{"id":"tas:sr-2004-110","name":"State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Revocation Order 2004","slug":"state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"110 of 2004","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":318026,"registerId":"tas-tas:sr-2004-110-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-08","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"### 1 Short title\n\n> This order may be cited as the [State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Revocation Order 2004](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2004-110) .","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"### 2 Commencement\n\n> This order takes effect on the day on which its making is notified in the *Gazette*.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996 revoked","content":"### 3 State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996 revoked\n\n> The *State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996* is revoked.\n\nDisplayed and numbered in accordance with the *[Rules Publication Act 1953](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1953-050)*.\n\nNotified in the *Gazette* on 24 November 2004\n\nThis order is administered in the Department of Premier and Cabinet.","sortOrder":2}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"Document Structure/Header","severity":"high","reasoning":"A revocation order must at minimum identify: (1) the enabling power, (2) the instrument being revoked, and (3) the date of effect. None of these appear in the extracted text. If the operative provisions are genuinely absent, the instrument cannot function as a revocation.","confidence":0.55,"description":"The legislative instrument appears to contain no operative provisions whatsoever. A revocation order with no substantive clauses identifying what is being revoked, under what authority, or with what effect is a legal nullity on its face."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"Status Information - Currency of version","severity":"medium","reasoning":"If the version is current from 24 November 2004 with no amendments, the file modification date of 5 July 2017 is logically inconsistent. Either an amendment occurred that is not reflected in the currency statement, or the file was modified for a reason not disclosed (e.g. metadata, formatting), which undermines the reliability of the currency representation.","confidence":0.75,"description":"The instrument states it has been current and unchanged 'from 24 November 2004 to date' (accessed 8 April 2026), yet also states 'File last modified 5 July 2017'. An unmodified instrument cannot have a file modification date 13 years after commencement unless something changed."},{"type":"other","section":"Table of Amending Instruments","severity":"low","reasoning":"While not impossible, the existence of a Table of Amendments for a revocation order is inherently curious. If the revocation order was amended, the logical question is whether the amendment partially reinstated the revoked instrument, narrowed the revocation, or changed its date of effect — each of which would be conceptually unusual and potentially create legal uncertainty about the status of the original project declaration.","confidence":0.6,"description":"The instrument invites readers to 'click to view Table of Amendments' for what is itself a revocation order — an instrument whose sole purpose is to extinguish another instrument. A revocation order that is itself subsequently amended raises the question of whether the revocation was ever complete, partial, or conditional."},{"type":"other","section":"Document Structure - Title repetition","severity":"low","reasoning":"Consistent titling is a basic requirement of legislative drafting. Truncated and duplicated titles, even if attributable to document rendering artefacts, create a record that is unreliable for precise legal citation. Courts and practitioners rely on unambiguous instrument titles.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The title of the instrument is repeated at least four times in subtly varying forms across the document headers, including truncated versions ('State Policies and Projects (P...)'). This creates ambiguity as to the definitive short title of the instrument and could cause citation errors in future legal proceedings."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Currency of version — 'Version current from 24 November 2004 to date'","section_b":"Authorisation — 'File last modified 5 July 2017'","confidence":0.78,"description":"The currency statement asserts the instrument has been in its current form since 24 November 2004 with no subsequent changes, while the authorisation metadata records a file modification on 5 July 2017 — approximately 12.5 years later."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"Table of Amending Instruments — presence of amendment table link","section_b":"Currency of version — 'Version current from 24 November 2004 to date'","confidence":0.5,"description":"The provision of a Table of Amending Instruments implies amendments may exist or have been considered, which sits in tension with a currency statement suggesting the instrument has been wholly unchanged since commencement in 2004."}]},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":1,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument performs exactly the function its title suggests — revoking a specific 1996 order. There is no scope creep; it does not expand into new policy areas or add new substantive requirements."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short: only 3 operative sections","No defined terms","No cross-references to other legislation (except citation of the revoked instrument)","No conditional logic or exceptions","Single, straightforward operative effect: revocation of one named instrument"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this does:** This is a short, technical order that cancels (revokes) an earlier order from 1996 called the *State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996*.\n\n**Who it affects:** Primarily government officials and anyone who was relying on the 1996 order for planning or project approvals. For most people, this is background administrative housekeeping.\n\n**Why it matters:** The 1996 order had designated certain large projects as \"Projects of State Significance\" — a special planning category that typically fast-tracks major developments and gives them different assessment rules. By revoking that order, this instrument removes those special designations. Any projects that were covered by the 1996 order would no longer have that status unless covered by other legislation.\n\n**In short:** This cleans up the statute book by removing an old planning instrument that is no longer needed."},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does exactly what its title says — it revokes a Project of State Significance declaration. There is no indication that its scope shifted from its original intent. It is a narrow, administrative cancellation order with a single, clear purpose."},"complexity_factors":["The instrument itself is structurally simple — it is a single-purpose revocation order with no complex operative provisions","Complexity is slightly elevated because understanding its effect requires knowledge of the parent legislation (State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (Tas))","The specific project being revoked is not identified in the available text, requiring cross-referencing with other documents to fully understand the practical impact"],"plain_english_summary":"This revocation order cancels a prior declaration that an unnamed Tasmanian project was a \"Project of State Significance,\" removing its special fast‑track approval pathway.  \n\nThat change affects the project’s developers (who lose streamlined state control), local planning authorities (who may regain decision‑making), and nearby communities (who return to normal consultation and planning processes), potentially slowing approvals and restoring local oversight."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument removes the State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996 from the statute book by express revocation (s 3). Commencement is the day the making is notified in the Gazette (s 2), so the 1996 order ceases to operate on that notification. The order contains no transitional or saving clauses, and administration is recorded as with the Department of Premier and Cabinet (administration note), meaning any rights, obligations or processes under the 1996 order will conclude on commencement unless preserved by other law."},"complexity_factors":["Single operative change: a direct revocation of a prior order (s 3).","Simple commencement rule tied to Gazette notification (s 2), which creates immediate effect on notice.","No transitional, saving, or explanatory provisions in the instrument to manage effects on existing matters.","Very short instrument with no delegated discretions or new regulatory requirements.","Administrative attribution noted (Department of Premier and Cabinet) but without procedural detail."],"plain_english_summary":"This order revokes the State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 1996. It takes effect when its making is notified in the Gazette (ss 2–3) and is administered by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Mechanically, it removes the 1996 order from the statute book; the instrument contains no transitional or saving provisions, so the prior order's legal effect ceases on commencement unless preserved elsewhere."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004","history":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004/history","analysis":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/state-policies-and-projects-project-of-state-significance-revocation-order-2004/documents"}}