Resources and publications

The panel discussed the progress that PBCs in the Torres Strait region have made since the Mabo decision and highlights certain milestone achievements of their struggles. 

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 Ethics Workshop will be held for PBCs and Traditional Owners to be aware of best practice ethical research standards that should be used by researchers when working with Traditional Owners.

The workshop will introduce you to the themes and principles outlined in AIATSIS’s Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS). Examples and case studies will help you understand how and why the GERAIS principles should be the minimum standards applied to any research on your land and sea country.

There is a concern that the PBCs and Traditional Owners are not as familiar with ethical standards as the researchers are and how they should be applied to any research. This seems to be a one-sided conversation. GERAIS will educate and inform PBCs and TOs about ethical standards in research taking place across Indigenous estates – IPAs, Ranger work including compliance and enforcement issues, Indigenous engagement in Government processes and other research as well as Native Title and PBC research. It is so critically important that PBCs and TOs know what to expect from both the researcher and the participants so that they are well informed before they enter into a research agreement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Native Title Information Handbooks provide a summary of resources and information relating to key areas of native title.

The Handbooks provide information about:

• Native title legislation and case law
• Federal, state and territory governments' native title policies and procedures
• Native title representative bodies, registered native title bodies corporate, government agencies and other organisations involved in native title
• Native title applications and determinations
• Indigenous land use agreements, future acts and other native title related agreements
• Land rights legislation
• Indigenous Land Corporation acquisitions, Indigenous land management and Indigenous protected areas
• Indigenous population profiles.

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).

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.

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.