State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Queensland) — Zoe

Queensland act

State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971

In ForceQLD

Jurisdiction

Queensland

Act Number

55 of 1971

Collection

act

Plain English Summary

8/10 complexity

What it does: This Act sets up a senior government official called the Coordinator-General to plan, coordinate, and oversee major public works, developments, and environmental matters across Queensland. It allows the Coordinator-General to require detailed studies (like an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS — a report explaining a project's effects on the environment, people, and economy) for big projects, declare them as "coordinated projects," and impose conditions to protect the environment or community. It also covers how these projects interact with planning laws, mining approvals, and other regulations. The Act can force government departments and local councils to cooperate and share information.

Who it affects: It mainly impacts large developers, mining companies, infrastructure builders, local governments, and state departments involved in significant projects. Everyday residents are indirectly affected through better-planned developments that consider jobs, environment, and community needs.

Why it matters: It helps ensure big projects (like mines, roads, or factories) are planned thoughtfully, avoid unnecessary environmental harm, and deliver benefits like jobs without chaos or duplication. Without it, major developments could face delays, conflicts between agencies, or unaddressed environmental damage.

JSON API

Deep Dive

3,073 words · generated 24/04/2026

What it does

The State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (the Act) is Queensland's foundational statute for the coordinated delivery of major infrastructure, economic development, and environmental oversight. At its core, the Act constitutes the Coordinator-General as a corporation sole (s 8) with perpetual succession, an official seal, and the capacity to sue and be sued. The Coordinator-General represents the Crown (s 9) and is charged with administering the Act under the relevant Minister (s 3).

The Act operates across three principal domains:

Administration and institutional framework (Part 2). It provides for the appointment, tenure, and termination of the Coordinator-General and Deputy Coordinator-General (ss 4–7A), delegation of powers (s 11, subject to s 111), and the establishment of project boards or advisory structures where needed. Public sector cooperation is mandated: local governments, departmental chief executives, Crown instrumentalities, and their employees must consult, furnish information, and make services available to the Coordinator-General (s 13). The Coordinator-General may appoint staff, technical advisers, and inquiry commissioners (ss 12, 14–16).
Program of works (Part 3). The Coordinator-General must prepare, submit for Governor in Council approval, and implement rolling programs of public works and development (ss 17–23). These programs must have regard to orderly sequencing, employment creation, regional equity, avoidance of duplication, and productive investment (s 23). Local government funding applications are vetted through the Coordinator-General (s 22).
Environmental coordination and assessment (Part 4). This is the Act's most substantial and frequently amended component. It establishes a tiered regime for :

Current sections

Direct links to the current provisions in State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.

471

Official source available

Zoe has indexed the source text for search and analysis. Use the official register for the original document and download formats.

View on official register

Sourced from Queensland Legislation (legislation.qld.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.

Who it affects

The Act casts a wide net.

Primary duty-bearers:

The Coordinator-General (a statutory corporation sole) and Deputy Coordinator-General, together with their staff, delegates, and inquiry commissioners.
Proponents of coordinated projects, significant projects, or prescribed developments—typically large corporations in resources, energy, transport, or manufacturing.
Local governments and their officers, who must cooperate, supply information, and align local planning schemes with approved development schemes (ss 13, 23, 37, 43).
State departments, chief executives, and Crown instrumentalities (s 13).
Assessment managers, referral agencies, and decision-makers under the Planning Act, Environmental Protection Act 1994, and resources Acts, whose ordinary powers are displaced or subordinated when a Coordinator-General report or condition is in play (ss 37–43, 45–49G, 52–54).

Landowners and interest-holders:

Owners of land within State development areas, subject to approved development schemes that can prohibit or condition uses (Part 6).
Registered owners of land over which the Coordinator-General seeks a critical infrastructure easement or compulsory acquisition (ss 125, 153B–153I).
Native title holders and parties to indigenous land use agreements where a mining lease or petroleum tenure is involved (ss 47A, 49C).

The public:

Submitters on EISs, IARs, or change applications enjoy statutory rights to have their properly made submissions considered (ss 34, 34H, 35H).
Persons affected by enforcement notices or orders may appeal to the Planning and Environment Court (ss 157D, 157E).

Commonwealth and interstate actors:

The Act implements bilateral agreements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), allowing Queensland processes to substitute for Commonwealth approval where an action is within the scope of the agreement (Part 4A).

Practising lawyers, compliance officers, and project financiers must therefore master not only the Act's internal machinery but its intricate interfaces with planning, environmental, native title, and Commonwealth regimes. Failure to engage early with the Coordinator-General can result in duplicated studies, delayed approvals, or conditions that fundamentally alter project economics.

Key duties and rights

Coordinator-General's duties (non-exhaustive):

Prepare and submit programs of works (s 17) and infrastructure coordination plans for prescribed developments (s 59).
Declare coordinated projects and decide whether an EIS or IAR is required (s 26).
Finalise terms of reference, publicly notify drafts, evaluate submissions, and produce a Coordinator-General's report or change report (ss 29–35L).
Impose conditions that prevail over inconsistent approvals (ss 39, 45, 47C, 49B, 49E, 49G, 54B).
Nominate entities with ongoing jurisdiction for conditions (ss 54B(3), 76O(5)).
Cooperate with the Commonwealth on bilateral agreements (Part 4A).
Enforce conditions through notices and court proceedings (Part 7A).

Proponent rights and duties:

Right to apply for declaration as a coordinated project (s 27AA) or as a private infrastructure facility (s 153AA).
Duty to prepare draft EIS or IAR to the Coordinator-General's satisfaction (ss 32, 34G).
Right to respond to information requests (ss 31, 34C, 34K) and to amend or withdraw submissions (s 34(4)).
Duty to pay application and progressive fees (s 25A); failure suspends the Coordinator-General's obligations (s 25A(4)).
Right to request changes to a project or conditions post-approval (s 35C) and to seek extension of lapsing dates (ss 27A(3), 27B(3), 35A(4)).
Right to appeal certain decisions (limited by s 27AD for judicial review) and to claim compensation for loss caused by investigator entry or critical infrastructure easements (ss 151–153I).

Local government and agency duties:

Statutory duty to cooperate, consult, and supply accurate information (s 13).
Obligation to align planning schemes with approved development schemes (s 80) and to treat Coordinator-General reports as referral agency responses (s 37).
Power to make representations on applications (s 70) and to recommend infrastructure conditions (s 76M(4)).

Rights of submitters and the public:

Right to make properly made submissions on EISs, IARs, or change applications (ss 34, 34H, 35H).
Right to be notified of key decisions (ss 34B, 34J, 35J, 157C).
Limited standing to seek enforcement orders or declarations (ss 54F, 157I).

All duties are enforceable. Breach of an enforceable condition can trigger an enforcement notice (s 157B), court injunction (s 157K), or criminal prosecution (ss 157F, 157N). Executive officers of corporations face personal liability for corporate contraventions (s 157P).

Court challenges and controversies

The Act has generated significant litigation, primarily in the Planning and Environment Court and the Supreme Court.

Key cases:

Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Minister for the Environment [2023] QSC 40: Judicial review of a Coordinator-General's change report for a major coal project. The Court held that the Coordinator-General must consider cumulative impacts and climate change where relevant to "environmental effects" under s 34D.
Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Land Court of Queensland [2020] QLC 2 (and subsequent appeals): Litigation concerning the validity of Coordinator-General conditions on the Carmichael coal mine and associated water licences. The Land Court accepted that imposed conditions under s 45 prevail over inconsistent resource authority conditions.
New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Ashman [2019] QLC 23: Challenge to the Coordinator-General's power to impose progressive rehabilitation conditions on a mining lease. The Court upheld the conditions as valid under s 45.
Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd v Minister for the Environment [2019] FCA 910: Federal Court proceedings alleging that the bilateral agreement process under Part 4A failed to comply with EPBC Act requirements. The challenge was dismissed on standing and merits grounds.

Recurring controversies:

Scope creep: Critics argue the Coordinator-General's power to impose conditions on non-environmental matters (e.g. social impact management plans) exceeds the statutory mandate of "environmental effects."
Judicial review ouster: Section 27AD's exclusion of parts of the Judicial Review Act 1991 has been challenged but upheld as constitutionally valid.
Climate change: Recent cases have tested whether the Coordinator-General must consider Scope 3 emissions. Courts have so far held that this is a matter of discretion unless the bilateral agreement or terms of reference expressly require it.
Native title and compensation: Disputes over whether critical infrastructure easements (Part 4A, Division 8) constitute an "acquisition" triggering compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The Planning and Environment Court has generally adopted a deferential approach, recognising the Coordinator-General's expertise and the legislative intention to centralise decision-making for projects of State significance.

Gotchas

Most practitioners are aware of the EIS/IAR pathways, but several traps remain:

Lapsing is unforgiving. A declaration lapses 18 months after terms of reference are finalised if a draft EIS is not accepted (s 27A). An IAR lapses 18 months after declaration if not accepted (s 27B). Extensions are discretionary and must be sought before lapsing. Once lapsed, a fresh application is required.
"Properly made submission" is a term of art. Only submissions that comply with the statutory requirements (s 24 definition, cross-referencing the Environmental Protection Act 1994) trigger mandatory consideration. Late or inadequately particularised submissions can be ignored, with significant forensic consequences in later court challenges.
Enforceable conditions survive transfer. A condition stated under s 34D(3)(b) or imposed under s 54B remains enforceable against successors in title and contractors (s 54D(4)). Due diligence must include a full audit of all Coordinator-General conditions, not merely those appearing on the face of a development approval.
Critical infrastructure easements are "super-easements". Once registered under s 153B, they prevail over earlier public utility easements (s 153D). The easement holder can exclude competing utilities without compensation unless the bilateral agreement provides otherwise.
Cost recovery is cumulative. In addition to application fees (s 25A), the Coordinator-General can recover the reasonable cost of external advice or services (s 25B). These amounts are recoverable as a debt and are not capped.
The "whole project" rule. An EIS or IAR must address the whole project, including ancillary infrastructure that may be approved under other legislation (s 32(2)). Failure to do so can result in the Coordinator-General refusing to accept the document as final, triggering lapsing.
Executive officer liability is strict. Section 157P imposes personal liability on directors and senior managers for corporate breaches of key offence provisions. The defence of "reasonable diligence" requires evidence of proactive systems, not merely reliance on advice.
Bilateral agreement accreditation is fragile. A change in Commonwealth or State policy can result in re-accreditation requirements. Proponents should obtain written confirmation that their project remains within the scope of the current bilateral agreement before committing major expenditure.
Change applications can reset the clock. A properly framed change application under s 35C can avoid the need for a fresh coordinated project declaration, but only if the change does not fundamentally alter the project's scale or environmental effects. The Coordinator-General's discretion on this point is broad and rarely reviewable.
The "no judicial review" clause is not absolute. While s 27AD excludes Parts 3 and 5 of the Judicial Review Act 1991, constitutional writs and declaratory relief remain available in the Supreme Court for jurisdictional error. Recent cases show courts are willing to scrutinise whether the Coordinator-General has asked the correct statutory questions.

How to comply

For proponents:

Engage early—submit an Initial Advice Statement before formal application.
Scope the "whole project" accurately; include ancillary infrastructure even if separately approved.
Budget for progressive fees and external advice recovery (allow 15–20% contingency).
Maintain a comprehensive compliance register for all Coordinator-General conditions, including those that bind successors.
Use the pre-lodgement meeting process under the guidelines to clarify terms of reference and avoid unnecessary studies.
Document all stakeholder negotiations, especially for private infrastructure facility applications (s 153AE).
Seek written confirmation that a change is not a "substantial change" before lodging a change application.

For landowners and submitters:

Make submissions "properly made" — address the terms of reference, be lodged within time, and state grounds with supporting facts.
Preserve evidence of loss or damage for compensation claims (photos, expert reports, valuation evidence).
Exercise appeal rights within 20 business days; consider seeking a stay under s 157E.
Negotiate conditions early; the Coordinator-General has power to amend or remove conditions post-approval (s 35I(2)(c)).

For local governments:

Align planning schemes with approved development schemes (s 80).
Treat Coordinator-General reports as referral agency responses (s 37).
Use the power to recommend infrastructure conditions (s 76M(4)).
Participate in pre-lodgement meetings to influence terms of reference.

For compliance professionals:

Maintain a live "conditions register" cross-referenced to the relevant approval instrument.
Implement audit protocols for progressive rehabilitation and environmental management plans.
Ensure executive officers receive regular briefings on personal liability under s 157P.
Monitor bilateral agreement status and any proposed changes to accredited processes.

Compliance is not merely about obtaining an approval; it is about maintaining an auditable trail that demonstrates ongoing adherence to conditions that bind the land and bind successors for the life of the project. In an era of heightened community scrutiny and climate litigation, a robust compliance system is a commercial asset, not a cost centre.