Resources and publications

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.

The Northern Territory’s four Land Councils and the Northern Territory Government have today signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding (the “Barunga Agreement”), paving the way for consultations to begin with Aboriginal people about a Treaty

This briefing paper provides general information on the 2018 Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit is a collaboration between the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network and the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute.

This discussion paper presents the issues faced in Australia for the protection and management of Indigenous Knowledge. 

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. 

This supplementary paper provides an overview of the Australian laws that are currently used to recognise and protect Indigenous Knowledge.

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.

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).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community governance can be greatly impacted by the nature of the land tenure held or managed by the community. The fragmented system of national and state regimes which provide grants or titles of land to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people has enabled a governance landscape where there are often overlapping rights to land. This creates a situation where relationships within an Indigenous community – and even within a traditional owner group – are competing for power and control. This is most notable with respect to how different community organisations compete for community funding, the durability of culturally appropriate governance structures and the taking of natural resources.

The ability of an Indigenous community to resolve potential conflicts, created by the recognition of native title and adapt to the post-determination landscape also impacts upon a communities’ ability to respond to external pressures such as land use planning, water management and government initiated tenure reform processes. Often these conflicts appear between Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate and community or local shire councils – who have historically played the role of land manager and program administrator. This paper looks at the role of cultural governance in supporting the recognition of Indigenous landholdings and the reasons that Indigenous landholdings, in their current form, have failed to be effective in adequately mobilising economic, social and cultural resources to achieve social, cultural, environmental and health benefits in remote Indigenous communities in Western Australia and Queensland.