What Indigenous governance teaches us about better decision-making

Q&A: Governance beyond the Western model – learning from Indigenous practice

Indigenous governance offers a radically different lens on decision-making, one grounded in consensus, community and country. In this conversation, Michelle Deshong explains to Phil Mercer why these systems remain deeply relevant for modern governance practice.

Dr Deshong draws her connection to Kuku Yalanji nation and lives in Townsville, North Queensland. She has committed most of her professional life to the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples asserting their right to self-determination through culture reclamation, leadership, governance and political engagement.

Q: Michelle, you’ve made the point that governance is not something new for Indigenous communities. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Michelle Deshong:
One of the most important things to recognise is that governance isn’t new for Indigenous people – in fact, we’ve been practising it since time immemorial. Our communities would not have survived, prospered, or sustained themselves over thousands of years without clear systems, rules and structures in place.

Sometimes governance is seen as something that has been “introduced” through Western systems, but that overlooks a long and deeply embedded tradition. Without governance, you have chaos. The reality is that Indigenous societies have always had frameworks that regulate behaviour, guide decision-making, and maintain order.

When I talk about Indigenous governance – or cultural governance – I’m referring to those systems built on ancient laws and traditions. These are the rules that clans, families and communities have used to organise themselves. Over time, these systems evolved into cultural patterns – shared values, responsibilities and decision-making structures – that continue to guide communities today.

Q: That continuity is remarkable, particularly given the disruption. How do you make sense of that history?

Michelle Deshong:

I often describe it as a system that was interrupted, rather than erased.

Colonisation disrupted Indigenous governance in very real and practical ways – through displacement, removal from country, and the imposition of state control. When people were removed from their lands and placed into missions or reserves, that wasn’t just a social disruption; it was a governance disruption. It interrupted cultural authority, decision-making and connection to community structures.

But governance didn’t disappear. It just became harder to exercise.

From the 1960s and 70s, particularly with the influence of civil rights movements, there was a shift. Indigenous Australians began to reclaim the conversation around rights and self-determination. That included establishing organisations that reflect community priorities and embedding Indigenous leadership within those structures.

What we’re seeing now is a continued process of rebuilding – learning from that disruption, while reasserting cultural governance principles within contemporary contexts.

Q: For a governance audience, can you describe how Indigenous governance differs from Western models?

Michelle Deshong:

One of the clearest differences is structural.

Western governance models tend to be hierarchical. You have a board, a defined number of directors, and often a chair who sits at the top of that structure as the ultimate decision-maker. Authority flows down.

Indigenous governance is more relational and distributed. It is often more linear or networked than hierarchical. Authority is shared rather than concentrated. For example, you may have a group of Elders who collectively hold authority, rather than one individual.

We also recognise different forms of knowledge. Not everyone speaks on everything. There are knowledge holders, individuals who carry particular cultural authority, such as those connected to specific songlines or country. Their role is to contribute that knowledge to the decision-making process.

There are also gendered roles and responsibilities – men’s and women’s business – which shape how and when decisions are made. All of this contributes to a system that is complex, highly structured, and deeply grounded in both culture and place.

Q: Those decision-making processes also seem quite different. How are decisions typically reached?

Michelle Deshong:

The key principle is consensus.

In many Western models, decisions are made through majority vote.  You get to 51 per cent, and the decision is made. In Indigenous governance, the aim is consensus decision-making. That means taking the time to work through an issue until everyone understands it and can support the outcome.

That’s important.  Time is a critical factor. Governance is not something that should be rushed. It requires space for discussion, reflection and understanding.

If consensus isn’t reached, the process doesn’t necessarily end; you might pause, gather more information, or revisit the discussion. But the goal is always to ensure that people feel ownership of both the process and the outcome.

That sense of shared ownership strengthens accountability and commitment to decisions.

Q: You’ve emphasised the importance of “country” in governance. Can you explain that connection?

Michelle Deshong:

Country is central. It is the foundation.

Governance in Indigenous contexts is inseparable from responsibility to land and community. Protecting and nurturing country is itself a governance responsibility. It shapes how decisions are made, what priorities are set, and how impacts are considered.

When you strip everything back, governance in Indigenous communities is fundamentally about sustaining relationships with land, with people, and with future generations.

Even where Indigenous governance structures operate within contemporary systems, that connection to country remains at the core.

Q: How far has the process of renewal and revival come, given the impact of colonisation?

Michelle Deshong:

There has been tremendous progress, but it’s important to recognise that this work is ongoing.

In many ways, we’ve had to unlearn some of the systems that were imposed on us. Hierarchical governance, rigid board structures – these are not how Indigenous governance traditionally worked.

So, there’s a dual process happening. On the one hand, we are reclaiming cultural governance, setting priorities on our own terms, grounded in our identity and values. On the other hand, we are working within existing legal and organisational frameworks.

Self-determination is central to this. Communities are increasingly defining what governance looks like for them — who participates, how decisions are made, and what success means.

And that often involves deep consultation, ensuring the right people are involved, and making space for diverse voices within the community.

Q: There’s often a tension between economic goals and community outcomes. How does Indigenous governance approach this?

Michelle Deshong:

There is a difference in emphasis.

Western governance frameworks often prioritise financial performance and growth. Indigenous governance is much more focused on the collective – on community wellbeing, connection, reciprocity and long-term sustainability.

That’s not to say economic viability isn’t important.  It absolutely is, especially in supporting sovereignty and independence. But it’s not the sole measure of success.

The focus is broader. It’s about how decisions affect people, culture and country, and how responsibility is shared within the community.

Accountability also looks different. In cultural governance, you are accountable to your community – to each other – rather than just to shareholders or external stakeholders.

Q: What do you think Western governance can learn from Indigenous governance?

Michelle Deshong:

There are two things that stand out.

The first is time. Good governance takes time to understand issues, to engage meaningfully, and to make informed decisions. There is often pressure in Western systems to move quickly, but that can lead to decisions that are rushed or poorly understood.

The second is relationships.

In Indigenous governance, understanding who you are working with is essential. We often begin by asking: who are you, where are you from, what knowledge do you bring? That process – what I call cultural positioning – builds context, trust and understanding.

When people understand each other better, the quality of decision-making improves.

Q: Finally, there’s a perception that Indigenous governance might be higher risk because it differs from conventional models. How do you respond to that?

Michelle Deshong:

I would challenge that.

All governance involves risk. The question is how you manage and mitigate it.

Indigenous governance has sustained communities for thousands of years. That longevity speaks for itself. The principles are built on collective responsibility, consensus decision-making, respect for knowledge and deep accountability. They are fundamentally strong.

When you re-engage with a system that has proven its resilience over generations, you’re not increasing risk; you’re drawing on a foundation that is inherently sound.

At its core, Indigenous governance is about connection, responsibility and long-term thinking.

And those are the same principles that underpin good governance everywhere.

Dr Deshong will deliver the keynote address at the Virtual Indigenous Governance Forum.  It is hosted by the Governance Institute of Australia and the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute.

22 July 2026, 9:30 am- 4:30 pm, and an additional half-day workshop on 23 July.

Indigenous Governance Forum Workshop

Dr Deshong is an accomplished academic and was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship in 2015 to work with Native communities across the US, Canada and New Zealand to explore models of cultural governance and nation building. This work helped shape the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute (AIGI) during her tenure as CEO.