The Five Red Flags in First Nations Engagement and How to Fix Them

By Lindsay Bridge, Director, First Nations Economics

“We’ve consulted.”

It’s a phrase I hear often. And every time I do, I pause, not to nod, but to ask: Consulted who? When? About what?

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: too many engagements with First Nations communities are built on outdated thinking, rushed processes, and fragile foundations.

In a country where First Nations people hold deep legal, cultural, and custodial ties to vast tracts of land, we still treat engagement as a step rather than a structure. It is a phase, not a relationship. And the cost? Broken trust, stalled projects, missed opportunities, and, in some cases, long-term damage.

This article isn’t about blame. It’s about reflection and reconstruction. Because if you’re involved in government, industry, investment, or development, and you care about getting this right, then look for these signs.

Here are five red flags that should trigger urgent reflection in your engagement process and what to do instead.

1. You’re Still Referring to Traditional Owners as Stakeholders

Red Flag: Stakeholders are informed. Custodians are empowered.

When First Nations people are lumped into a stakeholder list alongside regulators, suppliers, or interest groups, the message is clear: you’re one voice among many. But Traditional Owners aren’t stakeholders. They are the legal and moral custodians of Country, often holding Native Title or significant interests in the land.

Fix: Reframe the relationship.

First Nations people are rights holders, not just contributors. Governance must reflect this. Elevate the partnership beyond communication to shared decision-making, where custodianship is embedded in both the process and the outcome.

2. The Engagement Started After the Project Was Designed

Red Flag: If Traditional Owners are being consulted after your plans are finalised, you’re not engaging; you’re seeking endorsement.

Many projects falter not because of intent but because communities were brought in too late. When land use, environmental planning, and benefit models are already in place, any engagement becomes performative at best and extractive at worst.

Fix: Begin with community, not blueprints.

Invite First Nations partners to the table before concepts are locked in. Co-design is not a buzzword; it’s a methodology that must start at inception. Otherwise, you’re asking people to validate a vision that isn’t theirs.

3. You’re Offering Benefits Without Asking What Matters

Red Flag: You’re assuming that economic inclusion equals impact.

Jobs, training, and financial compensation are often offered as standard benefits. However, unless they align with community-defined priorities, they may be irrelevant or even harmful.

Fix: Begin with a simple question: What does success look like to you?

Only when you’ve heard that answer unfiltered and unforced can you begin designing benefit models? Cultural aspirations, legacy building, language preservation, and intergenerational wealth are often more meaningful than any dollar figure.

4. Governance is an Afterthought

Red Flag: You’ve agreed on what will happen, but not who will decide and how it will be done.

Agreements often collapse not because the terms are wrong but because the governance is not well thought out or weak. Without a clear, culturally aligned framework for decision-making, conflict or the breakdown in the relationship is inevitable.

Fix: Governance is not an admin task; it’s a power and derisking structure.

Co-design governance frameworks that respect both community protocols and regulatory obligations. Build in cultural authority, dispute resolution mechanisms, role clarity, and transparency. Good governance doesn’t hinder progress. It prevents collapse.

5. There’s No Pathway Beyond the Agreement

Red Flag: The ribbon was cut, but the relationship ended.

All too often, once the agreement is signed or the handover takes place, communities are left without ongoing support. The “engagement” ends, but the complexity remains, and communities are left to carry responsibilities without the necessary resources or support.

Fix: Design for after. A strong agreement is only the beginning.

What matters is what follows: implementation, review, renegotiation, leadership development, and accountability. Build a post-agreement roadmap that includes long-term commitment, co-delivery, and measurable outcomes.

Respect Is Not an Outcome, It’s a Method

If you recognise any of these red flags, know this: you’re not alone. Many well-intentioned leaders, agencies, and organisations find themselves stuck between wanting to do better and not knowing how.

The consequences of poor engagement extend beyond reputation; they also affect the structural integrity of a project and worsen over time. If your project lacks cultural integrity, it is unlikely to endure. The impact is not merely a promise; it is a practice assessed by who benefits, who makes the decisions, and who has the opportunity to lead. If you’re not willing to rethink power, purpose, and partnership, you’re not ready to create a real impact.

About us

First Nations Economics (FNE), we collaborate with Traditional Owner groups, governments, and industry leaders to transition from compliance to strategic, culturally grounded partnerships that deliver real, lasting value.

We support you to:

  • Diagnose where engagement efforts are falling short
  • Co-design governance models and benefit structures that embed cultural integrity
  • Activate underutilised land in a way that uplifts, not undermines First Nations priorities
  • Develop leadership, policy, agreement and investment pathways that are both practical and principled

Our approach is not to blame or shame; it’s to build.

If you’re ready to rethink your approach to First Nations engagement, we’re prepared to walk with you.

Let’s move beyond transactions—into transformation.

Connect with us at First Nations Economics to discuss how we can help review, reset, or co-design your engagement strategy.

Gurminder Saro

Interim Chair

Associate Professor Rick Macourt is a proud, queer Gumbaynggirr man, lawyer, and economic specialist. He leads First Nations Economics as Managing Director of Strategy and Foundation and serves as Associate Dean of First Nations Strategy and Services at the University of Sydney.

With over 15 years of experience spanning government, corporate, and not-for-profit sectors, Rick is deeply committed to advancing the economic development of First Peoples. As the former Director of First Nations Expenditure and Outcomes at NSW Treasury, he spearheaded the state’s inaugural Indigenous expenditure reporting processes and established the groundbreaking First Nations budget process in 2021/22. Previously, Rick held an executive role at the Westpac Group, overseeing First Nations affairs, and has a rich history in government, monitoring, evaluation, and negotiation, with senior positions at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, City of Sydney, and Standards Australia.

Rick is a published author with Oxford University Press, a member of the First Nations Advisory Board of Siemens Australia, and a Non-Executive Director on the board of Barnardos Australia.