AIATSIS Code of Ethics Explained

The AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research is the ethical framework published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) that governs how research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities, knowledge, and data should be conducted in Australia. Released in October 2020 after a two-year consultative revision process, it replaced the 2012 Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) and is the reference point Australian human research ethics committees (HRECs), universities, and funders now expect research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be assessed against.

For research administrators, the Code matters at several points in a project’s lifecycle: at ethics review, where an HREC will expect a proposal to demonstrate engagement with the Code’s principles, not just standard human-subjects protections; at data management planning, where decisions about who controls, accesses, and benefits from data need to reflect Indigenous data governance rather than default institutional data policy; and at grant or partnership negotiation, where benefit-sharing and community leadership commitments need to be built in from the start rather than added after the fact.

What AIATSIS is

AIATSIS is Australia’s national institution for information and research relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, histories, and societies. As a Commonwealth statutory authority, it holds a significant collection of cultural material and administers research ethics guidance and funding relevant to Indigenous studies, which is why its Code of Ethics carries weight well beyond AIATSIS-funded projects — it is widely treated as the applicable national standard for any research touching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities, or data.

Why the Code was revised

AIATSIS began a comprehensive, two-year consultative process in 2018 to transform GERAIS into the current Code, publishing the result in October 2020 with a twelve-month implementation period for institutions to align existing ethics processes to it. The revision reflected a shift in emphasis: rather than framing ethical research primarily as a matter of not causing harm, the Code centers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination and active leadership throughout the research process, from question-setting through to how findings and data are used, stored, and shared afterward.

The four core principles

The Code is organized around four principles, connected through a central commitment to integrity and expressed through the practices of understanding, respect, relationship-building, and reciprocity:

Indigenous self-determination. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have the right to self-determination in research that affects them, including the right to say no to research, to set its terms, and to be recognized as the authority on their own knowledge and experience.
Indigenous leadership. Research should be designed and conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and control wherever possible, rather than treating community involvement as consultation layered onto a project already designed by others.
Impact and value. Research must have a clear, demonstrable benefit to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities — value is judged by the communities affected, not assumed by the researcher or institution.
Sustainability and accountability. Research relationships, data governance arrangements, and any commitments made to communities need to be sustained beyond the life of the funded project, with researchers and institutions accountable for following through.

The Code states that these principles are informed by the rights articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), situating Australian research ethics practice within that broader international framework rather than treating it as a purely domestic compliance exercise.

How it applies to research data management

The Code’s implications extend directly into data stewardship. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples retain interests in data and knowledge produced about them — including the right to be involved in decisions about how that data is stored, accessed, reused, and eventually deposited or destroyed — which means a conventional data management plan built around funder mandates and open-data defaults is not sufficient on its own for a project this Code applies to.

Two related but distinct frameworks are worth keeping separate when planning:

The AIATSIS Code sets out the ethical requirements for the research relationship as a whole — how a project is initiated, led, and accountable to the communities it involves — across the entire research lifecycle, not only the data produced.
The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics), developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), address data governance specifically, and are designed to sit alongside — not replace — the FAIR principles that guide open research data more broadly. See Indigenous data governance and Indigenous data sovereignty for how these apply once a project moves from ethics approval into active data management.

In practice, a data management plan for a project covered by the Code should specify who has authority over the dataset (which may be a community organization rather than, or jointly with, the research institution), what re-use restrictions apply, how Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property is identified and protected, and what happens to the data at project end — questions a generic institutional DMP template rarely prompts on its own. See CASRAI’s guide on the Data Management Plan (DMP) for the general planning requirements this sits alongside.

What compliance looks like in practice

Ethics review. Australian HRECs reviewing research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples generally expect the application to demonstrate how the Code’s four principles are reflected in the project design, not just that a generic human-subjects consent process will be followed. Some institutions require separate or additional Indigenous-specific ethics review alongside standard HREC approval.
Community engagement and leadership from the outset. Because Indigenous leadership is a core principle rather than an add-on, funders and reviewers increasingly expect evidence of community involvement in framing the research question, not only in data collection.
Benefit-sharing and reporting back. Sustainability and accountability translate into concrete deliverables: findings reported back to participating communities in accessible form, and, where relevant, ongoing relationships or capacity-building commitments that outlast the funded project.
Data governance agreements. Formal agreements — covering data ownership, access conditions, and consent for future use — are typically negotiated as part of project setup rather than left implicit, consistent with the CARE Principles’ emphasis on Authority to Control.

Frequently asked questions

Is the AIATSIS Code of Ethics legally binding?

The Code itself is an ethics framework, not legislation. Its practical force comes from adoption: Australian universities, HRECs, and funders that require research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to comply with it as a condition of ethics approval or funding, which makes non-compliance a real institutional and funding risk even though the Code is not a statute in its own right.

Does the Code apply only to research funded or conducted by AIATSIS?

No. While AIATSIS publishes and maintains the Code, it is applied far more broadly — by universities, HRECs, and other funders — as the applicable ethical standard for any research involving Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities, data, or cultural material, regardless of who is funding or leading the project.

What did the Code replace, and why was it updated?

It replaced the 2012 Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) following a two-year consultative revision process AIATSIS began in 2018. The update shifted the framework’s emphasis toward Indigenous self-determination and leadership across the whole research process, rather than treating ethical research primarily as risk mitigation.

How does the AIATSIS Code relate to the CARE Principles?

They are complementary rather than interchangeable. The AIATSIS Code addresses the ethics of the research relationship overall — how a project is initiated, led, and made accountable to the communities it involves. The CARE Principles, developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, address data governance specifically and are meant to be applied alongside the FAIR data principles. A project governed by the AIATSIS Code will typically need to apply CARE-consistent data governance as part of meeting the Code’s broader requirements.

Who should researchers talk to first when planning a project the Code applies to?

AIATSIS publishes a companion guide to applying the Code, and most Australian universities with a research ethics office have a designated Indigenous research ethics contact or committee. Early engagement — before a proposal is finalized, not after — is consistent with the Code’s emphasis on Indigenous leadership from the outset rather than consultation added later.

Related CASRAI resources

Sources: AIATSIS, Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (October 2020); AIATSIS, Ethical research; AIATSIS, Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (2012, superseded).