– Tom Dixon, Queensland Community Engagement Manager, and Megan Kessler, Policy and Research Manager, RE-Alliance.
Queensland is on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation transformation. With more than $70 billion of wind, solar, battery and transmission infrastructure in the pipeline, our state has the potential to lead Australia’s clean energy future – delivering jobs, investment, and emissions reduction in our regions. Achieving this transformation will rely on the careful implementation of the state’s new social impact assessment (SIA) and community benefit arrangements (CBAS).
Under the new Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025, renewable energy developers will have to complete a SIA and secure a CBA with local councils before they can apply for planning approval. RE-Alliance supports, and has long advocated for, the intent of this legislation in terms of stronger community engagement, more regional and council planning input, and real sharing of benefits. In our submission on the draft legislation, we raised a number of concerns around ensuring the new requirements didn’t contribute to consultation fatigue in local communities and that Councils were adequately resourced to play their new role as facilitators of renewable energy community benefits.
Over the next few months, we’ll work with the state government, council and communities on how they can best navigate this new world of CBAs, and support communities to understand how they can best engage in this new approach to the shift to renewables in their regions.
What are the major changes in the legislation?
The key change from the legislation is that renewable energy projects will need to develop a full SIA and negotiate a binding CBA with local councils before they can submit a development application. Associated changes will make new solar projects subject to a planning code, similar to the one already in place for wind projects.
This legislation gives local government an important seat at the table – with significant ability to influence which renewable energy projects go ahead in their region and on what terms. However this comes at a cost – the requirement for CBAs to be developed upfront with local government increases the responsibility for councils to appropriately reflect local community needs in their negotiations. In our view, communities should have direct involvement in negotiations on community benefits, so councils must be resourced and given clear guidance on how to support this engagement. Without this support and a more strategic or regional approach to community benefits, there is a risk that developers, councils, and communities invest heavily in project by project community consultation for multiple projects, not all of which will make it through the planning system, leading to frustration and consultation fatigue. While the new laws allow for cost recovery, there is still a risk that these negotiations will be incredibly burdensome for some, particularly smaller, councils without further support.
The legislation also introduces new mediation processes where developers and councils can’t agree on community benefits. These processes must also be informed by clear guidance, with set timeframes to achieve outcomes, and a clear process for what happens when a developer and council aren’t able to achieve a negotiated or mediated outcome.
Community benefits v impact mitigation
One concern with the current language of government around these changes is that CBAs appear to be intended to deliver social impact mitigation rather than genuine community benefits. Impact mitigation is an important part of any assessment for new developments - whether it be social, environmental or economic. Impact mitigation is intended to identify and respond to any negative impacts on local communities and undertake actions that mitigate those impacts.
Community benefits on the other hand are what can be achieved when communities and renewable energy companies work together for the benefit of the region, leaving the region better off than it would have been without the development. There needs to be clear guidance to developers, councils and community about what actions are being undertaken to mitigate the social impacts of new renewable developments and what additional community benefits can be reasonably expected. These community benefits should reflect the seven principles for best practice community benefit funds previously identified by RE-Alliance, namely to:
- Deliver social value.
- Deliver in the long-term.
- Build context-specific solutions.
- Give agency to communities to co-design programs.
- Be transparent and accountable.
- Measure impact.
- Create a culture of collaboration.
Moving forwards
To ensure the new SIA and CBA system works, Queensland’s broader approach to the shift to renewable energy must deliver confidence for communities, councils and industry alike. This can be achieved by:
- Committing to a Queensland Energy Plan that embeds the shift to renewable energy in meeting net zero targets and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the sector.
- Demonstrating progress on the development of Renewable Energy Zones and associated regional planning. (It is concerning that the legislation as passed included amendments that cut consultation periods on regional plans from 60 to 30 business days. If anything, the shift to renewable energy needs more time for deliberative planning, not less.)
- Guaranteeing that community benefits remain about leaving a legacy, not just impact mitigation.
- Ensuring councils are provided with real support to deliver on these new legal requirements, including capacity building and guidance.
- Having clear, consistent timeframes and pathways for both developers and communities to participate in SIA and CBA, including clear processes for where mediation is required.
As mentioned above, the Government has also proposed the introduction of a new Solar Code for solar projects over 1MW or 2 hectares in size. We are concerned that a 1 MW facility may capture community energy projects that then become unviable by being subject to the same SIA requirements as large-scale solar farms. In our view, a threshold of at least 5 MW with no minimum hectare threshold would be more appropriate. Avoiding a hectare threshold would provide greater flexibility for smaller developments to place solar panels in an arrangement that best supports co-existence and co-location with agricultural activity and the protection of nature. We are advocating for the Government to change these thresholds and consider how battery and energy storage projects can be required to invest in community benefit schemes as part of the Government’s next steps.
Queensland doesn’t need to choose between strong community consultation and strong investment. But we need this new system to work for community and industry – otherwise we may end up with neither.
Read more: