Concern is mounting that Queensland is reverting back to a Campbell Newman-style ideological war on renewables, after locking in new rules that threaten to stifle solar and wind development and potentially worsen outcomes for communities.
The Queensland LNP government’s Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (PSICBOLA Act) was this week ushered through state parliament, bringing with it major changes to how renewable energy projects will be assessed for development in the state.
The most controversial of the suite of rule changes is the requirement for renewables developers to have Community Benefit Agreements signed off before a project can even lodge its development application with the state government.
Proponents of wind farms and large-scale solar farms will also be required to undertake social impact assessment, evaluating how a project will affect the local community, before lodging a development application.
Further, the new rules mean that community members and stakeholders who make “properly made submissions” during the public notification process will have the right to appeal the final decision, “ensuring greater transparency and accountability.”
The changes have been pitched by the Crisafulli government as a “leveller” for renewable energy projects, which it claims were getting easy passage through the planning system under the former Labor government.
The chief architect of the changes, planning minister and deputy premier Jarrod Bleijie, has also claimed the amended Act will better support communities, after “Labor’s rush to renewables left [them] in the dark and without a voice for too long.”
But critics say the distinct lack of consultation during the legislative design process, and lack of consideration of feedback, belie Bleijie’s alleged passion for giving all parties a fair hearing.
According to the Clean Energy Council, more than 110 submissions called for changes to renewable energy aspects of the proposed rule changes, including on the timing of impact assessments, community benefit agreements and the resourcing impost this will place on local councils. No amendments were made.
The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) says the vast majority of the total 706 public submissions on the Bill raised significant concerns about its design and potential unintended impacts, or called for it to be scrapped entirely.
“We agree that a successful transition to renewable energy hinges on good community engagement and benefit sharing,” QCC director Dave Copeman said in a statement issued on Thursday.
“But the submissions on this Bill highlighted that local councils and the renewables sector have serious concerns about whether these rushed reforms will actually improve outcomes for communities.
“Instead, they risk stifling new clean energy projects, which will ultimately push up climate pollution and power prices.”
In its own statement, the Clean Energy Council said that it supported the “intent” of the new laws, but believes the current design of the legislation “imposes upfront processes that will frustrate good projects and could delay real outcomes.”
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Queensland to get the balance right. However, unfortunately, the most likely effect of this Bill won’t be to improve community benefits, it will be the exact opposite,” CEC national spokesperson, Chris O’Keefe, said.
“Regional communities deserve a fair share of the opportunities created by renewable energy, and that benefit sharing is most effective when co-designed at the right stage of a project’s life cycle,” O’Keefe adds.
“By forcing that process too early – before a project is fully defined – the reforms risk creating unrealistic expectations for communities on projects that may not have any chance of being delivered.
“That could mean fewer local contributions and less certainty for councils, landholders and First Nations groups.”
The QCC also notes that a last-minute amendment cutting the community consultation time required for changes to regional plans – the state planning overlays for Queensland’s 13 regions – from 60 days to 30 days, casts further doubt on Bleijie’s good intentions.
“We’re very concerned about the rushed amendment pushed through… to reduce community consultation timeframes for regional plans,” Copeman says.
“It’s a complete contradiction that the Deputy Premier says this legislation is about increasing community consultation while they sneak in changes like this at the last minute.”
For the renewables sector, and for the state, the not-so hidden message from the amended planning rules comes at a crucial time.
According to the States of Transition Report published this week, renewable energy generation currently accounts for 30 per cent of Queensland electricity generation, led by rooftop PV (13%) and then large-scale solar (9%), wind (5%) and hydro (2%).
The remaining 70% of electricity generation in Queensland is from fossil-fuel sources.
And while the report shows Queensland has a significant amount of renewable generation capacity in its pipeline – roughly seven times the currently deployed capacity – only 6 per cent of the pipeline is in the advanced stages of deployment, with construction underway.
The report notes that the majority of the pipeline (94%) is only “anticipated” or “publicly announced”.
“Queensland has been leading the nation in clean energy investment and delivery, and still can, but these new laws could drive away billions of dollars and thousands of jobs from regional Queensland,” the CEC’s O’Keefe says.
“And not because industry doesn’t want to work with communities – we absolutely do – but because the new laws have too much ambiguity and could delay projects for months, or even years.”
“This legislation is a flashback to the Campbell Newman era and takes us a step back towards Queensland’s slash and burn days,” adds Copeman.
“If the Crisafulli government is serious about improving outcomes for nature and communities they should get on with planning the energy transformation through Renewable Energy Zones that guide development and manage the cumulative impact of projects.”
