Country
Country comes first
The Trans Australian Solar Corridor would cross Country held, cared for and represented by many Traditional Owners. Consent, heritage protection and partnership are not late-stage approvals. They are conditions for whether any part of the corridor can exist.
Concept-stage position only
This page has not yet been validated by Traditional Owners, Land Councils, Prescribed Body Corporates or Native Title Representative Bodies. It sets out the position the proponent is willing to be challenged on. It should be reviewed directly before any route, first node or project footprint is presented as more than a concept.
The principle
TASC should not be designed as a line drawn across inland Australia and then negotiated afterwards. The route, nodes, ownership model and operating model must be shaped with the people whose Country would host them.
Free, prior and informed consent
No element of the corridor advances onto Country without free, prior and informed consent from the relevant Traditional Owners. Prior means engagement begins before site selection, not after.
Cultural heritage comes first
Cultural heritage assessment runs ahead of engineering preference. Where heritage protection and route efficiency conflict, the route or design changes.
Equity participation, not compensation
Traditional Owners on whose Country infrastructure sits should hold an enduring economic stake in that infrastructure. That may include direct equity, revenue share, partnership structures or other models chosen through engagement.
Governance role, not consultation role
Traditional Owners should have a structural governance role for projects on their Country, not an advisory position after major decisions have already been made.
Long-term benefit
Benefits should flow for the operating life of the asset, not just during construction. Employment, training, local businesses and community infrastructure need to be part of the operating model.
Native title and land interests
The following table is illustrative only. It must be replaced with a verified National Native Title Tribunal extract, Land Council input, state tenure data and direct engagement before any public claim is made about route suitability.
| Region | Groups and interests to verify | Status |
|---|---|---|
| WA Goldfields | Wongatha, Tjiwarl, Marlinyu Ghoorlie, Maduwongga and others | Illustrative only. Multiple determinations and overlapping interests require verification. |
| WA Western Desert | Ngaanyatjarra, Pila Nguru, Spinifex and others | Illustrative only. Determinations and interests require direct validation. |
| NT Centre | Arrernte, Anmatyerre, Luritja and others | Illustrative only. Native title and land rights interests require direct validation. |
| NT Barkly | Warumungu, Wakaya, Alyawarra and others | Illustrative only. Determinations and interests require direct validation. |
| QLD North-West | Kalkadoon, Mitakoodi, Pitta Pitta and others | Illustrative only. Determinations and interests require direct validation. |
| QLD Central West | Maiawali, Karuwali, Iningai, Bidjara and others | Illustrative only. Determinations and applications require direct validation. |
Pastoral leaseholders, local councils and regional communities are also essential counterparties. They do not replace Traditional Owner consent.
Engagement sequence before construction
The corridor should earn the right to proceed one stage at a time. If consent, heritage, governance or benefit-sharing cannot be resolved, the project must change or stop.
Stage A
Listening
Initial engagement with Land Councils, Prescribed Body Corporates, Native Title Representative Bodies and Aboriginal Corporations. The concept is explained, concerns are heard, and no commitment is sought.
Stage B
Co-design
Where groups wish to continue, joint work begins on what corridor presence could mean on their Country, what is excluded, and what form of equity, governance and benefit model is acceptable.
Stage C
Agreements
Indigenous Land Use Agreements or equivalent instruments are negotiated for any first-node footprint. These must cover consent, heritage, governance, equity, employment and benefit provisions.
Stage D
Implementation and review
Construction proceeds only after agreements and clearances are in place. Review mechanisms remain active as the corridor changes or expands.
What the proponent commits to
These commitments are not a substitute for engagement. They are the starting position for that engagement.
- Not to advance any node onto Country without free, prior and informed consent.
- To listen before pitching in every Traditional Owner engagement.
- To build equity participation into every node, not after-the-fact compensation.
- To accept that some Country will be excluded and to redesign rather than push.
- To make Traditional Owner governance structural, not advisory.
What has to happen next
Before TASC can make any public claim about route, first-node location or land suitability, it needs a verified Country and tenure layer. That means NNTT data, state tenure data, cultural heritage process advice and direct engagement with relevant representative bodies.
Verified native title layer
Determinations, applications, Prescribed Body Corporates and representative bodies mapped against any proposed corridor.
Land Council and NTRB review
Direct review with at least one relevant Land Council or Native Title Representative Body before the page is treated as validated.
Cultural heritage pathway
Advice from practitioners experienced in infrastructure, heritage protection and free, prior and informed consent.