Skip to Content

Position Statement: Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities

Our position on what our HREC can and can't accept for review.

Introduction

Part of our model of operation is being transparent with the communities we serve on our positions in relation to ethical review. We've received a lot of enquiries in relation to our capacity to undertake reviews of applications where there may be some degree of engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is a need to ensure that research and evaluation does not perpetuate structural injustices and inequities with communities, and this requires knowledge and understanding of culturally appropriate and safe engagement.

Initially, our HREC has taken a conservative view of whether we would accept applications of this form. Now that we've had some chance to develop we are providing a more nuanced position that reflects and respects the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines, our capabilities, and most importantly the communities we serve. 

Our HREC meets NHMRC and AIATSIS requirements

On a considered reading and in light of consultation and feedback from our committee members and stakeholders, we take the position that we satisfy the criteria of Sections 4.7.15(b) and 4.7.15(c)* of the NHMRC National Statement in relation to being an acceptable review pathway for research or evaluation being done with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This position is based on the fact that our committee includes Aboriginal members as well as experts on research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. 

We accept some (not all) applications

A key area where this is important is in the context of projects where the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community members is incidental, but analysis is proposed that identifies and considers this cohort separate to other populations (which then makes a project subject to the requirements of Section 4.7 of the National Statement). Examples of such cases include:

  • analysis to understand proportional over- or under-representation of demographic groups; and 
  • whether there is a significant difference in outcomes based on population cohort. 

From an understanding of the relevant guidelines, in most cases the potential risks raised in undertaking this analysis are justified in light of the likely benefits (namely, being able to develop recommendations that can lead to more effective services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities). Nevertheless, there is the inherent risk of discomfort around self-identification by a participant which links to intergenerational injustices and misuse of data, and this must be considered in context. However, we have the capability within the committee to review this. 

There are also cases where there is significant early engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives to mitigate any potential risks around cultural appropriateness/safety as part of the design and delivery process and this is demonstrated in the research/evaluation plan, and that the research questions are general in nature and do not investigate culturally specific or sensitive matters. Both cases under Section 4.7 are deemed as research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and therefore the review pathway advice at Sections 4.7.13-4.7.16 rightly applies. 

We also consider cases where other risks of harm (e.g. risks that are not culturally specific) may precipitate a full HREC review but where culturally specific risks are limited to potential discomfort or negligible in nature. 

In these cases, we are confident in us being able to provide review services, not merely because we meet the Section 4.7 criteria, but because the nature and magnitude of risk to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is lower. 

There is also consideration of the updates in the 2025 edition of the National Statement, which is more proportionate in enabling a lower risk pathway for research and evaluation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (under certain circumstances). The 2025 National Statement is also in greater alignment with the AIATSIS Code of Ethics.

We also recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specialist HRECs are overburdened and that procedural delays in seeking approval (especially for projects where cultural safety risks are lower) may compromise the successful delivery of those projects and/or exclude the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders. This is likely to lead to reduced benefits of evaluation for all stakeholders and thus create outcomes which would be contradictory to the principles of the National Statement itself. 

When a specialist HREC is needed

The situation is different for an application with activities that have a high degree of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community involvement at the research/evaluation phase but does not have in place at the time of application evidence of preparatory activities that meet the AIATSIS Code of Ethics with regard to genuine and respectful engagement and the creation of a culturally safe environment. 

Latter cases may include: 

  • work with a specific community or people (e.g. a project that takes place with a single people, set of Native Title holders, or nation) where a high degree of culturally specific and local community knowledge and engagement needs to be applied; 
  • projects that are wholly targeted towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
  • projects where there are significant considerations of knowledge holders and data sovereignty that need to be applied; or
  • projects where there is engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the applicant has not demonstrated engagement or consideration of this in the design process. 

In such a scenario, our current position is that we would recommend submission through a specialist HREC such as that operated by AIATSIS or a state-level Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HREC.

Summary

In all projects that we receive, as part of the review process due consideration is given to Section 4 of the National Statement, and that includes considerations under Section 4.7 that relate to engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. 

Based on this consideration, we:

  • meet relevant AIATSIS and NHMRC guidelines regarding the composition and expertise of our committee and have the capacity to review applications which include activities with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as defined under Section 4.7 of the National Statement; 
  • currently limit our capacity to applications where: 
    • a high degree of culturally specific knowledge and/or engagement is not required in the context of the project; and, 
    • there is evidence in the application of the NHMRC and AIATSIS guidelines in ensuring that risks to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are considered and mitigated.
  • reserve and retain the right to redirect any application where we feel that a specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HREC is better placed to advise on the ethical and cultural acceptability of proposed activities.

Of course, if you are not sure which pathway is right for you, contact us and we can advise. 



*The specific text of Section 4.7.15 reads: 

If review by an HREC is required, the review process must include seeking advice from:
​(a) HRECs that have specialist expertise in reviewing ethics proposals for research with ​Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities
​and/or
​(b) people who are culturally capable and competent, and aware of considerations specific to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities with whom the research will be taking place to ensure cultural safety
​and/or
​(c) people who have networks with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities and/or knowledge of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.
The appropriate approach to the HREC review process will also depend on jurisdictional requirements and guidance.