Collaboration isn’t consensus—It’s how we deliver the transition

The Hunter New Energy Symposium, held in Newcastle Town Hall on 21 and 22 May 2025, made one thing clear: this region isn’t waiting. The energy transition is no longer theoretical—it’s here, and the Hunter is on the frontline. But while technology and policy might grab the headlines, what stood out at the symposium was something less tangible, but far more important: how we work together.

So, let’s talk collaboration. But not the feel-good, handshake and photo-op kind. Real collaboration. The uncomfortable kind. The kind that requires confronting risk, uncomfortable conversations, navigating disagreement and sharing Information even when you don't have all the answers. And as the conversations across the two days showed, that’s exactly what this transition demands.

---

Collaboration is not consensus—it's shared responsibility

A consistent thread in panel discussions, workshops and hallway chats was this: collaboration doesn’t mean everyone agrees—it means everyone contributes.

That sounds obvious, but in practice, many projects still confuse consultation with consensus, or worse, engagement with PR. At its best, collaboration brings diverse perspectives into the journey early enough to shape outcomes—not just react to decisions already made. It invites shared responsibility for the path forward.

As Infrastructure Australia notes in its Delivering Outcomes report, “we’ll only unlock the full value of our infrastructure pipeline through cross-sector integration and trust-based relationships”. 📖Read the report

That means letting go of the idea that community engagement slows things down. Done well, it doesn’t stall progress—it accelerates it. It de-risks delivery. It builds a foundation for long-term performance. And most of all, it builds trust.

Pushback isn’t ideological—it’s practical

If you want to understand why people push back on energy projects, listen to the stories told at this year’s symposium. They weren’t driven by climate denial or anti-development sentiment. They were about #fairness, #timing, #visibility and #respect.

Communities want a say in how the transition unfolds—not whether it happens, but how. They want to know who benefits, who bears the burden, and whether they’ll be heard when something goes wrong.

Too often, we treat pushback as a problem. But as I put it bluntly in my panel discussion “pushback isn’t the problem—surprise is.”

Avoiding feedback doesn’t reduce the risk—it simply defers it.

These aren’t theoretical objections. They’re grounded in lived experience. Cumulative impacts. Dust on the windows. Disruption on roads. Concerns over biodiversity, water, and legacy land use. The energy transition doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it happens on farms, in towns, across sacred Country. And those people from these places deserve a seat at the table.

Engagement is a delivery tool—not a checkbox

This is where many projects still go wrong. We wait too long to engage. We treat communities like spectators, not stakeholders. And then we’re surprised when opposition grows, trust erodes, and delivery slows.

What I heard across the symposium was growing frustration with this model—and growing momentum for change. Early and strategic engagement is risk management. It helps define the problem more accurately, surfaces local knowledge, and enables co-created solutions that communities can normally support. 

“Engagement at concept stage isn’t a delay—it’s an investment.”

That’s not just a theory. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that community engagement consistently reduces delays and improves outcomes in clean energy projects across the U.S. and globally.

Want proof? Look at rooftop solar

Australia’s rooftop solar boom wasn’t accidental—it was deliberate. It worked because it made sense to people. It offered a clear personal benefit, integrated with other tech, had strong incentives, and—crucially—was easy to understand.

“Clear value, smart incentives, and trusted communication drive adoption.”  

📊Clean Energy Regulator data

We need the same principles applied to large-scale transition projects. Make it relevant. Make it tangible. Show the benefit—not just the megawatt.

The Hunter is ready—but potential doesn’t activate itself

We love to say the Hunter is “well placed”—and it is. The region has the infrastructure, the industrial base, the skills, and the strategic location. But as the symposium reminded us, advantage means nothing without activation.

It’s not enough to have the potential. We need a delivery model that unlocks it—one that includes local voices, shares the benefits, and coordinates investment. Reports like those from the Hunter Jobs Alliance and the NSW Net Zero Plan back this up. The opportunity is real. But it won’t realise itself. 

And finally—how we deliver matters

This transition won’t succeed because we have a strategy. It will succeed because people believe in it. Because it reflects their priorities. Because it includes them.

At Mara, we’ve worked on energy and infrastructure projects across NSW, QLD and North America. What we’ve learned is simple: projects succeed when people are part of the process—not an afterthought.

Whether it’s infrastructure, a new technology, or strategic plan —it’s not just about what you build. It’s how you build it.

“The way we get there matters just as much as the destination.”

Collaboration is how we manage risk, unlock opportunity, and bring people with us. It’s not just a principle—it’s a delivery method.

The Hunter is ready. Let’s make it count.

Want to keep the conversation going?

Connect with us at Mara Consulting or reach out to learn more about our work in energy, engagement, and regional areas.

---

Author

Kelly Lofberg is an engagement and communications professional, who specialises in complex and issues rich environments. Bringing innovative ways to solve problems is her jam. Sometimes Kel bring LEGO® too.