Resources and publications

This paper examines the potential for native title organisations with limited asset bases to engage in successful commercial activity through joint venture enterprises. 

Firstly, we describe the development of the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations as a state ‘peak-body’ of local native title organisations. We then discuss the Federation’s program of economic and commercial development both for its members and as an entity in itself, including the establishment of its incorporated joint ventures; Barpa Constructions Pty Ltd and On Country Heritage and Consulting Pty Ltd and commentary on the significance of the Commonwealth’s Indigenous Procurement Policy as a factor in this process.

The final section of the paper draws upon the experience of the Federation to examine how the legitimacy bestowed by the community ownership of native title organisations’ businesses creates a market advantage which is attractive to joint venture partners and can more than offset and deficit in terms of monetary resources available for investment in a newly established enterprise.

The paper concludes by reflecting that the market advantage bestowed by community ownership may well be a product of the racism inherent in Australian society’s hostility to wealthy Indigenous individuals.

Westpac commissioned Urbis to undertake research to understand the key drivers of economic development for Indigenous Australians. The aim of the research was to provide an evidence-base analysis of factors that support entrepreneurship and economic development, building on Australian and international literature and research.

The overarching research question was: What factors lead to successful economic development and job creation in Indigenous communities?

In the Native Title ‘hot tub’ outlines the history and development of expert conferencing and expert concurrent evidence in Australia, including in the Federal Court. These approaches to expert evidence are a major development of the last decade, greatly reducing the hearing time of Native Title proceedings and the costs to the parties involved. The authors explore how expert conferences and concurrent evidence can narrow the issues in the Native Title claims of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, discussing in particular their experiences in four recent cases.

This document provides guidance for applicants applying for PBC Capacity Building grant funding under the IAS. It provides key information to assist applicants to complete the application form and should be read in conjunction with the IAS Grant Guidelines. An Application Form and draft Project Agreement together with the IAS Guidelines can be found on the Department’s website.

AIATSIS completed three case studies in the joint management of conservation and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in partnership with the Australian Collaboration, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), as part of the AIATSIS 'Success in Aboriginal Organisations' Project.

Within this project, Ms Toni Bauman completed a case study of Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. Mr Dermot Smyth carried out two case studies on the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area and the Booderee National Park in the ACT.

On 3 and 4 April 2012, the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS) and the Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) convened a workshop of state, territory and Commonwealth government staff working in joint management and native title at the Alice Springs Desert Park. The workshop was titled Joint Management of Protected Areas in Australia: Native Title and Other Pathways towards a Community of Practice.

This report captures the workshop where government staff working in joint management shared information about their approach and identified practical issues in developing a community of practice.

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.

The Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC) research snapshot series has been developed to share findings from the Native Title Research Unit's (NTRU) investigation into the constitutions and financial reports of PBCs. This research forms part of the PBC Capability project which aims to develop a long-term national picture of the PBC sector.

This snapshot provides an overview of the NTRU's analysis of the publicly available financial data submitted to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC), and examines the financial growth and development of PBCs from the financial year 2010-11 to 2015-16.

The Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC) research snapshot series has been developed to share findings from the Native Title Research Unit’s (NTRU) investigation into the constitutions and financial reports of PBCs. This research forms part of the PBC Capability project which aims to develop a long-term national picture of the PBC sector.

This snapshot examines the distribution of wealth and growth of PBCs by size between the years 2010-11 and 2015-16 calculated in terms of net totals and growth rates in the areas of income, assets, equity and staff.

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.

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.

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).

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.

A report detailing information obtained from corporations registered under the CATSI Act on remuneration and other benefits paid to directors, senior managers and other staff.

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.

This fact sheet provides general information for funding agencies, creditors and employees about special administrations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act).

Short factsheet about joint ventures.

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.