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.

Since 2016, AIATSIS has contributed to a number of reviews of the CATSI Act including the Technical Review of the CATSI Act (2017) and CATSI Review Phase 1 (2020). Throughout this report, the AIATSIS researchers refer to the AIATSIS submissions for both of these reviews.

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. 

The Country Needs People campaign is fighting for the growth and security of opportunities for land and sea country management by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Report of a workshop held on Wednesday 4th June 2014 at the National Native Title Conference, Coffs Harbour, NSW, to map current and future research and resource needs for land and sea management.

An emerging bibliography on free prior and informed consent, engagement and consultation.

The recognition of native title in the Mabo decision has led to consideration and debate in the media and the Australian community over the content and scope of native title rights for hunting, fishing and the taking and using of resources.

This presentation will look at the content of these native title rights, and how they are understood and regulated, including the protections in section 211 of the Native Title Act, the effect of the decision in Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, and how this interacts with other environmental management and threatened species legislation. It will then look forward to more recent recognition of commercial fishing and trading rights, as considered in Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Islanders of the Regional Seas Claim Group v Queensland (No 2) [2010] FCA 643 and Rrumburriya Borroloola Claim Group v Northern Territory of Australia [2016] FCA 776, how those rights can be demonstrated and their interaction with government regulation.

This report is based on the workshop, Implementing native title: Indigenous leadership in land and water livelihoods, held at the 2015 National Native Title Conference, 16-18 June, Port Douglas, Queensland. It details the ways several Indigenous communities from around Australia are implementing their rights and interests following the restitution of their land and sea territories.

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.

For native title holders, the ability to exercise native title rights for commercial purposes is crucial to full and meaningful participation in the social, cultural and economic life of Australia. This article examines the extent to which native title gives its holders the power to manage resources, govern their use and exploit them commercially.

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.

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.

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.

The Far West Coast journey from Applicant through to Consent Determination and holding Native Title has been an exciting one. There have been considerable challenges and we have faced many obstacles. Along the way we have also learnt many valuable lessons, not the least that we needed even more change and further development once Native Title was granted and we began a new life as a PBC.

Today, as a young PBC we are on track to be a self-supporting and stand-alone resource for our members. We now have commercial ventures, investments and an Aboriginal Trust that we own and operate. Our presentation seeks to share how we got here and the changes to structures, practices and our organisation to achieve early success as a PBC and a group of entities.

Factsheet about recruiting an Independent director for an Indigenous Corporation or trust