The Queensland Parliament has an “extraordinary choice” to make about the Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 before the Brisbane Olympics, Queensland Law Society CEO Matt Dunn said yesterday.
The Society’s CEO addressed the public hearing by State Development, Infrastructure and Works Committee at Parliament House along with Michael Connor and Troy Webb from the Planning and Environment Law Committee and via livestream Kristen Hodge, co-chair of the QLS First Nations Legal Policy Committee.
The Bill amends the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021 with the objective of ensuring the State complies with its obligations under relevant games agreements by ensuring that the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games) venues and villages are delivered in a timely manner and in a way that maximises the legacy benefits of the Games.
“We are dealing with a very extraordinary bill that’s asking the Parliament of Queensland to make a very extraordinary choice in relation to Games infrastructure,” Matt said.
“And we appreciate that there is a significant public interest in terms of delivering Games infrastructure in a timely way so that Queensland looks good, and everyone comes out at 2032 smiling which is one end point that we would all like to achieve.
“And on the other side of that is of course, allowing individuals to be able to resolve their concerns and their disputes, and also to make sure there is the appropriate checks and balances of development.
“It would be a useful thing, if we had our time again, to go back and see if we could choose both of those two outcomes.
“There are perhaps ways that we can ameliorate some of the most concerning aspects of this particular bill … leave with respect to judicial proceedings might be one way so that regulators and authorities can still do the work that they need to be able do … you are balancing some very significant considerations.”
QLS has concerns about the prohibition on civil proceedings in proposed s 53DD(3) of the Act.
“If this provision remains in the Bill, QLS has significant concerns that important actions, including in relation to safety of Queenslanders and the government’s ability to enforce contracts and or recover costs, will be prohibited,” the QLS submission states.
“QLS recognises the need for fast-tracking the development of Olympics-related infrastructure to meet the requirements of hosting this momentous event.
“QLS notes some of the provisions suggested, particularly the removal of the application of any development assessment considerations (except those relating to building works), coupled with the removal of any civil proceeding rights, are to our knowledge unprecedented in Queensland and have the potential to cause a number of adverse consequences.”
QLS recommends the Bill requires preparation of a guidance document that outlines how the community engagement will take place, and how the inputs are addressed in relation to these projects.
“The legislation, and not the Minister, should prescribe which projects involving development of authority venues, other venues, villages or games-related transport infrastructure require a community engagement process,” the submission states.
To ensure there is appropriate oversight and scrutiny by Parliament, QLS recommends that each venue or project be added to the new schedules in the Act as they are approved.
QLS noted with particular concern the proposed alternative framework for assessing and allowing impacts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage and seeks clarification on the extent of consultation undertaken with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders with respect to this aspect of the amendments proposed by the Bill.
Kristen Hodge answered a committee question in relation to concerns around cultural heritage protections, legal obligations and safeguards in the proposed bill.
“Cultural heritage for First Nations people is vital to our wellbeing and our mental health, and contributes to close the gap,” she said.
“It helps preserve our unique identities, our languages, our traditions, and our histories and it gives us a strong sense of belonging.
“The cultural heritage legislation in Queensland is already at the bare minimum.
“It might potentially create a standardised agreement which prevents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from having a say in their cultural heritage. So it is quite concerning to have a default plan included in the legislation when you already have the ability to proceed if you don’t have an Aboriginal party.
“But the difference is if you proceed without an Aboriginal party in the current legislation, there’s dispute resolution clauses.”
QLS raised further concerns in both the written submission and during the appearance about the social impact assessment report and community benefit agreement (CBA) reforms. Chief among the concerns is that the CBA will be a pre-requisite to an application being a properly made application.
Even if a social impact report and CBA is in place, the application may not be approved and the time spent on this prerequisite process will be wasted.
As noted by Troy Webb at hearing: “Experience also shows that applications are refined during the integrated assessment process – in response to information requests and public submissions. Therefore, these reports and agreements may be out-of-date by the time the application is to be decided whereas if they formed part of the ordinary process, they could be documents that evolve within the assessment framework, much like technical reports evolve.”
QLS has suggested that the current framework could be adapted to address the policy intent. The discretion of an assessment manager to accept an application which does not meet the ordinary prerequisite requirements should be retained.
The committee is due to table its report on 20 June 2025.
Share this article