People, system… or both?

Are concerns about Indigenous peak bodies about behaviour, or the way the system is set up? The fair answer is both. Good governance is essential everywhere and the rules and funding settings that organisations work under matter just as much.

Many Indigenous peaks are “community‑controlled” and exist to represent their sectors (such as health) while also supporting or directly coordinating services through member organisations. NACCHO, for example, is the national peak for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations. The Coalition of Peaks brings together more than 80 community‑controlled peaks to work with governments on policy.

These organisations operate inside the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which centres four Priority Reforms: shared decision‑making; a stronger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community‑controlled sector; transforming government agencies; and better access to data for communities. Those reforms are designed to change how decisions are made and how success is measured. There are 19 national targets under the agreement. The Productivity Commission’s dashboard shows that, as of mid‑2025, only a minority of targets are on track nationally, reminding everyone that system settings still need work.

Funding design is a recurring pressure point. The Productivity Commission’s review of the agreement reports that many Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACC0s) are still funded through short, inflexible contracts, often far less than five years, which do not cover the full costs of delivery such as transport in regional and remote areas. Uncertain, piecemeal contracts reduce planning capacity and make it harder to invest in robust finance and risk systems.

Regulation can be complex rather than simply “weak” or “absent”. If a body is a corporation under the CATSI Act it is regulated by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC), with annual reporting obligations and financial reporting requirements lodged on a public register. If it is a registered charity it will also have ACNC obligations, although red‑tape reduction arrangements mean ORIC‑registered charities are not required to submit duplicate reports to the ACNC. Complexity does not excuse poor practice… but it explains some of the administrative burden small and regional organisations carry.

It is also important not to single out Indigenous organisations as if governance problems were unique to them. Auditors general and the ANAO routinely find procurement, control and reporting weaknesses across local and state government and the broader public sector. The lesson is to apply the same standards of stewardship everywhere, rather than reinforcing stereotypes.

The upshot: behaviour and systems are inseparable. Where individuals misuse funds, there should be consequences. At the same time, governments should fix settings known to increase risk: short contracts, under‑funded full costs and fragmented oversight. That is how the Agreement’s Priority Reforms translate into practical change.