August 2026

Parks Victoria

Cultural Safety Workshop

Everything we worked through on the day, plus the two questions we parked and the leadership activities to finish in your own time.

The scenarios

The four scenarios we worked through in small groups, what the room came up with, and a few further things worth sitting with. Open any scenario to read it again.

The scenario

Lisa is a non-Indigenous Team Leader at Parks Victoria. She's always tried to foster an inclusive and respectful workplace environment. A crucial member of her team is Dylan, a local Aboriginal man, who is a knowledgeable and skilled ranger. His cultural understanding of the land has greatly benefited the team's work.

Recently, Lisa received a complaint from another team member, John, who is also non-Indigenous. John claimed that Dylan had been disrespectful and uncooperative during a recent project. He felt that Dylan was not pulling his weight and had made several derogatory comments about his work. Lisa trusts John's report but is also aware that there might be cultural nuances or misunderstandings at play that she and John might not fully grasp.

She's uncertain about how to proceed. Parks Victoria has a standard grievance procedure, which involves formal investigation and possible disciplinary action. But Lisa is concerned that implementing this process without considering the cultural aspects might exacerbate the situation and possibly cause Dylan to feel targeted or misunderstood.

At the same time, Lisa also wants to make sure that John's grievance is taken seriously and addressed appropriately. She wants to find a solution that respects Dylan's cultural identity, while also ensuring that John's concerns are validated and addressed.

Discussion questions

  • How can Lisa respond without presuming either account is correct?
  • How should possible bias and John's derogatory comments be considered?
  • What would make the ordinary grievance process culturally safe and procedurally fair?
  • What support, accountability or relationship repair may be needed?

What we heard in the room

  • We don't yet know the whole situation, so assumptions shouldn't be made about what has occurred.
  • Lisa should speak separately with Dylan and John, using the 3 Ps and providing support where needed.
  • There may be gaps in knowledge or understanding contributing to the situation.
  • There may be broader factors affecting Dylan, including his welfare, whether the issue extends beyond this particular project, and whether aspects of the work align with his values.
  • Dylan's wellbeing should be considered alongside the workplace issue.

Some further things to think about

Procedural fairness works both ways.
Cultural safety doesn't mean assuming Dylan is right because he is Aboriginal, just as receiving a complaint doesn't mean assuming John's interpretation is correct. Both people need a genuine opportunity to be heard before conclusions are reached.
Separate behaviours from interpretations.
"This task wasn't completed" is an observation. "Dylan isn't pulling his weight" is an interpretation. What assumptions might sit between the two?
Consider bias as part of the process.
Could cultural differences, communication styles, unconscious bias or racism be affecting how someone's behaviour has been interpreted? If derogatory comments have been made, how are those considered and addressed in their own right?
Ask what would make the process culturally safe.
The ordinary grievance procedure doesn't necessarily need to be abandoned. Instead, consider what might need to change around it: support people, culturally appropriate advice, how conversations occur, who is involved and how outcomes are communicated.
Think beyond "who was wrong?"
Depending on what happened, an appropriate response might include accountability, support and relationship repair rather than disciplinary action alone.

The scenario

Steve is a non-Indigenous manager in Parks Victoria. He's led a diverse team of rangers for several years and is committed to creating an inclusive workplace. One of his team members, Mawarra, a Dja Dja Wurrung woman, has been with the team for about a year. She is the only Aboriginal employee in the unit and is highly respected for her knowledge of the landscape and the cultural values connected to Country.

Over the past two months, Steve has noticed that Mawarra has been absent more often than usual. When she is at work, she seems quieter, less engaged and has struggled to meet some project deadlines.

Other members of the team have begun commenting on the situation. One colleague says, "She's away again. It's getting pretty hard for the rest of us." Another remarks, "If there was something going on, surely she'd just tell us." A third suggests that everyone should simply be held to the same standard, regardless of personal circumstances.

Steve privately checks in with Mawarra. She thanks him for asking and says she appreciates his concern but doesn't want to discuss the reasons for what's happening. She confirms she is doing her best and asks for some privacy.

Steve wants to support Mawarra while also ensuring the team can continue to work effectively. He is also concerned that the conversations happening within the team could create an environment where people feel judged rather than supported.

Discussion questions

  • How should Steve continue the conversation?
  • What assumptions should Steve avoid making?
  • How can attendance and performance expectations be addressed in a way that is conducive to cultural safety?
  • What support, reasonable adjustments or culturally appropriate options could be offered without requiring personal disclosure?

What we heard in the room

  • Mawarra may be experiencing cultural isolation as the only Aboriginal employee in the unit.
  • The team's comments focus primarily on the impact on themselves and may contribute to Mawarra feeling judged or culturally unsafe.
  • Steve has an important role as a "circuit breaker" before those attitudes become normalised within the team.
  • The team may need further cultural awareness training and opportunities for reflection.
  • Mawarra could be offered access to supports such as peer support, EAP or ACN.
  • The team should consider whether they are placing additional cultural responsibility or colonial load on Mawarra.
  • There is value in considering what may sit behind a change in behaviour.

Some further things to think about

Be careful about trying to work out "why".
Mawarra has specifically said she doesn't want to discuss what is happening. Steve doesn't actually need to know the reason in order to be supportive. There is also a cultural safety risk in assuming that because Mawarra is Aboriginal, the explanation must relate to culture, Community, Sorry Business or other cultural responsibility. A better question may be: "What do you need from work right now?" rather than "What's happening?"
Privacy and support can coexist.
Steve can discuss workload, priorities, deadlines, flexibility and reasonable adjustments without requiring Mawarra to disclose personal information.
Equality isn't necessarily equity.
The comment that "everyone should be held to the same standard" is worth interrogating. Consistent expectations don't necessarily require identical treatment or identical support.
Don't make Mawarra responsible for fixing the team's attitudes.
Steve can address the team's comments and expectations without disclosing Mawarra's circumstances or asking her to explain Aboriginal culture to her colleagues.
Training isn't the whole response.
Cultural awareness training may help, but what can Steve change in the team's everyday environment, management practices and behaviour now?

The scenario

Ben is a Parks Victoria Project Manager overseeing the reopening of a popular walking track following storm damage. The project is progressing well, with funding secured, contractors engaged and a public reopening date announced.

During the project, the appropriate Traditional Owner organisation advises that additional work is required to properly assess potential impacts on cultural heritage and other cultural values before construction can proceed in part of the site. This means the project timeline may need to change.

Back in the office, Ben overhears members of the project team discussing the situation. One colleague says, "Every project seems to get held up because of cultural heritage. We're going to miss another deadline." Another responds, "We've already done all the planning. Surely we've ticked the boxes by now."

An Aboriginal staff member is working nearby and hears the conversation. They become visibly uncomfortable but do not say anything.

Ben recognises that the team is under genuine pressure to deliver the project on time. At the same time, he is concerned that the conversation reflects a misunderstanding of why cultural heritage assessments are undertaken and may create an unsafe workplace for Aboriginal colleagues.

Discussion questions

  • At what point did the cultural safety and partnership risks begin to emerge?
  • What is the difference between consulting with Traditional Owners and genuinely sharing decision-making?
  • How should Ben balance organisational commitments with the request to pause the work?
  • What changes to planning or governance could help avoid similar situations in future?

What we heard in the room

The group identified this as a systemic, organisational and individual issue.

Organisational and systemic factors
  • Project planning and timelines need to properly account for cultural heritage work.
  • Delays associated with cultural heritage processes may reflect organisational planning and resourcing issues rather than problems with the cultural heritage process itself.
  • Project management systems need to make adequate space and time for cultural heritage assessments and engagement with Traditional Owners.
Knowledge
  • Staff need greater understanding of the importance of cultural heritage.
  • This includes understanding both tangible and intangible heritage.
  • Staff need to understand why appropriate processes take time and why this is necessary to prevent harm to Country and Culture.
  • Staff also need to understand relevant legislative and compliance requirements.
Attitudes and relationships
  • Time on Country and with Traditional Owners can help staff build relationships with Country and People.
  • Staff need to understand the impact their words can have, even where comments seem innocuous to the person making them.
  • Staff should be conscious of who may be present when these conversations occur.
  • There can be an unfair burden associated with having to continually prove cultural heritage or cultural significance.
Actions and responses
  • Cultural capability training.
  • Cultural awareness training.
  • Time on Country and with Traditional Owners to build relationships and understanding.
  • Appropriate systems and project management training.
  • Making space at the table for Traditional Owners.
  • Ensuring adequate time for Aboriginal Heritage Assessments, Traditional Owner engagement and other cultural heritage processes.
  • Building greater organisational understanding of the value of these processes and their outcomes.

Some further things to think about

When did the problem actually begin?
It is tempting to say the problem started when the Traditional Owner organisation requested additional work. But by then, funding had been secured, contractors engaged and a reopening date announced. So perhaps the cultural heritage assessment didn't delay the project. Perhaps the project was planned without adequately accounting for cultural heritage in the first place.
Consultation isn't necessarily shared decision-making.
If all the significant decisions have already been made before Traditional Owners are brought into the process, what meaningful influence can they actually have? Consider where Traditional Owners sit within the whole project lifecycle, rather than simply adding "consultation" somewhere towards the end.
Scoping Design Planning Procurement Delivery Evaluation
The Aboriginal employee shouldn't become responsible for addressing what happened.
This situation can be tricky. Ben heard the comments and saw their impact. As the manager, he can intervene without waiting for the Aboriginal employee to complain, explain why the comments were harmful or educate their colleagues. However, he may wish to check-in with the Aboriginal staff-member to check whether they would like to share or add anything for Ben to include in his conversation with the team.
Relationship-building isn't transactional.
Time on Country and relationships with Traditional Owners shouldn't simply become another project-management technique for obtaining quicker approvals. Genuine relationships involve respect for authority, Country and shared decision-making. This is everyone's responsibility!

The scenario

Mia is an Aboriginal ranger working for Parks Victoria on her own Traditional Country and is a Traditional Owner for the Country on which she works. Her role is primarily operational, and she has developed strong relationships with Elders, Community members and the relevant Traditional Owner organisation. She is respected by colleagues for her knowledge and willingness to help.

Over time, Mia has become the person colleagues turn to whenever cultural matters arise. She is regularly asked to review signs and communications, organise a Welcome to Country, answer cultural questions, brief contractors and explain local cultural protocols. While she values these relationships, this work has gradually grown alongside her operational responsibilities without any formal adjustment to her workload.

A visitor infrastructure project begins falling behind schedule. Mia's manager asks whether she could contact an Elder directly to seek quick approval for some interpretive material, believing her relationships may help move the project forward. Mia explains that, although she is a Traditional Owner, she does not personally hold the cultural authority to make this decision on behalf of the broader Traditional Owner group and is uncomfortable bypassing the established engagement and decision-making process.

Later, during a performance discussion, her manager raises concerns about several overdue operational tasks and wonders whether Mia has become less engaged with supporting the team.

Discussion questions

  • What assumptions are being made about Mia's role, relationships and cultural authority?
  • Does being a Traditional Owner mean Mia automatically has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the broader Traditional Owner group?
  • Is it appropriate to expect Mia to use her personal relationships to bypass established Traditional Owner governance or Community decision-making?
  • How should Mia's cultural contributions be recognised alongside her operational responsibilities?
  • How can the manager have a fair performance conversation while recognising the broader context?
  • What systems could better recognise, resource and appropriately allocate cultural work?

What we heard in the room

  • Managers may not understand cultural protocols, including appropriate governance and decision-making processes within Community and Traditional Owner organisations.
  • Organisational pressure around efficiency and timelines can come into conflict with appropriate cultural processes and frameworks.
  • There may not be sufficiently clear organisational roles or processes for managing cultural engagement.
  • Mia's additional cultural work hasn't been recognised in her workload and is contributing to a backlog of operational work.
  • Mia is being pressured, rather than supported, in providing cultural knowledge.
  • Managers should have an honest conversation about whether an Aboriginal employee actually wants cultural responsibilities to form part of their role.
  • Staff need greater understanding of who holds particular cultural knowledge and authority and who it is appropriate to approach.
  • Managers and colleagues need to be prepared to accept "no" or "not yet" as legitimate responses to requests for cultural advice, interpretation or approval.

Some further things to think about

Being a Traditional Owner doesn't mean holding every form of cultural authority.
Cultural authority can depend on the issue, Country, family, cultural knowledge, governance arrangements and established decision-making processes. Mia's Aboriginality and Traditional Owner status don't automatically give her personal authority to make a decision on behalf of everybody - it can, in fact, make it more complex.
Relationships aren't organisational assets.
Mia's relationships with Elders and Community shouldn't become a shortcut for Parks Victoria to bypass proper governance because a project is behind schedule. There is an important distinction between Mia choosing to draw on her relationships as part of appropriate engagement and the organisation expecting access to those relationships whenever it is convenient.
Cultural contribution is work.
If Mia is reviewing communications, organising Welcomes to Country, briefing contractors and providing cultural guidance, that work consumes time and expertise. Simply thanking her for the contribution doesn't resolve that additional workload. Ask: is the work recognised? Is it resourced? Is there time allocated to it? Is it part of her role? Is she remunerated appropriately for it? And does she actually want to do it?
Performance needs to be considered in context.
Before asking why Mia's operational work is overdue, her manager needs to account for the additional work the organisation has been asking her to perform. Otherwise, the organisation risks creating the workload problem and then holding Mia accountable for its consequences.
Fix the system rather than finding another Mia.
Creating a designated Aboriginal employee who everyone goes to may simply relocate the colonial load. The broader question is how Parks Victoria establishes appropriate structures, responsibilities and relationships so cultural work is properly governed and resourced.

My reflection

Training isn't the whole answer

One theme appeared repeatedly across the groups' responses: training.

Cultural awareness and cultural capability training have an important role. But training alone can't create cultural safety.

If everybody in these scenarios completed another cultural awareness course tomorrow, what problems would still exist?

The grievance process might still need to be made culturally safe. Mawarra could still experience cultural isolation or judgement. Project systems could still bring Traditional Owners into decision-making too late. Mia's cultural labour could still be unrecognised and unresourced.

So, when responding to issues of cultural safety, keep coming back to each issue at the three levels we were yarning about.

Individual

What knowledge, behaviour, attitudes or assumptions need to change?

Team / org

What do leaders and colleagues need to do differently?

System

What processes, structures, resources or power arrangements contributed to this situation, and what needs to change to prevent it happening again?