Resources and publications

In August 2016, the traditional owners of Timber Creek in the Northern Territory, the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples, were awarded over $3.3 million for the loss of their native title rights. $1.3 million of this award was a solatium payment, that is, compensation for hurt arising from damage caused by the loss of connection to the land. Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900 (Timber Creek), which was heard by Justice John Mansfield, is the courts first litigated award of compensation for the loss or impairment of native title rights. In making his decision, Justice Mansfield relied on the evidence of anthropologists when assessing not only connections to country, but also the qualities and consequences of the social impacts that accompany the loss of connections to country. This paper considers the implications of the Timber Creek decision for the work of native title anthropologists and highlights some of the conceptual and methodological shifts required for research on native title compensation claims. The author draws attention to the demanding nature of native title compensation cases and the potential for research to aggravate existing trauma associated with loss of country, arguing for the need for all involved to be attentive to this risk when pursuing future claims.

Recommended citation: 

McGrath, PF 2017, Native Title Anthropology after the Timber Creek Decision, Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title series, vol. 6, no. 5, AIATSIS Research Publications, Canberra.

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.

This paper provides a snapshot of international instruments that Australia is a member to or is involved with across intellectual property, environment, human rights, cultural heritage and trade, shedding light on the discussions around Indigenous Knowledge protection and management. 

This paper discusses the purposes and form of the reports, their differentiation from the NNTT registration process, considerations anticipating litigation, confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest by the State as respondent.

This paper comments on some of the trends in Indigenous native title representation that have continued after the High Court's Ward decision.

This supplementary paper provides an overview of the Australian laws that are currently used to recognise and protect Indigenous Knowledge.

Mr Hughston SC will discuss the approach taken by the Court in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3) [2016] FCA 900 (Timber Creek) to the assessment of compensation and in particular the division of the award of compensation into components of economic and non-economic loss. Mr Hughston SC will discuss the uncertainties associated with both components.

Native title materials created in the process of native title, land claim and cultural heritage work include individual statements, expert reports, genealogies, field notes and other materials. This paper addresses some of the legal issues arising in relation to the transfer of research material from NTRB/SPs to RNTBCs.

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.

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.

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.

This report, conducted for the Department of Regional Development, addresses the question of how effective agreements arising from native title determinations are at meeting the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal peoples who have achieved, or are pursuing (through registered native title claims), legal recognition as native title holders. The report research is based on a review of relevant academic and ‘grey’ literature as well as case studies of the experiences of three Western Australian Aboriginal native title groups in their efforts to leverage agreements with government and industry to enhance their wellbeing and pursue their aspirations.

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 Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management Case Study Project aims to provide evidence-based research and resources to support the development of more effective approaches to managing conflict involving Indigenous Australians.

The objective of the Project is to deliver recognition and support for the solid work that is being carried out and to enable current practices to be refined and extended. Its conclusions are intended to support, consolidate and build on Indigenous knowledge and experience. They are not intended as a substitute for that knowledge and experience.

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.

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.

This report shows the development of a user-friendly ‘first glance’ guide and template that will facilitate a broad assessment of an archive, particularly in the absence of the collection holder and provides the basis for discussions about deposits, returns and the legal status of particular documents.

The Mornington Island Restorative Justice (MIRJ) Project has worked with families to establish a community-based alternative dispute resolution (mediation or peacemaking) service inclusive of Island culture and conforming to the requirements of the criminal justice system.

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.