Green Growth Blog

Across Australia, regions are accommodating investment in energy, infrastructure, housing, data centres and new industries.

Developers need viable sites and investment certainty. Governments need to support growth while coordinating infrastructure, communities and environmental protection. Economic development organisations need credible investment opportunities.

Growth decisions do not occur in isolation. Investment, infrastructure, environmental values and community interests converge in the same places.

Environmental planning and economic development planning therefore need to happen in concert.

Faster approvals require earlier knowledge

Australia's environmental reforms aim to make assessments and approvals faster, simpler and more transparent. Regulatory reform and AI powered approval processes however cannot remove every constraint.

Australian Government guidance advises proponents to allow up to 18 months where environmental information needs to be collected because some ecological surveys can only occur at particular times of year.

Ecological seasons cannot be compressed to fit a project timetable.

This affects due diligence, financing, project schedules and when capital is committed. It can also make established industrial areas, brownfield sites and previously disturbed land attractive where appropriate, particularly where existing infrastructure and environmental knowledge reduce uncertainty.

The cheapest site to acquire may not be the lowest-cost site to develop.

Better information earlier can therefore support faster development without weakening environmental outcomes.

For developers: better siting and earlier certainty

Site selection is rarely about one factor. Depending on the project, developers may need to consider:

• land availability and development cost
• access to energy and transmission
• water availability
• transport and logistics
• workforce and housing
• biodiversity, waterways and other environmental values
• landscape character, views and visual amenity
• community and Traditional Owner interests
• existing infrastructure and previously disturbed land
• cumulative development pressures and opportunities for future expansion.
• Bringing environmental planning into these decisions earlier can identify where impacts might be avoided, where further investigation is required and where environmental or landscape constraints may materially affect feasibility.

It also creates an opportunity to design infrastructure with the landscape rather than adding it to the landscape later.

Landscape character, important views, landform, vegetation and the way people experience a place can influence siting and design. Roads, transmission infrastructure, substations, buildings and water infrastructure can be considered as part of the landscape, alongside opportunities for revegetation, restoration, habitat connectivity and improved amenity.

The question should not simply be: how do we make infrastructure less visually intrusive? It should also be: how can this investment leave the landscape better?

Taking this approach early can deliver more than better environmental and landscape outcomes. It can help identify community concerns before designs become fixed, create opportunities to respond to local priorities, and reduce the risk of objections, redesign and delays later in the development process.

There is a commercial value in getting these decisions right early. Productivity Commission modelling has previously indicated that a one-year delay can reduce a project's net present value by around 7–18%, depending on project timing and discount rates.

For local governments: managing cumulative regional change

For councils, one major development may be manageable. Multiple energy, infrastructure, housing and industrial projects arriving within a relatively short period can place simultaneous pressure on roads and infrastructure, housing, water and services, workforce availability, biodiversity and waterways, landscapes and amenity, community expectations and council capacity.

There is also a cumulative landscape dimension. A project that appears acceptable in isolation may form part of a much larger change once transmission lines, roads, substations, housing and industrial development are considered together.

Councils therefore need to consider not only individual projects but what their landscapes, towns and communities should look and feel like as growth occurs.

Understanding a region's landscape and environmental assets alongside its growth plans can inform where development is best accommodated and where natural assets can contribute to regional resilience and liveability. Green corridors, wetlands, waterways, urban forests and remnant vegetation can support biodiversity while also providing practical infrastructure functions such as flood, heat and stormwater management.

Growth creates an opportunity to consider what lasting value investment should leave behind — from jobs, skills and local procurement to environmental restoration, community infrastructure and improved public amenity.

For State and Commonwealth governments: coordinating at scale

Energy, transmission, housing, transport, water, industry, environmental regulation and economic development may sit in different portfolios, yet they converge in the same regions.

• Are infrastructure and environmental planning happening together?
• Are environmental and landscape constraints known early enough to influence investment and land-use decisions?
• Can regional environmental information be collected once and shared more effectively?
• Where should public infrastructure unlock development — and where should cumulative pressures influence future growth?
• Australia's move towards bioregional planning is particularly relevant. Looking at whole regions rather than individual projects creates opportunities to inform planning and investment decisions, understand cumulative impacts and identify where development may be more appropriately accommodated.

It also creates potential to identify cumulative opportunities — including coordinated infrastructure, strategic restoration, biodiversity and natural-capital investment, and landscape enhancement.

Some questions simply cannot be answered one project at a time.

For economic development organisations: is the region environmentally investment-ready?

Economic development organisations already build detailed intelligence about land, workforce, energy, water, transport, supply chains, target industries and investment opportunities. Environmental intelligence needs to be integrated into the regional development picture.

If a region is actively seeking substantial investment, should every developer have to discover its major environmental opportunities and constraints independently?

A stronger regional investment proposition could include information about locations suited to different forms of development, significant environmental and landscape constraints, brownfield and previously disturbed land, infrastructure requirements, areas facing cumulative pressure, and opportunities for restoration, natural-capital investment and climate resilience.

Economic development organisations do not need to become environmental regulators. Bringing environmental planners into regional investment conversations can help create more credible investment propositions and reduce uncertainty for proponents.

Environmental readiness becomes part of investment readiness.

Creating value beyond individual projects

Bringing environmental considerations into growth planning earlier also creates opportunities to think beyond the impacts and benefits of individual projects. Investment can bring infrastructure, jobs and economic activity, while healthy landscapes and natural systems support biodiversity, resilience, recreation, liveability and a region's attractiveness to residents, workers and investors.

Visual amenity is therefore not merely aesthetic. It can be part of a region's economic, environmental and social capital.

When multiple projects are planned for the same region, the opportunities also change in scale. A pipeline of energy, infrastructure, housing or industrial development can create the critical mass for:

• shared infrastructure — reducing duplication and improving regional connectivity
• coordinated transmission and transport — considering networks and corridors across multiple developments
• local supply chains — creating sufficient demand to support local businesses and new industry capability
• workforce and skills development — coordinating training and employment pathways around a longer-term project pipeline
• strategic environmental restoration — connecting restoration efforts across projects to achieve greater landscape-scale outcomes
• investment in nature — directing environmental investment towards regional natural-capital priorities
• green and blue infrastructure — strengthening biodiversity, climate resilience, recreation and liveability
• landscape enhancement — coordinating revegetation, screening, habitat connectivity and visual amenity across a wider area
• community infrastructure and benefits — aligning investment with facilities and services that provide lasting local value.

These opportunities may not be viable, or even visible, when projects are considered individually.

Considering cumulative opportunities alongside cumulative impacts can help turn a pipeline of individual projects into broader and more lasting regional value.

Environmental readiness is investment readiness

Regions competing for investment increasingly need to demonstrate more than access to land, infrastructure and workforce. They also need to understand where investment can be successfully accommodated and how development can contribute to the long-term economic, environmental and social value of the region.

Earlier environmental intelligence can improve site selection, inform infrastructure investment, identify opportunities for restoration and natural capital, strengthen community outcomes and help regions attract development aligned with their long-term ambitions.

Connecting environmental planning with economic development and regional planning creates better information earlier — when there is still scope to influence sites, designs, infrastructure and investment decisions.

My work sits at this intersection. I work with regional organisations and project partners to bring environmental, economic and impact considerations together — identifying opportunities for green growth and investment, anticipating impacts and cumulative pressures, and developing strategies and projects that create measurable regional value.

The regions best prepared for growth will be those that understand not only what investment they want to attract, but how that investment can strengthen the places, landscapes and communities in which it occurs.

Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). EPBC Act environmental assessment and approval guidance.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/advice

Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). Bioregional planning.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/epbc-act-reform/bioregional-planning

Productivity Commission. Minerals investment and regulatory delay.
https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/speeches/minerals-investment/

How do we ensure regional voices are not only heard, but acted on, throughout the great transition?

This was one of the strongest themes from Sustain Queensland 2026. Across contributions from business, finance, government, research, agriculture and regional communities, a connected argument emerged: the transition must proceed, but how it proceeds matters.

Professor Belinda Wade asked us to consider who will bear its costs. She called for change that is well planned and ethical, rather than imposed in ways that create unnecessary disruption.

Mark Hutchinson, former CEO of Fortescue Energy, expressed the test of success particularly clearly: “The poor should be better off if we get the transition right.”

For me, this is not a peripheral consideration. A transition cannot be considered successful if the communities hosting the change carry a disproportionate share of its costs while the benefits accumulate elsewhere.

Kylie Porter brought the experiences and concerns of Queensland Farmers’ Federation members into the discussion. Farming communities are acutely aware of changes in climate and of the need to respond. They are also more directly exposed than many metropolitan communities to the resulting economic and environmental effects—and to the land-use and infrastructure changes associated with transition.

Action is necessary, but it must be undertaken in a way that benefits more people. Western Downs Regional Council Mayor Andrew Smith spoke about both the challenge and the opportunity of creating regional uplift so that the benefits extend across the community. If major investment is reshaping a region, it should also help strengthen that region.

Other speakers identified some of the mechanisms that could support this ambition. Paul Greenop described how the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is encouraging new initiatives, while Andrew Petersen identified opportunities to pursue applied research and innovation through Horizon Europe.

Professor John Cole OAM brought these threads together through his emphasis on integrating different sectors of the economy. Transition does not occur within the boundaries of a single industry, policy portfolio or project. It requires a holistic approach.

Taken together, the central message was not simply that regional communities should be consulted. It was that their knowledge, needs and aspirations must help shape coordinated planning, investment and implementation. Listening is the starting point. Integrated planning is how regional voices are turned into better outcomes.

Regions face both opportunity and exposure

Much of the physical transformation associated with transition will occur in regional Australia.

Regions will host renewable energy generation, transmission infrastructure, new industrial facilities and changes in agriculture and land use. They will also experience greater demand for workers, housing, transport, water and community services.

This creates substantial opportunities. Transition investment can diversify regional economies, strengthen existing industries, create employment and build capabilities that remain in communities beyond an individual project.

Regions however, also carry considerable exposure. Poorly coordinated development can intensify housing shortages, compete for scarce workers, place pressure on infrastructure and services, disrupt agricultural production, affect natural environments and generate community conflict.

It is fundamentally unfair to expect regional communities to absorb these pressures without ensuring that they share substantially in the benefits. As Professor Cole reflected after the event, when transition is done badly, it can generate local disruption, anxiety, uncertainty and resentment.

Done well, investment can become a catalyst for broader regional development and more resilient communities.

Why consultation alone is insufficient

Listening to regional communities is essential, but listening is not the same as acting.

Consultation often occurs after the fundamental parameters of a project have been established. Communities may be asked about impacts and mitigation without having had a meaningful role in shaping the larger opportunity.

Fairness requires more than giving people an opportunity to comment. It requires regional knowledge and aspirations to influence:

• where and how development occurs
• the sequence and timing of investment
• the infrastructure and services provided
• workforce and housing responses
• environmental and land-use decisions
• the benefits that remain within the region

Communities should not be limited to negotiating how disruption will be managed. They should have a genuine role in shaping what development contributes and leaves behind.

The objective should not be limited to making an individual project more acceptable. It should include using the combined investment associated with transition to strengthen the region over the long term.

What integrated planning looks like

No single organisation controls all the systems affected by transition.

Economic development may sit with councils and regional organisations. Energy, transport and water infrastructure involve government agencies and private providers. Workforce development spans employers, education providers and government. Housing, agriculture, conservation and community services each have their own plans, responsibilities and decision-making processes.
Yet these systems interact in the same place—and their combined effects are experienced by the same communities.

Integrated planning brings them together around a shared understanding of the region. It asks how proposed developments affect existing industries, workforce availability, housing, infrastructure, natural assets and community aspirations—and how decisions in one area might support or constrain another.
This could mean:

• aligning training with both emerging and established industries
• planning housing that provides a lasting regional asset
• coordinating infrastructure so it supports wider economic development
• protecting productive agricultural land and important ecosystems
• identifying opportunities for local procurement and business participation
• sequencing projects to avoid overwhelming regional capacity
• creating regional prospectuses that define what developments sought, where and how they should benefit the region

Integration does not require one organisation to assume responsibility for everything. It requires greater visibility across the system, shared priorities and practical ways to coordinate action.

Moving from reaction to readiness

Regions cannot control every policy decision, investment cycle or global market shift.

They can, however, improve their ability to anticipate and shape what happens next. This starts by assessing the region’s current position: its economic strengths, transition pressures, emerging opportunities, institutional capacity and readiness to act. It also means appreciating what is already in place.

Many regions are already working on resilience, diversification, workforce development, infrastructure, housing and natural resource management. They may not yet see these activities as connected parts of a broader transition. Bringing that work together helps reveal where the region is well positioned, where gaps remain and where stronger coordination could unlock value. It allows regional leaders to engage with investors and governments with clearer priorities before projects and funding decisions are fixed.

The progression is practical: assess the current position, appreciate existing strengths and accelerate coordinated action.

A planned—not accidental—transition

The great transition will not produce fair regional outcomes by default.

If we fail to coordinate economic, workforce, infrastructure, housing, land-use and environmental planning, we risk transferring disproportionate costs to regional communities while allowing much of the value to flow elsewhere.

That is neither fair nor necessary.

A proactive, integrated approach offers a different trajectory. It can help regions anticipate change, influence investment and retain more of the economic, social and environmental benefits.

This is the focus of my work: helping regions see more of the bigger picture, assess their readiness and translate transition pressures and opportunities into coordinated action.

If we get the transition right, success should not be measured only by emissions reduced, capital invested or infrastructure constructed. It should also be measured by whether regional economies are stronger, communities are more resilient, natural systems are protected—and people who could otherwise bear the greatest disruption are genuinely better off.

Those outcomes will not happen accidentally. They must be planned for—strategically, intentionally and locally.

Can we optimise the great transition away from fossil fuels so that it creates stronger regional industries, greater housing opportunities and thriving ecosystems?

I believe we can. Through conversations with many of my regional development colleagues I understand that they share that view: we can better optimise the settings surrounding the transition so that regions capture more of its long-term economic, social and environmental value.

A familiar regional challenge

Across Australia, regional development practitioners are being asked to help their communities capture the opportunities created by renewable energy and other major investments. At the same time, they must consider whether their regions have the workforce, housing, infrastructure and services needed to accommodate growth.

The tension—and sometimes trepidation—is understandable. Practitioners want to welcome investment and support economic diversification, while also ensuring that rapid development does not intensify housing shortages, place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure or diminish the qualities that make their regions good places to live.

This is not a lack of ambition or positivity. Regional development practitioners tend to be practical, can-do people who want to find a way through these challenges and secure better outcomes for their communities.

The regional coordination gap

At the local and regional level, the challenge is compounded by fragmented responsibility.
Regional developers may have trusted contacts across government and productive relationships with individual agencies. However, no single agency necessarily takes full ownership of how workforce, housing, infrastructure, industry development and environmental considerations intersect within a region.
The work of connecting these issues and navigating responsibilities across multiple government portfolios is therefore often left to the regional developer—even when many of the relevant policy settings, resources and decision-making powers sit outside their direct authority.

Moving beyond impact mitigation

When renewable energy or other major infrastructure projects like data centres come to a region, negotiations can focus primarily on mitigating their immediate impacts. While that is essential, it can leave broader opportunities unexplored. A more integrated approach considers:

• how local people can develop the skills needed to participate in emerging industries;
• how new housing and accommodation can support local workers and their families, provide flexibility during periods of rapid growth, and add to the region’s longer-term housing supply;
• how transport, water, energy and community infrastructure can support growth; and
• how investment can contribute to lasting regional capability rather than short-term activity.

This requires more than asking each agency or project proponent to manage its individual area of responsibility. It requires the overlaps to be made visible and the combined regional outcomes to become part of the conversation.

Natural capital is part of the picture

From my perspective, this integrated approach must also account for natural capital and resource requirements.

Biodiversity, water, land use, energy inputs and climate resilience need to be considered alongside workforce, housing and infrastructure if development is to maintain—and ideally enhance—the amenity and resilience of regional communities.

By incorporating natural capital into regional development, regions can generate greater value from the transition—supporting economic growth, long-term community prosperity and the natural systems upon which their economies depend.

Making regional readiness visible

The complexity of these challenges is part of why I am exploring regional workforce needs in greater detail and why I developed a rapid assessment approach to understanding regional readiness.

The aim is not to reassess everything a region is already doing or produce another plan. It is to make existing connections, strengths and gaps more visible so that practical priorities and options can emerge.

A region may already be undertaking valuable work across economic development, workforce planning, housing, infrastructure, investment and environmental management. Greater visibility and articulation of issues can help identify:

• where activities reinforce one another;
• where responsibilities or actions are fragmented;
• where coordination and ownership need to be strengthened; and
• where existing investment can create greater and more enduring regional value.

Finding local ways forward

Every region has different industries, assets, pressures, relationships and ambitions. There will not be one solution that can simply be applied everywhere.

If your region is working through these challenges, I am always happy to have a no-obligation conversation. You bring detailed knowledge of your region and the will to pursue better outcomes; I can bring an external perspective, practical frameworks and experience to help uncover locally appropriate ways forward.

The picture is of the Google data centre and wind turbines, Eemshaven, Netherlands. Photograph: Wvdp/Wikimedia Commons, CC0

Reflections on Committee for Economic Development's State of the Nation 2026

I congratulate the Committee for Economic Development's (CEDA) for delivering the State of the Nation. I particularly appreciate that they have provided an opportunity to step back from the day-to-day work of delivering projects and responding to immediate priorities, to reflect on how we are or as the case maybe, not progressing.

Reading CEDA's latest assessment of Australia's climate transition and adaptation, three things jumped out at me that I had to raise with my colleagues and clients.

1. We are making progress, but will not meet our targets

Australia is undoubtedly making some gains. It is true that renewable generation is increasing, emissions are falling and significant investment has been made. However, as their analyses state, despite the considerable effort and investment being made, we are unlikely to achieve our renewable energy and circular economy targets on our current trajectory.

Having spent many years working with regions through what I often describe as the great transition, it is not a surprise.

While there is great effort being made it is not always in concert. The layers of government, industry players and stakeholders may not always be pulling in the same direction. Equally, I've often seen places doing many of the right things and still falling short of the outcomes they were seeking.

The abundance of good intent and effort are not question. Rather, it suggests there are material issues influencing successful delivery that we do not yet fully understand or have not yet adequately addressed.

If we genuinely want to accelerate transition, perhaps our greatest opportunity now lies in better understanding the material conditions that enable successful delivery.

2. Regional readiness is increasingly important

The industry experts involved in CEDA’s report indicate that many of the constraints are no longer primarily technical. They relate to the readiness of regions, organisations and institutions to deliver change.

This is not surprising to me or my regional, economic development colleagues. In fact, working in regional, economic development, green growth and climate resilience this feels very familiar.

Projects rarely succeed or stall because of technology alone. They succeed or stall because of workforce capability, planning systems, governance, transmission, local businesses, community confidence, institutional capability and many other interconnected conditions that determine whether good ideas become successful outcomes.

These each have their relevance to different stakeholders, communities, businesses levels of government and bigger industry players. The issues material to these actors are vitally important. It is not just identifying what is financially material, but understanding what is genuinely material to the people, organisations and communities involved in transition.

The hurdles in adaptation and renewable roll-outs also show that transition depends on much more than financial investment. It depends on how well we strengthen and connect financial, manufactured, human, intellectual, social and relationship, and natural capital. When one of those forms of capital is underdeveloped, it often becomes the constraint that limits progress on other fronts.

Perhaps once we better understand the material conditions influencing successful delivery—and strengthen these forms of capital together—we will begin to change the trajectory.

3. Regional transition mirrors climate disclosure challenges

Overall, our transition issues remind me of what we are finding out from organisational, sustainability reporting, especially climate disclosures.
Increasingly, boards and those genuinely invested in sustainability make comments like:

“We understand the risks. We've established governance. We have plans. We're making progress but getting results is proving more complex and difficult than we thought.”

The observations on climate disclosures are that the more helpful ones are those that are dealing with the material risks. Australia's transition is much the same.

While many are trying hard they are discovering there are important issues we still need to work through.

While initially this might be disheartening, the reality is we are getting closer to our goals by knowing what issues we still need to solve.
We are moving from the less informed ambition state, towards understanding the conditions that will enable successful implementation.

Perhaps one of the most valuable lessons emerging from climate disclosures is that materiality is not simply a reporting step. It is becoming a practical discipline for understanding what genuinely influences successful delivery.

I wonder whether the same thinking has something to offer regional and national transition.

Rather than asking whether we are progressing, organisations are advised to ask:
have we identified the issues that are genuinely material to achieving the outcomes we want?

Similarly, at a regional level, we can ask:
are all forms of capital and aspects of regional readiness being addressed?

How we make more progress

The real value of reports like CEDA's is to help us understand why or why we are not progressing. Having a State of the Nation report encourages us to think about what is working and what is not plus how to make things better.

Working with regions has convinced me that successful transition is rarely about finding one more project or one more policy. It is about understanding the material issues, delivery conditions and how to support all forms of capital for regional readiness. that enable places to adapt, prosper and remain resilient through change.

The next phase of Australia's transition is not simply about doing more. It requires better understanding the material conditions that allow the solutions we already have to succeed.