In March 2026, a group of NGO CEOs in health and community services in Queensland sat down for a private off-the-record breakfast conversation. The room ran under Chatham House rules. The question was how to influence the system in an environment that has become harder to read. The room worked the conversation across three layers: the visible forces shaping the landscape, the deliberate choices leaders are making inside those conditions, and the less visible pressures shaping behaviour underneath.
The environment is shaped by sustained uncertainty
Political priorities and funding approaches have shifted, with funders placing greater focus on core responsibilities. State priorities appear strongly oriented to regional visibility and demonstrable outcomes. There is a pattern of NGOs wanting to focus inwards at exactly the moment when an outward focus is more protective. Public positions need careful judgement now, and public opinion is increasingly driven by those who put their heads above the parapet. Expectations around impact accounting have grown, and there has been an increase in recovery of unspent funds previously held in NGO reserves. Equity-focused agendas may need different framing or coalition strategies in the present context. Generational differences in expectations also matter and are worth planning around.
The changing nature of influence
Evidence remains essential, but evidence alone is no longer enough. Several around the table named the increasing importance of political literacy, of compelling narratives that use community experience as a frame for impact, and of timing and sequencing. Influence has shifted from persuasion to positioning.
Collective resilience
The pattern that came up was diversifying relationships, alliances, funding dependencies and points of influence. Resilience is becoming a function of breadth more than depth.
Intentional use of voice
Leaders are being more deliberate about when to use their voice publicly and when to work in the background. Working in the background opens access but reduces public visibility. The room talked about aligning messages to what decision-makers are trying to solve, and making the cost of doing nothing crystal clear. And about how to advocate without fragmenting collective influence. The emphasis was on judgement, nuance and strategic restraint.
Diversifying relationships and building cross-party reach
Coalitions of influence built through shared campaigns, broader alliances and public legitimacy reduce single points of failure. There is a trade-off in it. The breadth dilutes control over the message. Building cross-party and cross-jurisdiction relationships is part of the same work. Avoiding single points of political or institutional failure also means holding longer-term views of influence inside shorter influence cycles. The shifts that matter take longer to achieve and require emergent strategy.
A risk-aware approach to advocacy
Treat advocacy as a risk item. Conscious red lines. Board escalation pathways. The point is to minimise unnecessary risk and ensure ongoing mission alignment, not to constrain advocacy itself.
Political astuteness now matters as much as evidence
Political astuteness was described as now equal in importance to evidence in influencing systemic change. The room shared specific moves: elevating the voices of the people the NGO is serving so they contribute to public understanding, starting at the edge of ministerial offices and working inwards rather than going straight to the minister, and using recency of connection to open doors.
The Peer Room is an invitation-led breakfast for chief executives of NGOs in health, community and human services. The Wider Lens is a version of it for the senior leaders below them. Email susanne@lebout.com.au if you would like an invitation to either, or to put one of your senior leaders forward.
