Resources and publications

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.

Information about Future Acts for PBCs. 

This factsheet details the roles and requirements of PBCs entering into Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). This factsheet provides an overview of the various types of ILUAs as well as some of the legal requirements and processes needed for the future act(s). Please note some of this information may be outdated. 

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.

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.

The Native Title Report 2001 looks at the right to negotiate and human rights, resourcing in the Native Title System and negotiating co-existence through framework agreements.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Landing page on the National Native Title Tribunal website providing information on Indigenous Land Use Agreements (IULAs). 

Webpage from the National Native Title Tribunal detailing basic information about future acts. 

Native title involves an interface between the Australian legal system and Indigenous legal, cultural and political systems. The assertion and management of native title rights involves collective action by sometimes large and disparate groups of Indigenous people. Contentious politics makes such collective action difficult and the courts will often be asked to decide whether group decisions have been validly made. In the last two decades a vast and complex body of law and practice has developed to address this challenge.

Authorisation law is a set of principles about how the views and intentions of native title claimants or holders are translated into legally effective decisions. This book sets out the legal rules and their application in various situations: native title claims, native title agreement-making, decision-making by native title corporations, and compensation applications. It also addresses key practical, ethical and political dimensions of native title decision-making.

This book will be useful for native title practitioners including lawyers, judges and native title holders. It will also be relevant to academic research into the ethical, political and anthropological dimensions of Indigenous governance.

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.