Challenges and innovations in Indigenous governance

This Research Brief was written as part of ANZSOG’s The Bridge research translation project and summarises a piece of academic research relevant to the public sector. 

The lands and waters now known as Australia have been home to diverse First Nations institutions for thousands of generations. The arrival of settlers and colonial structures has forced First Nations peoples to respond while also honouring their obligations to Country and people. As a result, contemporary First Nations institutions operate at the intersection of Indigenous cultural values and governance systems, as well as those imposed by the state. An article in the Australian Journal of Public Administration explores how Indigenous governance has adapted and innovated in pursuit of greater autonomy and self-determination while navigating complex relationships with the state. 

Shared foundations of Indigenous governance 

Indigenous governance across the continent is underpinned by a broadly shared set of values and principles. The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute articulates a group of shared ‘cultural features’, which they describe as: 

1. Networked systems of kinship and family support. 

2. Deep connection to Country (lands and waters). 

3. Value of ceremony, traditions, and ritual. 

4. Respect for law and the authority of elders. 

5. Respect for women’s and men’s areas of knowledge. 

6. Mutual responsibility and sharing of resources. 

Indigenous governance is bound by its cultural, social, environmental and relationship obligations. This is underpinned by a profound spiritual connection to land, waterways, flora and fauna, and ancestors through their dreaming. In contrast, Western governance is more inclined to focus on economic development, compliance and regulatory obligations. 

While settler governance bends with the changing demands of both politics and the market, Indigenous governance and political order remain consistent. It is measured and guided by obligations to Country, kin and the Dreaming. Leadership is based on cultural authority and knowledge. Elders have a prominent role and take key decisions. In contrast to Western expectations, they do not exercise command-obedience power. 

The push–pull of entangled institutions 

Indigenous jurisdiction sits in tension with the settler state’s assumption of authority. In the ‘push–pull’ of these relationships, organisational forms and political institutions become entangled. The strength of Indigenous cultural values and practices means that the state cannot always determine or impose the terms of the relationship. At the same time, the resources and legal authority of the state have the capacity to bulldoze over the top of Indigenous aspirations, organisations, and institutions. 

The ongoing nature of colonisation means that First Nations peoples continue to manoeuvre around, against and through the settler state. They exercise authority according to their own law and lore while strategically engaging with settler-colonial systems and policies to support and facilitate self-governance. 

Indigenous experience and innovations 

First Nations are involved in the work of governing through organisations and initiatives that are entangled with the state in many ways. These arrangements can challenge and compromise Indigenous efforts, but they also demonstrate the creativity with which First Nations continue to pursue governance. 

One example is the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation (BAC), based in Maningrida in the Northern Territory, which is an Aboriginal community-controlled organisation (ACCO). BAC serves around 4000 residents from the 32 surrounding homelands of Maningrida, who are Kunibídji and Kuninjku peoples. It focuses on supporting Indigenous people living on their homelands, preserving language and culture, encouraging sustainable land use, and fostering community development and welfare.  

Bawinanga was born from a commitment to the exercise of Indigenous self-determination. Local cultural governance remains core to Aboriginal community control despite BAC’s entanglements with the regulatory obligations imposed by the state. As Bawinanga’s own website explains, the organisation continues to prioritise the “integral relationship that people hold with their country” which “continues to define and govern the social, cultural, spiritual and territorial aspects of people’s lives.”  

BAC must constantly navigate between two worlds, adapting and sometimes merging traditional governance practices with contemporary administrative approaches. The state requires governing structures that are not necessarily culturally legitimate. For example, upon incorporation, ACCOs must form a board of directors through which the state will “recognise” it. Bawinanga has a board of 12 directors, 10 of whom are elected plus two independent members. 

Directors and Indigenous staff in the organisation face a complex reality. They must balance cultural obligations, community pressures, and cultural legitimacy with governing their organisation according to the rules of incorporation and the legislative framework imposed by the state. BAC showcases the ways in which blending cultural legitimacy with modern governance can also be highly effective. 

BAC has grown in size and scope despite the challenge of the state’s regulation. It has ensured that service delivery remains culturally relevant, sustainable, and guided by Indigenous governance practices. It successfully runs a range of programs cultivated through commitments to community consultation, community-led decision-making, and two-way culturally sustainable programs and services. 

The bottom line 

First Nations peoples continually grapple with imposed systems of governance. They innovate and refine governance institutions and practices that are entangled with the institutions and processes of the settler state. These efforts include giving representation and expression to First Nations’ values, culture, governance, and law.  

For these efforts to succeed, governments and policy practitioners need to relinquish control and become more responsive and adaptive in their relationships with Indigenous forms of governance. Governments and policy practitioners also need to recognise that they are participants in governance relationships shaped by colonialism, rather than neutral or authoritative actors who simply deliver governance. 

Want to read more? 

Entangled political institutions and forms: From corporatisation to treaty – Morgan Brigg, Deirdre Howard-Wagner, Natasha McCormack, Sarah Maddison and Kaely Woods, Australian Journal of Public Administration, August 2026