FNA MONTHLY BRIEF - November

Note from the Founder

I am genuinely alarmed at the amount of noise in this space right now. When did a post or an event become an acceptable proxy for impact?

Across the sector, we are seeing a growing reliance on proxies – structures, documents, committees, and individuals positioned to “stand in” for an organisation’s responsibility to understand and manage its First Nations impact.

• A RAP becomes evidence of commitment.

• An external advisory group becomes the “community voice”.

• A high-profile individual becomes the cultural authority.

• A consultant becomes the scapegoat.

These proxies establish a gap between decision-makers and their intended responsibilities. They also create a false sense of progress. When a proxy assumes the primary role, organisations cease to develop their own capabilities, governance, and impact understanding. The problem isn’t the presence of advice or expertise – it’s the substitution of responsibility. The more an organisation relies on proxies, the weaker its internal governance becomes. This practice also compromises cultural integrity in First Nations communities, alongside being a structural governance risk. Cultural authority cannot be borrowed. Accountability cannot be outsourced. And legitimacy cannot be built through association. Organisations need to be able to recognise when a proxy is being used to avoid work, accountability, or complexity. In every instance, it creates more harm than clarity. And harm accumulates. It shows up in communities, in outcomes, in reputational cracks, and in the widening gap between what organisations say and what they actually do.

~ Bec Blurton

Governance Reflections

Proxies weaken governance because they interrupt the pathways that connect responsibility to decision-making. When organisations rely on a proxy, whether it is a document, a committee, or an individual, the lines of accountability become unclear. People make decisions without taking responsibility, people shape impacts without supervision, and people use their power without a direct order.

From a governance perspective, proxies function as buffers. They absorb responsibility rather than clarify it. Over time, their use creates structural blind spots: decisions that cannot be traced to accountable roles, risks that are not owned, and impacts that cannot be justified.

In First Nations contexts, the consequences are greater. Proxies distort cultural authority, dilute obligations, and weaken the legitimacy of organisational relationships with community and Country. This problem is not simply ineffective governance; it is a governance failure that undermines trust and long-term credibility.

Strong governance relies on clarity, not delegation-by-proxy. It requires decision-makers to hold responsibility directly, not through intermediaries.

FNA Resource of the Month

First Nations Strategic Alignment Framework (FNSAF)

The First Nations Strategic Alignment Framework is FNA’s benchmark for embedding First Nations governance in organisational systems. It provides a clear structure for aligning strategy, decision-making, and accountability with First Nations rights, interests, and leadership. FNSAF strengthens internal governance by setting out the standards and pathways organisations need to build credible, consistent, and culturally grounded practices across their operations. It clarifies where responsibility should sit, how decisions should be made, and what alignment looks like in practice.

While proxies may seem like they show progress, FNSAF offers a solid framework for real alignment that can be measured, maintained, and held accountable.

Climate, Finance, & Policy

Across climate reporting, human rights due diligence, and investor standards, the expectation is shifting toward clear internal accountability. Organisations are expected to demonstrate how decisions affecting people and communities are governed and overseen within their internal structures, as external or symbolic bodies do not meet the governance requirements set out in the emerging disclosure and accountability standards. Frameworks such as ISSB S1/S2, the UN Guidance Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines, and the ASX Corporate Governance Principles all emphasise internal governance, defined mandates, and transparent lines of responsibility. Proxies – whether advisory bodies, high-profile individuals, cultural “faces”, or standalone documents – fail to meet these requirements. They establish a barrier between decision-makers and their intended responsibilities. They also produce weak evidence for disclosure and investor scrutiny, and in an Australian First Nations context, they undermine cultural integrity and dilute First Nations authority. From a governance perspective, proxies don’t strengthen systems; they mask gaps. And gaps in governance inevitably become gaps in trust.

First Nations Affairs