The Stopping Wind Farms in State Forests Act 2025 would make it unlawful for a "constitutional corporation" to construct, install or commission a wind farm on land dedicated as a State or Territory forest. The statutory definition of wind farm explicitly covers generation, storage and related transmission or distribution infrastructure, and the bill lists five named State forests while preserving a broader definition that captures any land dedicated under State or Territory Acts.
The bill matters because it attempts to use the Commonwealth’s corporations power to regulate where private and corporate renewable projects can be sited — directly intruding on land uses that are normally managed by States and Territories. It creates a narrow federal enforcement route (injunctions under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014) rather than criminal or civil penalty regimes, producing immediate legal and commercial uncertainty for developers, financiers and grid planners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars corporations covered by section 51(xx) of the Constitution from constructing, installing or commissioning wind farms on land dedicated as State or Territory forests and names five specific State forests as examples without limiting the general definition. It defines wind farm to include generation, storage, and associated transmission or distribution infrastructure.
Who It Affects
Corporations that develop, finance or operate wind generation and storage projects (including corporate joint ventures and state-owned corporations), state and territory land managers, transmission network service providers planning routes through forested Crown land, and project financiers assessing siting and legal risk.
Why It Matters
This bill tests federal reach into land-use decisions by using the corporations power rather than planning or environmental law levers, and it changes the commercial calculus for siting renewable projects — particularly on Crown forest land — by replacing licensing uncertainty with an injunctive enforcement regime and by offering no explicit transitional or grandfathering protection for existing approvals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core the bill creates a one-sentence substantive prohibition: a constitutional corporation must not construct, install or commission a wind farm in a State forest. That short ban carries an unusually wide practical footprint because of the bill’s two linked definitional choices: it treats any land dedicated under a State or Territory Act as a "State forest," and it treats "wind farm" to include not only turbines and towers but also energy storage and the transmission and distribution infrastructure that connects the site to the grid.
In plain terms, a developer proposing turbines with co-located batteries or new access lines that would be built on dedicated forest land would fall squarely within the prohibition if the developer is a constitutional corporation.
The bill does not create fines or a standalone civil penalty; instead it makes the prohibition enforceable by injunction under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 and designates "the Minister" as the authorised person and the Federal Court as the relevant court. That design means the Commonwealth’s enforcement tool is judicial relief that can block activity or compel the undoing of works.
The choice of an injunction-only remedy narrows enforcement to court-driven outcomes rather than administrative penalties, but it also invites pre-emptive litigation as a tool to stop construction before it starts.The bill’s scope is limited to constitutional corporations — entities whose existence and activities fall under the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Constitution. That limitation leaves open the possibility that non-corporate actors (for example, individuals or partnerships without corporate status) could be outside its reach, and it creates a perimeter around who bears the statutory prohibition.
The Act commences the day after Royal Assent and contains no express transitional arrangements or savings for projects already approved under State or Territory processes, so whether an approved, partially constructed or commissioned project would be interrupted depends on legal interpretation or subsequent legislation.From an implementation perspective, the most immediate consequences are commercial and procedural: developers and financiers will need to re-check the legal status of any forest land in project footprints, networks planners must map transmission corridors against State forest dedications, and State governments will face the practical dilemma of managing Crown land policies that could be pre-empted for corporate actors. The combination of broad definitions and injunction-only enforcement increases the likelihood of injunctive litigation and raises the cost of due diligence for onshore projects that might otherwise use State forest land for siting or ancillary infrastructure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it an offence (in the sense of a statutory prohibition) for any constitutional corporation to construct, install or commission a wind farm in land dedicated as a State or Territory forest.
It names five specific State forests (Sunny Corner, Vulcan, Mount David, Gurnang and Canobolas) but clarifies that the list does not limit the broader definition of State forest.
The statutory definition of "wind farm" explicitly covers generation and storage of energy from wind and includes associated transmission and distribution infrastructure, capturing co-located batteries and connecting lines.
Enforcement is limited to injunctions under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, with "the Minister" designated as the authorised person and the Federal Court identified as the relevant court.
The Act commences the day after Royal Assent and contains no explicit grandfathering clause or savings for projects already approved or partially constructed under State or Territory regimes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and immediate commencement
Section 1 gives the Act its name. Section 2 sets commencement: every provision comes into force the day after Royal Assent. Practically, that fast commencement window means there is no built‑in lead time for projects in design or permitting stages; affected parties must assume the prohibition could take effect very quickly unless an alternative (such as an amending or saving provision) is passed.
Prohibition: what corporations must not do
Subsection (1) states the operative ban: a constitutional corporation must not construct, install or commission a wind farm in a State forest. That phrasing targets three different moments in a project lifecycle — construction activity, installation of plant, and the act of commissioning — giving courts multiple points at which an injunction could be sought to stop progress. The focus on "constitutional corporations" ties the prohibition to federal power and excludes non-corporate actors from direct application.
State forest: named examples and general coverage
Subsection (2) lists five named State forests by way of example but subsection (4)(b) defines State forest more generally as land dedicated under a State Act. That structure signals intent to cover any forest land dedicated as State or Territory forest across jurisdictions while also pointing to particular NSW sites. Project planners must therefore treat all State/Territory-dedicated forest land as potentially covered, not only the named parcels.
Broad definition of wind farm (includes storage and transmission)
The Act defines "wind farm" to include infrastructure for generation and storage of energy from wind as well as associated transmission and distribution infrastructure. This is a substantive drafting choice: it pulls co-located battery storage and the connecting lines and substations into the ban, not just the turbines. Developers that previously planned batteries or new feeder lines within forest footprints will find those components caught by the prohibition.
Enforcement via injunctions and authorised officer
Subsection (3) makes the prohibition enforceable under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, designating "the Minister" as the authorised person and the Federal Court as the relevant court. The practical effect is that the Commonwealth’s remedy is court-ordered injunctive relief rather than an administrative fine or criminal sanction. This raises predictable litigation pressure: opponents or the Minister can seek interlocutory relief to halt works, but the absence of an administrative compliance regime leaves day-to-day enforcement and discretion largely with judicial processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and Territory forestry agencies — retain practical control over the use of land they dedicate as State/Territory forests and avoid corporate siting of turbines and ancillary infrastructure on that Crown land.
- Local communities and councils opposed to forest-based wind projects — gain a federal legal barrier that complements any State planning refusals and which can be invoked quickly through injunctions.
- Conservation and biodiversity NGOs focused on forest protection — obtain a statutory backstop preventing corporate-scale wind and storage infrastructure in dedicated State forest areas.
- Offshore and non-forest siting interests — may gain competitive advantage as developers shift project footprints away from Crown forests toward private land or offshore sites, reducing local opposition and consenting friction.
Who Bears the Cost
- Wind project developers that are constitutional corporations — face blocked projects, redesign costs, and increased legal risk for any components located on dedicated State/Territory forest land.
- Project financiers and investors — see higher due diligence, valuation and litigation risk where forest-dedicated land intersects proposed footprints, raising the cost of capital for onshore projects.
- Transmission network service providers — may need to reroute lines and substations to avoid forest dedications, increasing planning complexity and build costs for grid connections.
- State and Territory governments — confronted with a federal constraint on corporate activity on Crown land, potentially complicating land-use policy, lease negotiations, and revenue opportunities from hosting infrastructure.
- Federal enforcement actors and the courts — will see increased injunctive litigation and case management burdens as disputes over siting and the timing of construction are litigated in the Federal Court.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting State-dedicated forest land from large-scale wind and related infrastructure and maintaining a coherent national energy strategy that allows developers and networks to site projects where they are economically and technically viable; the bill resolves that conflict in favor of forest protection via a federal corporations prohibition, but in doing so it creates legal and commercial friction with State land management and national decarbonisation goals.
Several implementation and legal questions are unresolved in the text. First, the bill designates only "the Minister" as the authorised person without specifying which portfolio or ministerial office is intended; that ambiguity creates procedural uncertainty about who may seek injunctions and how enforcement decisions will be made.
Second, the Act relies exclusively on injunctive relief under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 rather than creating a standalone enforcement or penalty regime; this channels disputes into the Federal Court and makes timing — particularly interlocutory hearings — decisive for project outcomes.
From a constitutional and federalism perspective, the bill’s use of the corporations power to regulate activity on land dedicated by States and Territories invites litigation over the breadth of Commonwealth power versus State land-management autonomy. The limitation to constitutional corporations also opens a potential circumvention pathway: project proponents might restructure ownership or contracts to fall outside the corporations power or move components to private land to avoid the ban.
Finally, by including storage and transmission in the definition of "wind farm," the bill risks unintended consequences for grid planning and co-located hybrid projects in regions where the only viable corridors cross dedicated forest land.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.