Queensland legislation, industry codes and policies relating to mine rehabilitation and closure create the expectation of successful progressive rehabilitation and that the post-mining environment is being returned to a condition suited to a pre-agreed, beneficial end use. Yet none of the rehabilitated mined land in the Bowen Basin has been certified as successful by authorities suggesting there is a gap between current rehabilitation and the full environmental outcomes that the legislation could deliver. We tested the veracity of this perspective and reflect on where responsibility for any discrepancy lies.We first reviewed current Queensland legislation and industry codes relating to stakeholder engagement, rehabilitation, closure planning and post-mining land use. We tested the accessibility of the documentation trail for several recent coal-mining projects in the Bowen Basin and examined the level of detail in approval documentation. We then assessed the rehabilitation performance reports of these mines in relation to the contents of their approval documents. Legislation, guidelines and codes repeatedly emphasise the need to plan for closure before mine operations begin and to progressively perform rehabilitation with an agreed end-use in mind. Early stakeholder involvement in these processes and transparency of actions and outcomes are also encouraged by government publications. Overall, in terms of transparency, we found that relevant documents are generally available to the persistent enquirer. However, the rehabilitation and closure undertakings given in both mine company and regulator documentation were commonly generic and rehabilitation obligations were not explicitly incorporated into rehabilitation plans. Rehabilitation reporting was also weak in that no distinction is required between successful and unsuccessful revegetation, nor to closure objectives and mine completion criteria. Responsibility for the apparent disconnect between regulatory intent and actual performance appears to begin with the regulator too readily allowing generic information and in not requiring performance reporting to correspond with approved post-mine conditions. As a result, companies may have a much greater rehabilitation and closure risk than mine management expects. More poignantly, the checks and balances that are in the legislation are not yielding the environmental outcomes of which they are capable.CITATION:White, O, Maczkowiack, R I, Erskine, P D and Baumgartl, T, 2012. Walk or talk - Is the current mine approval process in Queensland delivering rehabilitation and closure success?, in Proceedings Life-of-Mine 2012 , pp 59-68 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).