A coordination tool, not a new approval gate
A Shared Value Masterplan brings proponents, councils, Traditional Owners, communities, local businesses and state agencies together before impacts escalate. It does not remove project assessment or community scrutiny — it gives everyone a shared view of the pipeline, pressures, trade-offs and practical next steps.
Business certainty and community support are connected. If communities see unmanaged cumulative impacts, proponents face delay, cost escalation and loss of trust. If benefits are fragmented, even large investment can feel extractive. A Masterplan addresses both at once.
- Host councils (often more than one)
- Traditional Owner bodies for the area
- RDA bodies and regional development
- Project proponents in the REZ
- EnergyCo / VicGrid / Powerlink as state coordinator
- Local businesses and chambers of commerce
- Community reference groups
- Workforce / skills providers
Anchor benefit-sharing to council Community Strategic Plans, RDA regional plans, First Nations regional agreements, and state regional development strategies. Avoid project-led priority-setting.
Identify the legacy infrastructure gaps that REZ activity is best placed to help close — local roads, telecommunications, water and wastewater capacity, health and education, council operational capacity.
Match construction and operations workforce demand to regional training and employment pathways. Coordinate apprenticeships and First Nations employment commitments across projects.
Precinct-level workforce accommodation. Shared villages where construction peaks overlap. Legacy housing outcomes after construction. Aligned with council planning instruments.
Region-wide supplier register and pre-qualification pathway accessible to multiple proponents. Reduce duplication; raise local SME readiness.
Move from project-by-project IEPs toward regional-scale partnerships with relevant Land Councils and Native Title bodies. Procurement, employment, cultural heritage and revenue-sharing frameworks at regional scale.
Pooled regional fund with transparent governance. Aligned with regional priorities. Avoid fragmented small project funds with separate governance models.
Clear chair, clear participants (proponents, councils, RDA, Traditional Owner bodies, state agency observers). Published terms of reference. Conflict of interest management.
Public dashboards on commitment status, delivery, beneficiary distribution. Annual reporting cycle aligned with council reporting calendars.
Cumulative impact management — sequenced workforce peaks, OSOM transport coordination, shared planning gates. Not project optimisation alone; portfolio-scale optimisation.
Defined triggers — pressure thresholds, missed commitments, scope changes — and an escalation pathway to council CEOs, state agencies, or the Masterplan governance body.
- 01Plan at precinct scale where impacts are cumulative.
- 02Align benefits with regional priorities, not just project acceptance.
- 03Treat councils as delivery partners, not just consultees.
- 04Build shared evidence before positions harden.
- 05Separate project promotion from community value governance.
- 06Make benefit commitments visible, comparable and trackable.
- 07Use the REZ as a coordination unit, not just a network planning boundary.