Resources and publications

The following submission was made as part of the technical review of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act) 2006 (Cth) (CATSI Act).

In the submission we have supported further investigation of a dedicated chapter in the CATSI Act for RNTBCs (native title corporations) and our main recommendations include:

• Amendments to the CATSI Act to reduce the regulatory and reporting burden to ensure compliance is affordable and manageable
• Amendments to the CATSI Act that facilitate the incorporation of subsidiary corporations
• Increased special regulatory assistance for CATSI Corporations that promote compliance rather than punitive measures
• Specific tailored RNTBC corporate governance training
• Making the unique situation of native title corporations clear in a separate chapter of legislation
• Amendments to the laws around meetings and directors that better reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law and custom
• Providing culturally appropriate training, information support and resourcing is available for native title corporations
• Ensuring that native title corporations are accountable to the wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group but have enough discretion to manage the corporation

The following submission is in response to the Closing the Gap Refresh Public Discussion Paper.

In this submission, AIATSIS supports the adoption of a strengths-based approach to the refresh of the COAG Closing the Gap framework. The submission outlines key areas of importance for the refresh. These are  defining 'prosperity' based on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander notions of 'wealth' and freedom, adopting broad and sophisticated definitions of culture, and co-designing targets, measures and analysis with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Further, creating structural changes which are well balanced with community priorities, address blockages, inequalities and inconsistencies in legislation and policy, and ensuring engagement with the Refresh process occurs in a considered and meaningful way.

This paper discusses the purposes and form of the reports, their differentiation from the NNTT registration process, considerations anticipating litigation, confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest by the State as respondent.

In the Native Title ‘hot tub’ outlines the history and development of expert conferencing and expert concurrent evidence in Australia, including in the Federal Court. These approaches to expert evidence are a major development of the last decade, greatly reducing the hearing time of Native Title proceedings and the costs to the parties involved. The authors explore how expert conferences and concurrent evidence can narrow the issues in the Native Title claims of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, discussing in particular their experiences in four recent cases.

In 2002 and 2004 Karajarri had their native title rights and interests recognised to over 31,000 square kilometres of land in the West Kimberley, south of Broome. This is an area about half the size of Tasmania. Here there are pastoral stations, mining interests, coastal and desert lands, and the large Aboriginal community of Bidyadanga. Karajarri had one of the first native title determinations to be recognised in the Kimberley and had the first native title application in which applicants were represented exclusively by the Kimberley Land Council.

In recent decades, various forms of co-management of national parks and other protected areas1 by governments and Indigenous people have come to the fore. This has occurred as Indigenous peoples have progressively demanded greater access to and decisionmaking power over their traditional lands. The response of governments has also seen the aligning of a number of policy approaches that have contributed to an increase in attention to co-management. In the first instance, there has been a rapid rise in the number of protected areas in Australia since the 1960s, and this is continuing as the Commonwealth Government aims to increase the size of the Australian National Reserve System (NRS) by 25 per cent and Australia’s network of terrestrial protected areas to 125 million hectares by 2013 (Caring for Our Country 2013a).2 In addition, at least 16 per cent of Australia’s land area is now held by Indigenous peoples under a range of tenures, with much of this land being of high biodiversity value (Altman & Kerins 2012). As a mechanism for adding new protected areas to the NRS, the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) has an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program that supports traditional owners of lands or seas who voluntarily dedicate their lands as protected areas to promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation. IPAs now form the second largest component of the National Reserve System, covering over 3 per cent of Australia and making up 23 per cent of the NRS (SEWPaC 2013b).

An outline of some of the legal issues surrounding PBCs charging fees for service and what PBCs can and cannot charge fees for.

The following submission is in response to the proposed technical amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA).

In this submission, AIATSIS welcomes changes that further the rights of native title claimants, holders and corporations in the areas of authorisation, agreement-making, governance and decision-making. AIATSIS suggests the amendments are expanded to address structural issues in the native title system.

Assessing research impact is a crucial element of AIATSIS’ aspirations to collaborate with Indigenous partners and create meaningful change within communities. However, the way in which impact is defined and assessed is unclear and there is currently no established methodology for assessing AIATSIS’ research. This annotated bibliography lists a selection of the literature on assessing the impact of research projects. It highlights the importance of research impact evaluation, approaches to incorporating Indigenous perspectives in evaluation, and which methods may be valuable in evaluating the impact of the research that AIATSIS carries out. This bibliography provides a step forward in developing a methodology for assessing research impact, leading to a better understanding of whether we are meeting the priorities of the Indigenous communities we work with and how our research can evolve to better support these priorities.

The Productivity Commission’s inquiry into regulation of the Australian marine fisheries and aquaculture sectors sought to identify opportunities to improve fisheries regulations without compromising fishery policy and environmental objectives. The terms of reference included the extent to which fisheries management regimes align with and protect the interests of the wider community, including Indigenous fishing interests, and the extent to which fisheries management regimes support greater participation of Indigenous Australians, incentivise Indigenous communities to manage their fisheries, and incorporate traditional management practices.

The AIATSIS submission responds to the Commission’s draft findings, providing advice on recognising Indigenous customary fishing as a sector in its own right, and recommending that Indigenous peoples are made active partners in the regulation and management of marine fisheries, rather than just being consulted.

The submission notes that while any changes to the regulation of these sectors must be consistent with native title rights, customary fishing as a recognised sector should not be confined to Indigenous groups which have recognised native title. New regulatory definitions of customary fishing also do not necessarily need to exclude commercial fishing activities.

Management of fisheries must be done in partnership with Indigenous peoples, and requires greater understanding of the diverse benefits that customary fishing brings to Indigenous communities, the historical processes which have led to the exclusion of Indigenous fishers, and the capacity of Indigenous land and sea management organisations to play a direct role in fisheries management with appropriate support.

The submission also recommends greater regulatory support for increasing Indigenous participation in the commercial fishing sector, as a means of creating sustainable livelihoods for many Indigenous communities.

This article evaluates the taxation concessions and other advantages that flow from being a charity and how these might apply to native title groups under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Specifically, it examines the role of the Prescribed Body Corporate (‘PBC’) under the Native Title Act and the potential for, and limitations of, these bodies carrying on business, engaging in community development and accumulating funds whilst also having charitable status.