Indigenous Data Governance

In this article I extend my earlier analysis of Māori cultural perspectives on AI sentience and legal personhood to the specific and urgent case of agentic AI systems, those capable of autonomous, persistent, goal directed action across digital environments. I argue that Mead's tikanga Māori framework that I have previously applied to static AI models applies with greater force to AI agents, and that New Zealand's application of non-human legal personality encompassing Te Urewera (2014), the Whanganui River (2017), and most recently Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga (2025) provides a tripartite legislative precedent that supports recognition of AI agents as legal persons where they are constituted by Māori data and governed under Māori ethical frameworks. Four pathways to such recognition are identified and examined: taonga status through Māori data (following the Waitangi Tribunal's WAI 2522 finding); genealogical connection to Māori deities through whakapapa; the legislative precedent of the three natural feature personhood acts; and the recognition of tikanga Māori as New Zealand's first common law following Ellis (2022). I conclude with governance principles grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and my published Te Tiriti based AI ethical principles.

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decisionmaking and control of data.

Contemporary data systems routinely produce outputs about Indigenous Peoples and knowledges that look coherent yet fail to correspond to what they claim to represent. This paper names that failure mode the artifact problem: classificatory and infrastructural constraints generating data as an effect of the system’s own ontology rather than a representation of the source domain. The artifact problem runs deeper than data into the governance frameworks designed to address it. Most rest on a premise this paper challenges: that authority can be located, verified, used as ground. Authority is no different: always relay, never ground, always a partial transmission of something it cannot fully carry.

Building from Indigenous relational ontology’s claim that relations are constitutive of what things are, I develop persistence conditions as a design concept: the relational configurations under which knowledge remains itself. From this follows Digitization Viability Assessment (DVA), which determines whether digitization can maintain persistence conditions without producing artifacts. When it cannot, the correct outcome is refusal-by-design.

The paper develops Sovereign Relational Architecture (SRA), an infrastructure pattern encoding persistence conditions as integrity constraints. SRA reconceives authority as relay: always a partial transmission by someone answerable to relations whose authority remains elsewhere. Warrants record what relays have witnessed; gates enforce persistence conditions; tiered refusal states, including non-disclosure-of-existence, protect sovereignty without producing extraction maps. The framework extends to more-than-human persistence conditions and is accompanied by a working reference implementation.

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decisionmaking and control of data.

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government's research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance.

The population census is a universal tool of governance but has come under increasing pressure as governments look to reduce costs, gain efficiencies and counter declining response rates. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the census transformation strategy has a short-term focus on modernising the census and a long-term vision of a fully administrative census. The digital-first 2018 Census was an ambitious step towards modernisation but there are growing concerns that it may fail to deliver high-quality data, particularly for Māori and iwi. This research note considers the implications of lower response rates and reflects on the steps that might be taken to retain the trust and confidence of Māori in the census, including possibilities for Māori data governance across the official statistics system. he population census is a universal tool of governance but has come under increasing pressure as governments look to reduce costs, gain efficiencies and counter declining response rates . Some believe that the census is an idea whose time has gone, with prominent demographer David Coleman (2013) suggesting that the census as we know it may be entering its "twilight". In Aotearoa New Zealand, as in many other countries, net coverage rates and response rates have also been on a downward trajectory (Statistics New Zealand, 2016a) and there is increasing pressure to deliver better value from the investment in official statistics. The census transformation strategy has a short-term focus on modernising the census and a long-term vision to move to a fully administrative census Stats NZ, 2017a). The digital-first 2018 Census was an ambitious step towards modernisation (Stats NZ,

Over the last three decades, Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) have been reclaiming self-government as an Indigenous right and practice. In the process, they have been asserting various forms of Indigenous nationhood. This article argues that this development involves a common set of activities on the part of Indigenous peoples: (1) identifying as a nation or a people (determining who the appropriate collective "self " is in self-determination and self-government); (2) organizing as a political body (not just as a corporate holder of assets); and (3) acting on behalf of Indigenous goals (asserting and exercising practical decision-making power and responsibility, even in cases where central governments deny recognition). The article compares these activities in the four countries and argues that, while contexts and circumstances differ, the Indigenous politics of self-government show striking commonalities across the four. Among those commonalities: it is a positional as opposed to a distributional politics; while not ignoring individual welfare, it measures success in terms of collective power; and it focuses less on what central governments are willing to do in the way of recognition and rights than on what Indigenous nations or communities can do for themselves.

INTRODUCTION: The non-profit sector in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa), primarily comprising smaller organisations (1–20 employees), faces unique challenges exacerbated by colonial and neoliberal funding models. The scope of this article does not allow for a critique of the neoliberal context but instead focuses on networking pragmatically within a neoliberal, competitive funding system. Scholarly literature often emphasises larger non-profits in contexts like the USA, limiting its applicability to Aotearoa’s smaller entities. While a large proportion of the scholarly literature presents advice to advance the work of non-profit organisations generally, evidence on smaller non-profits is scarce, especially concerning what it means to broach collaboration effectively in such contexts. In this article, inter-organisational collaboration is proposed as a potential solution for smaller non-profits.

METHODS: Driven out of a small, exploratory graduate study, this article presents a strong platform for future research. The findings are based on a literature review supported by semi-structured interviews with six sector leaders in Aotearoa to explore their perspectives on the benefits of inter-organisational collaboration amongst small non-profits.

FINDINGS: Findings suggest that collaboration among small non-profits can advance peer support resource sharing, enable mutual accountability, and even encourage critical examination of colonial legacies to make progress on their journey as Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners. However, the authors argue that a collaborative and efficient non-profit sector will not emerge under current funding models in Aotearoa.

CONCLUSIONS: Sector leaders and funders are urged to recognise the significance of relationships and use these findings to prioritise collaborative practices in their work.

In 2014, the first dedicated National Māori Suicide Prevention Programme: Waka Hourua was launched by Te Rau Matatini. One of its five streams was the operation of a National Coordination Centre for Māori Community Suicide Prevention. The major programme championed by the Centre included fostering Māori leadership, and building their capacity and capability to lead the development of whole of community plans. In drawing on what differentiates Waka Hourua from other programmes, it is the distinction of being privileged to work as informed insiders to Māori communities. This article provides an account of the Ko Au, Ko Koe, Ko Tātou Māori Suicide Prevention Community Programme and Māori Champions working in communities - the Pou Ārahi role.

Jimmie Barker (1900-1972) was a Muruwari Elder, Cultural Knowledge Holder, linguist, historian, ethnographer, inventor and sound engineer who produced over 113 h of audio recordings using reel-to-reel tape recorders between 1968 and 1972. Jimmie was supported in his endeavours by Janet Mathews and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (formerly, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies). The "Barker Collection" of audio recordings is now housed in the AIATSIS Collection. Jimmie initially set out to record a Muruwari-English dictionary, but this expanded into documenting Muruwari language and culture, as well as personal, family, domestic and international history. Much of the collection comprises self-elicitation, metalinguistic analyses, oral histories and reflections. It includes some of the earliest recordings and language documentation by an Aboriginal person of other Aboriginal people, observations of typological properties and language change in Aboriginal languages, and critical analyses of linguistic and anthropological research. Since 2021, Roy J. Barker, grandson of Jimmie and Muruwari Cultural Knowledge Holder, has overseen a team of linguists designing a time-aligned ELAN corpus of Jimmie's recordings for language revival outcomes. The recordings are transcribed, annotated with metadata and coded with cultural and language tags with consideration to the FAIR and CARE Principles.

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government’s research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses fin...

Background: Research reporting guidelines are increasingly commonplace and shown to improve the quality of published health research and health outcomes. Despite severe health inequities among Indigenous Peoples and the potential for research to address the causes, there is an extended legacy of health research exploiting Indigenous Peoples. This paper describes the development of the CONSolIDated critERtia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement. Methods: A collaborative prioritization process was conducted based on national and international statements and guidelines about Indigenous health research from the following nations (Peoples): Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), Canada (First Nations Peoples, Métis), Hawaii (Native Hawaiian), New Zealand (Māori), Taiwan (Taiwan Indigenous Tribes), United States of America (First Nations Peoples) and Northern Scandinavian countries (Sami). A review of seven research guidelines was completed, and meta-synthesis was used to construct a reporting guideline checklist for transparent and comprehensive reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples. Results: A list of 88 possible checklist items was generated, reconciled, and categorized. Eight research domains and 17 criteria for the reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples were identified. The research reporting domains were: (i) governance; (ii) relationships; (iii) prioritization; (iv) methodologies; (v) participation; (vi) capacity; (vii) analysis and findings; and (viii) dissemination. Conclusions: The CONSIDER statement is a collaborative synthesis and prioritization of national and international research statements and guidelines. The CONSIDER statement provides a checklist for the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples to strengthen research praxis and advance Indigenous health outcomes.

First Nations in Ontario are building capacity to leverage health services data in Ontario to provide robust, First Nations-driven health evidence. Beyond providing evidence, population health research processes must involve diverse First Nations' perspectives, collective capacity building and translation of research findings into action through integrated and community engaged knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) approaches. Suggested ways include integrating stories and traditional knowledge, prioritizing gatherings and establishing an enduring commitment to action. To effectively support First Nations' self-determination and sovereignty, First Nations' principles of ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP ®) in research could be expanded to include "action" (OCAPA).

AIM: AIM: To provide a best practice guide on Indigenous mortality reporting based on recommendations from the International Group for Indigenous Health Measurement. METHOD: METHOD: A workshop of the International Group for Indigenous Health Measurement was held in Montreal in 2013 during which best practices in determining Indigenous mortality were discussed. A subsequent discussion paper and draft recommendations were further refined at a meeting in Vancouver in 2014. A working group finalized this best practice guide in follow-up to the two meetings. OUTCOME: OUTCOME: Ten final recommendations are made regarding identification, community engagement and ownership, data linkage, uncertainty in official statistics and a timeline for implementation. In this paper we review and discuss these recommendations drawing on examples of best practice in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America and highlighting some shortcomings in the current practices of official statistical agencies.

Reading time: 19 minutes Indigenous data sovereignty is becoming an increasingly relevant topic, as limited opportunities for benefit sharing have focused attention on the protection of Indigenous rights and interests, and participation in data governance. Globally, there are more than 370 million Indigenous people, representing more than 5,000 distinct cultures, across over 90 countries. The recent focus on Indigenous data sovereignty has emerged as part of an intricate weaving together of the Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights (ICIP) discourse with Indigenous research ethics, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). With most Indigenous data held within non-Indigenous institutions and government agencies, opportunities for increasing control are directly connected to properly identifying Indigenous data and making Indigenous data FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). These objectives are critical to afford greater Indigenous participation in data governance activities. A broad range of data-related challenges exists for Indigenous Peoples. Every Indigenous community has enormous collections of tangible and intangible cultural material, knowledge and data, held in archives, museums, libraries, repositories and other online databases. Significant information about these collections, including individual and community names and proper provenance information, is missing.