First Nations data sovereignty (otherwise known as Indigenous data sovereignty, IDS or ID-SOV) is critical to First Nations health and wellbeing, and has meaningful implications for First Nations sovereignty more broadly.
Data is an asset that affects people both individually and collectively. Access to and control over data means First Nations peoples have control over their lives, stories, truths and health. It can also strengthen community governance, increase the relevance, quality and accuracy of data, better inform policy and funding decisions and improve service delivery outcomes.
First Nations data sovereignty goes beyond making existing government-held data relating to First Nations people more accessible. It requires First Nations people to have decision-making authority over what counts as data, how it is collected, who controls it, and how it is used. Without these measures, data risks being misused in ways that perpetuate colonial policies and systems.
Sophisticated knowledge systems have sustained First Nations culture for thousands of years. Any information and/or knowledge in any format that is about First Nations peoples or influences their lives – including knowledge about resources, culture, archives, language, health and governance – is data that First Nations peoples have the right to collect, access, analyse, interpret, manage, disseminate and reuse.
The Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective and the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute explain the following key terms:
The discussion of Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance (IDG) in so-called Australia is part of an Indigenous-led global Indigenous Data Sovereignty movement that is focused on the rights of First Nations people to govern the creation, collection, ownership, and application of their data.
The fight for data sovereignty is not new. Since invasion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been subjected to the extractive approach of settler-colonial institutions which position First Nations people as objects of study rather than sovereign peoples.
As governments increasingly rely on data to inform policy and decision-making, First Nations people have often been unwilling targets of policy interventions based on data collected without their input, leading to harmful policy outcomes. From the surveillance and classification of First Nations peoples under protectionist and assimilation policies to misrepresentations in contemporary research and government reporting, data has been used as a tool of control rather than empowerment. This includes data collection methods that prioritise state and institutional interests.
Maiam nayri WingaraData is a cultural, strategic, and economic asset for Indigenous peoples. Indigenous Australians have always been active in what is now known as ‘data’. Yet in modern times we have been isolated from the language, control and production of data at community, state and national levels. This has resulted in data that are overly focused on Indigenous peoples as the problem. Existing data and data infrastructure does not recognise or privilege our knowledges and worldviews nor meet our current and future needs.
In the context of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (CTG), Indigenous Data Sovereignty is essential to meeting the Agreement’s objectives and ensuring that data serves the interests of First Nations people rather than reinforcing colonial power structures.
Priority Reform Four of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is centred around First Nations data. Specifically, it calls for shared access to data and information at a regional level in order to support and enable the achievement of the first three Priority Reforms. And while IDS is not explicitly mentioned in the Agreement, there is significant overlap between IDS and Priority Reform Four.
In consultation with the Productivity Commission, who conducted a thorough review of the National Agreement, First Nations people overwhelmingly emphasised that IDS was the underlying aspiration of Priority Reform Four. They also agreed that disaggregated data and information (data that has been broken down by detailed sub-categories) is most useful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities. Access to such data enables communities to develop a comprehensive picture of what is happening in their communities and to use this information for local decision-making.
However, the Productivity Commission’s Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap found that governments at all levels are failing to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led data initiatives. In particular, the review found that:
The Productivity Commission identified three key IDS elements missing from Priority Reform 4:
In order to better work toward the outcomes in Priority Reform Four, the Productivity Commission recommended explicitly including IDS as part of the outcome statement for Priority Reform Four.
Importantly, the Commission also noted that the way ‘First Nations data’ is conceived of should be broadened to include not just data related to programs, policies and performance metrics (which are mostly the focus of the current Agreement) but information relating to broader First Nations interests, such as environments, culture and cultural heritage, languages and resources. This includes academic research, cultural heritage collections, archival and museum practice, and intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge, art and stories – none of which are currently captured under the commitments in Priority Reform Four.
The National Agreement presents an opportunity to embed IDS principles into policy and practice. However, as the Productivity Commission’s review has demonstrated, governments must take meaningful steps to implement Priority Reform Four in ways that genuinely respect and empower First Nations communities.
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which affirms the right of Indigenous peoples to make decisions about matters affecting them, including the collection, use, and management of their data. Without FPIC, data collection risks reinforcing colonial power dynamics and undermining First Nations self-determination.
The right to data sovereignty is further enshrined in several UNDRIP articles. In particular, Article 31.1 states that First Nations and Indigenous peoples possess the inherent right “to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions” and that nation states have a particular responsibility to recognise and protect the exercise of these rights.
The Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective is a collective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics who advocate for the rights of First Nations people in relation to data, informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Similarly, the Indigenous Data Network (IDN) is a national network of Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, university research partners, First Nations businesses and government agencies and departments working to maximise the optimal collection, access and use of data resources for community empowerment.
Data sovereignty is essential to decolonising data governance in Australia. By ensuring that First Nations people have control over their own data, IDS challenges colonial legacies of extraction and misrepresentation.
Ultimately, First Nations data must be collected and managed in ways that respect First Nations self-determination. This means embedding cultural safety throughout all data processes and respecting First Nations governance structures, knowledge systems, and cultural protocols.
An example of how cultural safety can be embedded into digital archives is Mukurtu, a First Nations-controlled data management platform. Platforms like Mukurtu allow First Nations communities to store, manage, and control access to their cultural and intellectual property in ways that align with community protocols and traditions. Living archives, such as the Monash Country Lines Archive, also provide mechanisms for First Nations peoples to (re)connect with their histories, cultures, and knowledge systems.
There are also two key frameworks to guide ethical First Nations data governance: the FAIR and CARE principles.
IDS requires that both the FAIR and CARE principles be applied to First Nations governance of data.
Ultimately, data sovereignty shifts power away from colonial institutions and towards community-led ownership and decision-making. Implementing data sovereignty frameworks is therefore a critical step toward decolonising knowledge production and information repositories and ensuring that data serves First Nations interests rather than perpetuating harmful colonial legacies.
Strengthening First Nations Data Sovereignty within the Closing the Gap framework is one important aspect of this overall movement, and requires recognising First Nations authority over data as well as ensuring that First Nations people have the resources and support necessary to lead data governance initiatives. By doing so, data can become a tool for self-determination rather than control – ensuring that First Nations people and communities can shape their lives and futures in the ways most important to them.
