Fact sheet 6: Ethics

Human research in Australia must follow these guidelines on ethics:

• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025) (the National Statement)
• Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. 

This can apply to research methods used in evaluation. For example, interviews, focus groups and workshops.

You can find out more about ethics on the Disability Gateway’s Follow ethical standards page.

What to do

Evaluators need to look at the guidelines and decide how they apply to their evaluation. Evaluators should: 

• check the National Statement and decide if their proposed activity is likely to be lower or higher risk to participants
• if the activity is higher risk, seek ethics approval from a registered Human Research Ethics Committee. The evaluator will need to show they have thought about possible risks and benefits and how they can address them
• make sure privacy risks are managed according to the Privacy Act 1988. States and territories might have their own laws, administrative codes or rules about privacy that evaluators need to follow 
• create ways that make it easier for people to give informed consent. This includes plain language statements and consent forms to make sure everyone taking part can provide free and informed consent.   

National Statement on disability ethical conduct in human research

In the past, some groups of people might not have been able to take part in research. This was because researchers thought these groups were ‘vulnerable’, including people with disability.

The National Statement focuses on the need to make sure research is inclusive and focuses on people’s strengths. It explains how to do research in ways that reduce risks to participants. 

The National Statement recognises that some characteristics might increase a person’s risk of harm when taking part in research. These characteristics might also decrease someone’s ability to provide informed consent to take part.

Evaluation that includes diverse views are more likely to address the needs of diverse populations and make sure there are fairer outcomes.  

Evaluators should not assume that people who may be more vulnerable to risk of harm are not able to take part based on health, disability or shared experience.