Under the current framework, recognition as a Competent Person under the JORC Code requires membership of a Recognised Professional Organisation (RPO), such as AusIMM or AIG.

Minerals Reporting Australia (MRA) is not intended to replace existing professional institutions. Rather, it exists to support and strengthen the practice of public reporting through peer engagement, structured development, and community standards that reflect the expectations of regulators and the market.

MRA’s initiatives, such as the CQP Framework and Peer Review Circles, are designed to complement existing membership pathways by focusing specifically on applied competency in minerals reporting, transparency, and accountability.

MRA is working to ensure its systems align with RPO expectations so that, in time, members who demonstrate appropriate competency, conduct, and contribution may be recognised under the Code.

This process will occur in full consultation with the ASX and Joint Ore Reserves Committee and existing RPOs.

In the meantime, members are encouraged to maintain active membership with an existing RPO if they are acting as a Competent Person under the JORC Code.

MRA is structured as a Community of Practice focused solely on public minerals reporting rather than discipline advocacy, general CPD, and broad industry networking.

What makes us different:

• We’re purpose-built for the Australian reporting environment, with deep alignment to:

  • ASX Listing Rules (particularly Chapters 3 and 5)

  • Australian Corporations Act

  • JORC Code (2012) — and its future iterations

• Our priority is to support Competent (Qualified) Persons and reporting professionals navigating the unique challenges of public disclosure in this context

• We offer structured peer review, applied competency development, and reporting quality support and not just theoretical guidance

While our work is informed by global standards, our mission is to elevate Australian public reporting practices and restore investor, regulator, and community confidence through transparency, competence, and integrity.

Yes.  The JORC Code allows self-declared Competent Persons, provided they meet the experience and membership criteria of a recognised professional organisation.

However, CQP recognition by MRA provides an additional layer of credibility, peer validation, and transparency, helping companies and investors gain greater confidence in your reporting.

Yes, MRA is committed to supporting members through practical, peer-informed learning. Workshops and sessions will focus on:

• Real-world reporting scenarios

• Current challenges in transparency, materiality, and disclosure

• Insights arising from Peer Review Circles and Panel assessments

We intend offering a mix of:

• Included sessions (as part of membership)

• Member-priced workshops for deeper training or specialist topics

• Collaborative sessions where members share insights, tools, or lessons learned

In addition to live sessions, members also have access to the MRA Knowledge Hub, which houses:

• Information Sheets on key reporting concepts and practices

• Guidance developed by members, for members, often in response to:

  • Common themes identified in Peer Review Circles

  • Recommendations from Peer Review Panels

  • Suggestions from members themselves

This ensures that the guidance remains current, relevant, and grounded in professional experience, not just compliance checklists.

MRA’s learning culture is built on peer contribution and shared growth and not just one-way instruction.

MRA is building a constructive, peer-led culture grounded in trust, professionalism, and shared responsibility.

We believe that raising standards in public minerals reporting doesn’t come from regulation alone.  Instead it comes from the collective commitment of professionals to do better, learn from each other, and act with integrity.

Our culture promotes:

• Shared learning, not blame: we don’t name and shame; we learn and improve

• Clarity over complexity: we seek to demystify reporting and build confidence in disclosure

• Confidence through capability, not just credentials: CQP status is earned through demonstrated judgment, contribution, and peer trust

MRA is not designed to be punitive; it is designed to be enlightening, developmental, and forward-looking.

We support professional accountability, yes but always through a process that is fair, supportive, and educational.

Whether you're reviewing a report, receiving feedback, contributing to a workshop, or helping shape an Information Sheet, you're part of a community that values growth, transparency, and raising the bar from within.

MRA operates as a not-for-profit organisation. Fees are used to:

• Support peer review processes

• Deliver professional development materials

• Maintain the CQP Framework and oversight structures

• Develop resources like Information Sheets and guidance notes

• Cover operational and governance costs
   

We aim to keep fees modest and transparent, with value returned directly to members.

Peer Review Circles are small, structured groups where members come together to review 3 to 5 real ASX public announcements, discuss principles, legal concepts, and quality of the releases, and develop deeper reporting judgment.

Participation is:

• Expected for all members

• Participation is a requirement for those on the pathway to CQP

Circles run on a cycle of 5 sessions, and MRA assigns members to ensure diversity of experience and perspective.

For formal reviews (e.g. in response to complaints), MRA convenes a Peer Review Panel (PRP) of at least three non-conflicted CQPs or Fellows.

• Selection is randomised from an approved pool maintained by the CQP Committee.

• Reviewers are required to declare any actual or perceived conflicts of interest and must recuse themselves if one exists.

• Panels are diverse and technically matched where possible, and all proceedings are confidential and documented.

For regular Peer Review Circles (non-complaint based):

• Groups are formed to foster developmental learning.

• Members are rotated periodically to broaden exposure and perspective.

Concerns about a potential breach will be handled through MRA’s structured Complaints and Disputes Resolution process, led by the Complaints and Disputes Oversight Committee (CDOC).

• If the issue relates to technical reporting quality, a Peer Review Panel (PRP) will be convened.

• If it involves professional conduct, CDOC will manage an internal investigation.

• Outcomes are tiered: 

  • Not substantiated

  • Substantiated – Minor (e.g. feedback, development guidance)

  • Substantiated – Serious (may lead to correction of public reports, suspension of CQP status, or termination of membership)

• All members have the right to respond and appeal under natural justice principles.

Yes, MRA permits anonymous complaints, but only where sufficient detail is provided to allow a fair and proper review. Anonymous complaints are more difficult to investigate thoroughly, and we prefer that complainants identify themselves so we can:

• Seek clarification if needed

• Promote mutual understanding

• Engage in constructive dialogue

• Support learning, not just resolution

Our complaints process is designed to be fair, confidential, and respectful, and we are committed to managing power imbalances or sensitive situations with care. Anonymity can be appropriate in certain cases, especially where there is a legitimate fear of repercussion, but it should be used with intent, not as a shield from accountability.

Importantly, all complaints, including anonymous ones, are subject to triage by the Complaints and Disputes Oversight Committee (CDOC). If a complaint appears to be vexatious, malicious, or made in bad faith, it will be reviewed in accordance with MRA’s Code of Conduct. In such cases, MRA may initiate a formal process to investigate the conduct of the complainant, even if submitted without a name, where identifiable patterns or misuse of the complaints process can be demonstrated.

MRA’s goal is not punishment, it is to foster a constructive culture of peer accountability, professional respect, and continuous improvement.

You will be treated with fairness, dignity, and confidentiality throughout the process. MRA’s approach is designed to protect the rights of all parties and uphold natural justice.

• You will be notified of the complaint and given a clear opportunity to respond.

• The matter will be managed by the Complaints and Disputes Oversight Committee (CDOC), with reviewers selected specifically to avoid conflicts of interest.

• If a Peer Review Panel (PRP) is required, you’ll have the chance to respond to its preliminary observations before any findings are finalised.

• If a "Substantiated – Serious" finding is proposed, you'll be given a 7-day window to respond before the matter is referred to the Board.

• You have the right to appeal any adverse outcome, including suspension or expulsion, through an independent Appeals Panel.

Timelines are built into the process to ensure timely resolution:

• Complaints are acknowledged within 7 days

• Complaint pathway is confirmed within 14 days

• Peer Review Panels submit reports within 30 days

• CDOC reviews within 14 days of PRP report

• Board decisions (if required) are made within 30 days of referral

If you believe the process itself has been unfair or compromised, there is an option to escalate the matter to the Board, or, in rare cases involving governance concerns, to external regulators such as ASIC.

MRA’s focus is on learning, transparency, and respectful resolution, not blame. Every step of the process is grounded in the belief that constructive engagement raises standards for everyone.

Yes. MRA distinguishes clearly between developmental concerns and serious breaches.

• Minor issues are addressed through constructive feedback and guidance, often leading to shared learnings across the membership.

• Serious or repeated breaches may lead to formal sanctions, including suspension or expulsion, but always with due process and the opportunity to be heard.