Treaty attitudes among parents and caregivers of indigenous families

Abstract

This exploratory study examines factors influencing support for treaty-making among parents and caregivers of Indigenous youths in Australia. Despite calls for Indigenous–state treaties for more than half a century, empirical evidence on attitudes towards contemporary treaty-making remains remarkably limited. Using data from the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (n = 682), over 80% of respondents rated treaty as ‘very important’ increasing to 95% when including moderately important. Binary logistic regression indicates that significant predictors of strong treaty support include treaty knowledge, Indigeneity, and understanding of one's family, history, and culture, while many standard socioeconomic variables were non-significant. Despite high levels of expressed importance, overall treaty understanding was comparatively low. This disjuncture suggests that views on treaty may reflect a range of relational and experiential influences. At the same time, the association between knowledge and support indicates that improving access to balanced, historically grounded information may support informed engagement with treaty processes.

Keywords

Education justice knowledge political attitudes rights treaties

Introduction

Over the past decade, modern treaty-making has emerged as a promising institutional process that could recognise Indigenous¹ self-determination and provide a measure of justice in contemporary Australia (Williams & Hobbs, 2020). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and nations have long called for treaties to recognise their inherent rights and status and outline ‘mutually agreed terms for our relationship with the Australian government’ (Dodson, 2016, p. 181). Successive governments have resisted, refusing to open negotiations, let alone to strike formal agreements that would confront the ongoing structure of colonisation.

Recent developments suggest a partial shift in political posture. In Victoria, the First Peoples’ Assembly has led a structured negotiation process with the state, resulting in the first formal treaty on this continent (Statewide Treaty, 2025). At one point, it appeared likely that additional treaties would soon be layered across the continent: in early 2023, all governments except Western Australia had committed to talking treaty (Hobbs, 2024). At the time of writing, however, most of these initiatives have stalled or been dismantled. This reversal underscores both the structural persistence of Indigenous injustice and the fragility of legal and political processes that remain contingent on non-Indigenous political will (Hobbs, 2025).

At the same time, support for treaty processes among Indigenous nations cannot be assumed. Many communities may express concern that state-based treaties, like the Victorian agreement, will ‘inevitably reinstate colonial law’ (Watson, 2014, p. 2). These concerns are compounded by the absence of a national treaty tradition, which leaves both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians without a clear or widely shared understanding of what a ‘treaty’ might involve in practice.

Australians’ attitudes towards and understanding of treaties, and their awareness of what such agreements might involve or mean, are therefore critical to the success of treaty processes (Prehn, Carlson et al., 2026). As part of their obligation to renew relationships with First Peoples and finalise treaties, governments will need to engage the public and develop educational initiatives to promote awareness, understanding, and ownership. These initiatives will need to be directed to both non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. When developing programmes for Indigenous peoples, however, there is a risk that governments may adopt tokenistic or top-down campaigns that fail to reflect Indigenous priorities and worldviews. Such programmes might overlook the fact that support for treaties within Indigenous families and communities is not only a policy issue, but also a question of self-determination, cultural continuity, and intergenerational responsibility (Rigney et al., 2021).

This raises the question: how should treaty educational programmes for Indigenous communities be developed, and who should conduct such programmes? Parents and other primary caregivers of Indigenous youth offer an especially valuable perspective in answering this question; their views are shaped not only by personal experience but also by their responsibilities as cultural custodians and community leaders (Walter et al., 2017). Understanding how these caregivers interpret and support treaty processes provides insight into the broader social and cultural foundations needed to sustain just and enduring treaty relationships.

Situated within this context, this study utilises data from the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (LSIC) to explore factors shaping strong support for treaties among primary caregivers of Indigenous youths. Using an Indigenous quantitative methodology (Walter & Andersen, 2013) and weighted binary logistic regression, this article examines levels of treaty importance. Because 80% of participants viewed treaty as ‘very important’, responses were grouped to distinguish strong support from all other views.² While the LSIC provides a large, culturally grounded national dataset, it captures only a limited range of political and relational variables pertaining to treaty. The analysis should therefore be read as indicative rather than comprehensive, reflecting how available data can illuminate but not fully explain the complex foundations of Indigenous political engagement. This approach highlights both the promise and constraints of working with existing datasets, with the LSIC being the only publicly accessible survey containing treaty-related questions identified by the authors at the time of writing.

Our findings indicate that: treaty understanding, Indigenous status, knowledge of one's history, family, and culture, and remoteness are significant predictors of strong support for treaties. In contrast, formal education and socioeconomic status (SEIFA) were not statistically significant in the final model, while age, gender, and income did not meet the criteria for inclusion. These results suggest that relational and epistemic dimensions, particularly cultural grounding and informed political literacy, are more influential than standard sociodemographic indicators in shaping treaty attitudes. The study contributes new evidence to inform culturally grounded treaty education, engagement, and policymaking in Australia.

Surveying the treaty landscape

Unlike Aotearoa New Zealand, the United States, and Canada, no formal treaty or treaties were negotiated between Indigenous nations and the British Crown (Rigney et al., 2022; Williams & Hobbs, 2020). Instead, British colonisation proceeded on the legal fiction that the continent was ‘a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law’ (Cooper v Stuart 1889: 292). This foundational failure to negotiate the terms of settlement continues to reverberate in the present. While the High Court of Australia's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992), rejected terra nullius as a basis for denying Indigenous land rights, it left intact the Crown's assertion of sovereignty, and Australian law continues to deny recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ inherent rights to sovereignty and self-determination.

A treaty relationship recognises the inherent sovereignty and authority of both parties. Yet, perhaps constrained by its history, the Commonwealth government continues to resist longstanding calls from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples for formal recognition (Appleby & Davis, 2018). Responsibility for treaty-making has therefore fallen to state and territory governments, producing a fragmented and uneven national landscape (Hobbs, 2024). Although, by early 2023, every jurisdiction except Western Australia had committed to exploring treaty, the failure of the Voice referendum marked a significant turning point. Since then, most processes have stalled or been abandoned, with only one jurisdiction continuing to make substantial progress.

These developments reflect variations in political will, the strength of Indigenous advocacy and mobilisation, and the historical relationships between First Peoples and individual jurisdictions. To situate this context and these dynamics, Table 1 outlines the key generalised phases of treaty-making, focusing primarily on Australia and supported by modern treaty models in Canada (Williams & Hobbs, 2020). These phases range from activism and infrastructure establishment to long-term implementation.

Table 1.

Generalised modern indigenous-state treaty stages and phases.

Stage	Phase	Purpose
Pre-treaty	1. Activism	Assert Indigenous rights and demand treaty processes.
	2. Foundations	Build awareness of, and support for, treaty among Indigenous communities, the broader public, and governments.
	3. Architecture	Co-develop and establish legal, political, and cultural infrastructure to govern the treaty process. This ensures all parties understand the steps that will be taken towards treaty, and that negotiations occur under clear rules and procedures.
	4. Party recognition	Confirm the legitimacy and authority of negotiating entities on both sides.
	5. Negotiation	Negotiate treaty content within the established framework, often through multiple subphases to support relationship-building and effective deliberation.
	6. Ratification, signing, and finalisation	Ratify and formalise the agreement in accordance with the legal requirements and agreed procedures of each party.
Post-treaty	7. Implementation	Implement treaty commitments through a co-developed implementation framework, recognising that implementation is an ongoing, relational process rather than a discrete endpoint.
	8. Enforcement	Establish and maintain effective dispute resolution mechanisms to support implementation and sustain constructive relationships.
	9. Review	Provide for periodic review and renewal, ensuring the treaty remains a living instrument responsive to evolving needs and aspirations, including opportunities for re-negotiation.
	10. Sustainable long-term relationship	A treaty is both a legal instrument and a long-term relationship. The ultimate goal is to establish a framework that fosters constructive, sustainable dialogue and promotes the sharing of land and governance.

This staged model highlights that treaty-making is not a singular event but an evolving, relational process. It begins with grassroots activism and advocacy, moves through the co-development of treaty institutions and architecture, and culminates in formal negotiations and long-term governance. Because treaties are political processes, their realisation requires sustained political will and Indigenous leadership at every stage. As we noted, progress across Australia is limited (Hobbs, 2024). Table 2 presents the status of treaty processes by jurisdiction as of mid-2026.

Table 2.

Phase of treaty processes by jurisdiction (mid-2026).

Jurisdiction	Phase	Current position
Victoria	6	A finalised statewide treaty was reached in late-2025. Statewide treaty implementation and traditional owner treaties are now being progressed.
South Australia	1 (5 in 2018)	Initial negotiations were abandoned in 2018 following a change of government. In 2022, a new government committed to restarting the treaty process, but no substantive progress was made. More recently, the government reiterated its commitment, but no progress was made in advance of the March-2026 state election (Richards, 2025). Notably, the Ngarrindjeri Nation has submitted a single-issue treaty to the government (anonymous reviewer).
New South Wales	2	A three-person commission has commenced a state-wide consultation process with Aboriginal communities to gauge interest and awareness for treaty (Boltje, 2025).
Australian Capital Territory	1	Initial engagements were conducted in 2022 but were not well-received within the Aboriginal community. No further announcements have been made.
Tasmania	1	An Aboriginal Advisory Group was established in 2022 to lead conversations on truth-telling and treaty. However, in 2025, the government announced that it would no longer pursue a treaty (Gibson & Barraclough, 2025).
Queensland	1 (3 in 2024)	In 2024, a newly elected government abandoned the steady progress that had been underway since 2019.
Northern Territory	1 (2 in 2024)	In 2024, a newly elected government abandoned the steady progress that had been underway since 2018.
Western Australia	1	The government has never committed to a formal treaty process. The Noongar Settlement is considered treaty-like by some non-Indigenous scholars.

This snapshot reveals that progress towards treaty across Australia is uneven and shaped by an uncertain political environment (Hobbs, 2024). In jurisdictions like Victoria, strong Indigenous advocacy, along with political will, has thus far protected the process, allowing it to develop and continue towards settlement (Atkinson & Stewart, 2024). In other jurisdictions, however, slow and steady progress has been derailed, deprioritised, or dismantled. Recognising this reality is essential for identifying the conditions that enable or constrain treaty-making. It also highlights the benefit that could be attained through national coordination, not to mention a more substantial commitment to treaty-making. Treaties are intended to redress historical injustices, support Indigenous nation-building and thereby contribute to a more meaningful closing of the well-documented health and socioeconomic gap (Productivity Commission, 2024). In Australia, they also serve as ‘a belated act of nation-building’, strengthening relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Williams & Hobbs, 2020, p. 18). They should not be so easily put aside.

Support for treaty: political, cultural, and educational drivers

Australians’ attitudes towards Indigenous-state treaties are largely unknown, primarily due to the absence of meaningful survey data. This is despite a long history of calls for treaty (Clark et al., 2019). The knowledge gap partly reflects the state's epistemic control, which has historically disregarded the data and knowledge needs associated with treaty and many other Indigenous matters (Lovett et al., 2021). In Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand, educational exposure to Indigenous histories and rights has been shown to support more informed engagement with treaty processes (Tupper, 2012). Studies suggest that curriculum content, particularly when co-designed or led by Indigenous peoples, can significantly enhance understanding and participation regarding treaty among both Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners (Tupper, 2011, 2014; Walker, 2016). In contrast, treaty education remains largely absent from Australian formal curricula, and there is minimal research exploring its impact.

Within Indigenous communities, support for treaties is often interconnected to justice and self-determination. Scholars have observed that a treaty is seen not only as a recognition of rights but also as a means of (re)building Indigenous nationhood based on cultural law/lore, kinship, and relational authority (Rigney et al., 2021, 2022). In this sense, treaty support is often driven less by materialist considerations and more by Indigenous polity, cultural obligation, and intergenerational responsibility (Rigney et al., 2026). Understanding these drivers requires moving beyond conventional attitudinal models and centring Indigenous knowledge and value systems (Andersen et al., 2025). Recent scholarship also emphasises the significance of trust and accountability in influencing support for treaty institutions (Atkinson & Stewart, 2024). In Victoria, for instance, the legitimacy of the treaty process depends on whether institutions uphold cultural safety, transparency, and respect for Traditional Owner decision-making (First Peoples Assembly of Victoria & The State of Victoria, 2022). While often overlooked in non-Indigenous quantitative models, these factors are essential to understanding how and why Indigenous peoples engage with treaty as a transformative, future-oriented project.

The role of cultural knowledge and relationality

Cultural determinants, including family and kinship, history and tradition, and beliefs and values, are increasingly recognised as protective factors in Indigenous health (Verbunt et al., 2021), wellbeing (Williamson et al., 2020), and identity formation (Martin, 2017). However, their role in shaping political consciousness and support for treaty remains underexplored in the literature. Indigenous standpoint theory provides a valuable foundation for understanding how cultural knowledge informs political perspectives. Scholars such as Torres Strait Islander Professor Martin Nakata (1998) and Goenpul Distinguished Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2013) argue that an Indigenous standpoint emerges from embodied, lived relationships to land, kin, and community. It is through these relationships that political claims acquire greater meaning, and through cultural continuity that such claims are sustained across generations.

Support for treaty is thus informed by deep cultural and relational commitments (Graham & Brigg, 2023). For the parents and primary caregivers of Indigenous youths, cultural knowledge serves as both a lens and a foundation, shaping their understanding of the meaning of sovereignty, the ongoing structure of colonisation, and the responsibilities associated with self-determination (Lovett, 2017; Martin, 2017). Unlike non-Indigenous understandings that often emphasise institutional reform, treaty support grounded in cultural knowledge is relational, affective, and historically located.

This link between identity and political mobilisation is well established in non-Indigenous contexts, where relational knowledge enhances engagement with Indigenous governance and treaty institutions (Carlson & Frazer, 2016; Warrior, 2018). Cultural knowledge also intersects with formal education in critical ways (Lowe et al., 2021; Prehn, Hobbs et al., 2026). While formal schooling has the potential to promote treaty awareness in Australia (Prehn, Carlson et al., 2026), like it does in Aotearoa New Zealand (Huygens, 2016) and Canada (Tupper, 2014), informal cultural transmission through Elders and community leaders, communal events, and storytelling often strengthens political understanding within Indigenous families and communities (Johnson, 2019). For primary caregivers of Indigenous families, the ability to pass on cultural knowledge is deeply tied to their vision of what treaty could enable: the renewal of greater self-determination, community control, cultural strength, and a just relationship with the state

Non-Indigenous logics in survey design

Despite recent advances in Indigenous social research led by Aboriginal scholars such as Lovett et al. (2020) and Wells et al. (2023), many mainstream surveys and statistical models remain rooted in non-Indigenous worldviews (Walter et al., 2021). These worldviews privilege so-called ‘objectivity’ and quantifiable individualised and western socioeconomic indicators as the default explanatory tools (Walter & Andersen, 2013). While relevant in specific contexts; income, formal education, and employment metrics often fail to capture the full range of political and cultural dimensions of Indigenous lived experiences.³ When applied uncritically, they risk reinforcing deficit narratives, obscuring the structural and historical forces that shape Indigenous attitudes, and erasing Indigenous perspectives (Andersen et al., 2025).

There is a growing call within Indigenous methodologies to ‘unsettle’ standard social research practices by developing statistical measures that reflect Indigenous worldviews (Andersen et al., 2025; Lovett et al., 2020). This includes recognising that knowledge is relational, data are never neutral, and histories of surveillance and extraction shape participation (Williamson et al., 2021). These calls connect to broader critiques of neoliberal datafication, understood as the process through which social life is converted into quantifiable information, obscuring relationships and detaching lived experience from its cultural and human context (Kukutai & Cormack, 2019). Drawing on Indigenous-led datasets such as the LSIC (to an extent, see Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2024), Mayi Kuwayu (Lovett et al., 2020), and Kulay Kalingka (Wells et al., 2023) can offer a corrective, provided that analysis is grounded in decolonial and Indigenous-centred approaches (Walter & Suina, 2019).

We argue that by applying statistical tools to Indigenous political questions without critically adapting them to Indigenous worldviews, researchers risk misinterpreting the drivers of treaty support. This study addresses that challenge by integrating Indigenous standpoint theory with quantitative methods (Walter & Andersen, 2013). It includes cultural and relational indicators, among others, to explain the importance of treaties rather than relying solely on non-Indigenous-derived socioeconomic metrics.

Methodological approach

This study draws on Palawa Distinguished Professor Maggie Walter and Métis Professor Chris Andersen's (2013) Indigenous Statistics, which reclaim quantitative data analysis as a valid and powerful tool for advancing Indigenous interests. Rather than treating statistics as neutral or universal, this approach foregrounds Indigenous social realities, values, epistemes, and standpoints⁴ in the creation, selection, interpretation, and use of data. It challenges the deficit framing often seen in non-Indigenous quantitative research (Andersen et al., 2025) and instead centres Indigenous agency, knowledge systems, and political aspirations. In an era shaped by datafication and algorithmic power, statistical patterns do more than describe reality; they help create it (Prehn, Carlson et al., 2026). Indigenous methodologies redirect this power towards relational accountability and self-determination. This study interprets statistical patterns not just as technical findings but as culturally and politically meaningful expressions of how Indigenous families relate to questions of treaty.

In applying this methodology, the study also aims to align with broader principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov),⁵ which demand that Indigenous peoples govern the data that describes them (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). From the choice of the dependent variable (treaty importance) to the recoding of independent variables such as cultural knowledge and income, all analytical decisions were Indigenous-led and shaped by the research aim: identifying strengths-based, relational factors that influence treaty support. While the LSIC is not explicitly designed for political attitudinal research, Indigenous-led methods enable meaningful insights from variables that speak to culture, understanding, and context (Walter et al., 2017). The exploratory nature of this study reflects the current absence of prior models in this space, positioning this research as a starting point for more nuanced, Indigenous-led treaty analysis.

The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children

This study draws on Wave 13 (2020–2021) of the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (LSIC), also known as Footprints in Time. The LSIC is administered by the Australian Department of Social Services and was developed in close consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and communities (Walter et al., 2017). It follows two cohorts of Indigenous children and their families over time, focusing on child development, cultural identity, family relationships, and social outcomes. The study employs a purposive, non-random sampling design that prioritises geographical diversity and cultural representation rather than statistical representativeness. As such, LSIC remains one of the most comprehensive and contextually grounded longitudinal datasets on Indigenous families in Australia.

LSIC's Indigenous-majority Data Governance Committee is particularly significant (Walter et al., 2017). It plays a central role in ensuring that the dataset is accountable to Indigenous priorities. Due to this governance structure, LSIC includes one of, if not the only, publicly accessible quantitative measures of attitudes towards treaty-making among Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia. This makes LSIC uniquely valuable for exploratory political and cultural analysis grounded in Indigenous standpoints.

Variables and recoding decisions

Dependent variable: treaty importance (apl45_5)

The primary outcome variable measures the importance primary caregivers place on treaty. Respondents were asked, ‘How important is a treaty between the government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?’. Responses were recorded on a four-point ordinal scale, with results reproduced in Table 3:

Table 3.

Treaty importance.

Treaty importance rating	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
1 = Not important	10	1.4%
2 = A little bit	28	3.9%
3 = Somewhat	103	14.2%
4 = Very important	583	80.5%

The dependent variable, treaty importance, was initially measured on a four-point ordinal scale, ranging from ‘not important’ to ‘very important’. However, the distribution was highly skewed: over 80% of respondents selected ‘very important’, while fewer than 6% selected ‘not important’ or ‘a little bit’. This pronounced skew, combined with the small number of cases in the lower categories, presented a challenge for traditional ordinal or linear regression modelling, which assumes adequate variation across response levels and approximately equal intervals between them.

In light of these limitations, the variable was recoded into a binary outcome distinguishing those who rated treaty as ‘very important’ (1) from all other responses (0). The binary recode is summarised below and set out in Table 4.

Table 4.

Treaty importance recoded.

Recoded treaty importance (binary)	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
0 = Not/a little/somewhat important (1–3)	141	19.5%
1 = Very important (4)	583	80.5%

This recording allowed for the use of weighted binary logistic regression more robustly to model the factors associated with strong support for treaty. While collapsing the variable involved some loss of nuance, it enabled more stable estimates and interpretive clarity. It should be noted that the case weighting is applied in the final binary logistic regression model and is detailed later (see Table 8). The binary outcome aligns with the study's central aim: to identify the social, cultural, and cognitive factors differentiating those who express the highest level of treaty support from those who do not. This approach is especially relevant given the policy and political significance of understanding the characteristics of committed treaty supporters, particularly within the broader context of treaty-making in Australia.

Independent variables

Independent variables were selected to reflect relational, cognitive, and structural influences on political attitudes (Table 5). Most of these variables were recoded, centred, or standardised as appropriate to improve interpretability and model performance. Final variable decisions were informed by prior literature, model fit, and some iterative testing.

Table 5.

Independent variables.

Name and label	Description
Cultural Kknowledge (ass1_i)	Four-point Likert scale measuring knowledge of family, history, and culture.
Treaty understanding (apl44_5)	Four-point Likert scale measuring self-assessed understanding of treaty and its significance.
Household income (afi3a)	Initially a 15-point scale; recoded as binary: low (<$800/week) vs. high (>$800/week) due to sparse lower-end data.
Highest education (apehigh)	Originally a 15-point scale; recoded as binary: (0) year 12 or less, (1) post-school qualifications.
Indigenous status (xistatus)	Recoded from four categories to binary: Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous caregivers.
Age (ahh4p1)	Caregiver age (22–69), centred at the mean.
Gender (ahh3p1)	Binary: female and male.
Remoteness (LORI) (alori_p1)	Five-point Likert scale measuring remoteness using level of relative isolation (LORI)
SEIFA decile (aad10_2016_p1)	Originally a 10-point scale, it was recoded into three categories.

Analytical strategy

The analysis proceeded in three stages:

Descriptive statistics: Frequencies and means were examined to assess distributions, skew, and missing data (Table 6). Crosstabulations using the Chi-squared (χ²) test and independent-samples t-tests identified bivariate associations between key variables and treaty importance (Table 7).

Binary logistic regression: A multivariate model assessed the odds of rating treaty as ‘very important’. Due to class imbalance (80.5% selecting this response), a case-weighting variable was applied to balance the classification distribution (Table 8). Predictors were entered simultaneously, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported (Table 9). Model fit was evaluated using Nagelkerke R², the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and classification accuracy (Table 10).

Model diagnostics and predictive performance: Classification tables assessed accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A predicted probability plot (by decile) visualised the model's ability to distinguish between high and low treaty importance. These diagnostics confirmed the model's adequacy and supported the interpretation.

Table 6.

Descriptive statistics of the sample (n = 774).

Variable	Category/statistic	n (%) or M (SD)	Valid n (missing)
1. Treaty importance	Very important	583 (80.5%)	724 (50)
1. Treaty importance	Not/little/somewhat	141 (19.5%)	724 (50)
2. Gender	Female	718 (94.8%)	757 (17)
2. Gender	Male	39 (5.2%)	757 (17)
3. Age	Mean (SD)	43.4 (8.9)	756 (18)
4. Indigenous status	Indigenous	570 (75.5%)	755 (19)
4. Indigenous status	Non-Indigenous	185 (24.5%)	755 (19)
5. Income	<$800/week	143 (28.3%)	505 (269)
5. Income	≥$800/week	362 (71.7%)	505 (269)
6. Education	≤Year 12/school	326 (44.7%)	729 (45)
6. Education	Post-school quals	403 (55.3%)	729 (45)
7. Cultural knowledge	Not much	76 (10.2%)	743 (31)
	A little	191 (25.7%)
	Fair	255 (34.3%)
	Lots	221 (29.7%)
8. Treaty understanding	Not much	237 (32.3%)	733 (41)
	A little	257 (34.8%)
	Fair	140 (19.1%)
	Lots	99 (13.5%)
9. Remoteness (LORI)	Urban	277 (36.6%)	757 (17)
	Rural	382 (50.5%)
	Very rural	55 (7.3%)
	Remote	41 (5.4%)
	Very remote	2 (0.3%)
10. SEIFA decile	Low	450 (59.5%)	756 (18)
	Medium	230 (30.4%)
	High	76 (10.1%)

Please note percentages are from valid cases, not the full sample.

Table 7.

Bivariate associations with treaty importance.

Predictor	Type/test	Very important	Other	Test statistic	P value
Treaty understanding	4-level ordinal (χ²)	29.7%, 33.0%, 20.8%, 16.6%	35.0%, 47.1%, 15.0%, 2.9%	χ²(3, n = 713) = 24.51	<0.001
Cultural knowledge	4-level ordinal (χ²)	9.8%, 23.5%, 33.7%, 33.0%	10.9%, 34.8%, 36.2%, 18.1%	χ²(3, n = 717) = 14.05	0.003
Indigenous status	Binary (χ²)	77.8%	68.8%	χ²(1, n = 723) = 5.10	0.024
Age	Continuous (t-test)	M = 0.28 (SD = 8.89)	M = -0.56 (SD = 8.20)	t(722) = 1.01	0.312
Remoteness (LORI)	5-level ordinal (χ²)	36.9%, 50.6%, 7.2%, 5.0%, 0.3%	34.0%, 51.1%, 6.4%, 8.5%, 0.0%	χ²(4, n = 724) = 3.36	0.500
SEIFA decile	3-level ordinal (χ²)	58.1%, 31.1%, 10.8%	61.7%, 29.1%, 9.2%	χ²(2, n = 723) = 0.68	.0.711
Education	Binary (χ²)	55.5%	54.3%	χ²(1, n = 697) = 0.06	0.815
Gender	Binary (χ²)	48.2% Male, 51.8% Female	48.9% Male, 51.1% Female	χ²(1, n = 724) = 0.03	0.875
Income	Binary (χ²)	71.3%	70.6%	χ²(1, n = 493) = 0.02	0.892

Key findings

• Statistically significant: Treaty understanding; knowing family, history, and culture; and Indigenous status.

• Non-significant: Age; remoteness; SEIFA; education; gender; and income, were not associated with treaty importance in bivariate comparisons.

Table 8.

Distribution of recoded treaty importance before and after weighting.

Treaty importance (binary)	Unweighted count (n)	Unweighted %	Weighted %
0 = Not/a little/somewhat important (1–3)	141	19.5%	49.8%
1 = Very important (4)	583	80.5%	50.2%
Total	724	100.0%	100.0%

Weight_Class variable adjusts for class imbalance between response groups. Weights applied: 1.00 = very important; 4.10 = other responses.

Table 9.

Binary logistic regression predicting likelihood of rating treaty as ‘very important’ (n = 682).

Predictor variable	B	SE	OR (Exp B)	95% CI for OR	P value
Treaty understanding (centred)	0.33	0.07	1.39	[1.21, 1.60]	<.001
Indigenous status (Ind = 0, Non-Ind = 1)	−0.48	0.15	0.62	[0.46, 0.83]	0.001
Knows family, history, culture (centred)	0.17	0.07	1.19	[1.03, 1.37]	0.017
Remoteness (LORI, centred)	−0.20	0.08	0.82	[0.70, 0.97]	0.016
Education (lower = 0, higher = 1)	0.19	0.10	1.20	[0.99, 1.46]	0.065
SEIFA decile (centred)	0.04	0.10	1.04	[0.85, 1.26]	0.721

Table 10.

Model fit statistics.

Model fit statistic	Value	Interpretation
Nagelkerke R²	0.08	The model explains approximately 8% of the variance in support for treaty.
Model χ² (df = 6)	67.98***	The model is statistically significant overall.
Hosmer–Lemeshow χ² (df = 8)	15.38	P = 0.052, indicating an acceptable fit between predicted and observed values.
Overall % correctly classified	61.7%	The model correctly classified 61.7% of responses.

***P < 0.001.

Key findings

• Treaty understanding: Self-assessed comprehension was the strongest predictor of strong support.

• Indigenous identity: Non-Indigenous caregivers were significantly less likely to rate treaty as very important, pointing to the role of lived experience.

• Cultural knowledge: Greater knowledge of family, history, and culture significantly increased the odds of strong support, highlighting the importance of relational grounding.

• Remoteness: More remote respondents showed lower treaty support.

• Non-significant: Education approached significance. Socioeconomic status (SEIFA) was not significant.

Results

Sample characteristics

The sample characteristics are illistrated in Table 6 below.

Bivariate associations

Logistic regression results

To construct the binary logistic regression model (see Table 9) predicting the likelihood of rating treaty as very important, variable selection was informed by both statistical and theoretical considerations. Bivariate analyses identified three key predictors: treaty understanding, knowledge of family, history, and culture, and Indigenous status. These were retained in the multivariate model because they align conceptually with relational and political drivers of treaty support. Three sociodemographic variables: educational attainment, remoteness (LORI), and socioeconomic status (SEIFA), were also included to account for structural influences that may shape attitudes independently or interact with cultural and political knowledge. While not all sociodemographic variables were statistically significant, their inclusion strengthened a more holistic, contextually grounded model.

Given the class imbalance, with over 80% rating treaty as ‘very important’, a case-weighting adjustment was applied to mitigate potential bias. The ‘Weight_Class’ variable assigned greater weight to the underrepresented group (those rating treaty as less than ‘very important’). Table 8 shows the distribution of the binary outcome before and after weighting, illustrating the effect on class proportions and model stability (see Table 10).

Summary of findings

This study examined predictors of strong treaty support among primary caregivers of Indigenous families. Although more than 80% rated treaty as very important, the use of case weights enabled a more balanced analysis. The final model revealed that relational and epistemic factors, including treaty understanding, Indigenous identity, and cultural knowledge, were strong predictors of approval. These findings suggest that treaty support is shaped more by relational grounding, lived experience, and political awareness rooted in Indigenous worldviews than by sociodemographic advantages.

Remoteness was negatively associated with treaty support, suggesting that distance from information and policy networks may limit engagement, despite strong cultural continuity in remote communities. Education had only a marginal influence, and socioeconomic status (SEIFA) was not a significant factor. Together, these findings reveal the limits of non-Indigenous-derived measures for understanding Indigenous political orientations. Support for treaty appears grounded in relational knowledge systems and culturally informed political literacy, emphasising the need for policy and education initiatives that engage Indigenous ontologies, values, and epistemes to foster meaningful, culturally resonant participation in treaty processes.

Discussion

This study investigated the drivers of strong treaty support among primary caregivers of Indigenous youths, guided primarily by Indigenous standpoint theory (Walter & Andersen, 2013) and informed by principles of IDSov (Walter & Suina, 2019). In the absence of substantial prior quantitative research on this topic, especially from within Indigenous communities, the analysis was necessarily exploratory. Rather than seeking a universal model, it aimed to illuminate patterns that reflect the realities and priorities of Indigenous families navigating a dominant non-Indigenous political landscape. The findings contribute to Indigenous sociology, political science, and treaty-related discussions in Australia.

While this study centres on Indigenous families, it also highlights the importance of engaging non-Indigenous people. The analysis revealed non-Indigenous primary caregivers were significantly less likely to rate treaty as ‘very important’, even when raising Indigenous children. This suggests that proximity to Indigenous family life does not automatically translate into relational or political alignment. Because treaty is fundamentally a relationship between self-determining political entities (Hobbs & Williams, 2018), its advancement requires shifts in non-Indigenous understanding, accountability, and co-ownership. Efforts building treaty support, therefore, demand education and engagement strategies that deepen awareness of the relational, ethical, and historical foundations of treaty-making among non-Indigenous Australians.

Relational knowledge and treaty support

The final model revealed that the strongest predictors of treaty support were relational and epistemic, including cultural knowledge, treaty understanding, Indigenous identity, and reduced remoteness. These findings indicate that support for treaty is not driven by civic awareness or demographic status alone but is grounded in specific ways of knowing shaped by kinship, Country, and cultural continuity (Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2020). Relational knowledge encompasses this dynamic, referring not only to what people know but also to how knowledge is formed through ongoing relationships with family, community, and place (Graham & Brigg, 2023; Verbunt et al., 2021; Williamson et al., 2020).

Although cultural knowledge was a strong positive predictor, participants in more remote areas were less likely to express strong treaty support. Remoteness, therefore, does not necessarily correspond with higher treaty literacy or political engagement. Many remote communities maintain profound cultural continuity, yet they remain structurally excluded from policy conversations and information flows about treaties (Rennie et al., 2021). This highlights the need to distinguish between cultural strength and access to political processes, and to ensure that engagement opportunities are accessible to all communities. It also reflects what Watson (2014) identifies as the enduring limits of state recognition: Indigenous self-determination and cultural authority persist, while political inclusion remains conditional. Addressing this disparity requires investment in communication, translation, and digital infrastructure to enable relational participation in treaty processes.

Treaty-making, then, is not an abstract political agreement but a relational and cultural responsibility. The significance of Indigenous identity and spatial location in this study suggests that political commitments are shaped by lived experience and proximity to land-based struggle (see Norman, 2015). Civic education initiatives aimed at building treaty support must therefore be grounded in relational ontologies, culturally relevant practices, and Indigenous values, rather than in abstract legal or procedural messaging.

Decolonising surveys

While identity and geography were predictive, conventional structural variables, such as education and socioeconomic status (SEIFA), were not significant. Education approached statistical significance but did not cross conventional thresholds, suggesting that formal schooling may not directly correspond to treaty literacy and attitudes (Prehn, Carlson et al., 2026). Likewise, SEIFA, a non-Indigenous designed index of area-based advantage, offered little explanatory value. These results echo long-standing critiques that non-Indigenous metrics often fail to reflect Indigenous realities and reproduce deficit-based assumptions (Walter, 2016; Williamson et al., 2021).

The implications are twofold: first, they call for caution when interpreting political attitudes using ‘mainstream’ demographic indicators (Walter et al., 2021). Second, they reaffirm the value of Indigenous-led analytical frameworks that prioritise cultural, relational, and place-based dimensions of political life. Rather than reducing political consciousness to income or education levels, models of treaty support must reflect the distinct political histories and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples, communities, and nations.

Implications for treaty education and engagement

These findings hold critical implications for treaty education, engagement strategies, and participatory policy design (Walter et al., 2021). Treaty support, as shown, is most powerfully shaped by cultural knowledge, political understanding, and relational positioning. This means that government-led awareness campaigns or generic civics programmes are unlikely to shift attitudes meaningfully unless they are developed in partnership with Indigenous communities and embedded in culturally relevant, place-based approaches.

Treaty education should centre Indigenous voices, histories, and priorities, drawing on kinship ties and intergenerational storytelling to build treaty literacy from within. Importantly, higher support among urban and rural respondents challenges remote-centric assumptions of Indigenous people and highlights the importance of leadership from both urban, rural, and remote communities in sustaining treaty dialogue (Porter, 2018). These findings also emphasise that Indigenous-led initiatives, such as truth-telling, cultural revitalisation, and language recovery, are foundational to building public legitimacy for treaty-making, thereby affirming the approach taken thus far in Victoria.

Ultimately, this study highlights the limitations of non-Indigenous measures in capturing Indigenous political agency. Governments and institutions must recalibrate their measurement and engagement tools to reflect Indigenous epistemes, ontologies, and axiologies. In line with IDSov principles, future data collection should involve Indigenous-led metrics that value cultural continuity, relational accountability, and self-determined indicators of political transformation (Andersen et al., 2025; Lowe et al., 2021). Only then can treaty processes reflect the depth and diversity of Indigenous political worldviews.

Limitations and future research

While this study identified several key predictors of strong treaty support: cultural knowledge, treaty understanding, Indigenous status, and remoteness, the model's explanatory power was modest (Nagelkerke R² = 0.08). This suggests that although relational and cultural factors are important, much of the variation in attitudes towards treaty remains unexplained. Available variables in LSIC capture only a portion of the political, historical, and intergenerational dimensions that shape Indigenous engagement with treaty processes.

Future research should build on this foundation by developing Indigenous-designed measures that more accurately reflect political identity and centre treaty-making. Mixed-methods and longitudinal approaches would deepen understanding of how treaty attitudes evolve over time and across different community contexts. It will also be important to explore how diverse meanings of ‘treaty’ circulate within Indigenous communities, particularly as contemporary agreements in Australia diverge from historic precedents in places such as North America and Aotearoa New Zealand. Research grounded in IDSov principles will be essential to ensure that future work continues to advance cultural relevance, epistemic integrity, and community benefit.

Conclusion

This study examined the treaty attitudes among parents and caregivers of Indigenous youths. Over 80% of respondents rate treaty as ‘very important’ increasing to 95% when including moderately important. The final binary logistic regression model identified treaty understanding, cultural knowledge, Indigenous status, and less remoteness as significant predictors of strong treaty support. Notably, being Indigenous significantly increased the likelihood of strong support for treaties, emphasising the centrality of lived experience in shaping attitudes. Conventional metrics such as income, formal education, and socioeconomic status (SEIFA) were not significant, reaffirming the limitations of non-Indigenous derived variables in explaining Indigenous political engagement.

These findings suggest that support for treaty is more strongly associated with relational knowledge systems and identity than with traditional socioeconomic status or formal education. They have clear implications for treaty education, policy design, and participatory processes: initiatives should be place-based, culturally anchored, and co-designed with Indigenous communities. At the same time, the lower levels of treaty support among non-Indigenous caregivers, despite their proximity to Indigenous family life, highlight the urgent need to engage non-Indigenous Australians in relational, historically grounded treaty education. Future research should develop Indigenous-led measures of political engagement and centre IDSov principles to ensure culturally relevant, ethically sound, and community-beneficial knowledge production as treaty processes evolve.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the families and communities participating in the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (LSIC), also known as Footprints in Time. Your stories, time, and experiences make this research possible. We especially honour Elders, parents, and caregivers who continue to carry and share cultural knowledge despite the ongoing conditions of settler colonialism.

We gratefully acknowledge the Indigenous-majority Data Governance Committee, which guides the LSIC. Their guidance ensures that the LSIC aligns with Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles to the extent possible within a non-Indigenous government and remains accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Their critical governance has made LSIC the only publicly accessible dataset in Australia that includes quantitative questions about treaty and Indigenous political perspectives.

Further, we acknowledge the many generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who have fought and continue to fight for justice, truth, and treaty. Your resistance and resilience are the foundation of this work.

Harry Hobbs gratefully acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council: ‘A Made in Australia Model for Indigenous-State Treaty-Making’ (DE240100454).

ORCID iDs

Jacob Prehn

Harry Hobbs

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Andersen

Walter

Kukutai

Gabel

(2025). Indigenous Statistics: From Data Deficits to Data Sovereignty. Taylor & Francis.

Appleby

Davis

(2018). The Uluru Statement and the Promises of Truth. Australian Historical Studies, 49(4), 501–509. doi :10.1080/1031461X.2018.1523838

Atkinson

Stewart

(2024). The First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria: Cultural Authority, Representation, and the Treaty Process. In Langton

Corn

Curkpatrick

(Eds.), Indigenous Knowledge: Australian Perspectives. Melbourne University Publishing.

Bodkin-Andrews

Prehn

Price

Walter

Martin

(2024). Investigating Racism Measures Through an Indigenous Data Sovereignty Lens. In Cook

Maire

Wyn

(Eds.), Longitudinal Methods in Youth Research: Understanding Young Lives Across Time and Space (pp. 163–185). Springer.

Boltje

(2025). What will NSW Aboriginal treaty discussions look like and when will they begin? ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-05/nsw-treaty-consultation-process-to-get-underway/105374900.

Carlson

Frazer

(2016). Indigenous activism and social media. In Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest culture (pp. 115–131). Rowman & Littlefield International.

Clark

Ravi

d. C.

Maddison

(2019). ‘The Treaty’s Going to Give the Recognition that this Wasn’t Right' – Optimism and Pessimism in Non-Indigenous Attitudes to Treaties in Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 40(6), 665–680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2019.1675615

Cooper v Stuart (1889). 14 App Cas 286.

Dodson

(2016). Navigating a path towards meaningful change and recognition. In It’s our country—Indigenous arguments for meaningful constitutional reform (pp. 180–186). Melbourne University Press.

10.

First Peoples Assembly of Victoria, & The State of Victoria. (2022). Treaty Negotiation Framework. Melbourne. https://www.firstpeoplesvic.org/reports-resources/treaty-negotiation-framework/.

11.

Gibson

J. B.

, & Barraclough A . (2025). Tasmanian government to fund truth-telling commissioners but drop treaty process. ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/tasmanian-government-abandons-aboriginal-treaty-process/105344482.

12.

Graham

Brigg

(2023). Indigenous Public Policy Futures: A Manifesto for Relationalist Public Administration. In Public Policy and Indigenous Futures (pp. 13–26). Springer.

13.

Hobbs

(2024). Taking Stock of Indigenous-State Treaty-Making in Australia: Opportunities and Challenges. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 47(2), 548. doi:org/10.53637/SREA8485

14.

Hobbs

(2025). Anticipating and Weathering Challenges to Modern Treaties in Australia. Public Law Review, 35(4), 318.

15.

Hobbs

Williams

(2018). The Noongar Settlement: Australia's First Treaty. Sydney Law Review, 40(1), 1.

16.

Huygens

(2016). Pākehā and Tauiwi Treaty education: an unrecognised decolonisation movement? Kōtuitui. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 11(2), 146–158.

17.

Johnson

(2019). Two families: Treaties and government. Purich Publishing.

18.

Kukutai

Cormack

(2019). Mana motuhake ā-raraunga: datafication and social science research in Aotearoa. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(2), 201–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1648304

19.

Kukutai

Taylor

(2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press.

20.

Lovett

(2017). Indigenous Children’s Resilience: The Role of Demographics, Relationships, Achievement and Culture. In Walter

Martin

Bodkin-Andrews

(Eds.), Indigenous Children Growing Up Strong (pp. 287–308). Springer.

21.

Lovett

Brinckley

M.-M.

Phillips

Chapman

Thurber

K. A.

Jones

Banks

Dunbar

Olsen

Wenitong

(2020). Marrathalpu mayingku ngiya kiyi. Minyawaa ngiyani yata punmalaka; wangaaypu kirrampili kara [Ngiyampaa title]; In the beginning it was our people's law. What makes us well; to never be sick. Cohort profile of Mayi Kuwayu: The National Study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing [English title]. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 8–30.

22.

Lovett

Jones

Maher

(2021). The intersection of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Closing the Gap policy in Australia. In Walter

Kukutai

Carroll

S. R.

Rodriguez-Lonebear

(Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 36–50). Routledge.

23.

Lowe

Tennent

Moodie

Guenther

Burgess

(2021). School-based Indigenous cultural programs and their impact on Australian Indigenous students: a systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 78–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1843137

24.

Martin

(2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the implications for researchers. Post Pressed.

25.

Martin

K. L.

(2017). Culture and identity: LSIC parents’ beliefs and values and raising young Indigenous children in the twenty-first century. In Walter

Martin

K. L.

Bodkin-Andrews

(Eds.), Indigenous Children Growing Up Strong (pp. 79–99). Springer.

26.

Moreton-Robinson

(2013). Towards an Australian Indigenous women's standpoint theory: A methodological tool. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(78), 331–347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2013.876664

27.

Moreton-Robinson

(2020). “Our story is in the land”: Why the Indigenous sense of belonging unsettles white Australia. ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/our-story-is-in-the-land-indigenous-sense-of-belonging/11159992.

28.

Nakata

(1998). Anthropological texts and Indigenous standpoints. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 3–12.

29.

Norman

(2015). "What Do We Want” A Political History of Aboriginal Land Rights in New South Wales. Aboriginal Studies Press.

30.

Porter

(2018). From an urban country to urban Country: confronting the cult of denial in Australian cities. Australian Geographer, 49(2), 239–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2018.1456301

31.

Prehn

Carlson

Walter

Lovett

Maher

(2026). Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Artificial Intelligence: The Latest Frontier in Settler Colonial Epistemic Control. Journal of Sociology.

32.

Prehn

Hobbs

Horton

(2026). Strengthening Treaty Understanding: The Role of Education in Building Durable Indigenous–State Agreements. Australian Journal of Social Issues.

33.

Productivity Commission. (2024). Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/closing-the-gap-review/report/closing-the-gap-review-report.pdf.

34.

Rennie

Hogan

Gregory

(2021). The limits of digital inclusion: The hidden inequalities of internet access in remote Indigenous Australia . Communication Research and Practice, 7(1), 26–44.

35.

Richards

(2025). SA First Nations communities ‘waiting, prepared’ to restart treaty process. ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-02/sa-treaty-process-update/105352570.

36.

Rigney

Bell

Jorgensen

Vivian

Hemming

Cornell

Behrendt

(2026). Indigenous Nation Building in Australia: Resistance, Resilience, Resurgence. Bloomsbury Publishing.

37.

Rigney

Bell

Vivian

(2021). Treaty: A Conversation on how Indigenous Nations can become Treaty Ready. In Hobbs

Whittaker

Coombes

(Eds.), Treaty-Making 250 Years Later (pp. 17–42). Federation Press.

38.

Rigney

Bignall

Vivian

Hemming

(2022). Indigenous nation building and the political determinants of health and wellbeing. Lowitja Institute Melbourne.

39.

Rigney

Bignall

Vivian

Hemming

Berg

Bell

(2021). Treating treaty as a technology for indigenous nation building. In Smith

Diane

Wighton

Alison

Cornell

Stephen

Vai Delaney

Adam

(Eds.), Developing governance and governing development international case studies of indigenous futures (pp. 119–140). Bloomsbury. doi:https://doi.org/10.5040/9798881814731.ch-6.

40.

Spivak

G. C.

(2023). Can the Subaltern Speak? In Cain

P. H.

Harrison

(Eds.), Imperialism: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies Volume III (pp. 171–219). Routledge.

41.

Statewide Treaty. (2025). https://content.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/Negotiated-Statewide-Treaty-Subject-to-assent-05092025.pdf .

42.

Tupper

(2011). Disrupting ignorance and settler identities: The challenges of preparing beginning teachers for treaty education. in education, 17(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2011.v17i3.71

43.

Tupper

(2014). The possibilities for reconciliation through difficult dialogues: Treaty education as peacebuilding. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 469–488. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12060

44.

Tupper

J. A.

(2012). Treaty education for ethically engaged citizenship: Settler identities, historical consciousness and the need for reconciliation. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 143–156 doi:https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.7.2.143_1

45.

Verbunt

Luke

Paradies

Bamblett

Salamone

Jones

Kelaher

(2021). Cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – a narrative overview of reviews. International Journal for Equity in Health, 20(1), 181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01514-2

46.

Walker

(2016). Reclaiming Māori education. In Hutchings

Lee-Morgan

(Eds.), Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice (pp. 19–38). NZCER Press.

47.

Walter

(2016). Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In Kukutai

Taylor

(Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 79–97). ANU Press.

48.

Walter

Andersen

(2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Left Coast Press.

49.

Walter

Kukutai

Carroll

S. R.

Rodriguez-Lonebear

(2021). Indigenous data sovereignty and policy. Routledge.

50.

Walter

Martin

K. L.

Bodkin-Andrews

(2017). Indigenous Children Growing Up Strong: A Longitudinal Study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Families. Springer.

51.

Walter

Suina

(2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233–243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

52.

Warrior

(2018). Speaking of Indigenous politics: Conversations with activists, scholars, and tribal leaders. U of Minnesota Press.

53.

Watson

(2014). Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law. Routledge.

54.

Wells

Brinckley

M.-M.

Thurber

K. A.

Banks

Whop

L. J.

Maddox

Lovett

(2023). Kulay Kalingka, a national cohort study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cancer experiences: a study protocol. BMJ Open, 13(5), e072045. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072045

55.

Williams

Hobbs

(2020). Treaty (2nd ed). Federation Press.

56.

Williamson

Prehn

Walter

Lovett

Bodkin-Andrews

Maher

Lee-Ah Mat

Jones

(2021). Indigenous Peoples and the Australian census: value, trust, and participation. Australian Population Studies, 5(2), 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.37970/aps.v5i2.89

57.

Williamson

Dent

Bowman

(2020). Culture is Key. Lowitja Institute.