First Nations Partnerships & Governance

S. What problem did NRH identify that led to the creation of the governance framework?

Engagement with Aboriginal partners was fragmented and project-specific, causing duplication, inconsistent representation, and a lack of Aboriginal input into program design, evaluation, and decision-making.

S. What strategic commitment drove NRH to address this issue?

NRH’s commitment to cultural safety and self-determination across all service streams, aligned with Closing the Gap reforms.

S. What was missing within NRH’s existing systems before the initiative?

A consistent governance mechanism to embed First Nations perspectives in organisational decision-making.

T. What was your specific responsibility as Program Manager?

To co-develop a partnership and governance framework with Bundjalung leaders and Aboriginal partner organisations.

T. What two key alignment goals did the framework need to achieve?

It had to align Bundjalung community priorities with NRH’s internal accountability systems.

T. What were the three main intended outcomes of the framework?

1⃣ Strengthen partnership consistency.
2⃣ Increase Aboriginal participation in decision-making.
3⃣ Integrate cultural governance into program logic and performance monitoring.

A. What was the name of the working group you established?

The Aboriginal Partnerships Working Group.

A. Which partner organisations participated in the Working Group?

Bundjalung Jarjums Aboriginal Corporation, Ngulingah Local Aboriginal Land Council, and Lismore Women’s Health Centre.

A. Which three external frameworks or standards guided development of the governance model?

DCJ Governance Standards, Closing the Gap Priority Reforms, and ISO 26000 principles on social responsibility.

A. What key topics were covered in the workshops delivered to NRH managers and team leaders?

Cultural governance, trauma-informed engagement, and accountability to community.

A. What system template was revised to embed cultural governance?

The organisation’s Program Logic Template.

A. What new domain was added to the Program Logic Template?

Cultural Governance and Accountability (alongside Client Outcomes, Operational Performance, and Compliance).

A. How were Aboriginal roles and measures embedded in each program logic?

Each logic specified Aboriginal partner roles, cultural-safety indicators, and shared reporting mechanisms.

A. Which technological system was used to track partnership outcomes and participation data?

The Outcomes Monitoring System, with data displayed through Power BI dashboards.

R. Who endorsed the final framework for organisation-wide use?

NRH’s Executive Leadership Team and Board.

R. What structure did the initiative establish?

A formal Aboriginal partnership governance structure recognised by both NRH’s Board and community partners.

R. What measurable improvement occurred in Aboriginal participation?

Participation in program design and review processes increased by 40 percent within 12 months.

R. What became standard practice following implementation?

Quarterly review meetings and shared reporting templates across all programs (e.g., social housing, tenancy sustainment, affordable housing, recovery initiatives, disability housing, etc.), replacing individual engagement strategies.

R. How did the framework strengthen accountability?

By embedding cultural governance as a measurable domain in program logics and performance dashboards.

R. What lasting organisational impact did the initiative have?

Cultural governance became a cornerstone of NRH’s strategic and operational governance, ensuring First Nations voices remain central to decision-making.