Resources and publications

Traditional owners- native title claimants- native title holders- members of a prescribed body corporate. Who holds what native title rights? How can you exercise such rights? Post determination rights and interests are managed through a corporation governed by western laws and values. As is now well documented, this very structure required under the Native Title Act is often at odds with Indigenous decision making structures. This paper will begin to examine post determination issues surrounding the complex and layered network of native title ‘memberships’ and the parameters within which they must operate. There is often a fundamental misunderstanding as to how traditional rights and interests can be exercised and fully leveraged by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In order to effectively manage native title greater clarity is required.

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.

The Two-way Governance Resource has been designed to support and promote two way learning and informed decision making (related to mainstream governance) in remote Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory.

Since the commencement of the Native Title Act, traditional owners have been asked to negotiate and make important decisions concerning their native title. While the Act allows for and even encourages the use of traditional decision making, this is required to be blended with modern Western notions of corporate governance and meeting procedures.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in McGlade has underlined some of the difficulties associated with the requirements of the Act for reaching decisions on important matters, and has raised questions about the proper roles of the registered native title claimants and the broader native title community. After native title has been determined, traditional owners must develop complex processes which accommodate longstanding cultural norms as well as the onerous requirements of the NTA and CATSI Act. If not handled maturely and sensitively, these processes can result in feelings of disempowerment and disengagement as well as causing or exacerbating intra-indigenous conflict. The paper will examine Court decisions which have highlighted problems with the cultural clashes which have resulted from the current system and also look at some innovative approaches which one PBC is developing in order to truly honour the cultural knowledge of the traditional owners.

For access to Castledine, Evans & James' paper on the topic follow this link.