Australia’s critical minerals opportunity is being driven by urgency, with governments, investors and industry seeking to accelerate exploration, approvals, financing and development to secure Australia’s position in rapidly changing global supply chains. In this environment, project certainty, time and cost matter, yet the relationship with First Nations people whose Country, rights and interests intersect with resource development is still too often considered separately from the core commercial and technical factors that determine whether a project is successful. This presentation challenges the conventional framing of ‘social licence to operate’ and considers what changes when genuine First Nations partnership is treated as part of the core infrastructure of a project and a fundamental component of project risk. Resource projects routinely assess geological, technical, regulatory, financial and construction risks, while the consequences of poorly established First Nations relationships can include approval challenges, cultural heritage disputes, damaged trust, project delays, additional costs and investment uncertainty. Establishing strong relationships early should therefore not be viewed only through the lens of corporate responsibility or as simply the right thing to do. It is also in the commercial interests of proponents, investors, governments and communities seeking successful and timely project delivery. The emerging critical minerals sector provides a significant opportunity to approach this differently. Many Australian critical minerals projects remain in exploration, feasibility or early development, creating an opportunity to establish relationships, participation and commercial arrangements while projects are still being shaped rather than attempting to retrofit them once key decisions have already been made. This does not mean that ‘de-risking’ should become another way of describing more efficient consultation or securing First Nations acceptance of predetermined projects. If the sector is to genuinely change the relationship, the conversation needs to extend beyond consultation and transactional benefit agreements to consider First Nations decision-making, Indigenous enterprise participation, procurement, equity, ownership and enduring economic interests in the projects being developed on Country. There is also a clear investment dimension to this discussion. As governments and investors seek to accelerate Australia’s critical minerals pipeline, the quality and maturity of First Nations relationships should be considered alongside geology, approvals, infrastructure, capital and project economics when assessing project readiness and risk. Early alignment of interests has the potential to provide greater certainty through exploration, approvals, construction and operations while creating stronger foundations for long-term relationships between projects and communities. These decisions also need to consider what remains after mining. Lessons from mine closure demonstrate that decisions made during exploration and project development can shape outcomes on Country decades later. The social licence available to the next generation of resource projects will inevitably be influenced by the experience and legacy of previous development, including whether mining created enduring capability, businesses, ownership and economic opportunities or left communities managing unrealised commitments and post-mining liabilities. Drawing on AEMEE’s work across Australia’s resources sector, emerging work on First Nations participation in critical minerals and recent research examining Indigenous participation in mine closure and post-mining economies, this presentation considers how the critical minerals sector can establish a different approach while much of the industry is still being shaped. Rather than viewing First Nations engagement as a social consideration alongside project development, there is an opportunity to recognise strong First Nations partnerships as part of the commercial architecture required to develop successful projects. This requires moving the conversation beyond whether First Nations communities support the next generation of Australian mines and towards how First Nations people participate in their design, development and ownership, how value is shared throughout the life of a project, and what economic opportunities and legacy remain on Country when mining is over.