A reflection on outcomes for First Nations peoples

My body creaks more than it used to – a reminder of no longer being young. With age comes some small glimmers of wisdom and an increasing appreciation of time. It is always humbling to reflect that, even though I’ve spent most of my career worrying about outcomes for a few generations, we live on lands that have been managed for thousands of generations. And as I was reminded recently, a multicultural land – with 650 different tribal groups and hundreds of languages, creating a need to forge relationships in spite of differences.

About two years ago Laura Dixie and I wrote an Institute paper on Indigenous Data Sovereignty. This is the right of Indigenous peoples to own, control, access and possess data that derive from them, and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs or territories. The report came out at a time when the outcome of the Voice referendum was still raw for many First Nations people. Our report needed a lot of help from our First Nations reference group, including Rick Shaw, the first actuary to identify as Aboriginal in Australia. The report was a significant undertaking, but is (hopefully!) useful for the profession to think about data in a different way, as well as reflect on sovereignty principles for how we use data, particularly regarding First Nations peoples. The report remains relevant and is a good entry point into the topic for actuaries. This article is a chance to reflect on the lessons from that report, and how things have changed since then.

First some positives. The need for First Nations voices to be an active part of research has continued to grow. I’m regularly involved in evaluating programs, many of which have an explicit aim of providing culturally appropriate support to First Nations people. In these projects we see increasing emphasis on issues such as Indigenous research ownership (‘nothing about us without us’) and Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Our projects are accountable to First Nations reference groups, they often include First Nations researchers as partners and will typically require results to be appropriately shared back to the community.

The past couple of years have seen specific areas of progress too. Perhaps most visibly, in late 2025 Victoria became the first state to formalise a Treaty with First Nations people. In 2026, this was followed by the election of the new First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, the entity that leads the renewed relationship between First Nations peoples and the government. The Treaty process was 10 years in the making, including significant time in truth-telling. Most other states and territories are actively pursuing Treaty or some form of truth-telling, following Victoria’s lead.

I also think (but the data is lacking, and funding cycles are slow) there has been a continued push towards Aboriginal-controlled organisations to deliver services such as healthcare and community services across Australia. Government departments I’ve worked with have been committed to ensuring culturally appropriate services, even if figuring out what this looks like takes time.

However, challenges remain vast. The Productivity Commission’s reporting on Closing the Gap , as well as recent reporting by the Australian Human Rights Commission show that outcomes remain poor – too many First Nations people are incarcerated, or in the child protection system, or homeless, or dying by suicide. This reflects ongoing systemic issues and historical disadvantage. Tellingly, there remains a long series of recommendations that have not been fully actioned, going right back to the hundreds of recommendations made in the landmark 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report. The Closing the Gap dashboard also shows the slow progress on measurement around Priority Reforms, despite their acknowledged importance and launch over five years ago. 

Indigenous Data Sovereignty is a small, but important, part of this larger picture. It seeks to ensure that First Nations people can exercise self-determination in what data is collected about them, how it is interpreted and how it is used. Data is broad – not just tables of numbers, but also the stories of First Nations people, their history and their relationship to land. This can contrast with administrative datasets that carry a narrower deficit narrative, or value a Western individualistic view at the expense of recognising relationships and community.  There is increasing recognition of the importance of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (for example NSW’s Government Data Strategy ) even while we grapple with what the this means in practice. More holistic data both enables progress and allows its measurement.

As actuaries who rely on data heavily in our roles, there is much we can identify with and learn. The custodian mindset to protecting and preserving data is a natural one. We also know that datasets can be incomplete without the narratives that give them life and context.

While I share the frustration in areas where progress has stalled, I am optimistic that progress can and will be made. For actuaries, this may include incorporating cultural considerations into the design of products and data collection. Or ensuring there is time to meet and get feedback from First Nations communities. Efforts should support self-determination rather than merely describe disadvantage. And we can work to help ensure this is in years rather than generations.