Charles Pakana (VAN):

Right across Australia, there’s been a great deal of talk about indigenous data sovereignty and governance. At Victorian Aboriginal News, we thought we’d dive a bit deeper into finding out exactly what this is, and as it relates to Victoria, how it actually plays a part in the treaty process, the truth-telling process, and by the very nature of the entire thing, the voice process as well. Joining me today to talk about this is, at the Treaty Authority, Dr. Petah Atkinson, a Yorta Yorta woman and member of the Treaty Authority, and Dr. Jacob Prehn, a Worimi man from just north of Newcastle in New South Wales, who is Director of Research, Evaluation, and importantly, Data Governance at the Treaty Authority. Dr. Atkinson, thanks for joining me today.

Dr Petah Atkinson (Treaty Authority):

Thanks for having us.

Charles:

And Dr. Prehn, thank you as well.

Dr Jacob Prehn (Treaty Authority):

Thanks, Uncle Charles.

Charles:

Now Petah, in layman’s terms, please, what is data sovereignty as it applies to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities?

Petah:

So indigenous data sovereignty means that indigenous people have the right to control the data that’s collected about us, and how it’s used.

Charles:

So if we were to look at an example, say back in 2019 when Aunty Jill Gallagher was developing the Aboriginal electoral role, and that was not a role that was going to be shared with government, but actually managed by the Victorian Treaty Advancement Commission. Is that an example of treaty sovereignty?

Petah:

From my perspective, that is data sovereignty because Aboriginal people are controlling the process. They’re controlling what’s being collected, who’s collecting it, where it’s being collected from, and how it’s going to be used, who’s going to have access to it. That’s data sovereignty and governance.

Charles:

Jacob, why is data sovereignty so important? Why are Aboriginal people constantly looking to ensure that their data, their information, is not seen by the white bureaucratic powers that be?

Jacob:

Look, that’s a really great question, and there’s multiple reasons why it’s so important. One of the key reasons for me is that data is essential to be able to make informed decisions around the types of programs, services around nation building. If we’re thinking about the context of treaty, so having data to be able to make data-driven decisions. For the most part, a lot of that data doesn’t exist at the moment, or the types of data that does exist serves the state, it doesn’t serve Aboriginal people. There’s been a long history of misuse of Aboriginal data, and that could be in instances where it’s being used against Aboriginal people, it’s being used to construct Aboriginal people as welfare issues.

Charles:

Does it also bring into account the need for government to share data it currently has with black authorities? Now, for example, we’re speaking to Reuben Berg, Co-Chair of the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria last week, about closing the gap, and the work that’s been done on the Statewide Treaty to implementing new measures. But fundamental to that was actually gaining access to this data, data that was critical in achieving success in closing these gaps. So in a lot of cases, the government has this data but is not prepared to share it. Does data sovereignty encompass that as well?

Jacob:

Yeah, it does. And again, another really good question. So yes, sharing of current data, whether it’s the state of Victoria or it’s the federal government that holds that data, is part of data sovereignty, so Aboriginal people having access and control of that data. And recently, was involved in some work at the federal level where we’ve just implemented a Governance of indigenous data framework that goes across every department and agency. And that’s part of priority reform for closing the gap, which is access to data. So that’s just started to be implemented. And one of the first items in that is for each department and agency to do a stock take of all the data that they’ve got, which has been interesting because they didn’t actually know some of the holdings of data that they had. So yeah, that is part of sharing data, but also the creation of new data that Aboriginal people will need in a treaty landscape.

Charles:

So let’s go to the treaty landscape right now, Petah, and we’ll go back to you. Have you seen much evidence that there’s going to be a greater call for data governance and data sovereignty in the treaty process or processes?

Petah:

It’s one of the obligations that we have under the Treaty Negotiation Framework as the Treaty Authority is to provide processes for indigenous data sovereignty and governance. And so the way that we do that is to ensure that the data that we are collecting as a part of the treaty journey is governed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it’s protected by us, and that includes the way it’s stored and who can have access to it. So at the Treaty Authority, we are already in that process of practicing indigenous data sovereignty and governance. But that’s been something that even though we as Aboriginal people have had concerns about the way data is collected, the type of data that’s collected, the way it’s been used typically by government and other organizations, usually used to profile us in a way that’s deficit, there’s a problem-

Charles:

Yeah, the negative stereotypes.

Petah:

Yeah, and feeding into those negative stereotypes, whereas I suppose for the treaty process, there’s all different types of data that you can collect, including the traditional owners information, the country that they’re going to embark on the treaty journey with, who are their members, what are the processes that they’ve got in place to self-govern? It might be their maps. So we need to make sure that there’s protections around that data, and not everybody can use it. And one of the things that we need to make sure that we are doing at the Treaty Authority is creating a process where that information is protected, and we decide when it can be released. And by we, I mean Aboriginal people, and the Treaty Authority on behalf of the Aboriginal people. For example, if another party was to come to us and say, “Do you have any information about such and such as aspirations for treaty?” We would say no.

Charles:

And that could be anybody from the government negotiators through to local government, even the media of course.

Petah:

That’s right. So unless that traditional owner group gives their explicit authority to release their information or to discuss their information, we’re going to ensure that we protect their data.

Charles:

So let’s talk about the protection mechanisms themselves. And without getting too technical, because I realize it’s an IT based solution, Jacob, we’re going to look at you on this one because you are the director of this area, what measures are in place to guarantee the security of data, a lot of it is sensitive, that’s being given to you by the first people assembly, Victoria and traditional owner groups, as they register on the database?

Jacob:

Yeah, it’s a real honor to receive that data, and we really care for it in the way it ought to be cared and looked after. So that data may come to us in different forms and formats. It gets stored securely on one of our databases. And then there’s controls and protections around internally who has access to that. And there’s not very many people that do. And then building upon what Petah was saying, if an external party comes to us, it’s not up to us to really decide who gets access to that data, it goes back to the power of being with the original owners of that data. In a way, we just act as stewards. So we hold that data for them as part of the treaty negotiation process.

Charles:

Well, let me play devil’s advocate here, and I’ll stay with you, Jacob. Why is it so important that the authority hold this data if it’s being kept behind a firewall, if it’s rarely handed out, if it’s rarely going to be called upon? What’s the need for it?

Jacob:

So part of our Treaty Negotiation Framework that we operate by requires us to take particular data from traditional owner groups that are wanting to negotiate treaty, and they have to satisfy what’s called the minimum standards. So they have to be able to demonstrate that they meet those. And part of them demonstrating that is providing the Treaty Authority with that data, with that evidence. One of the reasons it’s important that we’re an independent authority, because if that was handed over to a government, it could be seen by some as being unfair power imbalance. If government are also a party to negotiating treaty, in that you’ve just handed over all your data and information to an entity that already has quite a lot of power compared to a traditional owner group. So that is, in one way, why we’re acting the way that we act following the Treaty Negotiation Framework.

Charles:

Do you expect though, Petah, many instances where the government or governments across Victoria may come to you during the statewide and local treaty negotiations, and say, “Look, we need access to certain data. We need to establish the veracity of these people,” or do you simply need to go back to them and say, “That’s why we’re here as the Treaty Authority?”

Petah:

Yeah, it’s definitely why we’re here at the Treaty Authority. And I think the state is understanding of that, they understand that we have this role. They were a part of the process for bringing the legislation about that created the Treaty Authority, and the processes that we have then enacted. So I think there’s an expectation that we’ll do our job, and we’re very serious about doing our job. We understand that we have our own roles and responsibilities, but we also have an obligation to our community and to the broader community to uphold the integrity of the treaty process.

Charles:

You started to make mention before about historic misuses of data. What are some of those instances that come to mind?

Jacob:

So sometimes, data has been used to justify particular policy approaches. And so drawing upon the deficit example that we talked about before, if you were just to look at some data in isolation, you could quite easily come to the conclusion that, okay, this is the most appropriate policy response to that. And so if you think of something like the Northern Territory intervention…

Charles:

Yep, course.

Jacob:

… There were particular data or stories or narratives that were being told at the time to justify the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act to send the federal police and also the military to communities to implement the intervention. That’s probably a more recent example and one that a lot of us are familiar with.

Charles:

And shameful by the way.

Jacob:

And so that is one way in which data has historically been used against Aboriginal people.

Charles:

So what you’re both saying, somewhat diplomatically, is that data can easily be weaponized. Is that a fair assumption?

Jacob:

Yes.

Petah:

I think the thing that’s interesting as well is that we’re not just talking about in Australia, there’s international examples of where data has been weaponized against indigenous peoples. Jacob, you’ve got a few stories, I’m sure.

Jacob:

Yeah, look, the data sovereignty, it’s not just the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander movement, it’s an international movement. So what we call the Anglo-colonized Kansas countries, which is Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, New Zealand, and the United States, they are also part of this global indigenous data sovereignty movement for essentially the same reasons, in that they too have had, and continue to have similar experiences of data being misused to justify various policies which don’t necessarily serve the benefits of Aboriginal, or in an international context, indigenous peoples.

Charles:

Any instances that come to mind?

Jacob:

I think in Canada, the residential boarding schools is a big one that came out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that they had that was used as a justification for removing Canadian First Nations people from the family, and placing them into the boarding schools or boarding homes. And so again, if you look at data in isolation, or data that’s deficit-based data and that’s all it looks at, there’s no strengths-based data, it can only really tell you one story, which-

Charles:

When was this, by the way?

Jacob:

It was during, I think the mid-nineteen hundreds was when the boarding school initiatives were undertaken.

Charles:

So colonization smacks of stolen generations right across the world, doesn’t it, it seems? And data appears to be one of the main weapons that the governments seem to use against First Nations people.

Jacob:

It does, you’re right. And just thinking of another example, our colleagues across the ditch, [inaudible 00:13:29], our Maori colleagues, there’s been a big language revitalization for the last generation also. And it’s great hearing lots of fluent Maori speakers now. But again, that was another area where records of how to speak Maori were wiped. It was forbidden to speak it. You got punished if you did. But there were some records of it, and there were still some people that continued to speak it. And so now through having a self-determination and being able to access their language, their data, there’s been a beautiful revitalization. And when you hear Maori talk in their language, that’s a really beautiful thing.

Charles:

It’s amazing, isn’t it? It really is. We only hope that it’s going to be happening. And of course, it is starting to happen here in Victoria, thank goodness. But data sovereignty plays a role in that better in language resurrection.

Petah:

Oh, for sure. If you have access to that information, then you’re able to create programs that can lead to our communities learning our languages again. I suppose it just depends on who’s got that information and how we can get access to it. And by us having control, by us, I mean indigenous people having control of our own information, we can then determine who can access it, when they can access it, how they access it, and how it’s used, and hopefully for our benefit.

Charles:

So it seems to be also, Petah, and I’ll stay with you, that it’s a mechanism to enable the capturing of important data that can be used to revitalize and breathe new life back into language and culture, rather than justifying certain things than protecting it from the government. So it’s a double-edged sword, or a multifaceted sword almost, really.

Petah:

Yeah. Data tells a story, it’s not just numbers. I think a lot of our communities think that data is just numbers, but it’s a lot of information that’s collected about us. Every time we fill out a form, we’re providing data to somebody. So we need to make sure that that data that we are providing is one that’s appropriate, but also one that’s protected, and that we decide as Aboriginal people who’s going to use it and when they’re going to use it.

Charles:

Petah, you’re out in the community a heck of a lot. That’s one of the great things about you and so many of the other authority members.

Petah:

Yes, I love it.

Charles:

You do.

Petah:

Yeah. I love being on [inaudible 00:15:47].

Charles:

Petah, this topic of protecting data and of using data collection mechanisms to bring new life back into culture, how’s that being received out there in the community, because there was that initial distrust of the whole treaty process because it was so smacked in government, really, in the early days? Do you believe that these sorts of measures are providing confidence to mobs?

Petah:

Yeah, I think it’s really important. That’s what I’m seeing out in the community. One of the important things about being in the community is making sure that we’re introducing ourselves as members, the Treaty Authority, describing and defining for our community, what it is that we do, and how we incorporate concepts of our law and law into our practice and our cultural authority. We’re hoping that that builds their confidence, and assures people about the integrity that we bring to the process so that they know that when we’re creating these processes where we need to collect data, or where people need to provide data to us so that we can process, for example, to determine whether a TO meets the minimum standards or not. So if their form is complete, it’s just explaining the data that we need to collect, why we need to collect, or what are the protections that we put in place. People want to know that we are doing the right thing, and they want to know that we’re doing that with integrity in a way that they understand.

Charles:

Is this one of the major questions or concerns or issues arising from traditional owners across Victoria, without naming names, of course, as they embark upon that process of registering their details into the Treaty Authority database? Are you getting these sorts of requests for assurity that, “Look, the information we’re giving has got to be kept top secret?”

Petah:

Sometimes, we do get asked about information. It’s our job to ensure that people are aware of the processes that we’ve created and that information that is required to be kept confidential is confidential. Some information is required to be put on public notification. And our job is to ensure that people understand what the processes are.

Charles:

So information that’s supplied to the Treaty Authority is not shared without prior and informed consent?

Petah:

Absolutely.

Charles:

We’ll go back in a bit of a cliche there.

Petah:

Yes, that’s true.

Charles:

Okay. Jacob, we’re approaching the end of it, but I just want to check in with you, what are some of the key challenges that is the director of all this amazing work that you and your team are constantly facing, because you’re walking a bit of a tightrope here, the last thing you want to do is implement a system where mob’s going to be really cross at you because you’ve done the wrong thing?

Jacob:

That’s exactly right. For me, it’s an honor and a privilege to serve the Victorian First Nations community. This isn’t my country. I grew up in Lutruwita, Tasmania. I grew up as part of the Palawa community. For me, I understand how important this is for the community here, and I’m privileged to work alongside people like Petah and our other members here at the Treaty Authority. And in consultation with them and through following their guidance, there are challenges, but it might be the first time that we’ve undertaken treaty processes that have gotten this far. But our colleagues that I was talking about before internationally that have treaties, they’ve had to grapple with a lot of these challenges in regards to indigenous data sovereignty and treaty already. And so having those international networks through things like the Global Indigenous Data Alliance that we have, we’re able to network and build those relationships and understand and learn from others how they’ve gone about doing something, and then how we might best apply that here in the Victorian context.

And I think also being a member of [inaudible 00:19:39], which is the Australian, the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Collective, having some very experienced and distinguished Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people as part of that, it’s been up and going for nearly 10 years now. The founding members were Commissioner Maggie Welter next door at Yurok…

Charles:

Palawa woman, yeah.

Jacob:

… Professor Ray Lovett at the ANU, Gwane Bodgan-Andrews, another professor, and Professor Vanessa Lee, who’s a Torres Strait Islander lady. So as a collective, there’s about 12 of us now that are all executive members from right across Australia, and we work together on a range of different data issues. One has been this idea of the establishment of a Bureau of Indigenous data, which is an independent authority at the federal level. So look, there are challenges, but as Aboriginal people do, we work collectively together with each other, and there’s always strength in numbers rather than being isolated as individuals.

Charles:

Wonderful. And look, I’m sure we’ll catch up at a later date because I’m interested to see some of the more practical outcomes of data and data sovereignty and data governance played out in the treaty process. You guys are going to be around for a long time. Treaty, as we know, is going to be part of the Victorian, if not Australian lexicon. So we can only imagine that data sovereignty and data governance will as well. So all that’s left me to say is Dr. Jacob Pren, thank you so much indeed for your time.

Jacob:

Thanks, Uncle Charles.

Charles:

And Dr. Petah Atkinson, thank you so much as well.

Petah:

Thank you.