Resources and publications

This research paper aims to better understand factors that contribute to corporate failure in Indigenous corporations.

This is a preliminary research report from the first year of fieldwork conducted by the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP). The Project is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in diverse contexts and locations across Australia through a series of diverse case studies—to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why. A comparative analysis of the Project’s case studies is revealing that governance and decision-making in Indigenous community governance is shaped by multiple historical, cultural and political relationships. Family and governance histories associated with particular communities and sets of regionally-linked communities are central features in community governance dynamics and arrangements. Strengthening Indigenous community governance requires negotiating appropriate contemporary relationships among the different Indigenous people within a region or community, and adapting or creating structures and processes to reflect important relationships. Several dimensions are being identified as being fundamental to building stronger, sustainable governance at the community and regional levels. These are the impact of the wider ‘governance environment’, cultural match and cultural geography, modes of leadership and representation, institutional capacity, organisational design and relationships, representation, decision-making processes, and human resource issues. Capacity development for governance needs to be considered within a systems framework and should be a process that actively strengthens Indigenous decision-making and control over their core institutions, goals and identity, and that enhances cultural match and legitimacy. The report concludes with some emerging issues and implications for policy makers and for Indigenous organisations and their leaders.

This paper explores how Indigenous community-based natural resource management can generate both conservation benefit and economic development opportunity. We begin by noting that much of the Indigenous estate in north Australia is either thinly populated or unpopulated. There is emerging evidence that, in situations where Indigenous people live on their country, ecological and wider benefits are generated via favourable fire regimes, control over weed infestations, and potentially through feral animal harvesting. When people are on country, they generate economic benefit for themselves by harvesting wildlife for consumption and engage with the market sector by using natural resources in commercial enterprise like arts and crafts production. We argue that there is a strong correlation between such activities and cost-effective natural resource management. Links between landcare, wildlife use and biodiversity conservation need to be recognized, celebrated and supported. The removal of many barriers to enhanced and innovative Indigenous participation in such activities, and equitable public support through programs like Landcare, will facilitate sustainable economic development options that are compatible with Indigenous priorities, while ameliorating Indigenous disadvantage.

This comprehensive review of the CATSI Act, built on a series of reviews undertaken in recent years. Responding to feedback from stakeholders for comprehensive consideration of the ongoing role of the CATSI Act, this review would consider whether the CATSI Act is achieving its objects, particularly as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

This report details the findings from the survey available on the National Indigenous Australians Agency website for phase one of the CATSI Act review.

The Centre for Native Title Anthropology is giving attention to the role of anthropologists in the post-determination phase. It investigates the methodology and learnings of the CLC community development unit in working with groups and communities in managing income streams from their lands for wider benefit is of considerable potential interest to anthropologists. It offers an illustrative example of the intense, collaborative engagement that is necessary at this intersection of Aboriginal and wider value systems, where monies gained from activities on Aboriginal lands are invested into broader community benefit. For these reasons, there is much to learn which is relevant to the governance of compensation funds held in trust by PBC and other entities (such as those established under mining agreements with Aboriginal groups). The podcast series also investigates the ethical and political issues they all face as anthropologists working with Aboriginal groups on social change in a framework of self-determination.

David Martin interviews Ian Sweeney, the Unit’s Manager, and four of the Project Officers, Dave Howard, Cecilia Tucker, Dianna Newham, and Carl O’Sullivan.

ORIC newsletter about CEO accountability. 

This collection of papers examines the dilemmas and challenges involved in the Indigenous struggle for the development and recognition of systems of governance that they recognise as both legitimate and effective.

Australian Indigenous land and sea managers have repeatedly called for an independent national Indigenous land and sea managers network. Such a network would link top down and bottom up information exchanges, promoting shared understandings of issues and opportunities. The network would provide government with a vehicle to both inform and learn from local Indigenous groups, including community rangers, on local, national and international matters of environmental significance. It also provides an opportunity for Indigenous managers to come together to develop positions on policy that affects land and sea management such as Working on Country and Indigenous Protected Areas.

The network would not do business on behalf of people or replicate existing local or regional networks or institutions, but would provide strategic support, coordinate communication and identify opportunities for group to group skills and knowledge exchange. The network aims to provide professional support through a coordinated learning environment that facilitates the identification of effective resources, research, technologies and tools for use by Indigenous land and sea managers within Australia. This workshop provides an opportunity for Land & Sea Managers to come together to discuss the purpose and scope of a national network, including governance, networking and membership.

This fact sheet provides information about Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and best practice for engagement with Traditional Owners. The fact sheet explains what FPIC means and how you can get in contact with PBCs, land councils, registered Aboriginal parties, native title representative bodies and service providers in Australia.

The healthy corporation checklist allows you to check your corporation’s compliance with the rule book and the law.

The checklist contains a list of questions to ask about your corporation. It also has links to important template documents and forms your corporation can use. Each question has a tickbox to record your corporation’s compliance, helping you to identify the areas that need attention.

This is the second research report by the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP). The ICGP is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in Australia - to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why. The first report, based on 2005 fieldwork, was published as CAEPR Working Paper No. 31/2006.

This report brings together findings from the fieldwork conducted during 2006, based on evidence drawn from case studies of Indigenous governance in action within differing community, geographical, cultural and political settings across the nation.

Information about the roles and functions of PBCs under the CATSI Act, the Native Title Act and the PBC regulations.

After 15 plus years of native title negotiations there was a lot research information held by the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) to be returned to the PBC Robe River Kuruma Aboriginal Corporation (RRKAC). YMAC had developed a best practice process for returning research materials. This presentation highlights this process, the experiences of the PBC and the lessons learned.

Vimeo page by Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa. Includes videos about their,

• Leadership program
• Partnerships
• Land management

Native title materials created in the process of native title, land claim and cultural heritage work include individual statements, expert reports, genealogies, field notes and other materials. This paper addresses some of the legal issues arising in relation to the transfer of research material from NTRB/SPs to RNTBCs.

This paper draws on interviews with leaders of successful Aboriginal organisations to understand the factors behind the successes that they are achieving in their communities.

Much of the attention paid to native title in Australia has focused on court proceedings and other legalities, but what does it actually mean to live with native title? This book presents the experiences of native title holders and the corporations they have established to look after their native title interests.

The influence of the renowned High Court Mabo case is such that there are already more than 100 Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) across Australia with responsibilities for about 18 per cent of the continent. RNTBCs operate in a profoundly intercultural context where ‘western’ and Indigenous laws are constantly interpreted and negotiated as part of a new suite of landholding and land management practices for contemporary Australia.

Through seven case studies from the Torres Strait, Far North Queensland, the Kimberley and Central Australia, Living with native title documents the experiences of RNTBCs, including those that are parties to large mining agreements. Each case study is accompanied by a short update written immediately prior to publication.

Living with native title is a product of the AIATSIS research project Prescribed Bodies Corporate: Research Action Partnerships.