Resources and publications

What processes are available to help Aboriginal people resolve their conflicts internally? What are the most common challenges implementing such a process? This report examines three dispute resolution processes and the differences between Indigenous and Western practices.

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.

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.

In August 2016, the traditional owners of Timber Creek in the Northern Territory, the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples, were awarded over $3.3 million for the loss of their native title rights. $1.3 million of this award was a solatium payment, that is, compensation for hurt arising from damage caused by the loss of connection to the land. Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900 (Timber Creek), which was heard by Justice John Mansfield, is the courts first litigated award of compensation for the loss or impairment of native title rights. In making his decision, Justice Mansfield relied on the evidence of anthropologists when assessing not only connections to country, but also the qualities and consequences of the social impacts that accompany the loss of connections to country. This paper considers the implications of the Timber Creek decision for the work of native title anthropologists and highlights some of the conceptual and methodological shifts required for research on native title compensation claims. The author draws attention to the demanding nature of native title compensation cases and the potential for research to aggravate existing trauma associated with loss of country, arguing for the need for all involved to be attentive to this risk when pursuing future claims.

Recommended citation: 

McGrath, PF 2017, Native Title Anthropology after the Timber Creek Decision, Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title series, vol. 6, no. 5, AIATSIS Research Publications, Canberra.