Major Infrastructure Development Approvals (North West Transmission Upgrades Project) Order 2020

This order is short and purpose-specific; its main concepts are defined in clause 3 and then used across the instrument. Pulling the order’s conceptual architecture apart shows who does what and which legal mechanisms are modified.

• Major infrastructure project: Clause 5 is the operative declaration. It lists the precise works that comprise the North West Transmission Upgrades Project: a 220kV double-circuit overhead transmission line and towers within a corridor 120 metres wide (clause 5(a)); electricity substations at specified locations (clause 5(b)); ancillary facilities at specified locations (clause 5(c)); conductor winching and braking sites within 150 metres of the corridor boundary (clause 5(d)); infrastructure assembly areas and vehicle access tracks to be located within the corridor and at substations and ancillary facilities that run to the nearest suitable road or track (clause 5(e)); and substitute line works as determined necessary by the proponent (clause 5(f)). Declaring these works a “major infrastructure project” places them within the Act’s framework for major projects.

• Project proponent: Clause 4 names Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd as the project proponent. Clause 3(1) further defines “project proponent” in relation to the project as that identified in clause 4.

• Ancillary facilities: Clause 3(1) defines “ancillary facilities” broadly and gives an illustrative list of uses such as storage, communications, conductor winching and braking, concrete batching, and site administration. That definition applies to the ancillary facilities listed in clause 5(c).

• Substitute line works: Clause 3(1) defines substitute line works to mean relocation of towers to an adjacent alignment within the 120-metre corridor and substitution of towers with poles. Clause 5(f) authorises the construction and operation of those substitute works where the project proponent determines they are necessary as a consequence of engineering or associated investigations, whether that determination occurs before or after submission of a planning permit application.

• Interaction with planning and environmental regimes: Clause 6 disapplies the notification obligation under section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 for this project. Clause 7 specifies that the Commission will administer the planning approval process. Clause 8 places a timing and procedural obligation on the EPA Board to issue requirements and guidance for the environmental impact assessment, in alignment with sections 74(3) and (4) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, and to provide that guidance at least seven days before the Commission exhibits draft criteria under section 12(3) of the Act.

• Fee: Clause 9 creates a one-off financial obligation on the nominated proponent to pay a specified sum to the Crown by a specified date to “cover the costs and expenses which may be incurred by the Crown, or the Commission, in connection with the assessment of the project or the planning approval process.” The instrument sets the amount and the due date but does not describe refund, accounting treatment or consequences of non-payment in the text.

• Commencement and interpretation: Clause 2 ties commencement to parliamentary approval under section 7 of the Act, meaning the order only takes effect once both Houses approve. Clause 3(2) brings the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 into play for the order’s interpretation.

These concepts determine the allocation of roles and the project’s procedural landscape. The order does not itself prescribe environmental impact assessment criteria, procedural timelines beyond the Board’s seven-day timing obligation, or merits-based approval criteria; it assigns those procedural steps to the Commission and the Board under the statutory framework referenced.

The order creates direct and indirect obligations and altered procedures that impact a limited set of actors. The text identifies those actors and the spatial scope of the project; all effect statements below are traced to clauses in the order.

• Project proponent (directly affected): Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd is identified as the proponent (clause 4). That entity has immediate obligations under the order: it must pay the fixed fee to the Crown by 31 July 2020 (clause 9); it may determine and implement substitute line works if necessary for engineering or associated investigations (clause 5(f)); and it must prepare the case for environmental impact assessment in accordance with the Board’s requirements and guidance (clause 8), and submit to a planning approval process administered by the Commission (clause 7).

• The Commission (administrative decision-maker): The Commission is charged with administering the planning approval process in respect of the project (clause 7). The Board must provide the Commission with environmental requirements and guidance at specified timing (clause 8). The Commission will also place draft criteria on public exhibition under section 12(3) of the Act, triggering the Board’s timing obligation in clause 8.

• The Board of the Environment Protection Authority: The Board is required to provide the project proponent and the Commission with requirements for and guidance in relation to the preparation of the environmental impact assessment case, in accord with sections 74(3) and (4) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, and to do so at least seven days before draft criteria are exhibited by the Commission (clause 8). The Board is explicitly named via the clause 3(1) definition referencing section 13 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.

• Owners of land within the corridor and other identified locations: The order specifies a 120-metre corridor for overhead transmission works and identifies named localities at which substations and ancillary facilities will be located (clause 5(a)-(c), and the enumerated localities). Clause 6 expressly removes the requirement to comply with section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of the project. Because s 52(1) is typically a landowner notification provision, the order has a direct practical effect on owners of land within the corridor and on parcels where substations, ancillary facilities, conductor winching sites (within 150 metres) or assembly areas are to be located.

• The Crown and the Department of Justice: Clause 9 requires the project proponent to pay the Crown a specified amount, and the instrument notes it is administered in the Department of Justice. The Crown is therefore the financial recipient and the Department is the administrative custodian of the instrument.

• Local communities in listed localities: Although the order does not explicitly refer to local government or the public beyond the exhibition requirement, the project’s spatial footprint (clause 5) identifies towns and localities (Palmerston, Sheffield, Heybridge, Burnie, East Cam, Hampshire, Staverton, Nietta, South Nietta, Burnie, Deloraine, Devonport, Guildford, Gowrie Park, Palmerston, Sheffield) where works, substations or ancillary facilities will be constructed or operated. Those communities are affected in practical terms by the proposed works because the declared project constrains planning pathways, environmental assessment timing and notification obligations.

• Third parties with land or interests within 150 metres of the corridor: Clause 5(d) permits conductor winching and braking sites to be constructed and operated within 150 metres of the corridor boundary. Owners of land within that 150-metre band are within the project’s immediate operational envelope and are therefore affected by the works even if their land sits outside the 120-metre corridor.

• Entities that might otherwise exercise rights under section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993: Clause 6 removes the need to comply with that section in respect of this project; any procedural rights or triggers that would arise from compliance with s 52(1) will not apply to this project under the order.

The order is tightly targeted: it names the proponent, fixes the project footprint by corridor and specific localities, assigns management of approvals to the Commission, specifies the EPA Board’s role, and imposes a fee on the proponent payable to the Crown. Those are the identifiable affected parties and the instruments through which they will be engaged.

The order creates a compact set of duties and rights distributed among the project proponent, the Commission, the Board, the Crown, and landowners. Below are the principal duties and the limited rights or powers identified in the text, with clause references.

Duties and obligations

• Project proponent’s duty to pay a fee: Clause 9 requires the project proponent to pay the Crown $123,750 by 31 July 2020 to cover costs and expenses that may be incurred by the Crown or the Commission in connection with assessment or the planning approval process. This is a mandatory, time-bound monetary obligation on the named proponent.

• Project proponent’s duty to prepare the environmental impact assessment case in accordance with the Board’s requirements and guidance: Clause 8 places an information provision duty on the Board. Implicitly, the project proponent must prepare the EIA case in line with the Board’s requirements and guidance because clause 8 requires the Board to provide those requirements to the proponent and the Commission under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (sections 74(3),(4)). The order does not restate the proponent’s procedural steps, but clause 8 makes clear the proponent will receive and be expected to follow Board guidance.

• Commission’s duty to administer planning approval process: Clause 7 assigns administration of the planning approval process to the Commission. The order does not outline the Commission’s specific decision criteria but makes it the responsible body for managing the approval pathway for the project.

• Board’s duty to provide guidance and requirements: Clause 8 requires the Board to supply requirements and guidance for the environmental impact assessment case to the project proponent and to the Commission, in accordance with the statutory provisions cited, and to do so at least seven days before the Commission exhibits draft criteria.

• Project proponent’s authority to determine substitute line works: Clause 5(f), read with the definition in clause 3(1), gives the project proponent the authority to determine substitute line works as necessary because of engineering or associated investigations, and to construct and operate those substitute works whether that determination occurs before or after the submission of a planning permit application. That confers a practical decision-making power to adjust alignment or change towers to poles within the corridor.

Rights, delegations and powers

• Commission’s administrative power: Clause 7 gives the Commission the administrative power over the project approval process. The order does not specify the scope of the Commission’s powers, but the assignment of administration is a procedural right to manage the approval pathway for the project under the Act.

• Board’s role in shaping assessment criteria: Clause 8 mandates the Board to provide the assessment requirements and guidance, thereby giving the Board a decisive role in setting the technical and environmental standards to be used in assessing the project’s EIA.

• Project proponent’s de facto flexibility on alignment and plant type within the corridor: The order defines substitute line works and permits their construction when the proponent determines they are necessary (clause 3(1) and clause 5(f)). That confers a right on the proponent to change tower locations within an adjacent alignment in the corridor and to substitute towers with poles, subject to its own determination and the planning approval process.

Notable absences and limits

• No express duty to comply with section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993: Clause 6 explicitly removes the requirement to comply with that section; the order therefore relieves the proponent and the approval authorities from whatever notification or related obligation that provision imposes in the usual course.

• No penalties or enforcement provisions included in the order itself: The instrument does not set out penalties, compliance enforcement mechanisms or appeal rights within the text. That means enforcement and sanctioning will be governed by the broader Acts under which the Commission and the Board operate, not by this specific order.

• No specification of the substantive content of the environmental requirements or the detailed approval criteria: Clause 8 requires the Board to issue guidance, but the order does not itself specify the content, thresholds or substantive obligations that will be imposed. Those details remain to be produced by the Board and the Commission under their statutory powers.

Who pays and who decides

• Who pays: The project proponent pays the Crown $123,750 by a fixed date (clause 9). The order frames that payment as covering costs and expenses the Crown or Commission may incur in connection with assessment or the planning approval process.

• Who decides: The Commission administers the planning approval process (clause 7); the Board decides and issues the environmental guidance and requirements (clause 8) and the project proponent determines whether substitute line works are necessary (clause 5(f)). The order therefore distributes administrative duties among Commission, Board and proponent.

These duties and rights combine to allocate preparatory, procedural and financial responsibilities among a small number of actors while preserving the Commission’s and Board’s central roles in administering and setting assessment processes.

The order contains no express penalty, sanction or enforcement regime within its text. The instrument sets procedural obligations and a financial payment requirement, but it does not include clauses that specify consequences for non-compliance, enforcement steps, or penalty amounts. From the text, the enforcement landscape is therefore as follows.

• Absence of in‑instrument penalties: Clause 9 imposes a monetary obligation to pay $123,750 by 31 July 2020 but does not specify what happens in the event of late payment or non-payment. The order contains no enforcement or recovery provisions tied to that payment within its own text.

• Enforcement and penalties remain matters of the parent statutes and general law: The order operates by reference to other statutes , notably the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999, the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, and the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (clauses 2, 3(1), 6, 8). Enforcement of planning and environmental requirements, and any sanctions that might follow from breach of approvals or environmental obligations, would be exercised under those statutes rather than under the order itself. The order does not displace those enforcement regimes; it simply sets project-specific procedural rules. For example, the Board’s requirements are to be given in accordance with sections 74(3) and (4) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (clause 8). Any enforcement of environmental controls would therefore proceed under the environmental Act’s enforcement provisions.

• Administrative control by the Commission: Clause 7 assigns the Commission to administer the planning approval process. The Commission’s administrative powers, including compliance monitoring, conditions on permits and any enforcement channels, will derive from the Act and related planning statutes. The order does not itself expand or curtail the Commission’s statutory enforcement powers.

• Parliamentary commencement link as a procedural safeguard: Clause 2 ties commencement to approval by both Houses of Parliament under section 7 of the Act. That requirement creates an institutional checkpoint prior to the order taking effect, but it is a commencement mechanism rather than an enforcement provision.

Practical implications of the absence of penalty clauses

• The monetary obligation in clause 9 is precise in amount and date; however the order leaves practitioners to look to the Act, to administrative procedures and to general legal remedies to determine consequences of failure to pay.

• Because the order disapplies section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of the project (clause 6), procedural rights or triggers that might normally produce remedial or injunctive outcomes tied to notification could be altered. Any challenge to an approval process premised on lack of notification would therefore need to engage the statutory scheme created by the Act, and review avenues will depend on the rights and remedies available under that Act and the Administrative Decisions (Review) frameworks applicable.

• Stakeholders seeking to enforce conditions or contest approvals should therefore map the enforcement and appeal provisions of the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999 and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, because this order itself provides no standalone enforcement language.

In sum, the order imposes duties and procedural rules but does not supply direct enforcement mechanisms or penalty provisions in its own text; enforcement and penalties are to be sought under the statutory frameworks to which the order refers.

The order expressly operates in a networked relationship with several other Acts. These interactions are direct and limited by the text; below is a clause-by-clause mapping of those cross‑statutory linkages and the mechanical effects the order produces.

• Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999 (the Act): The order is made under the Act and references multiple provisions of it. Clause 2 makes commencement contingent on approval by both Houses of Parliament under section 7 of the Act. Clause 7 allocates administration of the project’s planning approval process to the Commission in accordance with the Act (the Commission’s powers and procedures will be those derived from the Act). Clause 8 refers to the Commission’s role in placing draft criteria on public exhibition under section 12(3) of the Act; that exhibition step triggers the Board’s timing obligation in clause 8. The order therefore functions as a project‑specific instrument within the Act’s broader major infrastructure approvals regime.

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act): The order references the EMPC Act for environmental assessment processes. Clause 3(1) defines “Board” by reference to section 13 of the EMPC Act. Clause 8 requires the Board to provide requirements and guidance “in accordance with sections 74(3) and (4)” of the EMPC Act for the preparation of the environmental impact assessment case, and to deliver that guidance at least seven days before the Commission exhibits draft criteria under section 12(3) of the Act. That interaction places the EMPC Act’s processes and the Board’s statutory functions at the centre of the environmental assessment step for this declared major infrastructure project.

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA): The order modifies the application of LUPAA in respect of the project. Clause 6 explicitly states that compliance with section 52(1) of LUPAA is not required in respect of the project. Section 52(1) is a statutory procedural step typically concerned with notification of owners; the order therefore removes that particular procedural requirement for this project, creating a deviation from LUPAA’s standard process.

• Acts Interpretation Act 1931: Clause 3(2) states that the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 applies to interpretation of the order. That means interpretive rules and presumptions in the Acts Interpretation Act will be used when construing the order’s provisions.

• Rules Publication Act 1953 and Gazette notification: The instrument is displayed and numbered in accordance with the Rules Publication Act 1953 and was notified in the Gazette on 24 June 2020. Those references are administrative; they establish the formal publication and numbering compliance for the order.

Consequences and concrete touchpoints

• Procedural substitution and sequencing: The order changes the sequencing of environmental guidance and public exhibition by requiring the Board to provide EIA requirements at least seven days before the Commission exhibits draft criteria (clause 8). That imposes a minimum temporal relationship between the Board’s guidance and the Commission’s exhibition step, which is a procedural sequencing requirement that dovetails the EMPC Act and the Major Infrastructure Act processes.

• Carving out a LUPAA obligation: By expressly not requiring compliance with section 52(1) of LUPAA (clause 6), the order creates a project‑specific carve‑out from LUPAA’s notification requirements. That changes interests protected or engaged under normal local planning processes, with effects on timing and possible statutory triggers for landowner engagement.

• Delegation of duties to statutory agencies: The Commission is the administrator of the planning approval process (clause 7) while the Board is the source of environmental assessment criteria and guidance (clause 8). The order therefore aligns the major infrastructure approvals pathway (the Act) with the environmental management framework (EMPC Act), but the detailed content and enforcement of environmental requirements remain under the EMPC Act provisions.

• Substitute line works and internal decision-making: The order permits the proponent to decide on substitute line works due to engineering investigations (clause 5(f)). That meshes with, but is not constrained by, the corridor definition in clause 5(a) and the substitute works definition in clause 3(1). The order does not amend or displace statutory requirements in the Act or the EMPC Act relating to approvals or environmental assessment; it simply authorises the proponent to propose certain changes within the declared footprint and gives that determination explicit recognition regardless of timing relative to permit application.

In short, the order operates by pointing to and sequencing processes in the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999 and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, while carving out a single LUPAA procedural obligation for this project and imposing a specified fee payable to the Crown. Readers should therefore treat this instrument as a procedural overlay on existing statutory regimes rather than as a freestanding statute with its own substantive environmental or planning standards.

The order’s text includes inline amendment annotations that record later modifications to particular clauses. The instrument as provided shows amendments applied in 2022, 2023 and 2026 to specified subclauses. The order as currently in force therefore contains textual adjustments to clause 3 and clause 5, and to the infrastructure assembly area/track wording in clause 5(e). The amendment annotations that appear in the text are the only amendment history contained in the instrument itself.

Amendments and affected text identified in the order

• Clause 3(1) amendments (S.R. 2026, No. 8, Applied: 03 Mar 2026): The definition of “project proponent” and the definition of “substitute line works” include amendment notes stating they were amended by S.R. 2026, No. 8 and applied on 3 March 2026. Those amendment notes appear inline adjacent to the respective definitions in clause 3(1). The amended definitions now explicitly identify “project proponent, in relation to the project, means the project proponent identified in clause 4” and define “substitute line works” to include relocation of towers to an adjacent alignment within the corridor and substitution of towers with poles.

• Clause 5 amendments (S.R. 2022, No. 6, Applied: 09 Mar 2022): The text for clause 5(b)(i) and (ii) is redacted in the provided copy but bears amendment notes indicating those subclauses were amended by S.R. 2022, No. 6 and applied on 9 March 2022. The presence of amendment notes indicates that the list of substations and possibly locations at (b)(i) and (b)(ii) were altered on that date; however the current text contains ellipses in their place.

• Clause 5(c) and later subparagraphs (S.R. 2023, No. 58, Applied: 16 Aug 2023): Subparagraphs 5(c)(v) through 5(c)(xi) bear amendment notes indicating they were amended by S.R. 2023, No. 58 and applied on 16 August 2023. Those subclauses identify additional ancillary facility locations at Burnie, Deloraine, Devonport, Guildford, Gowrie Park, Palmerston and Sheffield. The amendment notes show the geographic scope of ancillary facilities was expanded or clarified on that date.

• Clause 5(e) amendment (S.R. 2026, No. 8, Applied: 03 Mar 2026): Clause 5(e)(ii) contains an amendment note showing that the description of the infrastructure assembly areas and vehicle access tracks running from the boundary to the nearest suitable vehicle access track or road was amended by S.R. 2026, No. 8 and applied 3 March 2026.

• Clause 5(f) amendment (S.R. 2026, No. 8, Applied: 03 Mar 2026): Clause 5(f) was amended by S.R. 2026, No. 8 and applied 3 March 2026 to include substitute line works determined necessary by the project proponent as a consequence of engineering or associated investigations, whether that determination occurs before or after submission of a planning permit application.

Administrative and publication history

• The order was notified in the Gazette on 24 June 2020. The instrument also contains the standard display and numbering statement referencing the Rules Publication Act 1953.

• The instrument notes it is administered in the Department of Justice.

Interpretive note

• The amendment notes included in the text are the only historical markers present in the instrument provided. They indicate that the declared project’s geographic scope and the proponent’s flexibilities have been adjusted over time through subordinate legislative instruments (Statutory Rules). The order’s current operative content therefore incorporates later amendments that expanded ancillary facility locations and clarified the powers and timing around substitute line works and infrastructure tracks.

• Because the order itself references and relies upon the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999 and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, changes to those Acts outside this instrument would also affect how this order operates, but such changes are not recorded in this instrument and are not reflected in the amendment notes provided here.

This amendment history records the internal evolution of the declared project and the proponent’s permitted scope of works as reflected in statutory rule amendments applied in 2022, 2023 and 2026, as annotated within the order text.

The order text contains no references to judicial or administrative decisions, challenges, appeals, or litigation concerning this particular order. The instrument’s final paragraphs record its Gazette notification date (24 June 2020) and administrative custody (Department of Justice), but they do not record any court proceedings or review outcomes.

Consequences of the textual silence on litigation

• No cases named in the instrument: The order does not name any legal proceedings or judicial decisions; accordingly, there are no case citations contained in the order itself that clarify interpretation or contestation of its provisions.

• Review rights and litigation pathways must be sought in parent statutes: Because the order lacks explicit appeal or judicial review provisions, any legal challenges to decisions taken under the order’s procedural framework , for example to a planning approval issued by the Commission, or to environmental assessment decisions based on the Board’s guidance , will have to rely on the review and appeal mechanisms provided by the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999, the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, or judicial review in accordance with administrative law principles. The order’s silence on litigation history means practitioners must consult those Acts and general administrative law to identify remedies and time limits for challenge.

• Potential for challenge to procedural carve-outs: Clause 6 disapplies the requirement to comply with section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of the project. Where statutory procedural rights are removed by a project-specific order, affected parties sometimes seek judicial review or other remedies if they assert procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error. The order itself does not record any such litigation, so any such disputes , if they occurred , are not recorded in this instrument.

• No recorded enforcement disputes or fee disputes in the instrument: The order imposes a specific fee (clause 9) but does not record any dispute or enforcement action concerning that fee. If disputes arose about payment, recovery or costs covered by the fee, they are not recorded here.

Because the instrument provides no litigation history, lawyers and practitioners must treat the order as a procedural overlay and, when necessary, look to the parent statutes for guidance on available remedies and review pathways. Any reported litigation affecting interpretation or application of this particular order would appear in the public law or administrative law records outside the text of the order itself.

This order is short, but it contains a number of features that can produce significant practical effects when put into practice. The points below identify the main operational and legal “gotchas” that flow directly from the order’s text.

1. Carve-out of s 52(1) LUPAA removes the usual owner-notification step (clause 6). Practitioners and landowners should note the order explicitly states compliance with section 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of the project is not required. That alters the typical procedural route where owners would expect formal notification of planning applications or proposals under LUPAA. The absence of that notification step has implications for statutory timeframes tied to that notice, for stakeholders’ expectation of being informed, and for the sequencing of consultation. Any party who expects the protections associated with s 52(1) must be aware that this project-specific order removes that obligation.

2. Project proponent’s power to determine substitute line works can occur after permit application (clause 5(f)). Clause 5(f) allows the proponent to determine substitute line works “whether that determination occurs before or after the submission of an application for a planning permit.” That timing can permit alignment changes and pole-for-tower substitutions to be finalised post-application. Practitioners should note that this could change the scope of works under consideration and may require reassessment steps or conditioned approvals to capture such substitutions.

3. Broad definition of ancillary facilities and multiple, sometimes later-added, locations (clause 3(1) and clause 5(c) and amendment notes). The definition of ancillary facilities is open-ended and illustrative (storage; communications; conductor winching and braking; concrete batching; site administration). Clause 5(c) lists multiple locations and amendment notes show additions in subsequent statutory rules. The combined effect is that a variety of support activities with potentially extensive footprints are authorised at several named towns. The practical consequence is that the declared project’s on‑the‑ground footprint is larger than the transmission line corridor alone.

4. Conductor winching and braking sites outside the corridor (clause 5(d)). Clause 5(d) allows conductor winching and braking sites to be located within 150 metres of the corridor boundary. That 150‑metre band may bring operations onto adjacent private land or close to properties that are not within the 120‑metre corridor, creating operational effects and third‑party impacts outside the core corridor.

5. Fixed fee with no in‑instrument recovery mechanism or refund rules (clause 9). The order sets a fixed fee amount and a due date but does not state consequences for non‑payment, the basis for the amount, whether it is a deposit or an estimate, refund mechanics, or accounting treatment. Parties should therefore assume the fee is due as a contractual or statutory obligation and should validate payment mechanisms and consequences with the administering department or under the Act.

6. Tight timing for Board guidance relative to Commission exhibition (clause 8). Clause 8 requires the Board to provide the project proponent and the Commission with requirements for the EIA at least seven days before the Commission places draft criteria on public exhibition under section 12(3) of the Act. Practitioners should treat that seven‑day floor as a sequencing constraint that may limit the time available for review of draft criteria before public exhibition and may compress consultation windows.

7. Commencement depends on parliamentary approval under section 7 of the Act (clause 2). The order takes effect only the day after it is approved by both Houses under section 7 of the Act. That means there is a parliamentary checkpoint: until both Houses approve, the order has no effect. Timing of parliamentary approval can therefore delay the order’s operative effects.

8. No penalties or enforcement provisions in the instrument itself (see “Penalties and enforcement” section). Because the order contains no enforcement language, practitioners must look to the parent statutes for mechanisms to address breaches of conditions or failure to carry out obligations.

9. Administrative custody in the Department of Justice may not align with operational agencies. The order is administered in the Department of Justice, while the Commission and the Board have operational roles. Practitioners and stakeholders should not assume day-to-day approvals administration occurs within the Department of Justice; administrative queries about the order itself will be the Department’s responsibility.

10. Amendments are recorded but details of earlier text may be omitted in the instrument text shown. The order contains redactions/ellipses in some subclauses (clause 5(b)(i) and (ii)). Practitioners should consult the consolidated statutory instrument as amended to ensure they see the full current text, particularly for the list of substations and specific facility locations added by subsequent statutory rules.

Each of these points is a concrete legal or operational trap that follows from the order’s specific wording. They mostly concern procedural sequencing, the effect of the s 52(1) carve‑out, the proponent’s post‑application substitution powers, the scope of ancillary facilities and off‑corridor operations, fee mechanics, and the need to reconcile departmental responsibility with the Commission’s and Board’s operational roles.

This order sets a compact set of required actions and process obligations. Compliance means attending to the monetary obligation, preparing environmental documentation in the Board’s required form and timing, engaging with the Commission’s planning approval process, and being conscious of the deactivated LUPAA notification step. Below is a practical check‑list and step‑by‑step guidance grounded in the order’s clauses.

Immediate steps

1. Verify identity and obligations: Confirm that the entity named as project proponent in clause 4 (Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd) is the legal entity that will discharge the obligations and exercise the powers under the order. Ensure corporate delegates and authorised officers have standing to pay the fee and to determine substitute line works as permitted under clause 5(f).

2. Pay the fee by the due date (clause 9): Arrange payment of $123,750 to the Crown by 31 July 2020 in whatever manner the administering department requires. Because the order contains no in‑instrument rules about payment method or consequences, confirm payment instructions, receipt and accounting classification with the Department of Justice or the Commission as appropriate and retain proof of payment.

Environmental impact assessment and Board engagement

3. Seek and follow the Board’s guidance (clause 8): The Board must provide requirements and guidance for the preparation of the EIA case in accordance with sections 74(3) and (4) of the EMPC Act, and must do so at least seven days before the Commission places draft criteria on public exhibition under section 12(3) of the Act. Practically, the proponent should:

   • Contact the Board early to request the required guidance and to confirm timelines for its issuance.

   • Ensure internal EIA planning accounts for the seven‑day minimum interval before public exhibition so draft criteria can be reviewed against the Board’s guidance.

   • Document how the Board’s guidance has been incorporated into the EIA materials.

4. Prepare the EIA case to the Board’s requirements: Draft the environmental impact assessment materials in accordance with the Board’s requirements and guidance. Keep records demonstrating compliance with the Board’s directions, because the order explicitly links the EIA preparation to those requirements (clause 8).

Planning approval process (Commission)

5. Engage with the Commission’s process (clause 7): The planning approval process is to be administered by the Commission. Contact the Commission immediately to understand application forms, lodgement requirements, fees (if any), timelines, exhibition periods, and any submission templates the Commission requires. Because the Commission will place draft criteria on exhibition under section 12(3) of the Act, co‑ordinate timing between the Board’s guidance and the Commission’s exhibition windows.

6. Anticipate substitute line works and catalogue potential changes (clauses 3(1) definition and 5(f)): The order allows the proponent to determine necessary substitute line works whether determined before or after a planning permit application. To avoid surprises during the Commission’s assessment, prepare documentation that explains the technical reasons that may require substitute works, sets out likely alternative alignments within the 120‑metre corridor, and models the consequences of substituting towers for poles. Register these possible alternatives in the planning application and the EIA so the Commission and stakeholders can assess potential impacts.

Landowner and third‑party engagement

7. Do not assume LUPAA s 52(1) notifications will occur (clause 6): Clause 6 explicitly deactivates compliance with s 52(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Practically, the proponent should nonetheless design its own stakeholder engagement and notification program because the statutory notification step will not be available to the community. Good practice is to proactively notify and consult owners of land within the corridor and within the 150‑metre winching site band to manage expectations and reduce risk of later dispute. Keep records of voluntary consultation and notifications for evidentiary purposes.

Operational and construction planning

8. Plan for ancillary facilities and off‑corridor works (clause 5(c)-(e)): The proponent should identify precise siting for ancillary facilities, conductor winching and braking sites (within 150 metres of the corridor boundary), infrastructure assembly areas and vehicle access tracks, and prepare environmental and land access arrangements accordingly. Where ancillary facility locations were added by amendment (2023 annotations), verify the current consolidated instrument to confirm the full list of authorised locations.

9. Map assembly tracks to the nearest suitable road or vehicle track (clause 5(e)(ii) as amended): Infrastructure assembly areas and vehicle access tracks are to run from the boundary of the corridor and each facility to the nearest suitable vehicle access track or road. Ensure that such tracks are recorded in the planning documentation and that permission for any crossing of private land or public roadworks is secured in advance.

Administrative record-keeping and corporate compliance

10. Maintain audit trail for decisions on substitute line works (clause 5(f)): Because the proponent can determine substitute line works before or after permit application, keep a contemporaneous technical record of any engineering investigations and their outcomes that justify such determinations. Document decision‑making, alternatives considered, and how environmental impacts have been managed.

11. Coordinate with the Department of Justice on instrument administration and fee accounting: The order is administered by the Department of Justice. Confirm with the Department the appropriate contact point for order-related queries, confirm banking/payment references for the fee, and obtain written confirmation when the Crown acknowledges receipt of the fee.

12. Check the consolidated instrument (amendments): The order text contains amendment notes indicating changes in 2022, 2023 and 2026. For compliance purposes, consult the consolidated version of the order as currently in force to ensure you act upon the operative text, including any changes to facility lists, the infrastructure track wording, and substitute works provisions.

Contingency planning

13. Prepare for public exhibition and possible consultation responses: Because the Board’s guidance must be provided before the Commission exhibits draft criteria (clause 8), plan for possible public submissions and have a resourcing plan to respond during exhibition periods managed by the Commission.

14. Legal review of approval conditions and potential judicial review windows: Since the order itself does not set penalties or appeal routes, seek legal advice on appeal and judicial review timeframes under the Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999 and related statutes, and monitor statutory clocks for lodging reviews or appeals in case third parties initiate challenges.

By following this checklist, the project proponent and its advisers will cover the direct requirements in the order (fee payment, EIA preparation in line with Board guidance, Commission administration of approvals) and the practical supplementary steps (proactive landowner engagement, records for substitute works determinations, mapping of off‑corridor activities) that will reduce operational and legal risk in the absence of certain statutory notification obligations.