the law.

Legislative Amendment:

To eliminate ambiguity, the MRSDA should be amended to explicitly clarify the scope and application of Section 7 exemptions. This amendment could help prevent similar issues from arising in the future.

Stakeholder Engagement:

Resources Victoria must engage with prospectors, land managers, and advocacy groups to rebuild trust and ensure that public concerns are addressed in future decisions.

 

---

What Can YOU do?

Contact Resources Victoria and state that their new clarification does not align with the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990. The one act they are sworn to uphold. By doing so, we can hopefully get the act amended once and for all and have S7 land taken completely out of the equation when it comes to the scope applied to holders of a Miner's Right.

 

---

Conclusion

Resources Victoria’s new stance on Section 7-exempted land highlights a significant misstep in the administration of Victoria’s mineral resources. By ignoring the clear provisions of the MRSDA, the department has created confusion, risked harm to protected lands, and undermined public confidence in its governance.

Recreational prospectors and land managers deserve clear, lawful guidance that aligns with the intent and language of the MRSDA. Until Resources Victoria corrects its position or the Act is amended, the current contradiction leaves everyone in a precarious and uncertain position.

The time for clarity, accountability, and lawful administration is now. Resources Victoria must take immediate steps to rectify this issue and restore trust in the management of Victoria’s mineral resources.

This change was no accident—it was the direct result of a community mobilized by the issues raised in my video. The power of awareness and pressure is undeniable. But let’s not celebrate prematurely. Resources Victoria’s contradictory stance highlights the need for real, lawful change.

My goal was always to see Section 7 exemptions removed entirely from a miner’s right—but it must be done through proper legislative amendments, not shortcuts that create more confusion. Until the Act is amended, prospectors remain in legal limbo, and the integrity of protected lands is at risk.

Let’s keep the momentum going. Together, we can push for clarity, accountability, and a lawful resolution that supports responsible prospecting while upholding the principles of the MRSDA.