Indigenous Consultation Frameworks in Canada& Australia
Engagement
January 8th 2026
By
Bethany Cheshire
There are many countries around the world where certain minority groups are (or have historically been) treated as second class citizens. In some countries, those treated the worst are those who can trace their ancestry in the land back the furthest. The injustices of settler colonialism have cast a very long shadow, and indigenous populations in ex-colonies are often still deeply affected.
This is certainly the case in Canada and Australia. Both countries were already occupied by indigenous inhabitants when they were first colonised by the British, and the descendants of those indigenous communities are still feeling the effects today. Historically, the needs and desires of these indigenous communities have been ignored by those in positions of power. This is one of the reasons it is particularly important that these communities are consulted today.
Why consulting indigenous populations matter
There are two ways that white settler communities have historically handled the rights and needs of indigenous peoples. The first is with total disregard; where established laws, culture and property rights were entirely dismissed by a settler population that imposed their own pre-existing views on a new land. When we think of the most violent forms of colonialism, this is usually what one might picture.
The second is perhaps less obvious to an outside perspective, and therefore more insidious; paternalism. This is where settler populations make decisions for an indigenous community in the misguided belief that they better understood what was best for them. In Canada, this paternalism drove such measures as the government seizing and “educating” First Nations children in ways that separated and traumatised families.
While hopefully none of these practices continue today, there is still a danger of majority white anglophone communities making decisions on behalf of indigenous populations. Even when the proposed measures are designed to help, this too is paternalism. The key issue here is that indigenous communities are not given a say. That’s why consultation is so important.
Whether it is about land that has traditionally been populated by an indigenous community, or their rights to practice their cultural heritage, any proposed changes should be decided with indigenous communities, not for them.
By reaching out to indigenous communities, organisations and particularly public bodies can demonstrate that they are no longer the same institutions that exploited them. Although listening alone cannot heal all wounds, it can do a great deal to show that indigenous voices matter and their participation has an effect.
The legal duty to consult
Since the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP) in 2007, it has been increasingly common for ex-colonies to develop systems for representing the rights of indigenous people. In both Canada and Australia, there are legal obligations to consult indigenous people about certain types of decisions. The types of policy and planning proposals this relates to, what the consultation must involve, and which groups this applies to varies significantly between the two countries.
In Canada, the legal duty to consult indigenous people arises from Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, which formalised existing Aboriginal rights into constitutional law. Contained within this act are:
An affirmation of the treaty rights including land claims of aboriginal people.
A definition of aboriginal to include “Indian”, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
The idea that these rights apply to both men and women equally.
These rights have developed significantly by the Supreme Court in the last forty years, however this act remains the most important piece of legislation reinforcing the rights of indigenous Canadians. It was later reinforced by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2021).
Put very briefly, the law states that if the Crown believes that anything undertaken or authorised by a public body has the potential to have a negative impact on indigenous people or their treaty rights, there is a duty to consult. How significant action must be, from a notification to a full consultation depends on the scope.
These indigenous consultations must be carried out in good faith, with the ultimate good of conciliation. Where appropriate, the consultation may result in project changes in order to better accommodate the concerns of indigenous people. It is essential that these consultations have a proven ability to actually effect the planning process, and that the government can demonstrate a commitment to indigenous engagement.
Consulting indigenous Australians
Australian law is somewhat less explicit in the requirement to consult indigenous people in matters that may affect them. However – like Canada – Australia is a signatory to UNDRIP. Australia also has to abide by the same principle of “the honour of the Crown” which recognises the duty of the executive to seek reconciliation with indigenous people. This confers some duty to consult. As stated by the Australian Law Reform Commission:
“The duty to consult and accommodate supports the honour of the Crown, and is part of the process of reconciling the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.”
However, in Australia there is no single constitutional duty to consult. Obligations on when and how consultation must happen are governed largely on a sector by sector basis. The most relevant is probably the Native Title Act 1993, which states that any act that may affect native land rights (for example, cases of compulsory purchase) compels governments to follow a certain procedure. Generally, the government must try to secure the agreement of native land holders. If they are unable to agree, the issue will go to a tribunal.
Challenges in indigenous engagement
Engaging indigenous people is not always straightforward. There are multiple challenges that can cause significant complications for those facilitating an engagement activity or consultation. Some examples include:
Language barriers
In Australia, there are around 13 different indigenous languages. In Canada, there are at least 70. While many indigenous people also speak English or French, not all do. Even when someone is fluent in English, if they don’t use it as an everyday language they may struggle to comprehend the complex language often used in policy proposals.
Remote and rural locations
In both Australia and Canada, indigenous people often live in very remote locations away from urban centres. This can make engaging them very challenging, as it makes it impractical and expensive to run in person events or briefings. Technology – particularly digital engagement platforms – have been important for this reason. However, in some very remote locations there may be limited access to the internet.
Distrust of institutions
Many indigenous people have experiences of being mistreated or disregarded by public bodies and institutions. Even where they don’t personally, it is likely their family has at some point in recent history. This generational trauma can create difficulties in developing the trust required to willingly engage in a consultation process.
Best practices for indigenous engagement
While there are certainly difficulties in engaging indigenous populations, they are not insurmountable. Some of the most challenging issues are now much easier to tackle with the help of technology.
Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity
One of the most important things to get right when engaging communities that have historically been excluded is ensuring any engagement activity is both inclusive and accessible. That means:
Ensuring that all materials are available in all relevant languages, and using simple language that can be understood by a non-expert.
Making sure all materials meet accessibility standards. This has been simplified by the use of purpose-built digital engagement platforms, which have accessibility requirements built in as standard.
Where affected groups live in remote locations, offer online versions of things like public meetings and briefings.
Using digital tools to bridge geographical divides
Online meetings can go a long way, and the inbuilt accessibility standards of GovTech have changed the way we think about inclusion. However, digital tools can accomplish a great deal more than that when it comes to bridging geographical divides.
Firstly, online consultation platforms allow facilitators to upload all documents and contextual information to one place. That same platform can then be used by participants to respond to the information. They can voice concerns, ask questions, or push for further clarification. The digital format allows those running the engagement activity to respond in real time, uploading new information or providing additional context where necessary. This is very useful to those living in remote areas, who may not otherwise be able to access the relevant information.
Geospatial mapping has added an additional benefit to these platforms. Using Citizen Space, those facilitating an engagement activity can add interactive maps that can be used to give information. For example, showing an area of land that is proposed for acquisition. Respondents can also provide input using this geospatial data, drawing out areas or marking specific points. This can be very useful for decision-makers, who may need to make accommodations to specific areas of land under UNDRIP legislation.
Reaching out to community leaders
It is difficult for a public body to cold approach an indigenous community, particularly where there is low trust. An important way of ensuring that there is enough take up of a consultation or activity is to form relationships with community leaders. By reaching out to these leaders – who may be indigenous political representatives, or run important community services – it is possible to build trust.
The views of indigenous populations have – in many places – been sidelined for a very long time. Getting it right matters, and not just to meet statutory obligations in one-off consultations. By developing a culture where indigenous people know that they can make their voice heard, outcomes for these communities can be significantly improved.
There are no greater experts on the indigenous experience than the people themselves; their needs and rights are best represented by them. Creating inclusive consultations that actively tries to engage a representative number of indigenous people is the best way toward inclusive decision-making in Australia and Canada.
Citizen Space is the go-to govtech platform for engaging with citizens, managing large scale government consultations and simplifying statutory processes. If you’d like to learn more about how our software can be used for indigenous engagement, book a free demo today.
