First Nations recruitment is stalling. The problem isn’t commitment – it’s the missing “why”
After the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, a lot of Australian organisations shifted into a quieter mode. Logos came off campaigns. Public statements slowed. Internal conversations became more cautious, especially in boardrooms and C-suites.
National sentiment moved with them. Ipsos’ 2025 Indigenous Issues report puts public interest in First Nations issues at a five-year low, with a clear decline in support for Treaty and the Voice as pathways for reconciliation (Ipsos). Other research points to a post-referendum environment where many First Nations people are dealing with heightened racism and ongoing harm, long after the vote (The Guardian).
Corporate Australia is feeling that atmosphere. Leaders are under pressure from several directions at once: an anti-“woke” backlash nudging some employers to cut back on diversity work, commentary that companies should steer clear of social causes, and a broader reassessment of how visible they want to be on social issues. For talent and HR teams, the effect is clear. First Nations employment targets slip down the priority list, dedicated pathways lose their executive champion, and what was a program now becomes an aspiration.
However, most organisations are not stepping back because they suddenly decided First Nations engagement doesn’t matter. They are stepping back because they never had a clear, organisation-specific reason for why it mattered in the first place. When the “why” is weak, hesitation is inevitable – and recruitment is usually the first thing to go.
What it looks like inside the room
In our work with organisations across sectors, a consistent scene appears.
- The executive team is under budget pressure.
- There’s a restructure on the table and some Board fatigue after the referendum.
- On the agenda sits a set of First Nations commitments: employment targets, a traineeship program, a community partnership renewal, work on reporting.
The First Nations work is present, but the rationale is vague. It’s described as “important”, “the right thing to do”, “part of our values”. Under pressure, that kind of rationale does not hold. It becomes easy to pause a hiring program, delay a partnership, or quietly downgrade ambition. On paper the commitments remain. In practice, momentum fades – and the First Nations candidates and employees on the other side of those commitments feel it first.
The difference between having a RAP and having a rationale
Many organisations moved quickly into reconciliation over the last decade. They joined Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) frameworks, funded initiatives, partnered with strong First Nations organisations, and put public commitments on the record. A lot of them skipped a foundational step: a strategic rationale.
A strategic rationale links an organisation’s core purpose and capabilities to First Nations peoples, communities and businesses in a way that creates mutual benefit. It explains why this engagement is necessary for the organisation to succeed, not just why it’s admirable. Without it, First Nations work looks like an add-on rather than core business, decision-makers struggle to defend it when money tightens, and partners experience inconsistency. With it, engagement is anchored in strategy, leaders can explain in plain language why it matters to their organisation in particular, and priorities become clearer.
The most common rationales fail for predictable reasons.
- Compliance-only thinking collapses as soon as procurement or ESG levers soften.
- A charity or “giving back” framing sits separate from core business, and charity spends rarely win hard budget calls.
- Marketing-led rationales are exposed to backlash and leadership turnover.
- Personality-based commitment, carried by one passionate leader, slows sharply the moment that person changes roles or burns out.
None of these are wrong, they’re just not enough to survive a tough year.
Stronger rationales are specific and grounded.
- A bank centring on economic self-determination and financial inclusion as part of its role in the economy.
- A technology company using its position as a connector to help First Nations communities access tools, skills and data.
- A health organisation combining clinical expertise with First Nations knowledge systems to redesign care for everyone.
In each case, the question stops being “can we still afford this?” and becomes “how do we deliver on our purpose, given this history and these relationships?”
Why this matters most in recruitment
Recruitment is where a weak “why” quietly does the most damage, because it’s the part of the work that’s easiest to defer and hardest to fake. A logo can disappear overnight. A genuine pathway into stable, culturally safe employment cannot be switched on and off without the people involved noticing. If your rationale is solid, the practical decisions get easier, and they tend to appear in a few places.
It starts before you advertise anything. Cultural awareness for the people doing the hiring, executive sponsorship that survives a budget cycle, and clear targets and accountability turn intent into something a manager can actually act on. The organisations that hold their nerve in a hard year are usually the ones who did this groundwork while it was calm.
Sourcing is the next pressure point. Relationships with First Nations employment services and community organisations take time to build and can’t be conjured up the week a role opens. Traineeships, internships and school-to-work programs widen the pipeline, but only if the job description has been stripped back to what the role genuinely requires rather than a wish-list of qualifications that screen good candidates out for no good reason.
Selection is where good intentions meet process and process usually wins unless you’ve designed for it. That can mean switching off automated screening for First Nations candidates, guaranteeing interviews for those who meet the criteria, sharing questions in advance, welcoming a support person, or assessing through a skills demonstration rather than a high-pressure panel. First Nations representation on the panel itself changes both the experience and the decision.
Then comes the part that determines whether any of it was worth it: keeping people. A strong start; cultural protocols on day one, a mentor or buddy, a culturally safe team, sets the tone. Flexibility for cultural and community obligations, including ceremonial leave and recognition of connection to Country highlights that the commitment is real. Regular check-ins at the one-week, one-month and three-month marks catch problems early. Tracking retention and progression (not just how many people you hired) tells you whether you’re building careers or just filling a target.
None of these moves are unusual, radical, or especially difficult. They’re the difference between a program that reads well in a report and one that delivers – and they’re far easier to defend, fund and sustain when everyone can articulate why the organisation is doing this in the first place.
In a post-Voice landscape, the “why” is no longer optional
The referendum result did more than change a constitutional debate. It exposed how fragile some commitments were and how deep others ran. In that environment, organisations that only ever had a shallow “why” will keep stepping back, and their recruitment efforts will be among the first casualties.
Others are making a different choice. They’re treating this moment as an invitation to go deeper, not quieter, doing the internal work to define a rationale their people can say out loud without flinching; and that First Nations partners and candidates can hear without rolling their eyes. They’ll still face budget constraints and political noise, the difference is that their First Nations recruitment will rest on something stronger than a campaign, a logo or a season. It will sit where it always should have inside their definition of who they are, what they do, and who they’re accountable to.
Topaz McAuliffe is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of 15 Times Better, a First Nations-owned and led business that helps organisations accelerate their First Nations impact. Topaz is one of Australia’s most successful First Nations engagement specialists. She was the driving force behind Coles Group’s award-winning First Nations engagement program, assisting Coles to become Australia’s largest corporate sector employer of First Nations peoples and one of the country’s leading supporters of First Nations businesses, gaining recognition from Fortune, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the UN Global Compact Australia.
