The six-year delay in approving Woodside Energy’s North West Shelf extension reflects a failure to integrate Indigenous Australians as strategic partners in the nation’s development agenda. Policymakers and project proponents should recognise the impasse is far from just a niche environmental compliance issue.

If Australia is serious about realising northern ambitions—whether in energy, defence or critical minerals—it must adopt a new development ethos grounded in shared custodianship with First Nations peoples.

Northern Australia is rich in natural resources, geostrategic potential and cultural heritage. More than half of the Northern Territory and vast areas of Western Australia are held under Aboriginal land rights, creating an opportunity for genuine engagement.

If Australia forges genuine, early-stage partnerships with Indigenous communities, it can unlock not only project certainty but social license, environmental sustainability and national resilience.

ASPl’s report following the 2024 Darwin Dialogue argued that Indigenous Australians were not passive stakeholders in northern development but active contributors to environmental stewardship, emerging industries and national defence. The dialogue called for Indigenous inclusion not as a matter of political correctness or procedural compliance but as a source of long-term competitive and strategic advantage.

It’s a message echoed in the Woodside case, highlighting how delays, despite eventual project clearance, appeared to reflect concerns about the depth of Indigenous engagement before the submission of project documentation—underscoring the importance of engaging early and meaningfully with Indigenous communities.

Woodside maintains that its engagement aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and associated principles of ‘free, prior and informed consent’. Yet criticism from Indigenous leaders points to a disconnect between the stated policy and meaningful practice. Disputes over the transparency of environmental assessments and questions about when and how Indigenous communities were consulted highlight the high stakes of getting this balance wrong.

The lesson is clear. Trust is not built during a project’s final regulatory hurdle; it is forged in the earliest stages of conception, design and intent. And when trust is missing, so are timelines, social license and investment certainty.

For development in northern Australia to be sustainable and strategically sound, Indigenous custodianship must be embedded, not bolted on. This is not only about respect and inclusion; it’s also about achieving better project outcomes.

Projects incorporating Indigenous land and sea management practices are inherently more adaptive to climate risk and biodiversity pressures. Co-designed clean energy ventures with Indigenous landholders can pioneer new models of co-ownership, shared governance and revenue participation models.

For example, the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs partners with Indigenous communities through its social enterprise division to deliver infrastructure, communications and renewable energy projects across remote regions. These initiatives are not just about service delivery. They build local capacity, create jobs and centre Indigenous decision-making. They also show how strategic infrastructure can be designed and delivered to communities, not just for them.

If the federal government and industry are serious about getting development right in the north they must prioritise genuine engagement and meaningful partnerships through three key initiatives.

Firstly, Indigenous leaders must hold permanent, empowered roles in the governance of major projects and regional development bodies ensuring decisions are made with communities, not for them. While Australia’s assessment frameworks must be reformed to ensure Indigenous perspectives are integrated early and meaningfully, not just retrofitted, into project design and approval processes.

Secondly, governments must support education and training programs that blend Indigenous ecological knowledge with STEM disciplines, expand vocational pathways aligned to regional industries, and back Indigenous entrepreneurship through co-investment in infrastructure. This would lay the foundation for Indigenous leadership in clean energy, environmental stewardship and regional development.

Finally, defence, energy and critical minerals sectors must adopt measurable targets for Indigenous employment, procurement and leadership. These should not be symbolic gestures, but central aspects of operational effectiveness, resilience and legitimacy.

Woodside’s project delay reflects a broader truth. Projects that treat Indigenous engagement as a box-ticking exercise will keep facing delays, resistance and reputational damage. In contrast, those that treat Indigenous communities as strategic partners can increase their legitimacy, innovation and sustainability.

The Darwin Dialogue painted a hopeful picture of what’s possible: a northern Australia defined not by exclusion or conflict but by shared ambition and mutual respect. But that vision cannot be realised through good intentions alone. It requires new policy settings, governance models, and a deeper national commitment to Indigenous partnership. It requires recognising that development in the north is not just an economic exercise; it’s a question of trust, identity, and nation-building.

Last week, Rio Tinto and the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation signed a landmark co-management agreement to ensure the traditional owners would be engaged early in the mining process. Under this agreement, the traditional owners of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters will have a decisive role in shaping Rio Tinto’s future mining activities on their land. This groundbreaking agreement should serve as a model for prioritising relationships over regulation.

The Woodside case is both a cautionary tale and a call to action. To build a resilient, inclusive, and prosperous north, Indigenous Australians must be placed at the centre of our national infrastructure strategy. In northern Australia—as elsewhere—long-term success depends not on working around Indigenous communities but working with them.