As planning accelerates for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Queensland Government has introduced a Games-specific approvals framework that changes how cultural heritage is managed for certain Games-related projects. Recent amendments to the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021 (BOPGA Act), introduced through the so-called “Games laws”, establish an alternative pathway for cultural heritage approvals for a limited class of Brisbane 2032 infrastructure. This article outlines what is changing, which projects are affected, and what this means for proponents, project teams and heritage practitioners. A new approvals regime for Brisbane 2032 venues and transport infrastructure The Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 amends the BOPGA Act to create a tailored approvals framework for certain Brisbane 2032 venues, villages and transport infrastructure, referred to as “authority venues” and project areas. For these defined Games projects, cultural heritage is managed through a Games-specific process, rather than relying solely on the usual interaction between: the Planning Act 2016 the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, and other relevant State and local laws Under the Games laws, approvals are centralised within Games delivery entities, including the Games Independent Infrastructure and Coordination Authority (GIICA), and aligned to the strict timeframes required for Games delivery. How the Games-specific cultural heritage process works A key feature of the Games laws is the introduction of a formal “cultural heritage notice”. Once a cultural heritage notice is given for a qualifying Brisbane 2032 project: the project transitions into the BOPGA Act approval pathway cultural heritage matters are assessed under the Games-specific regime decisions are made by designated Games authorities rather than through standard approval pathways This process is designed to streamline approvals for Games infrastructure, while still requiring heritage considerations to be addressed. What the Brisbane 2032 Games laws do – and do not – apply to It is critical to understand that this regime is narrowly targeted. The Games-specific cultural heritage framework applies only to projects that are: expressly identified as Brisbane 2032 authority venues, villages or Games transport infrastructure, and regulated under the BOPGA Act For these projects, compliance with the Games laws can, in certain circumstances, authorise works despite potential inconsistencies with other legislation, provided all Games-specific requirements are met. However, most projects in Queensland are not affected. For non-Games projects – including the majority of council works, private developments and regional infrastructure – existing heritage frameworks continue to apply in full, including: the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, including Duty of Care and Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) requirements the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 local planning-scheme heritage overlays and local heritage registers Practical implications for project teams and proponents For organisations involved in infrastructure delivery, the key questions are: Is the project a Brisbane 2032 authority venue, village or Games transport project? If not, standard cultural heritage obligations apply. If it is a Games project, which provisions of the BOPGA Act apply? This includes understanding the role of the cultural heritage notice, decision-makers, and project-specific timeframes. Early identification of the correct approvals regime is critical to avoiding delays, compliance risks and stakeholder issues. How Redleaf is supporting Brisbane 2032 cultural heritage compliance? Redleaf is closely monitoring the evolution of the Brisbane 2032 Games laws and approvals framework. Where clients become involved in Games-related infrastructure, we can: determine whether the Games-specific or standard heritage regime applies design heritage methodologies that meet BOPGA Act requirements support robust engagement with Traditional Owners and key stakeholders, even within accelerated delivery timeframes If you would like advice on how the Brisbane 2032 Games laws affect your project, please contact our team.
The Commonwealth Government has introduced the most significant reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in over two decades. These changes reshape how environmental referrals, assessments, and approvals are undertaken, with stronger national standards and new streamlined pathways. Key Changes You Need to Know Streamlined Assessment Pathway: Multiple older assessment routes have been consolidated into a single streamlined pathway. For eligible proposals, decisions may now be issued within 30 business days, provided the referral information is complete and robust. Higher Upfront Information Requirements: Referrals must now include more detailed baseline data, impact analysis, and justification to qualify for the faster pathway. Binding National Environmental Standards: All referral decisions must now align with new National Environmental Standards, ensuring proposals avoid “unacceptable impacts” and meet strengthened requirements for managing residual impacts. Expiry of ‘No-Controlled-Action’ Decisions: A “no-controlled-action” determination will automatically lapse after five years unless the project has substantially commenced. Creation of a New Federal Regulator: The reforms establish the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) , significantly increasing compliance oversight and enforcement powers. Traditional Owner Engagement The reforms strengthen expectations around early Traditional Owner engagement, particularly for projects affecting MNES such as listed ecological communities, wetlands, and culturally significant landscapes. Proponents are now expected to: Demonstrate early and proactive liaison with Traditional Owners or Native Title parties Include cultural values, knowledge and perspectives in baseline information Identify impacts on culturally significant species, places or landscapes Show how Indigenous engagement has informed avoidance, mitigation, and offset planning Early engagement is now considered essential for delivering a “complete” referral that qualifies for streamlined pathways. How Redleaf Can Support Your Project Redleaf can help you navigate the new EPBC requirements by: Conducting early project screening and identifying risks Preparing referral packages that meet strengthened information thresholds Facilitating Traditional Owner liaison and integrating cultural values into project design Updating impact and offset assessments Advising on the suitability of streamlined vs. standard pathways If you’re planning a future development or unsure how the reforms affect your project, our team is here to help.
