Resources and publications

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.

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

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

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.

This is a preliminary research report from the first year of fieldwork conducted by the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP). The Project is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in diverse contexts and locations across Australia through a series of diverse case studies—to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why. A comparative analysis of the Project’s case studies is revealing that governance and decision-making in Indigenous community governance is shaped by multiple historical, cultural and political relationships. Family and governance histories associated with particular communities and sets of regionally-linked communities are central features in community governance dynamics and arrangements. Strengthening Indigenous community governance requires negotiating appropriate contemporary relationships among the different Indigenous people within a region or community, and adapting or creating structures and processes to reflect important relationships. Several dimensions are being identified as being fundamental to building stronger, sustainable governance at the community and regional levels. These are the impact of the wider ‘governance environment’, cultural match and cultural geography, modes of leadership and representation, institutional capacity, organisational design and relationships, representation, decision-making processes, and human resource issues. Capacity development for governance needs to be considered within a systems framework and should be a process that actively strengthens Indigenous decision-making and control over their core institutions, goals and identity, and that enhances cultural match and legitimacy. The report concludes with some emerging issues and implications for policy makers and for Indigenous organisations and their leaders.

Australian Indigenous land and sea managers have repeatedly called for an independent national Indigenous land and sea managers network. Such a network would link top down and bottom up information exchanges, promoting shared understandings of issues and opportunities. The network would provide government with a vehicle to both inform and learn from local Indigenous groups, including community rangers, on local, national and international matters of environmental significance. It also provides an opportunity for Indigenous managers to come together to develop positions on policy that affects land and sea management such as Working on Country and Indigenous Protected Areas.

The network would not do business on behalf of people or replicate existing local or regional networks or institutions, but would provide strategic support, coordinate communication and identify opportunities for group to group skills and knowledge exchange. The network aims to provide professional support through a coordinated learning environment that facilitates the identification of effective resources, research, technologies and tools for use by Indigenous land and sea managers within Australia. This workshop provides an opportunity for Land & Sea Managers to come together to discuss the purpose and scope of a national network, including governance, networking and membership.

This fact sheet provides information about Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and best practice for engagement with Traditional Owners. The fact sheet explains what FPIC means and how you can get in contact with PBCs, land councils, registered Aboriginal parties, native title representative bodies and service providers in Australia.

Information about Future Acts for PBCs. 

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 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. 

Vimeo page by Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa. Includes videos about their,

• Leadership program
• Partnerships
• Land management

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.

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.

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.

Overview of native title, ILUAs, NTRBs and PBCs.

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.