Resources and publications

This report, conducted for the Department of Regional Development, addresses the question of how effective agreements arising from native title determinations are at meeting the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal peoples who have achieved, or are pursuing (through registered native title claims), legal recognition as native title holders. The report research is based on a review of relevant academic and ‘grey’ literature as well as case studies of the experiences of three Western Australian Aboriginal native title groups in their efforts to leverage agreements with government and industry to enhance their wellbeing and pursue their aspirations.

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.

The Coober Pedy region of South Australia is the traditional country of the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people. The Native Title journey of the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people started in 1995 when their claim commenced. After achieving Native Title determination, successfully negotiating a number of ILUAs and winning their first major commercial contract, their journey continues today.

This session will discuss the experiences of the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people and how they have used Native Title to help achieve their community aspirations. Ian Crombie, Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation vice-chairman and Elder, will describe the many obstacles, decisions, learnings and successes, that have brought the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people to where they are in their journey today. Importantly, he will discuss the challenges of balancing immediate community needs with both commercial opportunities and future goals. 

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.

In this report the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (the committee) considers the Stronger Futures legislation in the performance of its role of examining bills, Acts and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. 

Bridging historical scholarship and Aboriginal oral tradition, this innovative book tells the story of the Gugu Badhun people of the Valley of Lagoons in North Queensland. It provides new insights into Aboriginal–European interactions, and new understandings of how Aboriginal people sustained their identities and exercised agency.

It lays bare violence and oppression, but also recognises the inter-racial cooperation and friendships which were equally part of Gugu Badhun experience. It tells of a people whose options were limited by state power and public racism but who remained proud and undaunted, making their own decisions for their collective and individual benefit.

Much of the story is told in the words of Gugu Badhun people themselves. Interviews are interspersed with commentary and analysis by the four authors, one of whom, Yvonne Cadet-James, is herself a Gugu Badhun elder.

This collaborative approach has produced a timely book for an Australia in which notions of Indigenous autonomy and self-determination are being re-imagined and re-configured.

To purchase this book please visit the AIATSIS shop via think link.

This paper provides a snapshot of international instruments that Australia is a member to or is involved with across intellectual property, environment, human rights, cultural heritage and trade, shedding light on the discussions around Indigenous Knowledge protection and management. 

Vimeo page by Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa. Includes videos about their,

• Leadership program
• Partnerships
• Land management

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.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

The Native Title Report 2001 looks at the right to negotiate and human rights, resourcing in the Native Title System and negotiating co-existence through framework agreements.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

This report examines human rights standards relevant to the recognition of native title and the legal recognition of native title.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

The 2012 Native Title report includes a section on Indigneous Governance and a human rights approach to Indigenous governance.

One of the key aspirations of native title holders is the ability to independently make decisions about and take care of country. This aspiration is often realised through collaborative management arrangements such as joint management. For many native title groups, joint management is often the only substantive land management outcome, yet there has been little research into either its planning process or its drivers.

Between October 2013 and December 2014, AIATSIS undertook case study research in partnership with Central Desert Native Title Services and the Wiluna native title holders — Martu people — to document their land management journey and the critical success factors that have contributed to positive outcomes in Matuwa (Lorna Glen) and Kurrara Kurrara (Earaheedy). This report describes the research and planning undertaken as a part of the partnership.

This paper outlines two pilot case studies which examine how international development non-government organisations (INGOs) conduct their work with Aboriginal organisations and communities in Australia.

A number of native title groups have seeded their own Future Funds and are growing an asset base to meet the needs of future generations. We will discuss the governance policies, investment strategies and transparent reporting structures of Future Funds, including their ability to take a long term view of investments and ride out world economic cycles.

In Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (Timber Creek Decision) the Federal Court ordered that the Northern Territory Government pay $3.3M including $1,488,261 for interest, to the Traditional Owners as compensation. The court considered that ‘the appropriate interest calculation is simple interest’ as there was insufficient commercial activity to justify compounding returns. 

In this presentation we will explore how investing a portion of available funds in a Future Fund may influence the courts to apply compound interest. Economic modelling will demonstrate that with a Future Fund the settlement amount could’ve been entirely different.

AIATSIS is at the forefront of community-led research and projects, and collaborates with numerous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners across the country. In this guide, we outline foundational principles for meaningfully engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The guide is written for non-Indigenous policymakers who have none or limited experience working with Indigenous peoples. It is a starting point for further learning and capability building.