This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Chapter 4.7 of the National Statement sets out requirements for research and evaluation conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. The chapter responds directly to the history of research that has, in many cases, caused significant harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and requires that research be culturally safe, considered, meaningful, and beneficial to the people and communities involved. This chapter applies not only to projects that specifically focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, but also where the research cohort is likely to include a significant proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, where the analysis identifies this population separately, or where outcomes will have a specific impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.
Researchers and HRECs must apply this chapter alongside NHMRC's Ethical Conduct in Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for Researchers and Stakeholders (2018), NHMRC's Keeping Research on Track II (2018), and the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (2020), together with its accompanying guide. These are not optional supplementary reading; the National Statement requires HRECs to apply them as the basis for assessing proposals involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation.
Iris Ethics satisfies 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. However, we have chosen to limit our scope of reviews to certain types of projects; our position statement provides more details on what we will and will not accept for review.
Core values and engagement
The chapter is built around six core values drawn from the NHMRC guidelines: spirit and integrity, cultural continuity, equity, reciprocity, respect, and responsibility. Researchers must ensure that all aspects of the research engage with and incorporate the relevant social and cultural preferences of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities involved (NS 4.7.1). The research plan must demonstrate evidence of respectful and meaningful engagement, which may include a research agreement or written confirmation of agreement from participating groups, organisations, or communities, and an engagement process involving meetings with potential participants and communities to discuss the research (NS 4.7.2).
Engagement and any research agreements should provide mutually agreed mechanisms for community consultation, opportunities for co-design and collaboration, appropriate recruitment and consent strategies, suitable participant information, reporting on progress, and sharing of findings, outcomes and benefits (NS 4.7.3). See Co-design for guidance on co-design processes. The research approach must actively engage with the knowledge, wisdom, and leadership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, foster relationships that affirm their right to hold different values and priorities, and, for national or multi-centre research, secure local-level support in each location (NS 4.7.4-4.7.7).
The design of the research must account for risks, burdens and benefits with reference to NS Chapter 2.1, and researchers must identify and mitigate any potential negative outcomes, with ongoing monitoring where needed (NS 4.7.8, NS 4.7.9). Benefits must be relevant to the interests and priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, discussed with and agreed to by participants and communities, and distributed in a way they consider fair (NS 4.7.10-4.7.12).
Review pathways
Research to which this chapter applies will often require HREC review, but some may meet the criteria for lower risk research provided the lower risk criteria are met and the guidance in this chapter on cultural safety is followed (NS 4.7.13, 4.7.14). Where HREC review is required, the review process must include advice from one or more of: HRECs with specialist expertise in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, people who are culturally capable and competent for the specific communities involved, or people with networks or knowledge relevant to those communities (NS 4.7.15). The appropriate approach also depends on jurisdictional requirements (NS 4.7.15). HRECs must ensure that researchers are culturally capable and competent and have supporting evidence of this (NS 4.7.16).
In practice, a project with only incidental Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement, general research questions, and demonstrated early engagement with community representatives may be reviewable through a lower risk pathway with appropriate expertise on the review panel. A project with a high degree of community-specific involvement, significant data governance considerations, or no evidence of engagement in the design process is more likely to need referral to a specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HREC. See Lower risk vs full HREC review and Government review bodies for how these pathways interact with other approvals.
Data governance and ongoing responsibilities
Because sharing of research findings, outcomes, and benefits must be agreed with the relevant community as part of the research agreement (NS 4.7.3, NS 4.7.11, NS 4.7.12), governance of the data collected, including ownership, custody, access, and future use, should be negotiated at the outset rather than left until publication. The AIATSIS Code and the NHMRC guidelines referenced above set out further detail on cultural and intellectual property considerations relevant to this negotiation. See Collection and storage for general data governance requirements that apply alongside these community-specific arrangements.
Application in evaluation, social research and market research
Program evaluations that disaggregate outcomes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, even where recruitment is not targeted, fall within this chapter once the analysis identifies the population separately. Social research recruiting in a region with a significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, and market research seeking to understand differences in outcomes or experience by population group, should each consider at the design stage whether community consultation, co-design, and appropriate review expertise are required, rather than only at the point of submitting for ethics review.
What reviewers look for
- Evidence of respectful and meaningful engagement with the relevant community, ideally documented in a research agreement (NS 4.7.2, NS 4.7.3)
- A benefit-sharing and findings-dissemination arrangement agreed with the community (NS 4.7.11, NS 4.7.12)
- Appropriate cultural expertise on the review panel, or referral to a specialist HREC where community-specific engagement is central to the project (NS 4.7.15, NS 4.7.16)
- A considered position on whether the project meets the criteria for lower risk research, supported by evidence of cultural safety measures (NS 4.7.14)
- Clear data governance arrangements agreed with the community, addressing cultural and intellectual property considerations
Related resources
See Co-design, Collection and storage, Lower risk vs full HREC review, and Government review bodies for related guidance,as well as our position statement on research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
This page was last updated on 9 October 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.