Ramifications of development projects deemed “state significant”

Purpose – In conducting a literature review of “state significance” and its meaning in the Australian context, this paper examines the relevant legislative framework under which it operates, with a focus on Queensland. In the process a number of examples in relation to large infrastructure projects are provided. The purpose of the paper is to identify any gaps or issues in relation to state significant projects – particularly that related to definitional matters – and to investigate the consequences of any discretion this gap provides to government, including any impact on their decision‐making. Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines the impact of relevant legislative instruments. The Australian state of Queensland is used as a case study example, highlighting – in the case of a declared “significant project” – streamlined environmental impact assessment processes that potentially circumvent certain legislative planning provisions. By way of contrast, smaller, extractive resource projects considered to be of State or regional significance may be designated a “Key Resource Area”, however they remain subject to normal assessment processes under the Integrated Development Assessment System, vegetation management codes, and other regulations. Findings – This paper argues for a streamlining of the assessment process in order to minimise constraints acting on state development, in concert with a tightening and clarification of “state significance” definitions – without abrogation of state to federal jurisdiction. The existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over‐stretched infrastructure program is also questioned. Originality/value – The various meanings of “state significance”, especially in Queensland, and the ramifications for development projects in that state are explored. Various challenges are thus presented to public policy makers.