Table 5 Changes made to draft terms of reference through the focus group

Definitions

A member of the group raised a concern about the use and origins of the term ‘cultural security’, with preference for the use of the term ‘cultural safety’.

“What I mentioned was that cultural security doesn't come from an Aboriginal person. It was born out of bureaucracy and bureaucracy labeling what they were doing. Cultural safety comes from a Maori nurse. So it takes in the paradigm of colonization and racism which is core to its processes, cultural security, however, the majority of the time people are talking about it, it makes sense because its born out of bureaucracy, it doesn't talk about colonization or racism” – Participant 3, F

The group discussed both definitions of cultural security and cultural safety and agreed that both were required to describe different situations or contexts.

Definitions of cultural safety and cultural security were differentiated at the outset of the document. References for both definitions were provided from Indigenous academics who have been pioneered this work (Coffin, Ramsden).

‘Research Steering’ aims of the ECRG were amended to separate advice on cultural safety and cultural security and for advice of all forms of ethical conduct.

Role (aims and responsibilities of the ECRG)

A member of the group was uncomfortable with the notion of representing a whole organization or whole community.

“I'm probably just as an individual and when I read through this, I'm not comfortable representing a community. I think maybe if you want to just set individual families, countries that don't represent the community or represent myself, my views” – Participant 3, F

The ‘Community Engagement’ aims of the ECRG were amended to reflect that members do not represent entire communities, that they are individuals from their respective communities who provide advice for, not on behalf of Victorian Aboriginal communities.

Authority

Members of the group requested additional information about their authority and decision-making power in relation to the research group.

With this, group members requested more information about where the ECRG sat in terms of the wider research group and how communication would be facilitated between the ECRG and ECCO researchers.

“Say for instance we make a particular decision on something here and it goes up the chain to the other group, and if it doesn't get used, whatever the recommendations is, the decision we make, how does it get communicated back to us about why they might not use that that recommendation?” – Participant 7, M

The group discussed that ultimate decision making would rest with the research group, however advice from the group would be prioritized

To highlight the above, the ‘Authority’ section was amended include that all ECRG advisory and recommendation outcomes will be communicated back to the group in a transparent and timely way.

An organizational chart was added to help members visualize where the ECRG group sits in relation to the research group, other reference groups and how these might interact and to assist with transparency of how information will be shared among the group.

Membership—Proxy

The group discussed what characteristics a proxy should have to sit at an ECRG meeting.

A member of the group requested that there be clarification on the decision-making power of proxy members and if they were able to vote on tabled items and contribute to a quorum.

“When we're arranging meetings, do proxies have to have certain characteristics?”–Participant 15, F

“Do proxies have decision making rights?” – Participant 14, M

“[without decision making powers proxies] are likely going to slow you down in whatever you're doing down…I reckon, the key to this operation, the communication, behind it. How you made the decision why you made the decision” – Participant 7, M

The group discussed and reiterated what was stated in the draft terms of reference: that proxies should have similar characteristics to the member that they are representing. The proxy should be Aboriginal if the member is Aboriginal and should represent a similar profile in terms of professional or lived experience.

Guidelines were added stating that proxy members are allowed to vote on items if given authority by their respective member.

Meeting process—decision making

Members raised that using percentages to define majority or quorum was too difficult to work with and suggested half + one as an easier alternative that worked for many members in the past.

“I'm used to half plus one. That's what I'm used to, so it makes it because.... Once you start getting the 75 to 80 percent, it's more like constitutional type thinking, which is which is a really high bar compared to a simple majority plus one” – Participant 7, M

“Yeah, I'm used to community forums and in governance forums, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that you just talk it out till you get to a point that you're happy with” –Participant 3, F

The terms of consensus/quorum were changed. Should a vote be required, majority was changed from ‘ > 80%’ and defined as ‘half + one’.

Meeting process—documents

A suggestion was made to add ‘Sorry Business*’ as a standard agenda item after the Acknowledgement of Country. This would allow space to pay recognition or allow a minute silence for any community members who may have passed away.

A member also suggested that naming it officially as ‘Sorry Business’ may be too sensitive and not appropriate in some communities or situations. A suggestion was made to include both a check in and Sorry Business as this agenda item to allow space for any members to voice any personal items they feel comfortable to.

“In loads of other meetings I attend we have Sorry Business on the table and so if people are comfortable to put those names forward and stand and have a moments silence for those who have passed on to the next world. So I think it's a really good to have” – Participant 7, M

“A lot of the meetings I've been to, we just have a quick check in at the start of the meeting. So not labeled Sorry Business because sometimes that might bring up a lot of sensitivities and feelings into the meeting and then people might be different in that meeting. I'm comfortable with people wanting to raise sorry business, but I think that maybe if we just have a quick check in the start and so people can express anything, not just business and have it focused on that” – Participant 9, M

The standard agenda format was amended to include both ‘check-in’ and ‘Sorry Business’.

A reminder about the potential for sensitivities around any Sorry Business was stipulated.

The terms of reference also states that both check ins and Sorry Business will be omitted from the minutes to ensure privacy and sensitivity around any matters discussed.

Expectations

A discussion took place around the most convenient communication channels, document sharing and storage.

Members agreed that emails were the best communication avenue but that a more central share point for quick communication and document storage was needed.

A Facebook/social media group or newsletters were not seen as important for members.

“Google Drive or teams or something, because of confidentiality as well…but I think it's probably a good thing to have it in that specific space so that if we need to go back and refer to a particular document at any point in time it’s going to be easy” – Participant 9, M

A Microsoft Teams group platform was established for data and document storage so that members can easily refer to documents or communicate quickly using the chat function. This platform was decided upon for the chat function, security and accessibility for all members regardless of which organization they were from.