Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the Era of Big Data and Open Data

Abstract

Indigenous Data Sovereignty, in its proclamation of the right of Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, ownership , and application of data, recognises data as a cultural and economic asset. The impact of data are magnified by the emergence of Big Data and the associated impetus to open publicly held data (Open Data). Aboriginal and Tor-res Strait Islander peoples, families and communities, heavily overrepresented in social disadvantage related data will also be overrepresented in the application of these new technologies. But, in a data landscape Indigenous peoples remain largely alienated from the use of data and its utilization within the channels of policy power. Existing data infrastructure , and the emerging Open Data infrastructure, neither recognise Indigenous agency, worldviews nor consider Indigenous data needs. This is demonstrated in the absence of any consideration of Indigenous data issues Open Data discussions and publication. So, while the potential benefits of this data revolution are trumpeted, our marginalised social, cultural and political location suggest we will not share equally in these benefits. This paper discusses the unforeseen (and likely unseen) consequences of the influence Open data and Big Data and discusses how Indigenous Data Sovereignty can mediate risks while providing pathways to collective benefits.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the era of Big
Data and Open Data
Maggie Walter
1
Raymond Lovett
2
Bobby Maher
2
Bhiamie Williamson
2
Jacob Prehn
1
Gawaian Bodkin-Andrews
3
Vanessa Lee
4
1
University of Tasmania, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia
2
Australian National University,
Australian Capital Territory, Canberra,
Australia
3
University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
4
The University of Sydney, Lidcombe,
New South Wales, Australia
Correspondence
Maggie Walter, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Email: margaret.walter@utas.edu.au
Received 7 July 2020. Revised 1 October
2020. Accepted 1 October 2020
Abstract
Indigenous Data Sovereignty, in its proclamation of the
right of Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, own-
ership, and application of data, recognises data as a cultural
and economic asset. The impact of data are magnified by
the emergence of Big Data and the associated impetus to
open publicly held data (Open Data). Aboriginal and Tor-
res Strait Islander peoples, families and communities, heav-
ily overrepresented in social disadvantage related data will
also be overrepresented in the application of these new
technologies. But, in a data landscape Indigenous peoples
remain largely alienated from the use of data and its utilization
within the channels of policy power. Existing data infrastruc-
ture, and the emerging Open Data infrastructure, neither
recognise Indigenous agency, worldviews nor consider
Indigenous data needs. This is demonstrated in the absence of
any consideration of Indigenous data issues Open Data discus-
sions and publication. So, while the potential benefits of this
data revolution are trumpeted, our marginalised social, cul-
tural and political location suggest we will not share equally
in these benefits. This paper discusses the unforeseen (and
likely unseen) consequences of the influence Open data and
Big Data and discusses how Indigenous Data Sovereignty can
mediate risks while providing pathways to collective benefits.
KEYWORDS
Aboriginal people, accountability, partnerships, policy, productivity
DOI: 10.1002/ajs4.141
Aust J Soc Issues 2020;1–14 ©2020 Australian Social Policy Association 1

1
|
INTRODUCTION
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
1
peoples’lives and futures are intricately entwined with
Indigenous data. The realisation of articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the effectiveness of
Refreshed Closing the Gap partnership and an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are all reliant
on high quality, relevant, disaggregated Indigenous data that reflect Indigenous perspectives,
priorities and needs (Taylor & Kukutai 2015; Davis 2015, 2016). But in Australian national
data collections, the place of Indigenous Peoples is predominantly limited to the object of
study, with data collection firmly focussed on how poorly our populations fare across health,
education, economic participation and other socioeconomic indices. As argued by Indigenous
researchers in Australia and elsewhere, this focus creates a dominant data narrative of Indige-
nous Peoples defined by their statistically measured disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dys-
function and difference (referred to as 5D data) (references omitted to preserve the peer review
process; Smith 2012).
The simplistic, frequently aggregate presentation of such 5D data as found in the plethora of
governments reports (see, e.g., Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage and the health and welfare of
Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) add to the inadequacy of this data environ-
ment. These data neither reflect Indigenous realities nor provide the requisite data resources for
Indigenous communities and First Nations to fully participate in determining our own futures.
What they do reflect is the state-preferred mode for the administrative ordering of an Indigenous
sub-population. And they are powerful. How the state “sees”its Indigenous population/s, is the
data lens by which Indigenous Peoples are made visible. It defines who and what Indigenous
Peoples are, and who and what we are not; it delineates what can be seen and perhaps more criti-
cally, what the state refuses to see (Scott 1998; Andersen 2014; “reference omitted to preserve
the peer review process”).
There are unique Australian issues here, but Indigenous data problematics are common, espe-
cially in the Anglo settler-colonial CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the
United States). Common also is Indigenous dissatisfaction, which has fuelled calls for more rele-
vant, Indigenous-led data frameworks since the mid-1980s (Davis 2016). The continuing lack of
progress in this area is the catalyst for the emergence of the Indigenous Data Sovereignty move-
ment. Centrally concerned with advocating and promoting Indigenous data rights and interests,
Indigenous Data Sovereignty networks are active across the CANZUS countries, including Aus-
tralia.
The emergence of Big Data technologies and the associated impetus for increasing accessibil-
ity to publicly held data (Open Data) create new sites of Indigenous data tensions. These include
notions of risk related to Western ethical and privacy principles and the need to protect Indige-
nous knowledge (Battiste & Youngblood 2000; Kwaymullina 2016; Dunbar & Scrimgeour 2017).
There are potential benefits, but the uncritical public sector enthusiasm for these data innovations
combined with a data infrastructure that does not recognise Indigenous worldviews or consider
Indigenous data quells Indigenous hopes and raises our level of concern (reference omitted to
preserve the peer review process). Heightened by the aligned big business and private sector
interest and investments in the political of data, this paper maps some of the unforeseen (and
likely seen) consequences of these technologies and practices. The paper also overviews people
how Indigenous Data Sovereignty can mediate some of the embedded risks in Open Data while
also providing pathways to, as yet, unrealised Indigenous collective benefit.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
2WALTER ET AL.

2
|
INDIGENOUS DATA AND INDIGENOUS DATA
SOVEREIGNTY
Indigenous data are any data, in any format, that relate to Indigenous Peoples, lands, resources,
communities, lifeways and cultures (Rainie et al. 2019). We limit our discussion to the multitude
of data, largely in digital form that is collected by Government entities, such as government
departments, government statutory authorities and data agencies such as the Australian Bureau of
Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It is these data that are the target of
current Open Data processes (Productivity Commission 2017). They are also a central component
of the Indigenous data problem. The case outlining the inadequate and harmful nature of these
data has been demonstrated repeatedly, in Australia and globally (Kukutai & Taylor 2016b (refer-
ence omitted to preserve the peer review process); Rainie et al. 2019). With their limited scope,
aggregate format, deficit focus and decontextualised framework, these data cannot, and do not,
yield meaningful portraits of the embodied realities of Indigenous lives (“reference omitted to pre-
serve the peer review process”). In their perpetual description of “the problem”in a seemingly end-
less trope of Indigenous deficit, they are themselves part of the problem. They are essentially just
data of surveillance. They bear little resemblance to Indigenous life and, as such, fail to address
the critical, unfulfilled data needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations, commu-
nities or peak organisation (Rainie et al. 2019). The data mismatch map across five categories, as
per Table 1, with existing data labelled by (reference omitted to preserve the peer review process)
as BADDR (Blaming, Aggregate, Decontextualised, Deficit and Restricted) data.
TABLE 1 BADDR data versus Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data needs
Dominant BADDR data Indigenous data needs
Blaming Data Lifeworld Data
Too much data contrasts Indigenous/non-Indigenous
data, rating the problematic Indigene against the
normed Australian as the ubiquitous pejorative
standard
We need data to inform a comprehensive, nuanced
narrative of who we are as peoples, of our culture,
our communities, of our resilience, our goals and our
successes
Aggregate Data Disaggregated Data
Too much data are aggregated at the national and/or
state level implying Indigenous cultural and
geographical homogeneity
We need data that recognises our cultural and
geographical diversity and can provide evidence for
community-level planning and service delivery
Decontextualised Data Contextualised Data
Too much data are simplistic and decontextualised
focussing on individuals and families outside of their
social/cultural context
We need data that are inclusive of the wider social
structural context/complexities in which Indigenous
disadvantage occurs
Deficit, Government Priority Data Indigenous Priority Data
Too much (way too much) 5 D data: This data that
focus on disadvantage, disparity, dysfunction,
difference, deficit (Walter 2016) collected to service
government priorities
We need data that measures not just our problems but
data that address our priorities and agendas
Restricted Access Data Available Amenable Data
Too much data are barricaded away by official
statistical agencies and institutions
We need data that are accessible and amenable to our
requirements
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.3

A key Indigenous response to these and other data failures is Indigenous Data Sovereignty.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty affirms the rights of Indigenous Peoples to determine the means
of collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination and re-use of data per-
taining to the Indigenous Peoples from whom it has been derived, or to whom it relates. It
derives from the inherent rights of self-determination as described in the United Nations Decla-
ration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and includes demand that data be used
in ways that support and enhance Indigenous Peoples collective well-being (Snipp 2016; Kuku-
tai & Taylor 2016a, 2016b; reference omitted to preserve the peer review process). A critical
central tenet of Indigenous Data Sovereignty relevant to Open Data processes is that Indige-
nous data governance rights apply regardless of where the data are held or by whom.
Informed by the ground-breaking work of the Canadian OCAP©(Ownership, Control, Access,
Possession) principles in the late 1990s (FNIGC 2014) and the seminal Workshop on Data
Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current Practices and Future Needs held at the Australian
National University in 2015 Indigenous Data Sovereignty networks are now active globally.
The United States Indigenous Data Sovereignty (USIDSN; usindigenousdata.org), the Te mana
Raraunga Maori Data Sovereignty Network (temanararaunga.maori.nz) and the Maiam nayri
Wingara Australian Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective (maimnayriwingar.org) are core
entities, with these groups coming together to form the Global Indigenous Data Alliance
(GIDA) in 2019 (see GIDA-global.org).
Maiam nayri Wingara is an active advocate for Indigenous data practice change, nationally
and internationally. In 2018, Maiam nayri Wingara, with the Australia Indigenous Governance
Institute, convened a summit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders on Indigenous
Data Sovereignty. Based around the developing international scholarship, including earlier work
on Indigenous data governance in Australia (see Yap & Yu 2016; Smith 2016), this Summit
determined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have the right to exercise control of
the Indigenous data ecosystem. Exercise of control is inclusive of data creation, development,
stewardship, analysis, dissemination and infrastructure to ensure that such data are as follows:
contextual and disaggregated; relevant and empowering of sustainable self-determination and
effective self-governance; accountable to Indigenous Peoples; protective of Indigenous individual
and collective interests (Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit Communique 2018). Maiam nayri
Wingara, via its relationship with the Research Data Alliance (RDA) Indigenous Data Sover-
eignty Working Group and GIDA, participated in the rapid development (May–June 2020) of
guidelines to protect Indigenous data interests in COVID-19 research. These guidelines, part of
the RDA COVID-19 Recommendations and Guidelines on Data Sharing (2020), outlined the
responsibilities of research funders, governments, researchers and data stewards in the collec-
tion, ownership, application, sharing and dissemination of Indigenous data on COVID-19-re-
lated issues. Within Australia, the Indigenous Data Network (IDN), based at the University of
Melbourne, is also active. Most recently, the IDN has undertaken a National Indigenous Aus-
tralians Agency funded project to establish data projects in six communities around Australia
(Wyatt 2020).
3
|
OPEN DATA AND INDIGENOUS INTERESTS
Over the last decade, the notion of Open Data, the idea that data should be available to be freely
used, re-used and redistributed (ODC 2020), has gained favour, globally. The International Open
Data Charter, to which Australia became a signatory to in 2017, describes itself as:
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
4WALTER ET AL.

...a collaboration between over 100 governments and organisations working to open up data
based on a shared set of principles. We push for policies and practices that enable government
to collect, share and use well-governed data, to respond effectively and accountably to our
most pressing, social, economic and environmental challenges. (ODC 2020)
The six principles espoused in the Charter are for data that are: Open by default; timely and
comprehensive, accessible and usable, comparable and interoperable, for improved governance and
citizen’s engagement; and for inclusive development and innovation. These principles are largely
reflected in Australian Open Data strategic plans reflected in documents such as the Public Data
Policy Statement (PMC 2015). More recently, Australia has moved to legislate to support better
sharing of government held data. An Issues Paper was released in 2018, and a Discussion Paper
in 2019. Data reform is now progressing to legislation in the near future under the Data Avail-
ability and Transparency Act (ONDC 2020).
Disturbingly, those in charge of instituting Open Data in Australia refuse to engage with
Indigenous data. In line with the preceding paper from the Productivity Commission (2017) Data
Availability and Use and The Government’s Response to the that paper (PMC 2018), the New
Australian Government Data Sharing and Release Legislation: Issues Paper for Consultation (PMC
2018) do not include any mention of the terms “Indigenous”or “Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander”in the 21-page document. Rather the data sharing principles used the 5-Safe Framework
devised for the United Kingdom Office of National Statistics in 2013. These are outlined, as per
Table 2, in accompanying Best Practice Guide for applying Data Sharing Principles (PMC 2019).
Given the now well-documented inadequacies of current Indigenous data, it would seem obvi-
ous that there are specific Indigenous data safety issues across all 5 themes. Yet, again, the key
document outlining how Australian data will be kept safe under this legislation, also fails to men-
tion the terms Indigenous or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Only after submissions from
Indigenous Peoples and organisations, including Maiam nayri Wingara, highlighting the specific
needs and unique risks to Indigenous Peoples in Open Data, did the next document, Data Sharing
and Release Legislative Reforms Discussions Paper (Commonwealth of Australia 2019), include any
recognition of Indigenous data needs. A new section now says:
We have heard the need to pay close attention to matters related to Indigenous data We
heard concerns relating to Indigenous access to Indigenous data and Indigenous data sover-
eignty. The National Indigenous Australians Agency is in the early stages of developing a
more effective approach to Indigenous data, including a possible whole-of-government Indige-
nous data strategy and we are working together to get it right. (PMC 2019: 7)
Despite such an affirmative statement, as of July 2020 there has been no further word on how
Indigenous data will be “got right.”And the foreshadowed “Whole of Government Indigenous Data
TABLE 2 Five Safes’framework
Safe projects Is this use of the data appropriate?
Safe people Can the users be trusted to use it in an appropriate manner?
Safe settings Does the access facility limit unauthorised use?
Safe data Is there a disclosure risk in the data itself?
Safe outputs Are the statistical results non-disclosive?
Source: Desai et al. (2016), Five Safes: designing data access for research:5.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.5

Strategy”has failed to eventuate. It is our conjecture that the lack of strategy or indeed, a wider
movement from within government, represents a refusal to seriously and meaningfully engage
with Indigenous data sovereignty. There is a fear that this refusal will bear long-term conse-
quences given introduction of Open Data legislation. It is clear that the cursory engagements,
such as those mentioned here, are more platitude than active process.
Yet, the approach we highlight here is supported by substantial academic literature identifying
how government (among others) can meaningfully engage with Indigenous Peoples. As Hunt
(2013:33) states, Indigenous engagement:
...works best in a framework that respects Indigenous control and decision making and sup-
ports development towards Indigenous aspirations. Early engagement to enable deliberation
about shared goals is necessary, and support for Indigenous governance development and
capacity to engage is important.
4
|
SEEING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LIKE A STATE –THE
RISKS OF OPEN DATA
Open Data processes and the place of Indigenous data with these are increasingly identified as a
site of tension, in Australia and globally (Rainie et al. 2019). Yet, the presenting rationale for
opening up government held data are framed almost as an unquestionable good. As per the Best
Practice document (2019:6), data sharing will enable data to be used more effectively to “solve
complex policy issues that can’t be addressed when data remains in siloes across government.”
This is a laudable sentiment. But the stark absence of Indigenous Peoples in the establishment of
Open Data processes is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples more threat than pro-
mise. While the Big Data technologies and its associated Open Data enablers are new to bureau-
cratic thinking, the thinking in relation to Indigenous data remains firmly fixed in the past. Now,
as then, we are invisible and unconsidered. Yet as has been repeatedly shown, Indigenous data
are not just “the data”about Indigenous Peoples. They are data that underpin a data narrative of
deficit (reference omitted to preserve the peer review process). Opening up such data without
appropriate safeguards is far more likely to perpetuate this narrative than solve any complex
Indigenous policy issues (reference omitted to preserve the peer review process).
Scott’s 1998 thesis on how the Nation State makes sense of its populations is useful in unpack-
ing the risks of Indigenous Open Data under the current framework. Scott identifies four intercon-
nected conditions aligned with “seeing like a state”that if co-occurring can translate to policy
disasters of truly epic proportions. Of these, the first two are most directly applicable, but all have
salience. The first condition is the administrative ordering that the State undertakes to make a
society legible (i.e., Census). These, by necessity, use transformative and often radical simplifica-
tions of social environments so that “exceptionally complex, illegible and local social practices”
(1998:2) are standardised to allow central recording and monitoring. The resulting data do not rep-
resent the reality of the society that is being depicted, only the slice that is of interest to the state.
Applied to Indigenous data, it is easy to see that the slice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
social and cultural life of interest to the nation state is limited to those that fit into underpinning
framework of Indigenous Peoples as both problematic and in need (Andersen 2014). Making these
data available to outside researchers and/or data linkage processes will magnify not reduce the def-
icit trope. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are heavily overrepresented in
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
6WALTER ET AL.

datasets that measure disadvantage and inequity, so are highly likely to be the objects of research
and analytical enquiry (reference omitted to preserve the peer review process). With no considera-
tion of the knowledge or capability sets of agency staff or researchers, determinations about how
these data will be used will be made without the expertise, agency, knowledge, involvement or
most particularly, the permission of the Indigenous Peoples to whom those data relate.
The second element of Scott’s (1998) four conditions for policy disaster is what he refers to as
a high-modernist ideology. This term translates to a self-confidence about scientific and technical
progress associated with a presumed rational design for social order. The relatively uncritical
embrace of Big Data and Open Data policies fits very snugly into this definition. And this high
modernist leads directly to another repeat mistake. An embedded belief in the rhetoric on Open
Data is in the potential of the computational power of Big Data technologies, and the huge pools
of administrative data they can analyse will allow social problems to be understood in ways not
previously possible. But more open data or bigger data are not necessarily better data. The value
of the data, no matter the size, depends on the validity and range of the variables represented. If
all that is available is a series of 5D datasets (health inequity, justice system over-representation,
poorer educational outcomes, labour market disadvantage, etc.), then the answer to whatever
complex Indigenous social issue is under investigation, no matter how complex the analysis, will
always be to fix the deficit Indigene (reference omitted to preserve the peer review process). With
nearly 200 years of failed Indigenous Policy based on such data, there is nothing to suggest that
Open Data and Big Data processes will not just lead to more of the same.
The third and fourth elements identified by Scott (1998:5) is an authoritarian state, willing to
use its power to bring high-modernist designs into being, combined with a society that lacks the
capacity to resist the machinations and policy imposition of the state. For Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Peoples, our primary relationship with the Nation State has been and continues to
be framed around coercion (Smith 2012). The Northern Territory Emergency Response, the
forced imposition on Aboriginal communities of “welfare quarantining”(Davey 2017), provides
examples of the heavy ongoing use of State powers in state/Indigenous interactions. As Scott
(1998:97) himself notes, Colonial regimes are particularly prone to social policy experimentation
on Indigenous populations noting that “[A]n ideology of ‘welfare colonialism’combined with the
authoritarian power inherent in colonial rule have encouraged ambitious schemes to remake
native societies.”The marginalised Indigenous position within the Australian nation state means
that we are far more likely to face the dangers inherent in Open Data and less likely to have the
resources or the position at the decision-making policy table to reap any benefits. In data terms,
this power imbalance is manifest in how Indigenous Peoples continue to be so easily erased from
the systems that determine data access, use and interpretation.
5
|
OPERATIONALISING INDIGENOUS RIGHTS:
INDIGENOUS DATA GOVERNANCE
Open Data risks moving Indigenous Peoples, already largely marginalised from Indigenous data
processes, even further away from the decision making on data of which they are the subject (ref-
erence omitted to preserve the peer review process). In Open Data terms, this is not to deny the
potential for good outcomes. Rather, it is our contention that the uncritical bureaucratic approach
limits both the ability of current data stewards to identify the unique risks that Indigenous Peo-
ples may face, or provide the data necessary for Indigenous Peoples, communities and First
Nations to realise their own goals. This is a situation of deep Indigenous unease. One of the
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.7

common responses when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples seek control in relation
to data is that we are seeking special privileges. This line of logic fails to acknowledge that the
majority of other Australians have their power structures entrenched across all societal systems
including across data systems. These same systems were historically excluded Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and it is these systems that continue to exclude Indigenous Peo-
ples from Open Data processes.
Open Data require an Indigenous cultural and social licence and the Indigenous Data Sover-
eignty movement is actively advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous data governance systems
within Open Data systems. Indigenous data governance refers to formal mechanisms, which can
assert Indigenous data interests in relation to the when, how and why of how data are accessed
and used and ensuring Indigenous data practices reflect Indigenous priorities, values, culture and
diversity (Maiam nayri Wingara 2018). This advocacy is national and international. For example,
the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy has called for member govern-
ments to recognise Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the context of big and Open Data (United
Nations 2017; reference omitted to preserve the peer review process) to mitigate, at least to some
extent the significant flaws in mainstream assumptions of ownership, representation and control
in these data communities (Rainie et al. 2019). For example, asserting Indigenous interests casts
a different light on the five Safe principles. Asking if the use of the data are appropriate, whether
the users can be trusted to use it in an appropriate manner, and if there is a disclosure risk in the
data itself are very different questions when asked from the perspective of Indigenous priorities
and values. Similarly asking whether an access facility can limit unauthorised use or whether the
results are non-disclosive has very different dimensions under an Indigenous data governance
framework. The key question is how to effectively navigate the intersections of Indigenous Data
Sovereignty, Indigenous Data Governance and Open Data to achieve impactful outcomes.
The Research Data Alliance (RDA) International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group
nominates three steps that the Open Data community and those constructing the Open Data
infrastructure, can take. The first is the engagement of Indigenous Peoples, not as a group to be
consulted, but as partners and knowledge holders informing the stewardship of data within this
Open Data infrastructure. Second, is the engagement of Indigenous Peoples through capacity
enabled platforms such as the Indigenous Data Sovereignty networks. To be able to participate
meaningfully in Open Data decision making, those at the table need to have data capability.
Third, there needs to be the joint development of principles and protocols around the governance
and stewardship of Indigenous data that are formally applicable to those who currently hold
those data and those who would choose to analyse it (Rainie et al. 2019). None of these steps are
apparent at even the nascent stage in the Australian Open Data infrastructure and Open Data
processes. Rather, advocacy for Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles and Indigenous data gov-
ernance has resulted in interest, little or no implementation. We contend that moving Indigenous
Data Sovereignty principles to an operational form is achievable and offer three options. Each
has different considerations and resource requirements. These are as follows:
1. Incorporation and consideration of Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles into existing data
systems that requires agencies to adopt and implement Indigenous Data Sovereignty princi-
ples and could include an accreditation scheme.
2. Implement Indigenous data governance processes over existing data systems. This requires
the development of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance structure, processes,
procedures and resourcing.
3. Development of an Indigenous data infrastructure and authority with Indigenous governance.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
8WALTER ET AL.

All three mechanisms require the creation and management of data infrastructure that is gov-
erned and led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The infrastructure would provide
the opportunity to progress the Indigenous Data Sovereignty agenda through the development
of a data ecosystem that is responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data needs includ-
ing data development while also repatriating Indigenous data to drive community development
and other needs. The structure could be established under existing processes and be enhanced
through the new legislative framework.
6
|
OPERATIONALISING INDIGENOUS RIGHTS WITHIN
OPEN DATA: FAIR AND CARE
The Australian Open Data infrastructure, similar to those in other nation states, is inclusive of
the FAIR scientific data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). These seek to
transform data for machine readability and other secondary use applications within open science
(Wilkinson et al. 2016). Developed in the Netherlands in 2015, FAIR principles have since been
taken up across the Western world as a way of sharing data that will maximise use and re-use.
The rationale is that making data FAIR, will support data and knowledge integration and pro-
mote sharing and re-use of data. FAIR also moves beyond guidance to providing advice and sup-
port of data-related practices that enable capacities to collect, collate and analyse multiple
datasets (ARDC 2020). The FAIR principles do not mention or address the specific concerns of
Indigenous Peoples in relation to Indigenous Data.
In 2018, the RDA International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group developed the
CARE Principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics). CARE principles
provide external data stakeholders with guidance and advice on governance practices and steward-
ship responsibilities for Indigenous data (IIDSIG 2019). The purpose in developing the CARE
principles is to complement FAIR principles, not displace them. Thus, Open Data Indigenous data
governance requires enacting FAIR, but with CARE. Implementing the CARE principles specifi-
cally address the historical and current power imbalances through the creation of policies and prac-
tices for Indigenous data that are grounded in Indigenous worldviews (reference omitted to
preserve the peer review process). The CARE Principles are expanded in Table 3 below.
Big Data, Open Data and secondary Data Linkage projects raise ethical conundrums. Within
broader ethical frameworks, a particular concern could centre on the lack of general law relating
to privacy in Australia even though Australia is a signatory to the International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Watts & Cassanovas 2018). From this, it is unclear how
Indigenous privacy will be protected under open data policies. Indigenous privacy relates to com-
munal as well as individual privacy. The central concerns of the CARE principles are already pre-
sent a plethora of Indigenous ethical and protocol guidelines that promote overlapping themes
(e.g., Australian Institute of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS] 2012;
National Health & Medical Research Council 2017; Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Coun-
cil of NSW 2020). Yet, Big Data, Open Data and secondary Data Linkage practices, largely dri-
ven by Western scientific epistemologies, actively disempower and silence Indigenous Peoples
(Cormack et al. 2019; reference omitted to preserve the peer review process).
These risks may be somewhat mitigated by the increasing recognition of the critical ethical
importance of Indigenous data governance. In 2019, AIATSIS released their draft AIATSIS Code
of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (due for release in later 2020). This
document is a significant departure from the earlier Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.9

Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) in its framework of four overarching principles for Indigenous
research (Indigenous Self-determination,Indigenous Leadership,Impact and Value, and Sustainability and
Accountability). The Code highlights that Indigenous research includes “new or pre-existing”data,
stating within the principle of Indigenous leadership that: “Ownership management and communi-
cation of research data and results should be negotiated between Indigenous Peoples and the
researcher or other parties based on the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty (AIATSIS 2019:19 –
italics added).”The necessity of Indigenous data governance and the need for Indigenous data to be:
“governed and owned by Indigenous Peoples from the very creation of data to its collection, access,
analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, potential future use and storage”(AIATSIS
2019:51) also chart a new ethical approach to data. The Code argues for meaningful collaborative
partnerships from creation, to analysis, to dissemination, to re-use of Indigenous data, clear memo-
randums of understanding, separate data management plan (e.g., returning data to Indigenous com-
munities) and the establishment of ongoing governance committees for larger projects.
The inclusion of Indigenous data rights as an ethical issue in new AIATSIS Code of Ethics
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research is an important initiative. Many Indigenous
and First Nations scholars have long argued for the need for all researchers to directly, respect-
fully and (self)reflexively engage with varying Indigenous ethics and protocol frameworks (refer-
ence omitted to preserve the peer review process; Kawymullina 2016; McPhail-Bell et al. 2016;
reference omitted to preserve the peer review process; Whetung & Wakefield 2018). Under cur-
rent Open Data processes, there is an immense danger such critical responsibilities might be
easily sidestepped.
7
|
CONCLUSION
Indigenous data can be a cultural and economic asset, providing invaluable information for
Indigenous groups to set their own goals, make strategic decisions and measure their progress.
But inadequate data, the wrong data or the wrong approach to data are not only a waste of
TABLE 3 CARE principles of Indigenous data governance
CARE principle
C=Collective Benefit: C1: Inclusive Development and Innovation
C2: Improved Governance and Citizen Engagement
C3: Equitable Outcomes
A=Authority to Control A1: Recognising Indigenous Rights and Interests
A2: Data for Governance
A3: Governance of Data
R=Responsibility R1: For Positive Relationships
R2: For Expanding Capability and Capacity
R3: For Indigenous Worldviews
E=Ethics E1: For Minimising Harm/Maximising Benefit
E2: For Justice
E3: For Future Use
Source: RDA IG (2019).
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
10 WALTER ET AL.

resources but can have negative fiscal and human well-being impacts on Indigenous Peoples.
With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, families and communities, heavily overrepre-
sented in administrative data, there is little doubt that we will also be overrepresented in the
application of these new technologies. Indigenous Data Sovereignty and its implementation mech-
anism Indigenous data governance provide a buttress to the likely negative consequences. But
without the enactment of systems that support Indigenous interests and Indigenous entitlement
to govern the stewardship and application data, the likely result will be just a continuation of the
long history of Indigenous data and policy failure. Australian Open Data processes we are wait-
ing for your action. Platitudes will not suffice.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
NOTE
1
We use the term “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander”to refer specifically to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. The term
“Indigenous”is also used both in reference to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples but also Indigenous peoples more generally through-
out the world. The term “First Nations”and “community”are also used to describe various and specific collective groups of
Indigenous Peoples. Indeed, the ability to quantify these different collective groups of Indigenous Peoples speaks to the heart of
the need to operationalise Indigenous Data Sovereignty and these terms are used interchangeable throughout this paper.
REFERENCES
Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of NSW (2020) ‘AH&MRC Ethical Guidelines: Key Principles
V2.0’, https://mk0ahmrchvhy3q0clf.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/V2.0-Key-principles-Updated.
pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Andersen, C. (2014) Metis: Race, recognition, and the struggle for Indigenous peoplehood, Vancouver, UBC Press.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2012) ‘Guidelines for ethical research in Aus-
tralian Indigenous studies’, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. https://aiat
sis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/research-and-guides/ethics/gerais.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2019) ‘2019 Revision of the aiatsis guidelines
for ethical research in Australian indigenous studies’, https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/research-
and-guides/ethics/consult/consultation_draft_guidelines_for_ethical_research_in_australian_indigenous_studies.
pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC) (2020) ‘Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC)’, https://ardc.ed
u.au/. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Battiste, M. and Youngblood, J. (2000) Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge. Vancouver:
UBC Press.
Commonwealth of Australia (2019) ‘National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023 (978-1-
74241-980-0)’, Canberra, https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/B92E98068
0486C3BCA257BF0001BAF01/$File/health-plan.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Cormack, D., Reid, P. and Kukutai, T. (2019) ‘Indigenous data and health: critical approaches to ‘race’/ethnicity
and Indigenous data governance’,Public health,172, 116–118.
Davey, M. (2017) ‘Cashless Welfare Card Treats Aboriginal People ‘as Third-Class Citizens’’, https://www.thegua
rdian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/10/cashless-welfare-card-treats-aboriginal-people-third-class-citizens. (ac-
cessed 25 February 2020)
Davis, M. (2015) ‘Closing the gap in indigenous disadvantage: A trajectory of indigenous inequality in Australia’,
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,16, 34.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.11

Davis, M. (2016) ‘Data and the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples’. In T. Kukutai and
J. Taylor (eds) Indigenous Data Sovereignty, Canberra, ANU Press, pp 25–38.
Department of Health, Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan
2013–2023, Australian Government, Canberra, 2015 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC)
(2015) ‘Australian Government Public Data Policy Statement’, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/pub
lic-data/australian-government-public-data-policy-statement. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(PMC) (2019) ‘New Australian Government Data Sharing and
Release Legislation: issues paper for consultation’, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/public-data/issue
s-paper-data-sharing-release-legislation. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) (2019) ‘Best Practice Guide to Applying Data Sharing Prin-
ciples’, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/data-sharing-principles-best-practice-guide-15-
mar-2019.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Desai, T.,Ritchie, F. and Welpton, R. (2016) Five Safes: designing data access for research. Economics Working
Paper Series1601. University of the West of England. http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/bl/research/bristoleconomicanal
ysis/economicsworkingpapers/economicspapers2016.aspx
Dunbar, T. and Scrimgeour, M. (2017) ‘LSIC: Procedural ethics through an Indigenous ethical lens’. In M. Walter,
K. L. Martin and G. Bodkin-Andrews (eds) Indigenous Children Growing Up Strong, London, Palgrave Macmil-
lan, pp 61–78.
First Nations Information Governance Centre (2014). Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP
TM
): The
Path to First Nations Information Governance, First Nations Information Governance Centre Ottawa.
Hunt, J. (2013) ‘Engaging with Indigenous Australia-exploring the conditions for effective relationships with Abo-
riginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’, https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/
59567/2/01Hunt_Engaging_with_Indigenous_2013.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Kukutai, T. and Taylor, J. (2016a) ‘Data sovereignty for indigenous peoples: current practice and future needs’.In
T. Kukutai and J. Taylor, (eds,) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda, Canberra, ANU Press, pp 99–
115.
Kukutai, T. and Taylor, J. (2016b) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, Canberra, ANU Press.
Kwaymullina, A. (2016) ‘Research, ethics and Indigenous peoples: an Australian Indigenous perspective on three
threshold considerations for respectful engagement’,AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples,
12 (4), 437–449.
Maiam nayri Wingara (2018) ‘Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique: Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit
20/06/2018’, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3043afb40b9d20411f3512/t/5b6c0f9a0e2e725e9cabf4a6/
1533808545167/Communique%2B-%2BIndigenous%2BData%2BSovereignty%2BSummit.pdf. (accessed 25
February 2020)
McPhail-Bell, K., Bond, C., Brough, M. and Fredericks, B. (2016) ‘‘We don’t tell people what to do’: ethical practice
and Indigenous health promotion’,Health Promotion Journal of Australia,26 (3), 195–199.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2017) ‘Ethical conducting research with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Peoples and communities’, https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/ethical-conduct-researc
h-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-and-communities.(accessed 25 February 2020)
Office of the National Data Commissioner (2020) ‘New Legislation’, https://www.datacommissioner.gov.au/data-
sharing/legislation. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Open Data Cube (ODC) (2020) An Open Source Geospatial Data Management & Analysis Platform.
PMC (2018) The Australian Government’s response to the Productivity Commission Data Availability and Use Inquiry,
Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/data-
access/data-availability-use-government-response.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Productivity Commission (2017) ‘Data Availability and Use’, Canberra, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/comple
ted/data-access/issues/data-access-issues.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Rainie, S.C., Kukutai, K., Walter, M., Figueroa-Rodriguez, O.L., Walker, J. and Axelsson, P. (2019) ‘Issues in Open
Data: Indigenous Data Sovereignty’. In T. Davies, S. Walker, M. Rubinstein and F. Perini (eds) The State of
Open Data: Histories and Horizons, Cape Town and Ottawa, African Minds and International Development
Research Centre, pp 300–319.
Research Data Alliance (2020) ‘RDA Recommendations and Guidelines on Data Sharing for COVID-19’, https://
www.rd-alliance.org/rda-recommendations-and-guidelines-data-sharing-covid-19. (accessed 25 February 2020)
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
12 WALTER ET AL.

Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group (IIDSIG) (September 2019)
‘CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’, The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. https://www.gida-
global.org/care. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed, London, Yale
University Press.
Smith, L.T. (2012) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, London, Zed Books Ltd.
Smith, D.E. (2016) ‘Governing data nd data for governance: the everyday practice of Indigenous Sovereignty’.InT.
Kukutai and J. Taylor (eds) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda, Canberra, ANU Press, pp 117–138.
Snipp, C.M. (2016) ‘What does data sovereignty imply: what does it look like’. In T. Kukutai and J. Taylor (eds)
Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda, Canberra, ANU Press, pp 39–55.
Taylor, J. and Kukutai, T. (2015) Indigenous data sovereignty and indicators. Reflections from Australia and Aotearoa
New Zealand. Paper presented at the UNPFII Expert Group Meeting on “The Way Forward: Indigenous Peo-
ples and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.
United Nations (2017) ‘Surveillance, big data and open data top UN expert’s privacy agenda’, https://www.ohchr.
org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22271&LangID=E.
Watts, D. and Cassanovas, P. (2018) ‘Privacy and Data Protection in Australia: a Critical overview (extended
abstract)’, https://www.w3.org/2018/vocabws/papers/watts-casanovas.pdf.
Whetung, M. and Wakefield, S. (2018) ‘Colonial conventions: Institutionalized research relationships and decolo-
nizing research ethics’. In L. T. Smith, E. Tuck and K. W. Yang (eds) Indigenous and Decolonizing Studies in
Education.New York: Routledge, pp 146–158.
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Bourne, P.E. (2016) ‘The
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’,Scientific Data,3(1), 1–9.
Wyatt, K. (2020) ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led data project underway’, Media Release 3 July 2020,
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/aboriginal-and-torre
s-strait-islander-led-data-project-underway?fbclid=IwAR2qLw6pER0BiD0QzIh6mV3t8BTpY_uE9tqks9Ph0zCc
Y8mRS2Xxur68j00. (accessed 25 February 2020)
Yap, M. and Yu, E. (2016) ‘Data Sovereignty for the Yawuru in Western Australia’. In T. Kukutai and J. Taylor
(eds) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda, Canberra, ANU Press, pp 223–252.
Maggie Walter (Palawa) (PhD, FASSA) is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the
University of Tasmania, Australia. Publishing extensively in the field of Indigenous Data,
including Indigenous Statistics (with C. Andersen 2013 Routledge), Maggie is a founding
member of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective and the Glo-
bal Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA).
Raymond Lovett (Ngiyampaa) (PhD) is Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the Aus-
tralian National University, Australia. Ray has published across diverse health and well-be-
ing issues and has a strong focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data
sovereignty and governance. Ray is a founding member of the Maiam nayri Wingara
Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective and the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA).
Bobby Maher (Yamatji) is a PhD candidate and research associate at the Australian
National University. Bobby is an epidemiologist and has an interest in social epidemiology
and evaluation. Bobby is also a member of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data
Sovereignty Collective and the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA).
Bhiamie Williamson is a Euahlayi man from north-west New South Wales with familial
ties to north-west Queensland. Bhiamie has a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) from ANU and a
Masters of Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Bhiamie is a Research Associate at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research,
ANU, and a member of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
WALTER ET AL.13

Jacob Prehn is a proud Worimi man living on Palawa Country. He is an Indigenous fel-
low and lecturer in Social Work at the University of Tasmania. Jacob is completing a PhD
on the topic of Aboriginal masculinities. His publications comprise quantitative and qualita-
tive data, exploring a range of themes including Aboriginal men, children, families, social
work and the strengths of Indigenous culture on well-being. He is also a qualified Social
Worker, Aboriginal Health Worker and member of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous
Data Sovereignty Collective.
Gawaian Bodkin-Andrews is a D’harawal scholar whose research engages with Indige-
nous Research Methodologies, Indigenous Data Sovereignty, and Indigenous Storywork
and Storytelling frameworks. Through these methodologies, his research seeks to centre
critical Aboriginal Australian standpoints across a diversity of disciplines and topics includ-
ing racism, identity, mental health, education, mentoring and bullying. Gawaian is a found-
ing member of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective.
Vanessa Lee (Yupungathi and Meriam) (PhD, SFHEA) is Senior Lecturer who focuses on
the social epidemiology of Aboriginal-Torres Strait Islander people at the University of
Sydney. In 2005, she was awarded a community award for her social impact work. Vanessa
publishes across a diverse platform of health and wellness. Vanessa is a founding member
of the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective.
How to cite this article: Walter M, Lovett R, Maher B, Williamson B, Prehn J, Bodkin-
Andrews G, Lee V. Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the era of Big Data and Open Data.
Aust J Soc Issues. 2020;00:1–14. doi: 10.1002/ajs4.141.
©2020 Australian Social Policy Association
14 WALTER ET AL.