A growing movement is challenging the way economic development is designed and delivered in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, with increasing calls for a shift away from dependency-based systems towards models grounded in sovereignty, self-determination and community control.

The conversation emerged strongly at this week's AIATSIS Summit, where First Nations leaders, practitioners and researchers explored how existing funding and governance structures can unintentionally limit long-term economic outcomes for communities.

At the heart of the discussion was a simple but important question: what is the difference between funding communities and transferring decision-making authority?

First Nations Economics managing director corporate and governance, Shaun Cumming, believes lasting economic prosperity in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will only be achieved when communities have genuine authority over the decisions that shape their futures.

He argues too often funding flows into communities without a corresponding transfer of power, limiting opportunities for long-term economic sovereignty.

"Communities are setting the direction from the start, not being brought in once the key decisions are already made," Mr Cumming said.

"In practice, that means communities deciding what matters, what success looks like, and having the ability to change things if something isn't working."

Mr Cumming said the goal is to create systems that respond to community priorities rather than expecting communities to adapt to externally designed frameworks.

"The real shift is this, instead of communities trying to fit into systems, the systems start to respond to community priorities," he said.

Despite decades of investment, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to face barriers to economic self-determination. Mr Cumming believes the challenge is not a lack of funding but how decision-making power is structured.

For many First Nations communities, the challenge extends beyond economics. Generations of government policies have often positioned Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as participants in systems designed by others rather than architects of their own futures. While significant public funding has flowed into Indigenous programs over decades, many communities continue to experience lower rates of employment, business ownership, home ownership and economic participation than the broader Australian population.

At the same time, community organisations are frequently required to navigate complex reporting obligations, short-term funding agreements and changing government priorities. This can leave leaders focused on securing the next funding round rather than investing in long-term economic strategies, institution building and intergenerational wealth creation.

The result is a cycle where communities are expected to deliver outcomes without always having the authority, resources or control needed to shape them.

"A lot of the time, priorities are decided before communities have had a chance to shape the problem," Mr Cumming said.

"Funding cycles are short, so local organisations carry a lot of delivery risk but don't control the investment. Success is usually measured through compliance rather than whether communities are actually stronger at the end."

Mr Cumming warned while money may flow into communities, power often remains elsewhere.

"All of that means money can move, but power doesn't. And over time, that reinforces dependency, even when the intent is to support self-determination," he said.

The discussion also highlighted the importance of community-controlled institutions and governance structures which place authority closer to communities.

"There are some strong examples already showing what this looks like," Mr Cumming said, pointing to Indigenous-controlled finance institutions in Canada and community-controlled organisations across Australia.

"Across all of these, the pattern is consistent. When authority, capability and value sit together, outcomes improve."

Participants also heard economic sovereignty is about more than access to funding. It is about ownership, governance, capability and ensuring economic benefits remain within communities for future generations.

Looking ahead, Mr Cumming believes meaningful change requires governments and investors to involve communities before priorities are established.

"It's not about adding more consultation. It's about changing the sequence so authority sits in the right place," he said.

Mr Cumming remains optimistic about the future, particularly the next generation of First Nations leaders.

"We're seeing more First Nations leaders working across policy and industry, and at the same time not separating economic development from culture, governance or identity," he said.

"There's also a stronger expectation that systems should change, rather than people having to adapt to them. That shift matters."

As conversations around economic development continue across Australia, many are arguing lasting change will not come through dependency, but through sovereignty, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities leading the decisions that shape their own economic futures.