What does it mean to be First Nations led?

This article originally appeared in ruffle feathers newsletter - which you can read and subscribe to here: ruffle feathers. |

Hello there,

Ruffle Feathers has been shifting and shaping in different ways over the past year, and I’m not quite sure where this newsletter will land, but I appreciate you all sticking around.

What does it mean to be First Nations led?

This week I wanted to touch on a topic that’s been bubbling away in the background, coming up in lots of conversations I’ve been having - and that is, what does it mean to be First Nations led? The context being, what does it mean to be a First Nations-led initiative, business, project, etc.?

I’ve noticed more and more that the term ‘First Nations-led,’ ‘Indigenous-led,’ or ‘Aboriginal-led’ is being used as a defining characteristic when announcing a new business or initiative. This is a largely undefined term that has been used in many different contexts. I’m not here to define it. It would be hideously egotistical and also ironic to the point of this reflection for me to write here what it means. This is the challenge I have with so many people using it, myself included.

If I, a First Nations woman, run a business by myself, is that a First Nations-led business? Is the only qualifying factor I need to use that term to be a First Nations person? Maybe.

Why does this matter?

If you’re non-First Nations, you might be asking, why does this question even matter? If First Nations people are involved, isn’t this a good thing? ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU’VE ALWAYS WANTED?

Apologies for the all caps, but to drive the point, I wanted to make it clear this isn’t a perspective or question I have a lot of time for.

The answer is, of course, I want First Nations people to self-determine their own lives. But I have low institutional trust, and I fear that people are using this term to advance themselves, and not think about their impact on the First Nations community they’re accountable to.

First Nations-led as a term can also contribute to homogenizing First Nations people, inferring that whatever the business or initiative may be must be backed by all First Nations people. This looks silly to even write, but if the Voice Referendum has taught us anything, it’s that not all First Nations people agree.

That introduces an important caveat: it will be nearly impossible to consult with all First Nations communities. I believe we need a balance of working with community while also taking the initiative to develop projects or businesses we feel called to build.

My network provided a broad range of views on the involvement of non-First Nations Australians in initiatives and how that may undermine the ability to have true First Nations-led initiatives. Speaking from personal experience, I have worked in marketed ‘First Nations-led’ organizations that have had non-First Nations people in leadership roles dictating the majority of the organizational direction. But technically, they had more Blackfellas than Whitefellas…

I asked my network of First Nations people to let me know their thoughts; below is my best attempt to provide a summary of the feedback I received from a wide range of perspectives from Australian First Nations people on this topic.

First Nations-led = Driven by the Community

The relationship with community

I received a few thought-shifting perspectives that challenged the existing use of the term ‘First Nations-led’—from being a term that is used when any First Nations person or people lead an initiative or business to one that requires it to be driven by a First Nations community or has been appropriately consulted or co-designed with.

In this definition, First Nations-led = Driven by the Community, encompasses initiatives that are not only targeted at First Nations communities but are also initiated, co-designed, and managed within these communities. This approach embodies self-determination and also ensures that cultural values and governance structures are followed.

Those who shared these perspectives felt that the only businesses or initiatives that are First Nations-led are ones that are driven by the community. I was prompted by a network peer of mine to consider, does the community even want what is being sold as First Nations-led? A great point.

This definition makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve noticed a rise in influential First Nations people over the past few years, who appear to be speaking on topics they might not be best placed, and whatever they lead or contribute to is considered ‘First Nations-led.’

Should we use the First Nations-led only if the business or initiative can demonstrate that the community has skin in the game or is supportive?

If so, then how else can we reflect that First Nations people are involved or in leadership roles?

First Nations Informed: Consulted but Not Controlled

My network shared views that First Nations-informed initiatives or businesses are those where First Nations people are consulted during the development or execution of a project/strategy. There is a level of involvement that ensures that First Nations perspectives are considered, but it does not necessarily mean that First Nations people have control over the project/business outcomes.

This term could also be used to reflect a business that has First Nations people in leadership roles. This makes sense to me. I don’t have all the cultural knowledge of my community, and I also don’t consult with them on every business venture I start; they have no control over my business dealings. But I am a First Nations woman, and a part of my identity informs my business dealings. So First Nations-informed would appear to fit the way I do business.

First Nations Benefiting: Focused on Community Gain

Another perspective shared with me is the term First Nations Benefiting: businesses and projects that are designed to deliver direct benefits to First Nations communities, though they may not be led or managed by First Nations people themselves. This concept was the least appealing to me, because it rhymes with decades of government policy of making decisions for First Nations people under the guise of ‘helping’ the community. The clear risk here is that without the real power to influence decisions, the final project or business may not fully align with the community’s needs or aspirations.

But to play devil’s advocate to myself, I’ve also witnessed and heard from multiple people that our communities are ‘over-consulted’ and running on low bandwidth, and some don’t want to be responsible for ‘everything’ in relation to their status in this country. Does this mean there is a role for First Nations benefiting initiatives? I’m not sure. I’m not ready to write anything off, but my hunch is that we can have First Nations-benefiting initiatives with the appropriate level of governance and adjusted time horizons. Because maybe mob are tired because they’re being told to fit in within other systems’ time horizons, not the time horizons of community.

Clarifying Genuine Engagement

The genesis of most Ruffle Feathers articles comes from something that has troubled or annoyed me. Something that I want to start a dialogue about because I feel like it’s not being discussed enough. The impact of using the term First Nations-led, which can bring kudos, social capital, unearned high fives, and praise, deeply troubles me.

The assessment of something’s impact and usability being overshadowed by the term ‘First Nations-led’ is leading to a less analytical and critical assessment of the value of some of these initiatives and businesses. We aren’t looking deeper; we aren’t looking past that term.

We aren’t holding the authors, business owners, to account and asking them to explain what First Nations-led means to them in their context. What is the governance? How is the community involved? Who have you consulted with? Are you acting alone? Have you spoken to the same five people who always get asked to speak on these issues?

We aren’t getting that. When I read First Nations-led toolkits, guides, reports, businesses, etc., we aren’t getting that detail. We are using this term as a broad brush social capital boost to ensure we look better to our non-First Nations counterparts.

A Call for Accountability and Deeper Engagement

You may have noticed I didn’t cover Supply Nation percentages of business ownership, joint ventures, etc. I don’t think it works; it ticks a box. It was fit for purpose as a starting point for catalyzing the First Nations economy. But it needs to evolve to be more dynamic and respond to some of the perspectives I’ve shared above.

Where to from here?

This is a choose-your-own-adventure kind of article; one or none of the terms above might have resonated with you. My hope is that this analysis sparks further analysis and less passivity when working in First Nations affairs.

Let’s all think critically: Is there genuine First Nations involvement, to what extent, and to what impact? Is the involvement even appropriate? For example, is a Wiradjuri-owned business using language from Warlpiri mob in their marketing? … I’ve seen that too.

To define what it means to be First Nations-led would be to define what it means to be First Nations—which is too complex for me or potentially anyone. The purpose of this article is to ask those questions and deepen the dialogue. First Nations affairs need disruption, and I’m all in.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments below!

Marurngbu/thank you

Tiarne

P.S. Thank you to all the First Nations thought contributors to this article; your perspectives formed the basis of my thoughts in this article and I literally couldn’t have written it without you. Those listed below provided their feedback publicly via my LinkedIn post. Those who shared their thoughts privately with me have not been named to respect their privacy.

• Jacob Birch
• Adam Fletcher
• A/Prof Corey Tutt
• Liam Harte
• Jessica Wishart
• Lynten Johnson
• Nic Radoll
• Sara Wolfe