Queensland's abundant critical minerals supply and relative geopolitical stability place it at a focal point for global supply chain security. Time is of the essence.

The State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) (SDPWO Act) was initially framed many years ago and has done some heavy lifting in resources project approvals in recent years. However, the reforms proposed by the State Development and Public Works Organisation (Critical Minerals) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) (Bill) would supercharge the SDPWO Act with facilitation powers of a breadth and potency unprecedented under Queensland law.

The Bill would empower the Minister for State Development, through regulations made by the Governor in Council, to place a project of strategic importance to the State in pole position to obtain approvals without unnecessary delay.

Critical minerals are the headline,with tens of thousands of expected jobs over the next decade and billions of dollars of identified investment opportunities across copper, vanadium, graphite, silica, rare earths and high-purity alumina. Industry feedback is that the web of overlapping approvals has been a persistent headwind, with unnecessary duplications and complex assessment requirements. The Bill is not limited to critical minerals. Its most powerful tools apply to any project of State or regional significance, from water security infrastructure to defence facilities to downstream manufacturing.

The Bill is a strong signal to markets that the Queensland government is willing to exercise exceptional interventions to fast-track these and other emerging industries and critical infrastructure.

The Bill was introduced to Parliament on 2 June 2026 and has been referred to the Primary Industries and Resources Committee for inquiry.

In this alert, we examine the key changes proposed in the Bill and the opportunities for project developers.

Summary of key changes

New facilitation powers for State strategic projects

The Bill replaces the "critical infrastructure project" designation with a new “State strategic project” designation. The Minister for State Development would be empowered to declare an existing or proposed prescribed project as a State strategic project where the project is determined to be critical or essential, or a high priority, for achieving State objectives.

Modification orders

The Bill introduces modification orders – regulations recommnended by the Minister to the Governor in Council that would exclude or modify legislative provisions from operating in relation to the project, including imposing alternative conditions to mitigate the environmental effects of the project.

These would allow emerging and priority projects to cut through red tape and fast-track approvals.

Before recommending an order be made, the Minister must be satisfied that it is in the State interest, is necessary to reduce duplication or address an unfit process, will not cause unmanageable significant environmental effects and will not significantly undermine the object of the affected legislation (or any detriment is outweighed by State benefits).

The power to make modification orders would be substantial. The only limitations contemplated by the Bill are that modification orders cannot:

• override the need to obtain key authorisations including environmental authorities, resource authorities, development approvals, cultural heritage management plans and landowner consents. The order could however change the process for obtaining those authorisations, including the criteria required to be satisfied for grant;
• change a prescribed decision maker from the Minister, Governor, or Governor in Council to some other entity;
• modify State processes used for Commonwealth bilateral or accredited assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act);
• interfere with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and interests; or
• generally modify State taxes, royalties or fees, except to adjust fees where a streamlined process renders the standard fee unreasonable.

Modification orders could restrict judicial review or appeal rights. Under the amendments, a project proponent would have review and appeal rights in relation to a decision under a modified Act. Other entities, such as community groups, neighbouring operators and/or landholders could only apply for judicial review of the decision.

A modification order would remain in effect until the regulation is repealed, unless it specifies its own duration.

This is an extraordinary power. The explanatory notes for the Bill acknowledge that it departs from the fundamental legislative principle that delegation of legislative power should be limited, i.e. that subordinate legislation should not alter the operation of primary legislation. The stated justification: inadequate or inflexible regulatory frameworks should not stifle the benefits that emerging industries could bring to the State, and the checks and balances described above will curtail inappropriate use of this power.

State significance notices

The Bill introduces a State significance notice, a new intermediate power for State strategic projects. The Minister (rather than the Coordinator-General) would be empowered to issue this notice to a 'prescribed decision maker', requiring the decision be made in consultation with the Minister, taking into account matters specified in the notice (predominantly State development priorities).

Importantly, this expands the current scope of prescribed decisions to include decisions of another Minister. Progression notices, notices to decide and step in notices continue to not be applicable to decisions of a Minister, and none of the notices can apply to decisions made by the Governor in Council.

The notice would trigger a structured consultation:

• the decision maker must provide the Minister with proposed conditions and a statement addressing the notice matters; and
• the Minister may respond with advice within 15 business days (after which time the Minister is taken to have given no advice).

Where an approval is granted under a State significance notice, it would not be subject to third-party merits appeal. The applicant would retain its appeal rights and the decision remains subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

Infrastructure coordination plans

The Bill introduces a new regime for investigating, preparing and implementing infrastructure coordination plans to support resources development and coordinate enabling infrastructure delivery. This would replace the 'prescribed development' regime.

The Minister would be able to direct the Coordinator-General to investigate infrastructure for one or more resources projects (including multi-project and multi-proponent investigations), enlivening land entry powers (subject to notice requirements and compensation for loss or damage).

Where satisfied the project is of major economic significance, likely to generate infrastructure demand, and coordination is in the State interest, the Minister may direct the Coordinator-General to prepare a plan. The plan is approved by regulation and must identify:

• the resources projects to which the plan applies;
• any other infrastructure required by or associated with the project;
• the parties to the plan;
• how the provision of infrastructure is to be coordinated;
• any obligations on the parties to coordinate the provisions of infrastructure or further identify or progress aspects of the project or infrastructure; and
• the day the plan ends.

Parties must take reasonable steps to comply with plan obligations. No direct penalties attach to a failure, but injunctive relief remains available.

While an investigation is underway or a plan is in effect, undecided planning applications with some bearing on the relevant land and infrastructure would be referred to the Coordinator-General and the assessment process suspended. The Minister would then decide whether to return the application to the original decision-maker, continue the suspension or decide the application. Where the Minister elects to decide one of these applications, a modified process under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act) would apply and the Minister would be required to make a decision within 30 business days (extendable by a maximum of a further 20 business days).

Where the Minister decides a relevant planning application, third party merits appeal would be expressly excluded.

Coordinated projects – Integration with RPI Act and TI Act approvals

The Bill proposes to integrate the coordinated project process with regional interests approvals under the RPI Act and specified approvals under the TI Act. These approvals are not currently part of the streamlining offered via the coordinated project process. These streamlining benefits would be made available to coordinated projects undergoing evaluation at the time of commencement.

Regional interests development approvals

Where a project involves an activity requiring a regional interests development approval under the RPI Act, the coordinated project's public notification process would be leveraged to avoid duplicate RPI Act notification and referral steps. The RPI Act decision stage would then be triggered when the Coordinator-General provides its report to the chief executive under the RPI Act.

The Coordinator-General's report may direct the RPI Act outcome by specifying approval (with or without conditions, in whole or in part) or refusal. Any conditions imposed by the Coordinator-General would prevail over any inconsistent RPI Act conditions.

State-controlled road and rail approvals

The Coordinator-General's report may state conditions for TI Act approvals relating to:

• road works on or interference with a State-controlled road;
• construction, maintenance, operation or ancillary works on a State-controlled road; and
• interference with a railway under the control of a railway manager.

The Coordinator-General's report may also state conditions in relation to a decision involving use, location, restrictions, conditions, situating, type, standard and extent of road accesses and road access works.

Where the approval is subsequently granted, the Coordinator-General's conditions would be taken to be included in the approval and will prevail over any inconsistency.

Land access, enabling works and compulsory acquisition

Land access

The current private infrastructure facility land investigation powers would be replaced with access authorities. Prescribed project proponents would apply to the Coordinator-General for an access authority to enter land for investigation purposes, where reasonable negotiation with landowners has failed. State strategic project proponents would also be empowered to seek access for minor, temporary enabling works (with Governor in Council approval). The authority extends only to land reasonably necessary for the stated purpose. Landowner protections — rectification notice rights, compensation and bond/security mechanisms — would be retained.

Compulsory acquisition

The private infrastructure facility pathway would be replaced with a similar compulsory acquisition framework for State strategic projects.

The Coordinator-General's compulsory acquisition powers for State strategic projects would be enabled by regulation, following a proponent application. The proponent would need to demonstrate the Coordinator-General's endorsement, a final unconditional offer process, demonstrated proponent capability, and it is in the State interest to facilitate the project. The Coordinator-General's endorsement would require at least six months of negotiations with each registered owner, and where native title exists, reasonable steps toward entering an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. However, unlike the current private infrastructure facility pathway, the acquisition power could be exercised before completion of environmental assessment processes for the project.

State development areas – Expanded tools

The Bill proposes to introduce a new mechanism to enable the Coordinator-General to declare certain development outside a State Development Area (SDA) as SDA-related development to improve delivery capacity for downstream processing, related manufacturing and export facilities. SDAs are land designated under the SDPWO Act for major industrial development, and are subject to a specific development scheme administered by the Coordinator-General. Declarations could only be made where another law or Act would adversely affect project delivery, and the development is either for infrastructure for the SDA to address impacts of development in the SDA or is needed to give effect to the development scheme but cannot reasonably be located entirely within the SDA.

The Coordinator-General would assess and decide (without any avenue for appeal) applications for SDA-related development under the SDPWO Act, without any Planning Act process required.

Further administrative changes include clarifications around the ability for SDA development approvals to require infrastructure charges and environmental offsets, with protections against duplicate Planning Act charges. SDA development approvals would now have currency periods aligned with Planning Act approvals, and would convert to development approvals under the Planning Act on cessation of the SDA, retaining their conditions and merit appeal protections.

Impacts on existing declarations and transitional arrangements

On commencement of these amendments, all existing 'critical infrastructure project' declarations would automatically transition to 'State strategic project' status. This would immediately enable the new facilitation powers for those projects.

All private infrastructure facility declarations would lapse on commencement. All undecided private infrastructure facility and private infrastructure facility land access applications would be taken to be withdrawn (with fees refunded). New applications for these projects would need to be made under the new framework.

Watch this space

• When will these amendments commence? The Bill has been referred to the committee for consideration, with a reporting date of 7 August 2026. Submissions close on 25 June 2026, with a public hearing on 14 July 2026. The Minister has stressed a desire for these amendments to commence in a timely manner to give Queensland a competitive advantage in the critical minerals boom.
• What projects are likely to be State strategic projects? The introductory speech and explanatory notes focus on the emerging critical mineral industry as an example of projects which have the requisite strategic importance for the State. However, the wording of the Act is industry-agnostic, with the Minister also indicating it could be available to ecotourism projects. The Government of the day will be tasked with determining what projects or industries require the benefit of these facilitation powers. Proponents of existing prescribed projects would be well advised to seek first-mover advantage in applying for this additional designation.
• What decisions can be subject to a State significance notice? As with the existing step-in powers for prescribed projects, it remains to be seen exactly which types of decisions are taken to be within the scope of a State significance notice, and the appetite for the Minister to take action to oversee the decision-making processes of other regulators.
• How will modification orders work in practice? As we note above, other than the checks and balances currently proposed in the Bill, there is limited guidance on the outer bounds for how modification orders could exclude regulatory processes under other legislation. For example, could these be used to displace mining objection hearing processes for environmental authorities and resource authorities? The Bill provides that modification orders are subordinate legislation subject to tabling and disallowance, but it is unclear whether or to what extent affected stakeholders or decision-makers will be consulted before an order is recommended to the Governor in Council.
• How will this impact social licence? Conservation groups are already in vocal opposition to the changes, alleging that the reforms would allow resources and other projects to impact areas of environmental and agricultural significance without appropriate assessment and community consultation. While projects may achieve final approvals faster under the changes, there may be resultant delays arising from community distrust. Early stakeholder engagement will remain critical to mitigate reputational and legal risk.
• Are we likely to see an increase in project declarations under the SDPWO Act? The proposed changes make the SDPWO Act an even more enticing avenue for project developers. We expect to see many more proponents seeking to lean on the Coordinator-General and Minister to unlock approvals issues and cut through red tape.

These reforms have the potential to reshape how major resource and infrastructure projects are assessed, approved and delivered in Queensland. If you are involved in project development, investment or land management in affected sectors, our team can help you understand what the proposed changes mean for your operations. Please reach out to our contacts listed above to discuss your specific circumstances, or subscribe to our updates to stay informed as the Bill progresses through Parliament.