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.
The Principle
The corridor 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.
Five Commitments
Free, prior and informed consent. No element of the corridor advances onto Country without FPIC from the relevant Traditional Owners. Prior means engagement begins before site selection, not after.
Cultural heritage comes first. Heritage assessment runs ahead of engineering. 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 enduring economic stake in that infrastructure. Direct equity, revenue share, partnership structures — chosen through engagement.
Governance role, not consultation role. Traditional Owners hold structural governance positions for projects on their Country, with decision rights — not advisory positions after major decisions have been made.
Long-term benefit. Benefits flow for the operating life of the asset, not the construction period. Employment, training, local business participation, and community infrastructure are part of the operating model.
Native Title and Land Interests
The table below 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. |
| WA Pilbara | Ngarluma, Yindjibarndi, Banjima and others | Illustrative only. Multiple determinations, mining agreements in place, require verification. |
| 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, PBCs, NTRBs and Aboriginal Corporations. The concept is explained, concerns are heard, 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, a verified Country and tenure layer must exist. That means NNTT data, state tenure data, cultural heritage process advice, and direct engagement with relevant representative bodies.
Three requirements before the page moves from provisional to validated:
Verified native title layer. Determinations, applications, Prescribed Body Corporates and representative bodies mapped against any proposed corridor.
Land Council and Native Title Representative Body (NTRB) review. Direct review with at least one relevant Land Council or Native Title Representative Body.
Cultural heritage pathway. Advice from practitioners experienced in infrastructure, heritage protection and FPIC.