Resources and publications

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.

Overview of native title, ILUAs, NTRBs and PBCs.

ORIC newsletter about the separation of roles in a corporation.

In a new world where there are increasing numbers of Australian Aboriginal Peoples obtaining positive native title determinations across large tracts of local government and/or nature conservation regulated lands:

1. it is noted that in Queensland new local government statutory land use planning legislation excludes registered native title holders from standard development application owner's consent requirements and associated notification requirements
2. it is further noted the relevant Queensland Department of Infrastructure, Local Government, and Planning is preparing proposed new statutory planning options for Aboriginal peoples including particularly registered native title holders
3. it is also noted the statutory authority responsible for the management of 900 000 hectares of Wet Tropics World Heritage is reviewing its statutory land use management plans and the board of that Authority is seeking Aboriginal owners (native title) free, prior and informed consent to revise thier statutory management plan

Noting all the above Vincent Mundraby & Bruce White will assemble Queensland statutory land use planning specialists and agency representatives, and facilitate a workshop around the above two Queensland statutory planning case studies to discuss and explore how registered native title holders might be better integrated into statutory land use planning across Queensland & Australia.

This Discussion Paper explains how native title decisions and decisions to make a compensation application are to be made by Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs) and explains the decision-making processes available to PBCs and common law holders. It also includes information on when PBCs can charge fees for their services.

The future act regime provides a mechanism through which some native title holders are in a position to negotiate compensation for the impact of the future acts on their native title rights and interests.

In representing clients in negotiations and assisting with implementation of agreements, we were concerned that the native title groups had for so long focused on securing their native title determinations that they had not had the opportunity to review their community aspirations and needs. Such a review would provide the groups with a stronger negotiating position and implementation of the agreement can be more rigorous.

In 2013 the Future Act Mining and Exploration (FAME) Unit embarked on a new initiative of 'Community Planning' with certain native title groups who were affected by mining and exploration. In 2016, the 'Western Yalanji People Community Plan' was nominated for, and won a commendation award in the Public Engagement and Community Planning category of the Planning Institute of Australia Awards, held in Brisbane.

This presentation explores the community planning process and discusses the outcomes and achievements arising from the Western Yalanji People Community Plan.

An outline of some of the legal issues surrounding PBCs charging fees for service and what PBCs can and cannot charge fees for.

Outlining the requirements for keeping a register of members.

This policy statement provides guidance on how the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations (the Registrar) deals with requests for an opinion as to whether a fee charged by a registered native title body corporate (RNTBC) to a third party for certain native title functions is one that can be charged.

Indigenous land and sea management in Australia is an example of how partnerships between Traditional Owners, governments, industry and NGOs can produce positive outcomes for both people and Country. There are now over 700 Indigenous people employed as Indigenous rangers across Australia. These jobs are producing positive environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes. However, it is acknowledged that for continued growth increased effort is required in two primary areas:

1. further empowerment of Indigenous partners to participate in intercultural governance; and
2. better ways of measuring returns on investment.

Bush Heritage Australia is partnering with Traditional Owners, the CSIRO and Charles Darwin University to collaboratively design mechanisms for strengthening partnerships by empowering Traditional Owners to better articulate knowledges-practices-beliefs that underpin their success. Increased awareness of this ‘logic’ will assist the development of multiple knowledge-based mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and reporting outcomes to investors.

These mechanisms will strengthen existing partnerships, open pathways for diversified investments, and realise conservation goals through the effective management of Country as complex social-cultural-environmental systems.

Taungurung Land and Waters Council and AIATSIS collaboratively produced a decision-making guide for Taungurung people to use in governance.

The guide contains practical information on:

• Compliance and legal requirements
• Decision-making models
• Separation of powers
• Conflicts of interest
• Subsidiarity
• Cultural governance

The guide is of practical use for Taungurung Land and Waters Council in governance, assisting communication and engagement, inducting new board members, and managing disagreements about procedures and policies.

It will also be of interest to other Indigenous corporations that are working on their own decision-making structures, processes and models, particularly native title Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs) and other traditional owner corporations.

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.