Introduction

Queensland presents a unique challenge for data centre developers, unlike New South Wales and Victoria, the state has no dedicated planning pathway for data centre infrastructure. Proposals must navigate a general development assessment framework that was not designed with the specific characteristics of hyperscale digital infrastructure in mind.

This regulatory gap is increasingly significant as Queensland emerges as a target for data centre investment, driven by its relatively lower land costs, growing renewable energy capacity and strategic connectivity advantages. However, the absence of a purpose-built framework creates uncertainty around assessment categorisation, approval timelines and the scope of third-party challenge rights.

Compounding this uncertainty, the State Development and Public Works Organisation (Critical Minerals) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, introduced on 2 June 2026, proposes sweeping new powers that could fundamentally reshape the approvals landscape, though not without significant legal controversy.

This article examines the current planning framework for data centres in Queensland, the proposed legislative reforms and the practical implications for developers. The broader national policy context and comparison with New South Wales and Victoria are addressed in our introductory article, Planning approvals for data centres: A national perspective. 

Federal context: Net generators, not net users

The proposed federal ‘net generator, not net user’ framework is particularly relevant in Queensland. The federal government's energy requirements for data centres apply uniformly across all states, creating a baseline compliance obligation that Queensland developers must satisfy irrespective of the state regulatory framework.

The federal government has expressly reserved the right to override inconsistent state approaches. For Queensland, which lacks dedicated data centre regulation, this federal overlay effectively becomes the primary regulatory constraint on energy procurement.

Legislative and planning framework

Development assessment under the Planning Act 2016

Development assessment in Queensland is established by the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). Unlike New South Wales (which has a specific SSD classification for data centres exceeding 15 MW), Queensland has no bespoke use definition or assessment category for data centre facilities.

Data centres are assessed by analogy to existing defined uses within the applicable planning scheme, typically categorised as:

• industry uses: Where the facility involves industrial-scale operations
• research and technology uses: Where the primary function is data processing and technology services.

The categorisation has significant implications for the assessment pathway and the rights that attach to it.

Assessment categories

The Planning Act 2016 establishes two subcategories of assessable development:

• code assessment: No public notification requirement, no submission rights and no appeal rights for third parties. Assessment is limited to compliance with identified codes
• impact assessment: Publicly notified, with submission rights and appeal rights for submitters. The assessment may consider any relevant matter.

Data centre applications are typically categorised as Impact Assessable Development (IAD) due to their scale, intensity and potential environmental effects. This categorisation triggers public notification and opens the development to third-party scrutiny.

Appeal and legal challenge risks

Third-party appeal rights

The Planning Act 2016 provides appeal rights for both applicants and affected entities in the Planning and Environment Court. For IAD, third-party appeal rights attach where the application requires public notification.

Any person who made a 'properly made' submission during the notification period acquires standing to appeal the decision. This threshold is procedural rather than substantive, a person need not demonstrate specific harm, only that they lodged a compliant submission within time.

The relative ease of establishing standing creates meaningful litigation risk for data centre proponents, particularly where community opposition is organised.

Judicial review

Beyond merits appeals, decisions are subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Queensland) on grounds including jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness and unreasonableness. The absence of a purpose-built assessment framework for data centres arguably increases vulnerability to challenge on the basis that the decision-maker applied inappropriate assessment criteria.

Coordinator-general declarations

Where a project is declared a Coordinated Project by the Coordinator-General under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld), the assessment process is centralised and streamlined. However, to date, no data centre applications have been declared Coordinated Projects and the criteria for declaration do not specifically contemplate digital infrastructure.

Streamlined approval pathways

Coordinated projects

The Coordinator-General may declare a project a 'Coordinated Project' under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act), providing a centralised assessment process. Eligibility criteria focus on projects of state significance involving complex approval requirements across multiple agencies. While data centres could theoretically qualify, no data centre has yet been designated.

The Critical Minerals Bill 2026

The Critical Minerals Bill, introduced into Parliament on 2 June 2026, proposes one of the most significant reforms to Queensland’s project facilitation framework in decades. While driven in part by the Government’s critical minerals agenda, consistent with the Delivering Queensland’s Critical Minerals Future 2026-30 strategy, the operative provisions are not limited to critical minerals projects.

The criteria for State Strategic Project declarations are expressed in broad and general terms applicable to any project meeting the relevant thresholds. The Critical Minerals Bill primarily amends the SDPWO Act.

State strategic projects

At the centre of the Critical Minerals Bill is a new category of development: the State Strategic Project (SSP). This replaces the existing ‘critical infrastructure project’ designation under the SDPWO Act. Projects are designated SSPs by the Minister where satisfied the project is critical or essential to Queensland for economic, environmental or social reasons, or is likely to significantly contribute to the State’s economic, environmental or social objectives.

The criteria are deliberately broad. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that significance may arise from direct benefits, such as investment, employment and environmental outcomes, as well as broader strategic importance to Queensland. Any existing ‘critical infrastructure project’ declaration in force immediately before commencement will automatically transition to an SSP under the new framework.

SSP designation unlocks a suite of key facilitation powers: state significance notices, modification orders, expanded land access arrangements, strategic infrastructure easements and compulsory acquisition powers. These are the Critical Minerals Bill’s principal mechanisms for overcoming approval, infrastructure and delivery constraints.

The SSP declaration decision is expressly excluded from review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), though the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to review for jurisdictional error may remain available.

State significance notices

Available only for SSPs, State significance notices allow the Minister to intervene in specified approval processes. Where a notice is issued, decision-makers must consult with the Minister, consider matters identified in the notice and take into account further advice provided during the decision-making process. The Minister may provide advice which must be given ‘appropriate weight’.

While the final decision remains with the statutory decision-maker, the reform gives the Minister a seat at the table for critical approval decisions without formally transferring decision-making power. It ensures that approvals for projects of the highest State significance are informed by broader Government priorities.

Critically, decisions subject to a State significance notice will generally not be open to third-party merits review or appeal, although judicial review rights remain available. Proponents retain the ability to challenge approval conditions.

Modification Orders

Perhaps the most significant element of the Critical Minerals Bill is the introduction of modification orders.

The Governor in Council, on the Minister’s recommendation, may exclude or modify the application of provisions of other Queensland laws to an SSP, effectively allowing the regulatory framework to be recalibrated for individual projects on a case-by-case basis where existing requirements create unnecessary duplication, delay or uncertainty.

The Critical Minerals Bill recognises the constitutional significance of this power and constrains its use through a number of safeguards. Modification orders are only available for the narrow class of projects declared as SSPs. The Minister must be satisfied that the order is necessary and in the State’s interest, environmental impacts can be appropriately managed and any departure from the objectives of the affected legislation is justified by the broader benefits of the project proceeding. Mandatory consultation requirements apply.

Modification orders cannot remove requirements to obtain key environmental authorities, resource tenures or development approvals. Specific exclusions also preserve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and interests, revenue provisions and Commonwealth bilateral environmental assessment processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Parliamentary oversight is maintained through the disallowance process.

The modification order power has been modelled on comparable powers in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Land access and compulsory acquisition

The Critical Minerals Bill introduces a new access authority regime that replaces and broadens existing investigation powers. Proponents of ‘prescribed projects’ may seek access to land for investigation purposes, while SSP proponents may also seek authority to undertake limited enabling works where access cannot be secured by agreement. The enabling works power is intended to operate as a last-resort mechanism.

Compulsory acquisition powers are also expanded. The Critical Minerals Bill replaces the former ‘private infrastructure facility’ reference with SSPs as a purpose for which land may be taken. This allows land to be compulsorily acquired and conferred upon private proponents for projects not of a public nature, a departure from the traditional rationale for compulsory acquisition. Landowner protections remain central to the regime, including notice requirements, compensation entitlements, and access to the Land Court. A ‘final unconditional offer’ must be made to the registered owner before the Governor in Council may approve the acquisition.

Stakeholder concerns and legal risks

The Critical Minerals Bill has attracted significant scrutiny during the Parliamentary inquiry process. Key concerns include:

· proportionality, whether existing coordinated project and prescribed project powers could achieve comparable outcomes with fewer adverse consequences

· environmental safeguards, particularly the removal of the EIS requirement from the compulsory acquisition process and broad Ministerial discretion

· systematic removal of third-party appeal and objection rights across multiple frameworks

· the exclusion from judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991, with the costs and procedural barriers of Supreme Court relief rendering it an inadequate substitute

· reliance on subordinate legislation for modification orders

· compulsory acquisition for private purposes.

Relevance to data centre proponents

There is no express limitation in the Critical Minerals Bill that would prevent a data centre (and ancillary battery storage) from being declared an SSP. The criteria are broad, subjective and a matter of the Minister’s opinion. The Explanatory Notes acknowledge this breadth, noting the amendments are ‘intentionally designed to be part of the government’s toolkit to drive development of priority economic sectors’.

For a data centre proponent, SSP status would streamline approval and reduce the risk of third-party legal challenge delaying the project. However, securing SSP status carries political and reputational risk given the controversy surrounding the Critical Minerals Bill and the concerns raised regarding the removal of community participation rights.

Whether these powers are ultimately deployed for data centre projects will depend on how the new framework is exercised in practice. Proponents should monitor the Critical Minerals Bill’s passage and engage early with the Coordinator-General’s office on potential designation.

Energy and Water Requirements

Queensland currently lacks the prescriptive state-level energy and water requirements that characterise the New South Wales framework. However, developers must navigate:

The absence of dedicated state-level data centre energy standards creates a less prescriptive but potentially less certain regulatory environment compared to New South Wales. Developers must satisfy federal requirements without the benefit of state guidelines that clearly delineate compliance pathways.

Queensland's significant solar and wind resources, coupled with the state's Renewable Energy Zone designations, provide a competitive landscape for PPA procurement. However, developers should be aware that transmission capacity constraints exist in some corridors, and the 'causer pays' principle for network augmentation may impose costs where new generation requires grid connection upgrades. Early engagement with Powerlink Queensland on connection and network capacity is essential for feasibility planning.

Key takeaways for developers

Read the full series

• Planning approvals for data centres: A national perspective
• Data centre planning approvals in New South Wales
• Data centre planning approvals in Victoria