Policy · Native Title & First Nations Legal Work
Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) and data sovereignty protocol for AI use
Original firm protocol that controls AI use on First Nations matters: free, prior and informed consent, a bar on restricted and sacred knowledge entering AI tools, no vendor training, community control of data and outputs, and records of cultural authority.
- Kind
- Policy. A policy or procedure for a firm or client.
- Where it applies
- Australia
- AI use
- Yellow AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use.
- Law stated as at
- 17 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 17 October 2026 against the 7 authorities it cites, for Australia.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Adopt firm-wide before any AI tool is used on native title, cultural heritage or other matters involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients' knowledge, language, images or data. Adapt it with the community or organisation you act for; their own protocols prevail.
How AI may be used
AI may help structure the protocol and staff training material, but its rules must be settled with the community or organisation the firm acts for. Under the protocol, AI use on First Nations matters needs recorded free, prior and informed consent and never extends to restricted knowledge.
AI may
- Draft the structure, staff checklists and training scenarios for review by the responsible lawyer and community representatives
- Produce plain-language summaries of the protocol for clients, for checking
- Maintain the AI use and consent register from completed consent forms
AI must not
- Must not generate stories, songs, designs, language translations or other cultural expressions, or present output as traditional knowledge
- Must not be given secret, sacred, gender-restricted or mourning-restricted material, or names and images of deceased persons where protocols restrict them
- Must not be used with any tool whose terms allow training on inputs or retention outside the agreed jurisdiction
The lawyer checks
- The community or organisation has reviewed and agreed the protocol, or its own protocol is adopted instead
- Consent records identify who gave consent, under what decision-making process, for which materials, tools and purposes
- Vendor terms are checked for training, storage location, retention and deletion
- Staff have completed cultural competence and protocol training before working on the matter
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Official form
Open the official form. Always use the current version from the issuer.
Read the full text
The full text is for signed-in accounts. It is free. When you sign in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in Native Title & First Nations Legal Work
- Native title determination application (claimant application, Form 1): completion guide
- Application to register an Indigenous Land Use Agreement: completion guide
- Objection to inclusion of the expedited procedure statement: lodgement guide
- Section 31 (right to negotiate) agreement: heads of terms
- PBC native title decision: consultation and consent record and reg 9 certificate checklist
All precedents for Native Title & First Nations Legal Work · Tasks and AI use in this area