Alice Springs Town Council
Community Inclusion Plan ·

Thank you for the scoping conversation on 21 April and the follow-up call with Kate on 30 April. We've spent the time since pulling together a proposal that reflects what you and Kate were actually asking for, shaped specifically for Mparntwe.

The brief, as we read it: a Community Inclusion Plan that evolves the Multicultural Action Plan into a full Community Inclusion Plan across seven cohorts (First Nations, multicultural, disability, LGBTQIA+, seniors, children and young people, women and girls), held together by an intersectionality framework, face-to-face weighted, and politically legible enough for the Mayor and elected members to defend in forum. We've built around that.

Four things to flag up front.

The collaboration. Dead Pegs Works (Lukas Blom) and Jo Henryks (independent consultant) in a 50/50 partnership. Lukas brings COO-level operations leadership from Casa Services, an Alice Springs consulting practice, an MBA, IPA membership, and the local roots of someone born and raised in Mparntwe. Jo brings methodology depth and a national engagement track record. We've worked the proposal end-to-end together.

Conflict of interest, declared. Lukas currently holds a role at Disability Advocacy Services in Alice Springs. Disability is an in-scope cohort for this CIP. The conflict is detailed in Section 9 with specific commitments around DAS data, consultation disclosures and recusal. We've set out the management approach in detail so Council can see the discipline up front.

The proposal as a starting point. The substance is here - frameworks, principles, methodology, timeline, fee. The specifics of who's in the room, whose voices come first, and which community pathways open the engagement are Council's calls to make in the project planning meeting that follows award. The proposal is structured as a starting point - the substance is here, the specifics we shape with you on award.

Commercial summary. Single fixed price of $60,000 exclusive of GST. Milestone-billed across six phases. A deposit on contract signing - amount flexible to fit whatever Council's available budget envelope is at the time. We can mobilise within two weeks of contract signature, subject to Council's budget endorsement on 12 May.

Alice Springs deserves a plan that holds up when it lands in front of councillors. We're keen to do this work properly. Thanks for considering us.

What Council is asking for

Alice Springs Town Council is commissioning a Community Inclusion Plan - a 3-5 year plan that evolves the existing Multicultural Action Plan into a broader scope covering seven cohorts: First Nations people, multicultural communities, people with disability, LGBTQIA+ community members, seniors, children and young people, and women and girls.

Council wants the plan held together by an intersectionality framework, weighted toward face-to-face engagement, split clearly between Council direct remit and advocacy role, and politically legible enough for elected members to defend in forum.

Our approach

Five principles, applied in order:

1. Intersectionality as framework, not garnish - every action tagged across primary, ripple and universal impact
2. Lived experience as primary voice, peak bodies as framing - peak body positions become prompts in lived-experience sessions, not substitutes for them
3. Co-design as method, not decoration - cohorts help shape the consultation design used with their own community
4. Differentiated engagement per cohort - a single method doesn't fit seven different cohorts
5. Council as partner and host - elected members open and close consultation streams; deliberative sessions are facilitator-led only, to protect participant candour

The proposal sets out the shape of the work. The specifics - whose voices come first, where sessions run, which community pathways open the engagement - are Council's calls to make with us in the project planning meeting that follows award. The shape is set; the specifics get built with you on award.

What we could produce

Possibilities, not commitments. Phase 0 shapes the actual mix - some, all, or none of what's below.

• A CIP Action Plan (drafted content), 3-5 year horizon, intersectionality-tagged, with a clear direct-remit / advocacy split
• A consultation evidence report with cohort-by-cohort findings and consented lived-experience voice
• Council forum and sign-off presentation packs for the Phase 4 pulse check and Phase 6 endorsement
• A handful of reusable tools Council could keep using afterwards - intersectionality matrix, advocacy ledger, engagement playbook, voice library, contact register, First Nations engagement protocol, self-evaluation framework. Some, all, or none.

Headline timeline

Six phases, June 2026 to January 2027, anchored by a Council forum pulse check on 26 November 2026. All timelines are indicative and subject to community access - remote consultation in Central Australia is governed by weather, cultural calendar and community rhythm, not Gantt charts.

Participant remuneration billed at cost as a separate pass-through line.

Why us

Two principals, complementary.

Lukas Blom · Project Lead. Operations practitioner. Most recently Chief Operating Officer at Casa Services, an Alice Springs NDIS SIL provider running 24/7 disability supports - a three-year HR Manager-to-COO progression that built the people systems, clinical governance, and frontline capability. Before Casa: Business Manager at NT Government through the pandemic, including 15 months running the COVID quarantine facility in Alice Springs. Long-running connection to Drug & Alcohol Services Association (DASA) - frontline, corporate services, and current Board director. Founder of Trilemma Grappling, a small Alice Springs business. MBA (Deakin), member of the Institute of Public Accountants, Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Property & Real Estate. Born and raised in Mparntwe with family roots in town. This is home, not a contract destination.

Jo Henryks · Lead facilitator. Twelve years working in Central Australia - Senior Consultant at Matrix on Board (Alice Springs, 2014-2017) facilitating board, CEO and remote-NT engagements, plus 9 years independent management consulting practice across Central Australia and South Australia. PhD-grounded research rigour - former Assistant Professor in advertising and marketing communication at University of Canberra (2010-2014, 30+ peer-reviewed papers, NH&MRC Chief Investigator), Acting Associate Dean Research. Specialist in program / service evaluation, stakeholder consultation, and women-led coaching. Leads the disability cohort.

Conflict of interest declared and managed (Section 9).

We've already done some demographic groundwork - census analysis, NDIS data scoping, 42-plan benchmarking - so Phase 0 starts with the dossier on the table, not blank pages.

The work is led from town, designed for the place, and built to be owned by Council from the moment we hand it over.

The Community Inclusion Plan is the evolution of ASTC's Multicultural Action Plan into a full inclusion plan covering seven cohorts: First Nations people, multicultural communities, people with disability, LGBTQIA+ community members, seniors, children and young people, and women and girls. It spans 3-5 years and will be endorsed by Council before entering a year-on-year delivery allocation.

From the scoping conversations with Carmel and Kate, our read is that you want a plan that is:

• Ambitious but survivable - KPIs that stretch Council without setting it up to fail
• Face-to-face weighted - surveys alone don't work as the primary instrument for multicultural, First Nations or seniors cohorts in this town
• Intersectional by design - so actions benefiting one cohort carry across cross-sections rather than siloing
• Split clearly between Council direct remit and advocacy role - so what sits inside Council's power and what sits outside it are both visible
• Politically legible - something the Mayor and elected members can stand behind and defend in forum
• Integrated with Council's inflight work - MAP carryovers, Council Connects events, and existing pillars like Seniors Month (August) folded into the CIP rather than treated as separate streams

If any of this reads differently than you intended, we adjust. What follows is the shape of the work from where we sit now - a starting point for the conversation, not a prescription.

Desktop research and benchmarking

The RFQ scope of work specifies desktop research. We've front-loaded ours - two substantial pieces of desktop work already sit underneath this proposal. Both are standalone documents we hand over on request, and they're listed as deliverables in §8.

Cohort Intersectionality Research Dossier. ABS Census 2021 figures for LGA70200, ERP rebasing, PES-adjusted First Nations range, modelled disability and LGBTIQA+ rates, 16 pairwise and triple cohort intersections. Every figure flagged MEASURED, MODELLED, or ESTIMATED with source and methodology. The cohort numbers below come from this.

Comparator Plan Deep Synthesis. 42 council inclusion and reconciliation plans across 28 LGAs and bodies (Australia, Aotearoa NZ, Canada, UK), read in PDF form with page-referenced evidence. 11 deep profiles, 28 medium reads, 5 scans. 22 named innovations, 12 named anti-patterns, 26 pull quotes. The page-referenced quotes throughout this proposal (Auckland Framework p.4, Wollongong AEF p.15, Ballarat p.35, Melbourne p.5) all come from this synthesis.

The reading was done out of personal interest as much as method - the only way to know what good looks like is to read what councils have actually shipped. That work is also why the proposal is the shape it is.

The cohort numbers, briefly

From the research dossier we built in preparation. Every figure flagged MEASURED, MODELLED, or ESTIMATED with source.

• LGA resident population 25,912 (Census 2021); 29,693 ERP (June 2024). Service catchment is 40,000-50,000 across 1.2 million km² - Council infrastructure (library, parks, events, footpaths) serves both resident and visiting populations without statistical distinction. The plan should name which population each intervention is for.
• First Nations: 5,343 Census (20.6%); PES-adjusted range 6,300-6,700 (24-26%) accounting for the documented 17.4% national Indigenous undercount. 46% of the First Nations cohort is under 25.
• Disability: ~5,545 LGA residents (~21.4%, all-disability prevalence modelled from ABS SDAC 2022). 904 NDIS active participants in Alice Springs (T) LGA as at 31 December 2025 (NDIS data, dataresearch.ndis.gov.au) - the permanent-and-significant disability subset eligible for NDIS supports.
• Multicultural: 8,532 born overseas (32.9%); 10,882 with at least one parent born overseas (42.0%); 1,788 speak an Australian Indigenous language at home (6.9%).
• Seniors: 5,531 aged 55+ (21.3%); 2,481 aged 65+ (9.6%).
• Children & young people: 8,174 aged 0-24 (31.5%); 2,470 of these are First Nations.
• LGBTIQA+ figures are entirely modelled. The 2021 Census did not collect sexual orientation or gender identity. Primary consultation with Rainbow Territory, NTAHC, and Sistergirl / Brotherboy representatives - consistent with Council's existing reliance on peak bodies for this cohort - is the only way the Plan can make defensible claims here.

Full dossier with confidence flags and methodology notes available on request.

Five principles we'd defend publicly. These are how we think about the work. The how of delivery - where sessions run, who's in the room, which voices come first - we build with Council in the project planning meeting.

The orienting frame, drawn from Auckland Council's measurement architecture: Council's contribution and Council's measurement are Council's; the outcomes themselves belong to the people the plan is for. The principles below sit inside that frame.

1. Intersectionality as framework, not garnish. Every action in the final plan is tagged across three impact layers - primary (direct benefit to named cohort), ripple (trickle-down to adjacent cohorts), universal (benefit to whole community). This is testable, defensible, and gives Council a language for defending ambitious actions when budgets get debated.
2. Lived experience as primary voice, peak bodies as framing. Peak body positions (NDIS, NTCOSS, Lhere Artepe, Tangentyere) become prompts inside lived-experience sessions, not substitutes for them. A peak body can tell us what the literature says; people who live the reality tell us whether the literature matches their life.
3. Co-design as method, not decoration. Cohorts help shape the consultation design that will be used with their own community. The instruments are built with participants, not handed to them. Sessions test and refine as we go rather than arriving pre-baked.
4. Differentiated engagement per cohort. One-size-fits-all consultation produces one-size-fits-none plans. See Section 5 for the engagement method matrix.
5. Council as partner and host, with deliberate distance from the facilitation. Elected members open and close the consultation streams to signal legitimacy and to demonstrate they are listening. Deliberative sessions themselves are facilitator-only - this protects the candour of participants, which is the point of consulting them at all.

The shape we have in mind for how Council shows up

A starting point for Council's role in the consultation itself. We'd confirm the specifics with you in project planning, informed by Mayor and elected member availability and any existing Council practice we should align with.

We understand intersectionality

Intersectionality is the principle that's easiest to claim and hardest to operationalise. We've modelled it - 16 pairwise and triple cohort intersections computed at LGA level in the research dossier we built for this proposal. A few worth flagging:

• First Nations × Women: 2,859 (11.0% of LGA, MEASURED Census 2021).
• First Nations × Seniors 55+: 808 (3.1% of LGA, 15.1% of First Nations cohort, MEASURED). Elder engagement protocol territory.
• Disability × First Nations: ~2,030 (MODELLED, NATSIHS 2018-19). The intersection where Lukas's COI and Jo's lead-facilitation matter most.
• Disability × Children & young people 0-24: ~988 (3.8%, MODELLED). NDIS-system rollout sits here.
• LGBTQIA+ × First Nations: ~205 (MODELLED, range 170-260). Brotherboy / Sistergirl identity sits here, not in the LGBTQIA+ category alone.
• Women × Disability × First Nations: the dossier flags this triple as NOT COMPUTED with confidence. NATSIHS microdata or primary consultation is required. The plan should not pretend to know this number; the engagement should generate it.

Pairwise and triple intersections inform every cell of the Engagement Method Matrix below. Where the modelled number gets thin, we name it as a primary-consultation priority rather than fudging.

City of Melbourne arrived at the same call after a 149-member review of their inclusion plans. The CIP we'd commission for ASTC follows that line - the bounded scope is deliberate.

5.1 The Engagement Method Matrix

The Engagement Method Matrix maps seven cohorts against six engagement methods. Each cell is coded for whether the method is primary, secondary, or not appropriate for that cohort, with a short rationale. Full details in Appendix E.

The matrix is a tool, not a plan. It shows we know which methods fit which cohorts and why. The actual session plan - how many sessions, where, who leads, which touchpoints get used - is built with Council in the project planning meeting, using the matrix as a starting point and Council's existing community access as the guide.

5.2 What we've thought about per cohort

Indicative starting points only. Council confirms the shape in project planning, based on who you already know, what you've already tried, and where you want us to push.

• First Nations - cultural authority-led approaches where appropriate (see Section 6); yarning circles; elder honoraria at appropriate rates; protocols built ahead of consultation, not during it.
• Multicultural - language-appropriate facilitation; integration with existing CALD networks and events Council already runs, rather than standalone sessions where possible.
• Disability - lived-experience workshops and 1:1s led by Jo (see Section 9 for COI management); peak body framing via NDIS and national advocacy organisations.

Visibility-and-fatigue is the cohort risk every disability action in this CIP must answer to.

• Women & girls - co-design with established women's services and DFV networks; intersectional lens throughout (Aboriginal women, CALD women, women with disability); targeted sessions on safety, leadership, financial security, health.
• LGBTQIA+ - community-network-led where a network exists; visible inclusion across other cohort sessions; Sistergirl / Brotherboy pathway recognised within the First Nations engagement stream.
• Seniors - short 1:1 format at existing 50+ centres; paper complement for participants who won't use iPads or online forms; touchpoint-based rather than standalone workshops (water aerobics, seniors expo, 50+ centre drop-ins). Seniors Month (August) is a natural consultation pillar - we'd align Phase 2 timing accordingly.
• Children & young people - youth-led co-design; school partnerships; age-appropriate consent and ethics protocols; family-friendly engagement at Council events.

None of this is locked. The project planning meeting is where we build the actual plan.

5.3 Council's role in consultation

Council's role inside the consultation itself is set out in Section 4. During the engagement, communications between us and Council run through Carmel as primary point of contact, with additional touchpoints by mutual agreement.

5.4 Data collection and analysis

Consistent capture template across all sessions - demographic, theme, direct quote (with consent), action seed. Thematic analysis runs against the intersectionality framework. Lived experience voice is quoted directly in the final plan where consent is given. Data visualisation includes cohort overlap heatmaps, thematic clustering and action-ripple diagrams.

5.5 Tools the engagement could leave behind

Three reusable assets that arise organically from running consultation well. Not committed deliverables - if they earn their place in the work, we package them up for Council. Phase 0 decides.

• Engagement playbook - short internal document capturing what worked and what didn't per cohort. Council's team uses it for future consultations without recommissioning us.
• Lived experience voice library - consented audio/video clips catalogued for internal Council use in advocacy, communications and councillor briefings. Internal asset, not for public publication.
• Cohort contact register - consent-based register of community members willing to be re-engaged. Future-proofs Council's community relationships so the network doesn't leave when we do.

Treated as a standalone section because it is the work on which the plan will be most publicly judged. Alice Springs's ~21% First Nations LGA population, its function as services hub for thousands of remote-community residents, and the Mparntwe custodian / Lhere Artepe distinction all make this the section where doing it properly matters most.

6.1 What we bring to this work

Before the three substantive items below, one acknowledgement we make explicit. Council asking for engagement creates load on Aboriginal organisations and individuals.

ASTC sits at the receiving end of more such demand than most LGAs in Australia. The way we engage in Phase 2 has to mitigate the load Council itself creates - through audited consultation density on Lhere Artepe, Tangentyere, and apmereke-artweye representatives before any Phase 2 contact, and through commissioned ACCO-led pathways that take work off the same handful of voices.

Three things Council should know we've thought about before we start.

The Lowitja framework as our check

Butler et al. 2025 (Lowitja Institute) sets out six tests distinguishing authentic co-design from faux-design: Aboriginal leadership of design and evaluation; community benefit as primary measure; cultural grounding; Indigenous data sovereignty; legitimacy of refusal; dedicated resources for culturally safe processes. We use this as an internal check at every phase. If the plan can't pass these tests, it isn't ready.

The Mparntwe / Lhere Artepe distinction

We've read the 2020 public statement that distinguished apmereke-artweye cultural authority from statutory corporation status. Engagement with custodians and engagement with Lhere Artepe are not the same conversation. Where those pathways converge or diverge in this project is Council's to call - we bring the understanding that they aren't interchangeable.

Rates, protocols and reciprocity already scoped

We've done the homework on Welcome to Country fees, elder honoraria, interpreter costs via the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, cultural knowledge holder fees, community researcher day rates, and participant reimbursement. Indicative ranges are in the fee schedule. These are set and protected before consultation begins, not treated as residual cost. If Council has existing rates or precedents we should align with, we'll adopt those.

6.2 What we'll build together

The specifics of governance and engagement are Council's starting points, not ours to prescribe.

Whose voices come first is Council's call. We expect Council will identify preferred First Nations voices and contacts - the relationships you already have, the pathways you already trust. Our role is to supplement where useful, not to substitute. Where the consultation calls for engagement with a cohort Council doesn't already have a pathway to, we offer our networks as a starting point - Council confirms the fit, we make the introduction.

Lhere Artepe MOU acknowledged. Council has an existing MOU with Lhere Artepe and that institutional relationship is in place. The engagement complements it by hearing from individuals across the broader First Nations community - because everyone has an agenda, and institutional voice and lived voice are not the same thing. Both forms of voice matter; the engagement design respects that distinction.

Governance shape follows that. We've held open the possibility of further formal arrangements with Aboriginal-controlled organisations, advisory bodies, or community-authority co-facilitation - all of which we know how to set up. Which structure fits this project is a project planning conversation, informed by whose voices Council wants foregrounded and how those voices prefer to be engaged.

Cultural authority-led approaches where appropriate. Some sessions will need a First Nations co-facilitator in the room. Others won't. That call is made cohort by cohort, session by session, in the engagement plan we co-design with Carmel in Phase 0.

6.3 Durable asset

One option, depending on the shape the engagement takes: document the protocol as a standalone reusable asset - written from what worked, available to Council beyond this commission. A permanent capability uplift if it earns its place; left out if Council prefers not to formalise.

Six phases, June 2026 to January 2027, anchored by a Council forum pulse check in late November.

Inside the $60,000, the kind of work we could produce. Phase 0 shapes the actual mix - some, all, or none of what's below, plus anything not listed that Council needs. Nothing here is locked in by the proposal.

Work we could produce

1. CIP Action Plan (drafted content). 3-5 year horizon, structured into short-term (year 1), medium-term (years 2-3), and long-term (years 4-5) actions. Action-plan-with-KPIs format, less granular than the MAP per Carmel's guidance. Clear split between Council direct remit and advocacy role. Intersectionality tagging per action. Resourcing map for ambitious actions. Alignment with NT Disability Strategy 2022-32 and NT Disability Action Plan 2 (2025-29) referenced.
2. Consultation evidence report. Methodology summary, cohort-by-cohort findings, direct lived-experience voice (consented), demographic and thematic data visualisations.
3. Desktop research / benchmarking report. 42 council inclusion and reconciliation plans across 28 LGAs and bodies (Australia, NZ, Canada, UK), profiled with page-referenced evidence. Satisfies the RFQ scope-of-work desktop research item and lifts directly into Council's procurement and policy library.
4. Council forum presentation pack. Slide deck for the Phase 4 pulse check, plus councillor Q&A prep notes.
5. Final sign-off presentation pack. Updated deck for Phase 6 presentation.

Tools that may arise from the work

Reusable assets that can arise organically from running the engagement well. Not committed deliverables - the patterns below are drawn from work we've done. If they earn their place in the engagement, we package them up. Council picks which (if any) get formalised.

• Intersectionality matrix tool - testing future actions against primary/ripple/universal impact
• Council advocacy ledger - advocacy-role actions extracted into a structured tool with state/federal targets, timing and owners
• Engagement playbook - reusable field guide per cohort
• Lived experience voice library - internal-use consented clips
• Cohort contact register - consent-based re-engagement register
• First Nations engagement protocol - reusable standalone document
• Self-evaluation framework - year-on-year progress tracking, designed for Council self-service

What Council provides (not in scope)

Graphic design of the final plan, translations, publications (print and digital), venue access and introductions, internal facilitation support, iPad-based data collection at existing events, catering.

9.1 The collaboration

Dead Pegs Works (Lukas Blom) and Jo Henryks (independent consultant) in a 50/50 delivery partnership.

9.2 Roles

• Jo Henryks - lead facilitator, disability cohort lead, methodology architect
• Lukas Blom · Project Lead - Alice Springs operations lead, non-disability cohort facilitation, data synthesis, methodology refinement, Council liaison

9.3 Governance and communication

Suggested rhythm: fortnightly check-ins with Carmel and Kate via phone or Teams during the consultation phase, milestone progress updates at named points (Phase 1, Phase 2 mid-point, Phase 3), formal risk and issue escalation documented at kickoff. Carmel and Kate sit inside the work as co-shapers, not just at handover - Council shapes the plan with us, not just receives it. Council shapes the actual cadence to whatever fits the work.

9.4 Conflict of interest declaration

Declared

Lukas Blom is Programs Manager and 2IC at Disability Advocacy Services (DAS), Alice Springs. Disability is an in-scope cohort for this Community Inclusion Plan.

Management. Jo leads all disability cohort consultation sessions. Lukas recuses from disability lived-experience sessions where there is a conflict of interest. Peak body framing for disability sourced from NDIS, AED Legal and national advocacy bodies, with Jo approaching DAS directly where relevant to the plan. Declaration made visible to Carmel and councillors at project start.

(a) No data from DAS's internal systems. Client records, case notes, referral data and other information held in DAS's case management systems are not used as inputs to this project. Lukas does not draw on his role at DAS to access or share this material.

(b) Consultation disclosures handled like any consultation. Where participants disclose information during consultation sessions - including advocacy needs, service gaps, or personal experiences - this is treated as consultation data and handled under the project's standard consent and confidentiality protocols, as it would be by any consultant. Participants expressing an immediate advocacy need are provided with general information about available services in Central Australia (of which DAS is one). No formal referral pathway is established between this project and DAS, and Lukas does not discuss consultation disclosures with DAS colleagues.

Additional disclosure. Lukas is a board member at DASA (Drug and Alcohol Services Australia), disclosed for completeness.

The case studies below are selected for direct relevance to the Community Inclusion Plan scope.

Lukas Blom · Casa Services · COO (Jan 2024 - Nov 2025)

Three-year HR Manager-to-COO progression at an Alice Springs NDIS SIL provider running 24/7 disability supports. Built clinical governance, frontline capability, compliance discipline. Most relevant to this CIP: complex multi-stakeholder engagement in Mparntwe where the same community voices sit on multiple advisory groups.

Lukas Blom · NT Government · Business Manager (Oct 2019 - Jul 2022)

Three roles in 2 years 10 months including 15 months running The Ross COVID-19 Quarantine Facility. Multi-stakeholder coordination across Health, Police, ACCOs, federal logistics and community - structurally similar to a CIP rollout in execution.

Lukas Blom · DASA · staff 2014-2018, Board director 2016-present

Frontline through corporate services for four-plus years; on the Board since 2016. The first Alice Springs NFP Lukas knew from the inside.

Lukas Blom · Trilemma Grappling · Founder (Jan 2021-present)

Co-founder of an Alice Springs jiu-jitsu club. Five-plus years running a small community-facing local business.

Lukas Blom · Dead Pegs Works · owner-operator

Alice Springs consulting practice for NFPs in remote and regional Australia. Current engagement (Apr - Sep 2026): MHACA organisational capacity building, co-led with Matrix on Board, NTPHN-funded - direct work at the disability / mental-health service-system intersection.

Lukas Blom · qualifications and home

MBA (Deakin), Member of the Institute of Public Accountants, BCom, B Property & Real Estate. Born and raised in Mparntwe with family roots in town - lives where the CIP lands.

Jo Henryks · Senior Consultant, Matrix on Board · Alice Springs · 2014-2017

Three-year senior consulting role in Alice Springs, working with NT not-for-profit and community-controlled organisations on board planning, business planning, risk management, program and service evaluations, and digital communications strategies. Built a portfolio of repeat and referral clients, generally working at Board and CEO level. Led on-site facilitation in remote NT locations. Applied and developed Matrix proprietary methodologies for organisational planning and stakeholder engagement. Relevant to this CIP for direct experience facilitating senior-stakeholder engagement in remote NT contexts, methodology rigour at the program / service evaluation layer, and ongoing trusted relationships with NT NFPs. Specific client list available on request, subject to confidentiality.

Jo Henryks · Independent management consultant · 2017-present

Nine years independent consulting practice across Central Australia and South Australia. Areas of work include coaching, business and strategic planning, strategic marketing, business-unit reviews, program and service reviews and evaluations, stakeholder consultations, and facilitation. A particular methodology depth sits in women-led leadership coaching - helping women in NFP and business leadership carve out reflective, intentional planning space. Doctoral training in research methodology and a former Assistant Professor role in marketing communication at University of Canberra underpin the research rigour she brings to applied consulting. Relevant to this CIP for the women-and-girls cohort lens, methodology rigour at the engagement-design and evaluation layer, and a 30-year track record turning research into actionable advice for senior decision-makers.

Referees

Three referees nominated, contactable, and briefed on this proposal. Full contact details in Appendix D.

• Referee 1 · [TBC]
• Referee 2 · [TBC]
• Referee 3 · [TBC]

A full risk register is attached as Appendix F. The summary below captures the principal risks and how we manage them.

L = likelihood, I = impact. L = Low, M = Medium, H = High.

Four QA approaches we'd suggest. The actual checks come together with Council in Phase 0 - some of these, none of them, or others not listed.

• Peer review. All consultation materials, draft content and the final plan get peer-reviewed across Jo and Lukas before they reach Council or participants. No single-author drafts go out.
• Forum pulse check as formal feedback loop. Phase 4 is built into the timeline specifically so Council can interrogate the draft before sign-off rather than after. Feedback is documented and traced through to the final draft.
• Lived experience voice verification. Participants whose words appear in the final plan review and sign off their own quotation before publication. A consent standard, not an editorial one.
• Alignment check. The final plan is cross-referenced against the NT Disability Strategy 2022-32, NT Disability Action Plan 2 (2025-29), Council's advocacy document, and any existing ASTC RAP or strategic commitments, before submission for endorsement.

Dead Pegs Works · Dead Pegs Pty Ltd · ACN 696 698 870 · ABN 32 696 698 870. Professional Indemnity via BizCover / Lloyd's, policy S0B/64203/000/26/P, $1M per claim / $2M aggregate. Certificate attached as Appendix B.

Jo Henryks · independent consultant · ABN and PI details to be attached pre-submission.

Public liability · confirmed in place for both entities. Certificates in Appendix B.

Working With Children Checks · NT WWC checks held / to be held by both Jo and Lukas ahead of any Phase 2 consultation activity involving under-18s.

Referees · three nominated, contactable, with permission secured prior to submission. See Section 10 and Appendix D.

Single fixed price. No tiered options. All amounts below are quoted exclusive of GST.

Milestone billing

• Deposit on contract signing. Amount flexible - we'll work with whatever fits Council's available budget envelope at signing.
• Phase 1 milestone (engagement plan approved)
• Phase 2 milestone (consultation complete)
• Phase 4 milestone (forum pulse check delivered)
• Final sign-off

Specific milestone percentages confirmed in Phase 0.

Exclusions (Council to provide or cover separately)

• Venue hire for consultation sessions
• Catering for participants, facilitators and ASTC staff
• Graphic design of the final plan
• Translation of the final plan into community languages
• Publication and printing
• ASTC internal staff time supporting logistics

Variations

Scope changes managed via written variation with a fixed-price adjustment. No hourly rates. Travel within Alice Springs LGA is included.

Invoicing

For administrative simplicity, the collaboration invoices ASTC via a single entity. Our default is Dead Pegs Works as primary invoicing entity, with Jo invoicing the collaboration directly. Alternative arrangements can be put in place if Council has a procurement preference.

On award · the project planning meeting

Everything else - whose voices come first, which community co-facilitators, exact session counts, venue planning, the engagement materials themselves, Mayor and elected member session attendance, First Nations governance pathway - is the work of the Phase 0 project planning meeting. The proposal is a vessel. We fill it in together.

What we're ready to do

We can mobilise within two weeks of contract signature. Phase 0 is deliberately light so front-end work can start on administrative rails - engagement plan sign-off, governance pathways opened, materials co-designed - before participant-facing sessions begin in Phase 2.

• A. CVs - Jo Henryks, Lukas Blom
• B. Insurance certificates - Dead Pegs Works (PI, PL); Jo Henryks (PI, PL)
• C. Sample work / case study extracts - supporting Section 10
• D. Referee contact details - three nominated referees with role, organisation, and relationship to the work
• E. Cohort engagement plan detail - the Engagement Method Matrix and supporting notes, deeper than Section 5
• F. Full risk register - expanded version of Section 11, with mitigation owners and trigger indicators