Showing posts with label OGP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OGP. Show all posts

08 September 2025

FOI

The Commonwealth Attorney-General last week announced that 

The Albanese Government has today introduced legislation to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to ensure our FOI framework works in the interests of all Australians. 

The Government’s changes will ensure genuine requests are prioritised while saving taxpayers money on frivolous and automated requests. FOI is a vital feature of our democracy that promotes accountability and transparency of government decision making. 

However, right now the FOI framework is stuck in the 1980s – before the use of email and other modern technologies became common. The current laws are not working well for anybody — as evidenced by a doubling of complaints to the OAIC over the past five years. 

In 2024, public servants spent more than a million hours processing FOI requests. 

This is, in part, because modern technology has made it possible to create large volumes of vague, anonymous, vexatious or frivolous requests – tying up resources, costing taxpayers money and delaying the processing of genuine requests. As technology continues to develop, this will be a growing problem. 

That’s why the Government is announcing a series of reforms drawing from the experience of those who interact with the FOI system, along with past reviews which have made recommendations about how to improve the system. 

These reforms include:

  • A ban on anonymous FOI requests. 

  • Modernising the FOI framework by strengthening the ability of government agencies to deter vexatious, abusive and frivolous requests, including through strengthened applications processes. 

  • Clarifying existing exemptions, including in relation to Cabinet confidentiality, to ensure they are consistent with their original policy intent. 

  • Filling gaps in law by establishing clear processes for outgoing Ministers to ensure FOI requests are appropriately processed and responded to. 

  • Addressing barriers to frank and fearless advice by ensuring the test for accessing deliberative documents is clearer in law and easily understood. 

  • A new fee-structure for applicants, with exemptions for people seeking their personal information, which accounted for 72% of overall FOI requests in 2023-24.

The Bill also safeguards against potential abuses from anonymous or nefarious offshore actors, and provides greater transparency over who is seeking Australian Government information.

The Information Commissioner's statistics indicate that only 21% of FOI requests were granted in full in 2023‑2024.

06 August 2025

(Un)Harnessing AI

The interim report by the Productivity Commission on Harnessing Data and Digital Technology - consistent with the national government's enthusiasm for AI - can be read as proposing a looser regulatory framework. 

The report states 

Data and digital technologies are the modern engines of economic growth. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), which can extract useful insights from massive datasets in a fraction of a second, could transform the global economy and speed up productivity growth. 
 
Australia needs to harness the consumer and productivity benefits of data and digital technology while managing and mitigating the downside risks. There is a role for government in setting the rules of the game to foster innovation and ensure that Australians reap the benefits of the data and digital opportunity. 
 
The economic potential of AI is clear, and we are still in the early stages of its development and adoption. Early studies provide a broad range of estimates for the impact of AI on productivity. The Productivity Commission considers that multifactor productivity gains above 2.3% are likely over the next decade, though there is considerable uncertainty. This would translate into about 4.3% labour productivity growth over the same period. But poorly designed regulation could stifle the adoption and development of AI and limit its benefits. Australian governments should take an outcomes based approach to AI regulation – one that uses our existing laws and regulatory structures to minimise harms and introduces technology specific regulations as a last resort. 
 
Data access and use can fuel productivity growth: insights from data can help reduce costs, increase the quality of products and services and lead to the creation of entirely new products. But some requirements in the Privacy Act, the main piece of legislation for protecting privacy, are constraining innovation without providing meaningful protection to individuals. For example, complying with the controls and processes baked into the Act can make consent and notification a ‘tick box’ exercise – where businesses comply with the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. The Australian Government should amend the Privacy Act to introduce an alternative compliance pathway that enables firms to fulfil their privacy obligations by meeting outcomes based criteria. 
 
Data about individuals and businesses underpins growth and value in the digital economy. But often those same individuals and businesses cannot easily access and use this data themselves. Under the right conditions, giving people and businesses better access to data that relates to them can stimulate competition and allow businesses to develop innovative products and services. A mature data sharing regime could add up to $10 billion to Australia’s annual economic output. 
 
Experience shows that we need a flexible approach to facilitating data access across the economy, where obligations placed on data holders and the level of government involvement can match the needs and digital maturity of different sectors. New lower cost and flexible regulatory pathways would help to guide expanded data access throughout the digital economy, focusing first on sectors where the gains can be significant and relatively easy to achieve. 
 
Financial reports provide essential information about a company’s financial performance, ensuring transparency and accountability while informing the decisions of investors, businesses and regulators. Government can further spark productivity by making digital financial reporting the default – that is, mandatory lodgement of financial reports in machine readable form. At the same time, the Australian Government should remove the outdated requirement that financial reports be submitted in hard copy or PDF format. This change would increase the efficiency and accuracy with which information is extracted and analysed.

The  draft recommendations are

 Artificial intelligence 

Draft recommendation 1.1 Productivity growth from AI will be built on existing legal foundations. 

Gap analyses of current rules need to be expanded and completed. Australian governments play a key role in promoting investment in digital technology, including AI, by providing a stable regulatory environment. Any regulatory responses to potential harms from using AI must be proportionate, risk based, outcomes based and technology neutral where possible. 

The Australian Government should continue, complete, publish and act on ongoing reviews into the potential gaps in the regulatory framework posed by AI as soon as possible. 

Where relevant gap analyses have not begun, they should begin immediately. 

All reviews of the regulatory gaps posed by AI should consider: • the uses of AI • the additional risk of harm posed by AI (compared to the status quo) in a specific use case • whether existing regulatory frameworks cover these risks potentially with improved guidance and enforcement; and if not how to modify existing regulatory frameworks to mitigate the additional risks. 

Draft recommendation 1.2 AI specific regulation should be a last resort 

AI specific regulations should only be considered as a last resort for the use cases of AI that meet two criteria. These are: • where existing regulatory frameworks cannot be sufficiently adapted to handle the issue • where technology neutral regulations are not feasible.   

Draft recommendation 1.3 Pause steps to implement mandatory guardrails for high risk AI 

The Australian Government should only apply the proposed ‘mandatory guardrails for high risk AI’ in circumstances that lead to harms that cannot be mitigated by existing regulatory frameworks and where new technology neutral regulation is not possible. Until the reviews of the gaps posed by AI to existing regulatory structures are completed, steps to mandate the guardrails should be paused. 

Data access 

Draft recommendation 2.1 Establish lower cost and more flexible regulatory pathways to expand basic data access for individuals and businesses 

The Australian Government should support new pathways to allow individuals and businesses to access and share data that relates to them. These regulatory pathways will differ by sector recognising that the benefits (and the implementation costs) from data access and sharing are different by sector. This could include approaches such as: • industry led data access codes that support basic use cases by enabling consumers to export relatively non sensitive data on a periodic (snapshot) basis • standardised data transfers with government helping to formalise minimum technical standards to support use cases requiring high frequency data transfers and interoperability. 

These pathways should be developed alongside efforts that are already underway to improve the Consumer Data Right (which will continue to provide for use cases that warrant its additional safeguards and technical infrastructure) and the My Health Record system. 

The new pathways should begin in sectors where better data access could generate large benefits for relatively low cost; and there is clear value to consumers. Potential examples include: • enabling farmers to combine real time data feeds from their machinery and equipment to optimise their operations and easily switch between different manufacturers • giving tenants on demand access to their rental ledgers which they can share to prove on‑time payments to new landlords or lenders • allowing retail loyalty card holders to export an itemised copy of their purchase history to budgeting and price comparison tools that can analyse spending and suggest cheaper alternatives. The scope of the data access pathways should expand over time based on industry and consumer consultation, where new technology, overseas experience or domestic developments show that there are clear net benefits to Australia.   

Privacy regulation 

Draft recommendation 3.1 An alternative compliance pathway for privacy 

The Australian Government should amend the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to provide an alternative compliance pathway that enables regulated entities to fulfil their privacy obligations by meeting criteria that are targeted at outcomes, rather than controls based rules. 

Draft recommendation 3.2 Do not implement a right to erasure 

The Australian Government should not amend the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to introduce a ‘right to erasure’, as this would impose a high compliance burden on regulated entities, with uncertain privacy benefits for individuals. 

Digital financial reporting 

Draft recommendation 4.1 Make digital financial reporting the default 

The Australian Government should make the necessary amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) to make digital financial reporting mandatory for disclosing entities. The requirement for financial reports to be submitted in hard copy or PDF format should also be removed for those entities.

It goes on

AI specific regulation should be a last resort 

AI specific regulations should only be considered as a last resort for the use cases of AI that meet two criteria. These are: • where existing regulatory frameworks cannot be sufficiently adapted to handle the issue • where technology neutral regulations are not feasible. 

Economy wide efforts to regulate AI should be paused until all gap analyses are complete and implemented 

In August 2024 Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources released a set of 10 voluntary AI safety standards, or guardrails, based on risk management standards such as ISO/IEC 42001:2023 (Information technology – Artificial intelligence – Management system) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (DISR 2024b, p. 5). The guardrails cover aspects of AI development and application. They require several risk-management processes. These include testing of models, developing a risk plan and providing transparency to users of AI tools and owners of copyrighted materials used in the training of models. The guardrails outline reasonable risk-management practices for many organisations. In this way they have served a very important and useful step in AI governance in Australia by equipping businesses with voluntary, structured and internationally recognised standards to support and guide their adoption of AI. 

The guidelines are very useful for smaller businesses without comprehensive risk-management procedures in place. Indeed, submissions from participants to this inquiry (and submissions to the mandatory guardrails – discussed below – consultation process ) showed that many larger organisations have implemented risk management protocols that are similar in spirit to these guardrails. 

Mandating the guardrails is not necessary 

In September 2024 (DISR 2024a) a proposals paper for a set of mandatory guardrails for AI in high risk settings was released by the Australian Government. The proposal is to turn the voluntary guidelines into mandatory regulations for AI development and application. 

The PC is concerned with two aspects of the guardrails being made mandatory. First, the proposals paper argued that the mandatory guardrails would apply to all high risk uses of AI – regardless of whether risks can be better mitigated through outcomes based regulations. Second, the proposals paper argued that General Purpose AIs – which would include many generative AI tools – above a certain threshold of capability be classified as high risk by default. The proposals paper did not argue for any particular measure or threshold for technical capability, though it could include aspects like FLOPS (DISR 2024a, p. 18). It was argued that these models can perform so many functions that their risks cannot be adequately foreseen. This could result in the guardrails being applied to common generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Grok, depending on what is chosen as the threshold and measure of technical capability. 

In general, high risk uses of AI can be split into three broad types. 

1. High risk uses that can be adequately controlled by existing regulatory frameworks (potentially with some modification) – this could include issues with privacy law (which the PC thinks can be resolved within existing frameworks with modification to make the regulations more outcomes focused, chapter 2). 

2. High risk uses that can be adequately controlled with new technology neutral regulations – this could include (non consensual) sexually explicit deepfake images which the Australian Government has recently banned (through the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024). 

3. High risk use cases that require technology specific regulations – these would be use cases identified in the various gap analyses as having no technology neutral solution. 

The PC’s concern with the guardrails is that they would not distinguish between these categories. This in our view raises significant issues, as the first two cases can already, by definition, be dealt with adequately by other regulatory mechanisms. It might also result in most commercial chatbots being classified as high risk regardless of the efficacy of existing regulations. The result of this approach is that many AI models would be complying with two different sets of regulation to achieve the same outcome. 

For example, the TGA’s review noted that with respect to medical devices, all ten proposed guardrails had close parallels in existing regulations (2025, pp. 27–30). That is, it is likely that firms providing AI based medical devices in Australia would already be fulfilling the objectives of the guardrails if they are operating legally under the TGA’s existing regulations. But if the guardrails are mandated, then the provider of the medical device would need to demonstrate compliance with the TGA regulations and the guardrails, raising the regulatory burden with no change in outcomes. 

The mandating of the guardrails is only appropriate in circumstances where existing regulatory frameworks or new technology-neutral regulations are not able to adequately mitigate the risk of harm. Once the Australian Government has completed and acted on all gap analyses of its existing policy framework, it will know what regulatory holes cannot be plugged by existing frameworks or new technology neutral legislation. Consideration of economy wide efforts to mandate the guardrails should be paused until these gap analyses are complete. 

Pause steps to implement mandatory guardrails for high risk AI The Australian Government should only apply the proposed ‘mandatory guardrails for high risk AI’ in circumstances that lead to harms that cannot be mitigated by existing regulatory frameworks and where new technology neutral regulation is not possible. Until the reviews of the gaps posed by AI to existing regulatory structures are completed, steps to mandate the guardrails should be paused.

In dealing with copyright the PC states 

 Copyright violation is an example of a harm that AI could exacerbate by changing economic incentives. Previous waves of innovation in information and communication technology have made the sharing of copyrighted materials much cheaper and easier, creating challenges for copyright. In most instances, copyright law was able to be adapted (or better enforced) to mitigate the harm. This made it unnecessary to directly regulate technology by, for example, regulating computer software or hardware to prevent copyright breach. It is the PC’s view that the copyright issues posed by AI can also similarly be resolved through adapting existing copyright law frameworks rather than introducing AI specific regulation. 

What is copyright? 

Copyright law prohibits a person from using original works without the permission of the copyright holder – usually the author (AGD 2022a). The types of works that are protected include text, artistic works, music, computer code, sound recordings and films (ACC 2024a). It does not protect the underlying ideas or information (AGD 2022a). In some cases, data and datasets may be protected, ‘largely depend[ing] on how the data has been arranged, structured or presented’ (Allens 2020, p. 3).  

The rise of AI technology has led to new challenges for copyright law. 

The emergence of AI also raises some additional, principle based questions about how the copyright framework (as part of Australia’s broader intellectual property regime) works to benefit society by encouraging creation and innovation, rewarding intellectual effort and achievement, and supporting the dissemination of knowledge and ideas. (AGD 2023c, p. 12) 

In 2023, the Attorney General established the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group, which acts as ‘a standing mechanism to engage with stakeholders across a wide range of sectors on issues at the intersection of AI and copyright’ (AGD 2023a). Since then, the group has met on several occasions to discuss issues relating to AI technology and copyright law (AGD 2023a). 

This section explores one issue particularly relevant to productivity: whether current Australian copyright law is a barrier to building and training AI models. There are other legal issues relating to the outputs of AI models that are less relevant to productivity – such as whether those outputs attract copyright protection and what happens when AI outputs infringe a third party’s copyright (Evans et al. 2024). 

Training AI models 

Building and refining AI models requires the use of large amounts of data. 

The term ‘AI model training’ refers to this process: feeding the algorithm data, examining the results, and tweaking the model output to increase accuracy and efficacy. To do this, algorithms need massive amounts of data that capture the full range of incoming data. (Chen 2023) The datasets used to train AI models often contain digital copies of media such as web pages, books, videos, images and music. These media are often the subject of copyright protection, which means that their use to train AI models requires permission from the copyright holder. 

Permission is required because AI models must ‘copy’ the protected material at least temporarily to undertake the training process. The use of copyrighted materials to train an AI model is a separate issue to the copyright status of anything the model produces. As discussed above, AI outputs may have their own copyright challenges. 

A survey of the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group indicated that, in practice, a range of copyrighted materials are used to train AI models – including literary and artistic works, sound recordings, films and musical works (AGD 2024, p. 12). 

There is evidence to suggest that large AI models are already being trained on copyrighted materials without consent or compensation (APA and ASA, qr. 39, pp. 3–4; APDG, qr. 6, p. 4; APRA AMCOS, qr. 58, p. 4; ARIA and PPCA, qr. 65, p. 5, Creative Australia, qr. 62, p. 3). It should be noted that Australian copyright law only applies to copying that occurs within Australia’s boundaries – in other words, the training of AI models overseas is subject to the relevant laws of the jurisdiction in which it occurs. Lawsuits have been brought against technology companies – including Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI – in some overseas jurisdictions about the unlicensed use of copyrighted works to train AI models (Ryan 2023). 

There are concerns that the Australian copyright regime is not keeping pace with the rise of AI technology – whether because it does not adequately facilitate the use of copyrighted works or because AI developers can too easily sidestep existing licensing and enforcement mechanisms. There are several policy options, including: • no policy change – that is, copyright owners would continue to enforce their rights under the existing copyright framework, including through the court system • policy measures to better facilitate the licensing of copyrighted materials, such as through collecting societies • amending the Copyright Act to include a fair dealing exception that would cover text and data mining. 

The PC is seeking feedback on what reforms are needed to bring the copyright regime up to date. 

Is there a need to bolster the licensing or enforcement regime? 

Several participants expressed concern about the unauthorised use of copyrighted materials to train AI models. For example, Creative Australia said: Much of the data has been used reportedly without consent from the original creator, and without acknowledgement or remuneration. The global nature of the technology industry has made it difficult for the owners of creative work to enforce their intellectual property rights and be remunerated for the use of their work. (qr. 62, p. 3) 

There are two points at which concerns of this type could be addressed. First, they could be addressed before the fact, through copyright licensing. Licensing is the key mechanism through which a copyright holder grants permission for others to use their work and often involves some form of payment. In Australia, licensing is often done through collecting societies, which are organisations that represent copyright holders. This can streamline the licensing process, because the collecting society can negotiate licences on behalf of multiple copyright holders at once. As the Copyright Agency said: We can help these sectors use third party content for AI related activities. Our annual licence for businesses now allows staff to use news media content in prompts for AI tools (e.g. for summarisation or analysis). We are extending this to other third party content later in the year. We are also in discussions with our members and licensees about other collective licensing solutions, including the use of datasets for AI related activities. (qr. 7, pp. 2–3) 

The issue of unauthorised use of copyrighted materials could also be addressed after the fact, through enforcement. This encompasses a range of possible measures, including take down notices, alternative dispute resolution and court action. In 2022 23, the Attorney General’s Department undertook a Copyright Enforcement Review to assess ‘whether existing copyright enforcement mechanisms remain effective and proportionate’ (AGD 2022b). That review found that additional regulatory measures are needed to achieve an effective copyright enforcement regime, and work is currently underway to identify options for: • reducing barriers for Australians to use of the legal system to enforce copyright, including examining simple options to resolve ‘small value’ copyright infringements • improving understanding and awareness about copyright. (AGD 2023b) 

In light of this ongoing work, the issue of copyright enforcement is not in scope for this inquiry. 

Is there a case for a text and data mining exception? 

Another option is to expand the existing ‘fair dealing’ regime, which provides certain exceptions to the requirement to obtain permission from the copyright holder (box 1.6). Currently, there is no exception that covers AI model training per se (The University of Notre Dame Australia 2024). However, depending on the case, a different exception could apply. For example, AI models built as part of research could fall within the scope of the ‘research or study’ exception. 

Box 1.6 – What are fair dealing exceptions? 

Fair dealing exceptions allow for the use of copyright material without permission from the copyright owner, so long as it is used for one of several specified purposes and is considered fair. What are the specified purposes? The Copyright Act specifies several purposes where the exception may apply. These include: research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, and enabling a person with a disability to access the material (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Part III, Div 3; Part VIA, Div 2). 

What counts as ‘fair’? 

Fairness is determined with regard to all the relevant circumstances – that is, it depends on the facts. Some purposes have specified criteria that must be taken into account. For example, where the use is for research or study, the following considerations apply: • the purpose and character of the dealing • the nature of the work • whether the work can be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price • the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work • how amount and substantiality of the work that was copied (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 40(2)). 

The ‘fair use’ doctrine – an alternative approach 

Some overseas jurisdictions (notably the United States) take a ‘fair use’ approach to copyright exceptions. Under this doctrine, any types of use can be considered non infringing, provided that it is considered ‘fair’ – in other words, the use need not fall within one of several defined categories. Several reviews have recommended the adoption of the fair use doctrine in Australia (including by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity Commission), but this has not occurred. Source: ACC (2024b); ALRC (2013); Copyright Act 1968 (Cth); PC (2021, p. 187). 

In its report on Copyright and the Digital Economy, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended amendments to enable text and data mining by adopting a fair use approach to copyright exceptions (box 1.6) – or, failing that, through a new fair dealing exception. It explained: There has been growing recognition that data and text mining should not be infringement because it is a ‘non expressive’ use. Non expressive use leans on the fundamental principle that copyright law protects the expression of ideas and information and not the information or data itself (2013, p. 261)  

The Australian Government has since indicated that it is not inclined to introduce a fair use regime (Australian Government 2017, p. 7). Therefore, the PC is considering whether there is a case for a new fair dealing exception that explicitly covers text and data mining (a ‘TDM exception’). TDM exceptions exist in several comparable overseas jurisdictions (box 1.7). 

Such an exception would cover not just AI model training, but all forms of analytical techniques that use machine read material to identify patterns, trends and other useful information. For example, the use of text and data mining techniques is common in research sectors to produce large datasets that can be interrogated through statistical analysis. 

Box 1.7 – Text and data mining around the world 

European Union: There are two text and data mining (TDM) exceptions embedded in the Digital Single Market Directive (EU 2019/790) – one for scientific research (article 3) and another for general use (article 4). The Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) specifically characterises the training of AI models as involving ‘text and data mining techniques’ (recital 105) and refers to the TDM exception (article 53). The recent case of Kneschke v. LAION [2024] endorsed the view that the TDM exception extends to cover AI training (Goldstein et al. 2024a, 2024b). 

United States: It has been argued that training AI models falls within the scope of the fair use doctrine (Khan 2024; Klosek and Blumenthal 2024). However, the case Thomson Reuters v. Ross [2023] 694 F.Supp.3d 467 highlights that whether AI training is covered by the doctrine depends on whether the fair use factors are met in the circumstances (ReedSmith 2025). 

United Kingdom: There is a TDM exception for that applies to non commercial research (UK Intellectual Property Office 2014). There have been proposals to expand the exception to cover all uses, though these are still under consideration (Pinsent Masons 2023; UK Government 2024). 

Japan: The Japanese Copyright Act includes broad statutory exemptions for TDM (article 30 4(ii)), provided the work is used for ‘non enjoyment’ purposes (Senftleben 2022, p. 1494). In essence, the requirement for ‘non enjoyment’ distinguishes between whether the work is being consumed as a work or as data, and is broadly equivalent to the distinction between expressive and non expressive uses. 

Singapore: The Singaporean Copyright Act includes a specific TDM exception, as well as a broader fair use exception (Ng-Loy 2024). 

To assist its consideration of this option, the PC is seeking feedback about the likely effects of a TDM exception on the AI market, the creative sector and productivity in general – particularly in light of the following considerations. • At present, large AI models (including generative AI and large language models) are generally available to be used in Australia. The introduction (or not) of a TDM exception is unlikely to affect whether AI models continue to be available and used in Australia (PC 2024c, p. 13). • At present, large AI models are trained overseas, not in Australia. It is unclear whether the introduction of a TDM exception would change this trend. • As discussed above, large AI models are already being trained on unlicensed copyrighted materials. • A TDM exception could make a difference to whether smaller, low compute models (such as task specific models) can be built and trained in Australia, such as by Australian research institutions, medical technology firms, and research service providers. It should also be noted that a TDM exception would not be a ‘blank cheque’ for all copyrighted materials to be used as inputs into all AI models. As discussed in box 1.4, the use must also be considered ‘fair’ in the circumstances – this requirement would act as a check on copyrighted works being used unfairly, preserving the integrity of the copyright holder’s legal and commercial interests in the work. There may be a need for legislative criteria or regulatory guidance about what types of uses are likely to be considered fair. 

Information request 1.1 

The PC is seeking feedback on the issue of copyrighted materials being used to train AI models. • Are reforms to the copyright regime (including licensing arrangements) required? If so, what are they and why? The PC is also seeking feedback on the proposal to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to include a fair dealing exception for text and data mining. • How would an exception covering text and data mining affect the development and use of AI in Australia? What are the costs, benefits and risks of a text and data mining exception likely to be? • How should the exception be implemented in the Copyright Act – for example, should it be through a broad text and data mining exception or one that covers non commercial uses only? • Is there a need for legislative criteria or regulatory guidance to help provide clarity about what types of uses are fair?

17 July 2025

ANAO data governance

The ANAO Governance of Data report states 

Data is any information in a form capable of being communicated, analysed or processed (whether by an individual, a computer or other automated means). Data becomes valuable when it is processed and analysed to extract meaning, leading to insights, decisions or predictions. Governance of Data considers structured data that is measurable, such as a set of observations organised into a table, spreadsheet or database — in contrast to unstructured data that cannot be easily measured, such as records of meeting minutes. 

Data is a valuable asset of every Commonwealth entity, as it underpins informed decision making, efficient and effective business operations and public accountability. This means entities should invest in its governance, quality, security and ethical use to ensure data is trusted, protected and used to drive measurable results and outcomes for citizens. 

Effective governance of data is critical to realising and maximising the economic, social and environmental benefits of data. This includes securely, safely, lawfully and ethically sharing data with other public sector jurisdictions, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on data sharing between Commonwealth and State and Territory governments. Good data governance is also necessary to meet legislative obligations and policy. 

Through its audit work, the ANAO has observed good practices and fundamental deficiencies in the governance of data across multiple entities. Governance deficiencies have resulted in weaknesses to data integrity (reliability and verifiability), which impacts business processes and can result in reduced capability to make informed decisions, meet reporting requirements and achieve business objectives. Good data governance is essential in analytics, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning , to ensure ethical use of data, including avoiding bias in AI models. 

Benefits of good data governance

  • Improved capability to achieve business outcomes. 

  • More robust evidence base for improved decision making and increased public trust. 

  • More consistent, coordinated, accessible and timely services. 

  • More informed policy development and decision-making. 

  • Better reporting and assurance to the Parliament. 

  • Improved information exchange and transparency. 

  • Greater operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 

  • Reduced impact of machinery of government and other business continuity changes. 

  • Better understanding and management of regulatory and other risks. 

  • Compliance with legislative requirements, including privacy. 

  • Increased physical, information and personnel security.

Commonwealth legislation and policy on data governance 

  • Privacy Act 1988 - Outlines obligations to protect the identity of individuals an entity holds data about, and the ethical handling of this data. 

  • Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 - Authorises Australian Government entities to make data assets discoverable and to share data with accredited individuals and organisations, provided certain conditions are met. 

  • Freedom of Information Act 1982 - With some exceptions, provides the public the right to access government held information, including government policies and decisions. 

  • Protective Security Policy Framework - Sets out what Australian Government entities must do to protect people and information assets.

Also relevant are the:

  • Archives Act 1983, which makes National Archives of Australia responsible for identifying the archival resources of the Commonwealth (that is, Commonwealth information of enduring value), and preserving and making publicly available the archival resources of the Commonwealth; 

  • National Archives of Australia’s Building trust in the public record policy, which identifies key requirements for managing Australian Government information assets, including records, information and data; and supports improvement in performance management of public sector data and the use and reuse of data; 

  • the Department of Finance’s Data Ethics Framework, which provides Australian Public Service (APS) guidance on ethical use of public data and analytics; 

  • the Australian Public Service Commission’s APS Data Capability Framework, which outlines 26 data-specific capability areas associated with working with data in the APS; and 

  • the Digital Transformation Agency’s Framework for the Governance of Indigenous Data, which aims to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people greater agency over how their data is governed within the APS so government-held data better reflects their priorities and aspirations. 

Whole-of-government data strategy 

Launched in December 2023, the Australian Government’s Data and Digital Government Strategy (the Strategy) aims to provide a blueprint for the use and management of data and digital technologies by the APS through to 2030. The Strategy recognises data as a valuable national asset in realising Australia’s economic and social objectives, and in improving the evidence-base for government policy decisions, with a goal of better outcomes for all people and business. 

To support implementation of the Strategy, and to help entities self-assess their data maturity over time, the Department of Finance developed the Data Maturity Assessment Tool (DMAT). The self-assessment enables entities to: track their data maturity progress over time; identify data management strengths and weaknesses; and improve their ability to meet reporting obligations for promoting accountability and public trust.

The report features 'Questions for reflection'  

Lesson 1: Value data as an asset

  • Does our entity have a culture that values curiosity, evidence and learning from data? 

  • Does our entity have leadership commitment, including a sole authority (Chief Data Officer or equivalent data leadership role) responsible for all entity data and for fostering a culture that values data? 

  • Does our entity consider from the outset what data is required to achieve business objectives? Does our entity collect and use data with a purpose, such as for evidence-based policy, and to evaluate and measure performance? 

  • Does our entity select and design systems based on the required data outputs? 

  • Does our entity have clear methodology documentation (such as standard operating procedures and workflows) that enables users to easily locate required data at any point in a process? 

  • Does our entity have appropriate controls in place to assure the integrity of data, such as regular data checks and sign off by senior staff certifying data quality and integrity? 

  • Does our entity uplift staff data capability through learning? 

  • Does our entity regularly assess its data maturity, such as by using the Data Maturity Assessment Tool?

 

Lesson 2: Develop an information governance framework and data strategy  

  • Does our entity have an information governance framework and a data strategy? 

  • Does our entity’s information governance framework provide broad oversight of our organisation’s data assets and data management approach to achieve business goals? 

  • Does our entity’s information governance framework set out drivers for data, such as

    • legislation, risk and business needs? 

    • the environment within which data is created and/or captured, collected and managed? 

    • the principles that guide data design, capture, management and use? 

    • roles and responsibilities, including leadership, as they relate to data? 

    • consistent understanding and use of data across systems within the organisation and with other entities? 

    • controls to protect against risks to data and to preserve the integrity of data? 

    • how ethical considerations are embedded into data and AI policies? 

    • senior management commitment to uphold data governance? 

  • What actions does our entity take to embed information governance into its culture, such as training and guidance for staff? 

  • Does our entity’s data strategy align with our organisation’s information governance framework, with greater detail on the approach to data creation, capture, collection, management and use of data? 

  • Has our entity considered the Office of the National Data Commissioner’s Foundational Four in establishing data governance and an enterprise-wide data strategy? 

  • Has our entity integrated AI into our information governance framework and data strategy to ensure responsible and secure AI use and alignment with business objectives? 

  • Does our entity regularly review and evolve our information and data framework and strategy? If applicable, does our entity meet the requirements of the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government?

Lesson 3: Establish data leadership and define roles and responsibilities

  • Does our entity have an established data leader and defined data team roles and responsibilities? 

  • Does our entity refer to the SES Accountabilities for Data guidance to establish data roles and responsibilities? 

  • Does our entity have a Chief Data Officer or equivalent who is accountable for enterprise-wide governance and use of data as an asset within the entity, and building entity data capabilities? 

  • Does the role of our entity’s Chief Data Officer or equivalent align with the Chief Data Officer Information Pack? 

  • Does our entity hold SES staff accountable for the proper use of government data within their areas of business responsibility? Does our entity clearly document data roles and responsibilities?

Lesson 4: Document data methodology with data processes mapped end-to-end

  • Does our entity document data methodology with processes mapped end-to-end? 

  • Does our entity classify and categorise data to make it more discoverable and useful? 

  • Does our entity document data sources and systems? 

  • Does our entity document end-to-end processes? 

  • Does our entity manage entire data lifecycles (using the Data Maturity Assessment Tool or the Data Lifecycle View outlined in the APS Data Capability Framework)? 

  • Does our entity implement quality standards and assurance processes? 

  • Does our entity implement auditing and monitoring practices? 

  • Is our entity’s documentation clear and sufficiently detailed to support business continuity and mitigate risks such as loss of knowledge through staffing changes?

Lesson 5: Strengthen assurance over third-party data

  • Does our entity have strong assurance over any third-party data? 

  • Does our entity clearly understand how third parties collect data? 

  • Does our entity have assurance over the quality and integrity of third-party data? 

  • Does our entity implement appropriate controls to identify, mitigate and address data risks? 

  • Does our entity integrate data reporting obligations as part of formal arrangements, such as contracts or grants management agreements? 

  • Does our entity conduct regular due diligence, such as provider risk assessments and audits? 

  • Does our entity integrate third-party data into existing data governance frameworks (e.g. through validation checks, access controls and monitoring)? 

  • Does our entity obtain control reports on the effectiveness of third-party systems, including their reliability and data security measures?

01 July 2025

Yoorrook

The Yoorrook Justice Commission in Victoria makes the following recommendations 

Transformative change through the treaty process 

Recommendation 1 

The Victorian Government must fund the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to establish an ongoing truth-telling body to continue to take First Peoples’ testimony and build the public record. 

Chapter 1: The past is the present 

Recommendation 2 

The Victorian Government must acknowledge the ongoing reality of legal and political pluralism in Victoria, engage with First Nations as nations, and provide the resources to support the transition to genuine nation-to-nation relationships. 

Chapter 2: Sovereignty 

Recommendation 3 

The Victorian Government must transfer decision-making power, authority, control and resources to First Peoples, giving full effect to self-determination in relation to their identity, information, data, traditional ecological knowledge, connection to Country, their rights to their lands, waters and resources, in the Victorian health, education and housing systems and across economic and political life. Transferring or creating decision-making power includes but is not limited to: a. System design and administration; b. Obtaining and allocating rights and interests in land, waters and natural resources; c. Powers of, and appointments to bodies and institutions; and d. Accountability and oversight functions including new First Peoples-led oversight processes or complaints pathways. 

Chapter 3: Self-determination 

Recommendation 4 

Through negotiation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Victorian Government must establish independent funding streams, including through hypothecation of a portion of land, water and natural resource-related revenues, to support the Self-Determination Fund and other First Peoples-led initiatives. 

Recommendation 5 

The Victorian Government must provide guaranteed ongoing funding and support the establishment of independent funding streams at both Statewide and local levels to support healing Country, relationships and connection from the legacy of colonisation, including by funding: a. First Peoples-led organisations to deliver programs that support healing and rebuilding relationships between clans/groups to address the ongoing impacts of dispossession including where harms have occurred from participation in recognition regimes; and b. Healing processes, led by local First Peoples groups, to assist non-First Peoples to tell their truths and walk together with First Peoples. 

Recommendation 6 

To build respect, participation and representation of First Peoples in public life, the Victorian Government must include the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and/or its Co-Chairs in high-level functions and ceremonial events of the State. 

Recommendation 7 

Amend the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and other relevant legislation to recognise and protect the rights to health and education as recognised under international human rights law. 

Chapter 4: Rights 

Recommendation 8 

Building on the principles recognised in the Treaty Negotiation Framework and the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 (Vic) and led by and in consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Victorian Government must: a. Incorporate UNDRIP principles into Victorian legislation, including: i. as part of Statewide treaty legislation; ii. by establishing a process of audit of existing legislation to identify incompatibility to ensure that UNDRIP principles prevail; and iii. by ensuring that any future legislative change is compatible with UNDRIP principles. b. Support and facilitate the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP principles by non-state entities; and  To implement these steps, work with First Peoples to develop a State Action Plan on implementation of UNDRIP, ensuring that First Peoples are involved in the design, monitoring and evaluation of the implementation plan. 

Recommendation 9 

To ensure State accountability and give effect to First Peoples’ self-determination in relation to First Peoples-related policies and programs: a. Building on Recommendation 4 in Yoorrook for Justice and through negotiation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Victorian Government must support the establishment of an accountability mechanism to transfer monitoring functions and full decision-making power, authority, control and resources to First Peoples for First Peoples-related policies and programs; b. For all policies, strategies, frameworks and plans related to First Peoples for which the Victorian Government is responsible, the Victorian Government must develop an easily accessible online tool showing implementation stages, funding, days outstanding and date of completion, and identify the person responsible for implementation; and c. The Victorian Government must reduce and streamline reporting requirements for Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and Traditional Owner bodies for service and program delivery and managing requests and notifications, including by negotiating single funding agreements with organisations. 

Chapter 5: Accountability 

Recommendation 10 

To support the informed participation by Traditional Owners in treaty negotiations (Statewide and local), the Victorian Government must: a. Facilitate access by the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and relevant Traditional Owner groups to annual data concerning the revenues collected by the Victorian Government in respect of: i. freehold land; ii. Crown land & waterways; iii. minerals and resources; iv. gas and petroleum; v. forestry; vi. fisheries; vii. renewables; and viii. water (surface, groundwater). b Facilitate ongoing access by the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and relevant Traditional Owner groups to registers of third party interests in the matters described in paragraphs (a)(ii) – (viii) above including: i. interest ID number. ii. enabling legislation; iii. term (start/ end date); iv. any rights of renewal or regrant; and v. annual royalties payable to the State. c. Empower the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to oversee the provision and comprehensiveness of the datasets in (a) and (b) and to store any relevant data. 

Chapter 5: Accountability 

Recommendation 11 

The Victorian Government must conduct a review of the datasets that it currently collects and publishes, as against the National Agreement on Closing the Gap Targets, and: a. Publish a copy of the review, by 30 June 2026; and b. Following consultation with relevant ACCOs and First Peoples organisations, ensure that all data sets are regularly publicly reported, by 30 June 2027. 

Recommendation 12 

The Victorian Government must: a. As an employer of a significant number of First Nations staff within Departments, Agencies and Statutory Authorities: i. ii. iii. iv. formally recognise the cultural rights and cultural and colonial loads of First Nations staff within those settings; introduce a positive duty upon relevant managers (or head of the organisation) to ensure cultural safety in the case of First Nations staff; create new First Peoples-led oversight processes for the investigation of complaints in respect of alleged occurrences of non-compliance with this duty; and consider the adequacy of existing remuneration and/or leave models to recognise First Nations staff’s contributions and responsibilities. b. In the case of all other Victorian workplaces, amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Vic) 2004 to ensure cultural safety obligations on employers are embedded in legislation. 

Recommendation 13 

The Victorian Government must introduce into the employment contracts, performance and/or remuneration assessment processes for senior executives (SES-1 or above) assessment criteria regarding their performance in: a. Promoting the employment, retention and promotion of First Peoples staff; b. Directly engaging with relevant First Peoples communities, representative bodies and service provider organisations; c. Prioritising the actions within their Department/Agency necessary to support the treaty-making process; and d. Overseeing timely and fulsome implementation of recommendations within relevant reports. 

Recommendation 14 

The Victorian Government must provide redress to First Peoples and their families affected by Soldier Settlement Schemes, including: a. An acknowledgment and apology by the Victorian Government to First Peoples affected by Soldier Settlement Schemes and their families; b. Appropriate support for First Peoples affected by Soldier Settlement Schemes and their families; and c. Redress including land grants and/or compensation. 

Chapter 7: How colonisers stole Country 

Recommendation 15 

Led and decided by First Peoples and Traditional Owner groups, the Victorian Government and local Government authorities must provide resources and support to establish markers, memorials, signs and information acknowledging relevant First Peoples’ histories and perspectives at culturally and historically significant sites, including: a. Sites of historical injustice; b. Massacre sites; c. Former missions and reserves; d. Sites relevant to frontier wars and First Nations people who served in war; e. Sites relevant to First Peoples’ leadership; and f. Other sites as determined by Traditional Owners or Aboriginal Representative Bodies. 

Chapter 8: Impacts of Country being stolen 

Recommendation 16 

Led by First Peoples and Traditional Owner groups, the Victorian Government and local government authorities must reinstate First Peoples’ / Indigenous place names across Victoria, initially prioritising prominent public spaces and significant parks, reserves and waterways, and road names and ensure these place names are reflected on relevant maps, signs and official documents. Place names should be determined by relevant Traditional Owner groups and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria should authorise and coordinate this process at the Statewide level. 

Recommendation 17 

In consultation with First Peoples and relevant Traditional Owner groups, the Victorian Government must fund environmental restoration, which may include: a. Testing and decontamination processes for land returned or being returned to Traditional Owners, either as part of the settlement package or retrospectively where land is unusable due to contamination or degradation; b. Other forms of environmental and cultural restoration; and c. Procurement opportunities for First Peoples where possible. 

Recommendation 18 

The Victorian Government must amend the State Aid to Religion Abolition Act 1871 (Vic) to introduce a mechanism for case-by-case consideration and approval of proposed land sales, which includes consideration of: a. Whether relevant Traditional Owners have been consulted in respect of the sale; and b. Whether it is proposed that a portion of the proceeds from the sale be shared with the Traditional Owners of that land. 

Recommendation 19 

Consistent with their commitments to First Peoples, Churches should identify, as a priority, opportunities within the State of Victoria to: a. Return land acquired for little or no consideration, or reserved by the Crown or Governor for Church purposes, to Traditional Owners of that land; and b. Share a portion of proceeds from the future sale of land of the nature described in (a) with Traditional Owners of that land (irrespective of whether it is subject to the State Aid to Religion Abolition Act 1871 (Vic)). 

Recommendation 20 

The Victorian Government must: a. Adopt a principle that First Peoples are entitled to sufficient lands, waters, resources to support their social, emotional and cultural wellbeing; and b. To the extent that the existing systems are unable to deliver those lands, waters and resources, agree Traditional Owner treaties to provide an equitable share of lands, waters and resources to First Peoples. 

Chapter 9: How we got here — overview of recognition systems 

Recommendation 21 

Through the treaty process, the Victorian Government must negotiate with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and Traditional Owners to guarantee, uphold and enhance First Peoples’ inherent rights to Country through a self-determined, empowering and healing model, including by taking the following steps: a. Enabling recognition of First Peoples’ rights to land (at a minimum, reflecting UNDRIP principles); b. Enabling opportunities to disregard by agreement previously extinguished First Peoples’ rights to lands, waters and resources (including under s 47C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)); c. Advocating to the Commonwealth Government for amendment to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to provide for certain prior extinguishment to be disregarded, expanding on the current categories and for the limitation of extinguishment with respect to future acts; d. Establishing a default mechanism to transfer to Traditional Owners entitlements to land, waters, resources on the sale, surrender or expiration of third party leasehold, licences, entitlements and other interests; e. Not granting new rights or entitlements in Crown lands, waters and resources without providing opportunities for Traditional Owners to themselves acquire the relevant interest, or benefit from the revenues generated; f. Ensuring that Traditional Owners have the opportunity to participate in the State’s ‘right of first refusal’ processes when the State is proposing to sell or repurpose Crown or Government-owned land; g. Establishing ongoing funding for Traditional Owner groups to purchase on the open market privately held land of cultural significance or which would support Traditional Owners’ community objectives; h. Enacting reforms enabling traditional cultural use rights on public land (more broadly than the rights recognised within individual TOSA and NTA agreements and determinations); i. Enacting reforms enabling First Peoples to commercially use and develop their lands, waters and resources; and j. Treating Traditional Owners as rights holders, not standard ‘land users’, including by exempting them from obligations to pay taxes, rates and charges in the case of lands, waters and natural resources. 

Recommendation 22 

The Victorian Government must provide additional funding and support for the Self-Determination Fund and the Treaty Authority to deliver processes for determining the right people for Country. 

Recommendation 23 

The First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria must promote access to support and resources via the Self-Determination Fund for all Traditional Owner groups in Victoria, both recognised and not yet recognised. The Victorian Government must support and facilitate this objective. 

Chapter 10: Native title 

Recommendation 24 

In relation to native title, the Victorian Government must advocate to the Commonwealth Government to: a. Reverse the burden of proof for connection to Country so that the state is required to disprove an asserted connection, rather than Traditional Owners prove connection; b. Adjust the test to reflect the effects of colonisation. Connection must become a flexible concept rather than a bright-line test. A lesser degree of connection must be accepted where it results, for instance, from relocation from Country or removal of children; and c. Enact reforms so that the extinguishment of native title is not necessarily permanent but may revive once the extinguishing interest ends. 

Recommendation 25 

The Victorian Government must make a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission supporting reform of the future acts regime. 

Recommendation 26 

Taking into account the changed context of the treaty process and the aim of enhancing rights, the Victorian Government must implement all of the recommendations of the First Principles Review of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) in full, including prioritising the following key areas: a. Just and fair settlements; b. The calculation of compensation; c. Funding for Traditional Owner groups; and d. Land Use Activity Agreement compliance. 

Chapter 11: Traditional Owner settlements 

Recommendation 27 

Taking into account the changed context of the treaty process and the aim of enhancing rights, the Victorian Government must implement all the recommendations made in the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council’s Taking Control of Our Heritage report. 

Chapter 12: Cultural heritage 

Recommendation 28 

The Victorian Government must provide ongoing and sustainable funding to Traditional Owner groups to empower them to conduct cultural heritage work on their Country. 

Recommendation 29 

The Victorian Government must consider and implement reforms to strengthen the recognition and protection of intangible heritage under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). 

Recommendation 30 

The Victorian Government must provide funding for the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council and Traditional Owner groups to develop and implement a strategy for the provenancing and return to Traditional Owners and/or other culturally appropriate handling of remains. 

Recommendation 31 

The State must also work with the Commonwealth to identify and negotiate the safe return of cultural, secret and sacred objects held in interstate, overseas and private collections. 

Recommendation 32 

The Victorian Government must provide secure, ongoing funding, resources and land to Traditional Owners to establish and maintain appropriate infrastructure, including museum-regulated spaces, to keep and preserve cultural, secret and sacred objects, artefacts and knowledge.  

Recommendation 33 

The Victorian Government must provide funding for Traditional Owner groups to undertake, informed by their perspectives of key priorities on their Country: a. Research and strategic mapping of Aboriginal cultural values and landscapes; b. Projects for the identification, protection and/or restoration of cultural values and landscapes; and c. Management of data. Chapter 

Recommendation 34 

To support self-determination, the Victorian Government must amend public land legislation to provide: a. Opportunities for transition to direct management by First Peoples of public land, led by the aspirations of Traditional Owners, and continuing to provide public access where appropriate; b. Transfer of authority to Traditional Owners to determine management priorities and methodologies, including informed by Traditional Owners’ knowledge of Country; and c. Related sources of ongoing funding. 

Chapter 13: Joint management 

Recommendation 35 

The review of Victoria’s public land legislation must properly capture Traditional Owner aspirations and priorities and enable flexibility and evolution over time. The review of public land legislation must not limit future treaty-making or in any way impede Traditional Owners from asserting their rights and interests. 

Recommendation 36 

Further to recommendations 18.1 and 18.2 of the final report of the Commonwealth Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (October 2020), the Victorian Government must: a. Support and resource the establishment by First Peoples of an independent First Peoples Cultural Fire Authority, led and staffed by First Peoples to facilitate three key functions: i. ii. enable a pathway for Traditional Owner-led cultural fire development and practice to occur within the current regulatory environment; house the function for developing policy that seeks to reform and decolonise the regulatory environment in seeking pathways to fully transition Traditional Owner-determined fire to Traditional Owner groups; and iii. enable a pathway for Traditional Owner carbon and emissions reduction practice. b. Conduct a review of existing fire related legislation, policies, procedures and codes of practice in the State of Victoria to identify opportunities to better recognise and integrate: i. ii. First Peoples’ fire knowledge and practices; and First Peoples’ knowledge of Country and Aboriginal cultural heritage values (tangible and intangible) requiring protection. c. Provide Traditional Owner groups with ongoing funding to develop and implement cultural fire plans for Country. 

Recommendation 37 

The Victorian Government must recognise Victoria’s First Peoples’ water sovereignty as part of treaty as requested by First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria or any other First Nation negotiating on its own behalf and through substantive reform of legislation by: a. Recognising Traditional Owners’ fundamental and inherent rights to water, including by way of amending Victorian water laws to: i. ii. incorporate UNDRIP standards (as a minimum); and recognise First Peoples’ cultural water rights (including the use of water for commercial purposes, and to support the development of cultural economies) including (without limitation) through amendments to the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) and the Water Act 1989 (Vic). b. Embedding, investing in and implementing a cultural flows model into Victorian water law, practice and governance. 

Chapter 14: Water 

Recommendation 38 

The Victorian Government must commit to: a. Accelerating the development of legislative proposals to recognise waterways as living entities and Traditional Owners as a unique voice of those living entities. b. Supporting Traditional Owners to achieve their water related aspirations as reflected in individual Water is Life Nation Statements. c. Enabling First Peoples to assume ‘waterway manager’ responsibilities within the meaning of the Water Act 1989 (Vic). d. Supporting additional Traditional Owner interfaces with, and representation on, other water resource managers including Water Corporations, Catchment Management Authorities and the Victorian Environmental Water Holder. e. Providing funding to support Traditional Owners to undertake works to restore waterway health and cultural flows on their Country. f. Supporting commercial uses and the growth of water-based cultural economies. g. Removing barriers, increasing funding and accelerating action to: i. ii. allocate or support the purchase of water for First Peoples’ cultural flows and economies within existing entitlement frameworks; and support Traditional Owners to directly use and/or realise the economic value of water accessed or returned. h. Prioritise allocation to Traditional Owners of unallocated or newly available water including through: i. ii. iii. water freed up by the cessation of industries like coal power; new or alternative water such as desalinated or recycled water; and the establishment of buy-back schemes. i. Reviewing, updating (as required) and fully funding relevant strategies such as Water is Life to align with the above. 

Recommendation 39 

The Victorian Government must treat Traditional Owners as rights holders, not standard ‘water users’, including by exempting them from obligations to pay taxes, rates and charges. 

Recommendation 40 

The Victorian Government must establish and implement mechanisms for hypothecation of a proportion of water revenues (surface and groundwater) collected in the State of Victoria to be placed into the Self-Determination Fund for the benefit of Victorian Traditional Owners. The proportion should be agreed in negotiation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and relevant Traditional Owners. 

Recommendation 41 

The Victorian Government must establish a legislative regime for the recognition of legal identity in waterways and other natural resources which includes the appointment of Traditional Owners as guardians for those entities. 

Recommendation 42 

The Victorian Government must partner with Traditional Owner groups in respect of future forestry management and operations (native and plantation) on public lands, especially to: a. Implement effective benefit-sharing arrangements; and b. Protect culturally significant public land and ecosystems from damage. 

Chapter 15: Earth, sea and living things 

Recommendation 43 

In consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Victorian Government must conduct a review of: a. Existing mechanisms for Traditional Owner consultation and consent in the development of minerals, resources and extractive projects (whether on private or public land) at least to ensure consistency with the principles of free, prior and informed consent in UNDRIP; b. Traditional Owner participation in the development and implementation of rehabilitation and remediation plans, making them consent authorities;  Mechanisms for greater Traditional Owner participation in: i. rehabilitation works; and ii. the management of post-mining land (including under Part 7C of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic)). d. Opportunities for the return to Traditional Owners of post-mining land (including for commercial and cultural economy purposes) as a default provision. 

Recommendation 44 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must enable, support and prioritise the development of a First Peoples’ Renewable Energy Strategy for Traditional Owner groups underpinned by UNDRIP principles, which: a. Recognises First Peoples’ self-determination and direct interest in relation to the renewables; and b. Provides perpetual funding, resourcing and support for First Peoples to engage at all stages with the renewable energy sector. 

Chapter 16: Climate change, renewables and emergencies 

Recommendation 45 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must enable and support the development of a First Peoples’ Climate Justice Strategy for Traditional Owner groups underpinned by UNDRIP principles, which provides perpetual funding, for Traditional Owner groups to deliver environmental projects on their Country which will assist in mitigating, adapting and/or responding to climate change including through the Self-Determination Fund. 

Recommendation 46 

Working with First Peoples, the Victorian Government must conduct a review of all emergency management legislation (including the Emergency Management Act 2013 (Vic), Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic), Forest Act 1958 (Vic), Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) and their related regulations standard operating procedures, policies and other relevant documents: a. Formalise an ongoing role for Traditional Owner groups and ACCOs in incident planning, response and recovery frameworks. b. Provide Traditional Owner groups, ACCOs and ACCHOs, with secure, ongoing, self-determined funding to assist in the preparation for, response to and recovery from natural disasters (including fire, flood), emergency incidents, and health emergencies in the future. c. In the processes in (b), give weight to Traditional Owner voices regarding the protection of Country and cultural heritage. 

Recommendation 47 Working with First Peoples, the Victorian Government must continue to ensure that ongoing sustainable funding is provided to First Peoples-led early education services, including to expand service delivery and meet demand for services. 

Chapter 17: Schooling overview 

Recommendation 48 

Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government (or Minister for Education, as appropriate), must amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) to: a. Expressly recognise Victoria’s First Peoples; b. Acknowledge First Peoples’ rights, cultures, histories and perspectives in education; c. Protect and prioritise First Peoples’ cultural safety and right to a culturally safe education; d. Include an actionable right to protection of cultural rights and cultural safety in all Victorian schools; e. Ensure the representation and perspectives of Victorian and other First Peoples in the school curriculum; and f. Create a First Peoples Education Council as a governance mechanism for oversight and accountability of First Peoples’ school education. 

Recommendation 49 

Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must develop a distinct policy on school exclusions for First Peoples, covering attendance, classroom exclusion, suspensions (formal and informal), modified timetables, and expulsions. The policy must: a. Set clear standards, expectations, and processes for approving and reviewing exclusions; b. Require the Department to: i. ii. iii. iv. v. collect and publicly report detailed data on exclusions, disaggregated by age, gender, disability status, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status; publish annual analysis of this data, broken down by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, school, and geographical location; set clear goals and targets for reducing exclusions of First Nations students, with consequences for schools failing to meet targets; promote collaboration between schools, families, and community organisations to address the underlying causes of exclusions and improve attendance and disciplinary outcomes; and ensure a higher standard of consideration for the behavioural and cognitive needs of First Nations students with disabilities in expulsion decisions. 

Chapter 19: Racism and cultural safety 

Recommendation 50 

Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must: a. Develop a flexible school zoning policy that prioritises the cultural safety of First Peoples, ensuring access to culturally appropriate education and support networks; b. Establish a policy for schools to regularly engage with local First Peoples communities, Traditional Owners, and Elders to ensure a culturally safe and relevant education. This policy must include: i. ii. ongoing funding for First Peoples’ cultural programs and partnerships; and fair and appropriate remuneration for First Peoples’ specialised skills and services. c. Create a cultural safety framework for schools that includes: i. an anonymous reporting mechanism for racism and breaches of cultural safety; ii. iii. iv. vi. actions and measures for compliance; data collection, analysis, and public reporting; governance, oversight, and accountability mechanisms; v. sanctions for breaches; and ongoing evaluation and improvement processes. 

Recommendation 51 

Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must: a. Direct the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) and the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) to implement mandatory cultural competency standards; b. Direct the VCAA to elevate First Peoples from a consultative to a leadership role in reviewing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures curriculum, ensuring the accurate representation of history, the impacts of colonisation, and First Peoples’ strength and resistance from Prep to Year 12, including acknowledgement of past curriculum harms; c. Audit the curriculum to include Victorian and national First Peoples’ perspectives across all learning areas from Prep to Year 12; and d. Assess the capacity of teaching staff to deliver First Peoples’ content and teach First Nations students, in line with Professional Standards, and review the adequacy of those Standards. 

Recommendation 52 

Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must: a. Support schools with ongoing First Peoples-led professional training, guidelines, and resources for effective curriculum delivery; b. Employ First Peoples to lead teacher training on curriculum delivery to ensure accurate and engaging content reflecting truth-telling and First Peoples’ perspectives; and c. Mandate the integration of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures curriculum in planning days. 

Recommendation 53 Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government (or Minister for Education, as appropriate), must: a. Implement First Peoples-led cultural competency induction and ongoing professional development for teachers; b. Advocate for the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) to review Professional Standards to better incorporate First Peoples’ perspectives and cultural competency; c. Advocate for Initial Teacher Education to include First Peoples’ perspectives and cultural competency; d. Mandate culturally appropriate, trauma-informed practices training for teachers, delivered by ACCOs in every school; and e. Ensure the new First Nations Strategy, Policy and Programs division includes mechanisms for culturally safe disability assessments and supports for First Peoples students. 

Chapter 20: Curriculum Recommendation 54 Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must: a. Invest in high-quality, First Peoples-authored or endorsed teaching materials to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority; b. Set targets for school libraries to audit and decolonise collections, removing outdated or racist materials and ensuring libraries include: i. ii. iii. iv. truth-telling and respect for all Australians; diverse First Peoples’ voices and perspectives; First Peoples’ knowledge, strengths, and resilience; and works by First Nations authors. 

ecommendation 55 Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must: a. Increase the number of First Peoples teachers through targeted recruitment, retention programs, and clear incentives for schools that meet set targets; b. Establish a state-funded scholarship program for First Peoples to support their access, participation, and completion of teacher qualifications, including funding for unpaid student placements; c. Commission an independent survey of First Peoples school staff to assess experiences of racism, discrimination, and cultural safety, and their impact on staff retention; d. Strengthen racism and discrimination complaints processes to ensure staff safety and accountability for perpetrators; e. Recognise and remunerate First Peoples teachers for additional colonial and cultural workload, and incorporate this into the Marrung Aboriginal Education Strategy 2016-2026; and f. In relation to the Koorie Engagement and Support Officer (KESO) role: i. ii. iii. clearly define the role and its responsibilities; shift Community Understanding and Safety Training (CUST) delivery from KESOs to ACCOs and fund this; and mandate CUST for all school teachers. 

Chapter 21: Workforce 

Recommendation 56 Guided by First Peoples, the Department of Education must increase opportunities for First Peoples’ leadership in schools by: a. Implementing professional development, sponsorship, and mentoring programs, along with dedicated leadership positions for First Peoples teachers and staff; and b. Increasing First Peoples representation on school councils to reflect the First Peoples population in the school or region. 

Recommendation 57 Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must undertake a comprehensive overhaul and reconstruction of Government and First Peoples schooling interaction. This includes: a. Establishing a First Peoples Education Council comprised of and led by First Peoples with a mandate to: i. ii. oversee and ensure accountability for First Peoples schooling educational outcomes; and lead reforms over curriculum and resource allocation for First Peoples’ education;  b. Replacing the Marrung Aboriginal Education Strategy 2016-2026 at the end of its life with a new strategy that includes measurable outcomes and annual reporting to Parliament to track and address progress effectively. 

Chapter 22: Accountability and self-determination 

Recommendation 58 Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must ensure outcomes for First Peoples’ students are linked to measurable targets in: a. School Annual Implementation Plans; b. Executive performance plans; c. School and principal Key Performance Indicators; and d. School funding. 

Recommendation 59 

Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must improve implementation, oversight and accountability of Student Support Groups (SSGs) and Individual Education Plans (IEPs) by: a. Mandating measures for timely implementation, accountability, self- determination and cultural safety in SSGs and IEPs; and b. Mandating inclusion of student and carer/family voice in IEPs. 

Recommendation 60 Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must ensure that all schools use Equity Funding to directly benefit the students for whom it is intended. 

Recommendation 61 Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must transfer control, resources and decision-making power over curriculum, pedagogy, governance, and resource allocation for First Peoples’ education to First Peoples, to be negotiated through the Treaty process. 

Recommendation 62 Victorian universities must engage in public truth-telling about their historical engagement with First Peoples and the ongoing legacy of these actions. 

Chapter 23: Tertiary overview and historical context 

Recommendation 63 Guided by First Peoples, Victorian tertiary education providers must enter into reciprocal agreements with Traditional Owners to advance First Peoples’ priorities, including First Peoples leadership, land use and how to embed First Peoples’ knowledges, histories and cultures. 

Recommendation 64 The Victorian Government must amend the Victorian Universities Act 2010 (Vic) to: a. Expressly recognise Victorian First Peoples; b. Acknowledge First Peoples’ rights, cultures, histories and perspectives in tertiary education; and c. Incorporate key accountability indicators for the measures set out in Education – Tertiary Chapters 24 and 25. 

Recommendation 65 The Victorian Government must establish an oversight body for the tertiary education sector with ongoing funding, powers and responsibility for: a. Ensuring cultural support initiatives and First Nations student support systems are embedded into mainstream university business; b. Addressing racism against First Peoples by duty-holders, including tertiary education providers; and c. Developing governance, oversight and accountability mechanisms, including sanctions for breaches. 

Chapter 24: First Peoples students, workforce, and leadership 

Recommendation 66 Victorian universities must allocate permanent, ongoing funding for First Peoples’ leadership and First Peoples student support services from mainstream funding streams. 

Recommendation 67 Guided by First Peoples, Victorian universities must recognise and recompense First Peoples staff for the ‘colonial load’ they carry. 

Recommendation 68 

Guided by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Advocate to the Federal Minister for Education to direct the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and other relevant professional bodies, to the extent necessary to mandate registered Victorian universities to include specific content about Victorian First Peoples in their courses; b. Advocate for the inclusion of the cross-curriculum priority: ‘Learning about Victorian First Peoples histories and cultures’ across all units in pre-service and post-graduate teacher courses; and c. Advocate to the relevant professional bodies for social work, medicine and nursing to stringently enforce university compliance with compulsory course requirements relating to First Peoples, and to the legal professional bodies to require compulsory First Peoples-related subjects in law degrees. 

Chapter 25: Curriculum and education 

Recommendation 69 

The Victorian Institute of Teaching, in conjunction with universities, must develop a qualification, such as a Graduate Diploma of First Peoples Curriculum Teaching. 

Recommendation 70 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must (working with the Federal Government, where necessary): a. Increase funding to First Peoples-led health services to ensure they are sufficiently resourced to deliver to First Peoples, regardless of where they live, a similar range of services, including: i. ii. iii. maternal and child health services; financial support programs for those struggling with cost of living and food security; and alcohol and drug services (including withdrawal and residential rehabilitation services). b. Fund First Peoples-led organisations to deliver: i. a holistic range of aged care services, both residential and non-residential; and ii. palliative care services. 

Chapter 28: Health inequities 

Recommendation 71 Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must expand and fund ACCOs to deliver accessible and culturally safe funeral and burial services. 

Recommendation 72 The Victorian Government must: a. Develop a regulatory framework to increase compliance with the Cultural Safety Principle set out in section 27 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic); and b. Amend section 27 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic) to require that all entities involved in the response, treatment, or care of First Peoples comply with the Cultural Safety Principle. 

Chapter 29: Mental health and social and emotional wellbeing 

Recommendation 73 The Victorian Government must: a. Amend the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic) to replace the Health Led Response Principle with robust statutory obligations on both Victoria Police and health professionals in relation to First Peoples, removing all Protective Service Officer powers to respond to mental health crises and significantly investing in health-led responses and divesting from Victoria Police. b. Introduce and fund a compulsory workforce training requirement for police to facilitate a health-led response in relation to First Peoples. 

Recommendation 74 The Victorian Government must develop a robust and publicly available strategy to reduce compulsory assessment and treatment of First Peoples on the basis that compulsory treatment is a ‘last resort.’ 

Chapter 29: Mental health and social and emotional wellbeing 

Recommendation 75 In relation to First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Review the implementation of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic) relating to restrictive interventions. b. Assess the extent to which the Government is ‘acting immediately’ to ensure restrictive interventions is only used as a last resort. c. Develop a regulatory framework for the reduction of restrictive interventions to give effect to section 125 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic). 

Recommendation 76 In relation to First Peoples, the Victorian Government must require mental health service providers and government agencies to report publicly on an annual basis on: a. Their use of restrictive interventions and compulsory assessment and treatment; b. Steps taken to comply with the obligation to reduce and eventually eliminate restrictive interventions; c. Compliance with the Cultural Safety Principle; and d. Responses to mental health crises including exercise of police powers and the transition to health-led crisis responses. 

Recommendation 77 The Victorian Government must ensure that First Peoples’ complaints against police in relation to the exercise of powers under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic) are not investigated by police. 

Recommendation 78 

The Victorian Government must improve the responsiveness of the Mental Health Tribunal by: a. Increasing First Peoples-led support before and representation on the Tribunal. b. Enabling the Mental Health Tribunal to hear First Peoples’ stories and receive relevant cultural information, including the way in which connection to culture, community, kin and Country can support good mental health and wellbeing. c. Empower the Mental Health Tribunal to make findings and orders in relation to mental health services and treating teams. 

Recommendation 79 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must fund the establishment of a Victorian First Peoples prevention of family violence peak body bestowed with legislative powers including to oversee the introduction and implementation of family violence death review mechanisms for formal reporting. 

Chapter 30: Family violence 

Recommendation 80 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must provide sustainable, long- term funding to ACCOs to: a. Expand existing services and deliver new initiatives to respond to family violence; and b. Establish First Peoples Women’s Centres for First Peoples women affected by family violence, including a comprehensive suite of culturally safe, holistic specialist and preventative supports such as SEWB, mental health, alcohol and drug support and crisis accommodation. 

Recommendation 81 Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Invest in primary prevention initiatives (e.g. universal prevention programs for all Victorians) which address racism, before family violence occurs; and b. Develop and invest in initiatives to educate, prevent and reduce the likelihood of escalation of behaviour and/or repeat offences of users of violence once they have been identified. 

Recommendation 82 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Take legislative, administrative and other steps to eliminate racism against First Peoples from Victorian health settings; b. Legislate and fund the development of cultural safety service standards to be met by public and community health services (including those operating in custodial health settings). The standards should protect the cultural safety of First Peoples patients and families and First Peoples staff; and c. Explore the feasibility of setting up an accreditation process to assess services against the cultural safety service standards that is appropriately resourced and led by a First Peoples organisation with experience in the health sector. 

Chapter 31: Racism, workforce and accountability 

Recommendation 83 

The Victorian Government must: a. Fund all workforce actions in the Victorian Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing Partnership Agreement Action Plan, with a focus on extending student placements, internships, cadetships and graduate placements; and b. Increase First Peoples’ leadership and representation in the Department of Health, health services and health service boards. This must be reported on in annual reports. 

Recommendation 84 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Transfer oversight and responsibility of First Peoples’ prison healthcare from the Department of Justice and Community Safety to the Department of Health. b. Provide First Peoples people in custody with primary healthcare, social and emotional wellbeing support, specialist services and access to disability supports at equivalent standard to that provided in the community, as well as ensuring First Peoples’ cultural safety. c. Work with the Federal Government to ensure that First Peoples in prison have access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). d. Revise the system for auditing and scrutiny of custodial healthcare services, to ensure that there is a robust oversight of all providers of prison healthcare (both public and private) and public reporting of the outcomes. e. Reform the prison complaints process to ensure that First Peoples’ prison complaints, including complaints against private prisons and contractors, are handled by an appropriately resourced independent oversight body with sufficient powers to refer matters for criminal investigation. The body must be accessible to First Peoples in prison and complainants must have adequate legislative protection. 

Chapter 32: Health and the criminal justice system 

Recommendation 85 

Led by First Peoples, the Victorian Government must: a. Develop a model for an equitable proportion of funding to ACCOs delivering health services immediately. b. According to a clear published plan and timeline, transition all Victorian Government departments’ funding for ACCOs’ service delivery (where those ACCOS are delivering health services) to outcomes-focussed recurrent funding that includes indexation. c. Establish an ACCO Perpetual Infrastructure Fund to provide long-term ongoing self-determined minor capital, maintenance, planning and management resources for ACCOs delivering health services across all holistic wrap-around services. d. Prioritise pay parity, training, upskilling and leadership development of all staff in the ACCO sector in accordance with the Victorian Health Workforce Strategy and ensure that ACCOs delivering health services have a self-determining role in how this is implemented. 

Chapter 33: Aboriginal community controlled healthcare 

Recommendation 86 

The Victorian Government must fully fund and implement Mana-na woorn-tyeen maar-takoort: The Victorian Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness Framework and the projects under the Framework, including in particular by: a. Addressing housing supply issues; b. Appropriately funding and supporting ACCOs to deliver housing solutions; c. Increasing support for private rental and home ownership; d. Delivering an Aboriginal-focused homelessness system; e. Fully funding and implementing the Blueprint for an Aboriginal-specific Homelessness System in Victoria; and f. Fully funding and implementing the recommendations in Aboriginal private rental access in Victoria: Excluded from the Start. 

Chapter 35: Housing and First Peoples in Victoria 

Recommendation 87 

The Victorian Government must reduce First Peoples’ overrepresentation on the Victorian Housing Register by making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status a criterion for Priority Access to social housing. 

Recommendation 88 

The Victorian Government must urgently increase funding and support for Traditional Owner groups and ACCOs to provide homelessness services, transitional housing and a culturally safe housing model that meets the range of specific needs of First Peoples. 

Recommendation 89 

The Victorian Government must take steps to urgently increase First Peoples’ housing supply, including by: a. Making equitable and stable investments to grow and maintain ACCO community housing supply; b. Providing funding to ACCOs to implement alternative models such as build and own, managed by private agent or partnership arrangements; c. Extending the Big Housing Build and increase targets from 10% to 25% funding allocation for First Peoples’ housing over the next 5 years; d. Transferring fit-for-purpose public housing units to ACCOs and providing repair and refurbishment funding; e. Funding ACCOs to respond to barriers facing prospective First Peoples homeowners including expanding knowledge and education strategies on how to enter the home ownership market; and f. Developing new and innovative shared equity and rent-to-buy schemes for First Peoples in Victoria. 

Recommendation 90 

The Victorian Government must expand support for ACCOs and Traditional Owner groups to provide self-determined housing to First Peoples, including by: a. Providing feasibility and start-up costs; b. Facilitating community engagement and design of new housing projects; and c. Providing funding, resourcing and assistance to engage in and maintain registration as housing providers. 

Recommendation 91 

The Victorian Government must: a. Revise the implementation timeline and proposed goals of the Yuma Yirramboi Strategy, including developing a publicly accessible monitoring and accountability plan for the strategy. b. Incentivise major corporations in Victoria’s private sector to embed more First Peoples businesses in supply chains. c. Change procurement monitoring and targets from number of contracts to total dollars spent to accurately reflect investment. d. Develop, resource and implement an Indigenous Preferred Procurement Program. 

Chapter 36: Economic prosperity 

Recommendation 92 

The Victorian Government must assist recruitment, development, and retention of First Peoples in the workplace by: a. Amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) to include an obligation on employers and employees to take steps to ensure cultural safety and capability in Victorian workplaces. b. Creating a pipeline of First Peoples talent for identified industries with skills shortages, including bolstering access to education and vocational training for First Peoples to prepare them for high-value employment sectors. c. Monitoring and ensuring proper pay and conditions against defined targets for First Peoples in the public sector. d. Monitoring and ensuring proper remuneration for the cultural load borne by First Peoples in the workplace. e. Ensure the private sector develops recruitment, development, mentoring and retention strategies for First Peoples and support the private sector in developing such strategies. 

Chapter 36: Economic prosperity 

Recommendation 93 

The Victorian Government must take steps to ensure increased First Peoples representation on both company and government boards through improved accountability and transparency measures, including requirements to publicly disclose board diversity and report annually on First Peoples representation. 

Recommendation 94 

The Victorian Government must ensure that the Self-Determination Fund is adequately resourced on a guaranteed, ongoing basis to meet its current and future purposes.  

Recommendation 95 

The Victorian Government must negotiate with First Peoples to establish a capital fund, through the Self-Determination Fund or other means, to enable investment by First Peoples and First Peoples organisations in capital markets and other initiatives to promote economic prosperity. 

Recommendation 96 

The Victorian Government must negotiate with First Peoples the establishment of a permanent First Peoples’ representative body with powers at all levels of political and policy decision making. 

Chapter 37: Political life 

Recommendation 97 

The Victorian Government must commit funding and resources to systemic reform to facilitate, embed and ensure Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Indigenous Data Governance in relation to First Peoples’ records, including through treaty by funding, resourcing and supporting the establishment of a Victorian First Peoples-controlled statewide body for First Peoples’ data, records and data governance expertise. 

Chapter 38: Access to records 

Recommendation 98 T 

The Victorian Government must: a. Provide ongoing and sustainable funding for existing First Peoples-controlled archives, including for operational costs; b. Increase resources for organisations supporting First Peoples to access their records; c. Prioritise the digitisation and searchability of First Peoples’ records, including working with First Peoples to reframe how records are described; and d. Provide First Peoples with priority access to records and archives identified as relating to First Peoples. 

Chapter 38: Access to records 

Recommendation 99 The Victorian Government must: a. Officially acknowledge the responsibility of its predecessors for laws, policies and practices that contributed to systemic injustices against Victorian First Peoples; b. Make official apologies to First Peoples in Victoria; and c. Negotiate with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria a form of words for official apologies to First Peoples individuals and communities. 

Chapter 39: Redress 

Recommendation 100 

Through both Statewide and Traditional Owner treaties, the Victorian Government must provide redress for injustice which has occurred during and as a result of the colonial invasion and occupation of First Peoples’ territories and all consequent damage and loss, including economic and non-economic loss for genocide, crimes against humanity and denial of freedoms. In respect of the redress obligations for the taking of land, waters and resources from First Peoples, the Victorian Government must act consistently with the principles in UNDRIP Articles 8(2)(b) and 28, including the following: a. Redress for economic loss including past loss, loss of opportunities and loss to future generations; b. Interest on economic loss; c. Redress for non-economic loss including cultural loss, assessed as at the date of extinguishment; and d. Interest on non-economic loss. Redress should take the form of: e. Restitution of traditional lands, waters and natural resources ownership rights to First Peoples; f. Monetary compensation; g. Tax relief; and h. Such other financial or other benefits as may be requested by the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria or the local treaty bodies in treaty negotiations. ‘Redress’ does not, in principle, include equitable benefit-sharing of natural resources or the revenue or other benefits derived from the use or exploitation of natural resources. First Peoples have a separate right to equitable benefit- sharing from the exploitation or use of the natural resources on their territories. Notwithstanding this, the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria and local treaty bodies should not be prohibited from allocating additional benefit share to meet redress obligations for historical wrongs. Chapter 39: