The clean energy transition must be a vehicle for First Nations justice, enduring cultural protection, and real economic participation — not a repeat of earlier patterns of dispossession. 

VicGrid recently ran a public consultation regarding proposed new rules to manage how renewable energy projects gain access to the state’s transmission network. The new approach, known as the Victorian Access Regime, aims to encourage development in renewable energy zones and give confidence to developers.

The First Nations Clean Energy Network provided a submission to the consultation.

While expressing our support for VicGrid’s intent to create a predictable, orderly approach to grid access, we noted the draft companion documents as released do not yet deliver the binding protections, resourcing or decision-making roles necessary for Traditional Owners to exercise meaningful consent over outcomes on Country.

In particular, the Grid Impact Assessment (GIA) and Access and Connections proposals must explicitly recognise Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for transmission corridors and Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) siting that materially affect cultural values and Country, and the Community Engagement and Social Value Guidelines must be elevated from guidance to enforceable eligibility criteria for grid access. 

In our submission, we identified key issues, recommendations and drawn on international examples that actualise FPIC, co-design, meaningful engagement and benefit sharing. We also provided a range of international examples drawing on embedding FPIC, co-design and benefit sharing. 

The Network’s core recommendations are: 

1. First Nations decision-making and consent — require FPIC for actions that materially affect cultural heritage, Country and First Nations economic interests and embed Traditional Owner decision-making and rights into VicGrid processes; 
2. Binding benefit-sharing and economic participation — require legally enforceable benefit-sharing arrangements, procurement targets, and long-term revenue streams for Traditional Owners; 
3. Cultural heritage and Country protections — statutory spatial exclusion zones, rigorous cultural heritage assessment protocols, and prohibitions on activities where consent is refused; 
4. Capacity — guaranteed, up-front capacity and technical support for Traditional Owner groups to participate effectively; and 
5. Transparency, monitoring and enforcement — clear performance indicators, public reporting, and a fast, culturally appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. 

We conclude, absent explicit legal status for FPIC, binding benefit-sharing and adequate resourcing, the Victorian Access Regime risks repeating historic patterns of extractive development that exclude First Nations people.

We encouraged VicGrid look to leading international jurisdictions that have embedded First Nations consent, co-ownership, and benefit sharing into energy infrastructure planning and delivery. These examples demonstrate that cultural rights, community benefit and clean energy expansion can coexist when governance frameworks are properly designed.

Read our submission