Resources and publications

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC) research snapshot series has been developed to share findings from the Native Title Research Unit’s (NTRU) investigation into the constitutions and financial reports of PBCs. This research forms part of the PBC Capability project which aims to develop a long-term national picture of the PBC sector. This snapshot provides an overview of the main findings from this research and identifies key areas where PBCs have adapted their constitutions from the default rules offered by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC).

Since 2016, AIATSIS has contributed to a number of reviews of the CATSI Act including the Technical Review of the CATSI Act (2017) and CATSI Review Phase 1 (2020). Throughout this report, the AIATSIS researchers refer to the AIATSIS submissions for both of these reviews.

The Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC) research snapshot series has been developed to share findings from the Native Title Research Unit’s (NTRU) investigation into the constitutions and financial reports of PBCs. This research forms part of the PBC Capability project which aims to develop a long-term national picture of the PBC sector. This snapshot examines the decision-making processes identified by PBCs within their constitutions including voting processes, quorum requirements and the use of independent directors.

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.

In 2017 the APONT Aboriginal Governance & Management Program facilitated a NT-wide forum for senior managers and board members of NT Aboriginal organisations, bringing them together to network and share stories to strengthen and build their capacity in management and governance. This report provides an overview of the presentations from this forum.

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.

The Expert Panel was tasked to report to the Government on possible options for constitutional change to give effect to indigenous constitutional recognition, including advice as to the level of support from Indigenous people and the broader community for these options. This executive summary sets out the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations.

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.

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.

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.

This book contains pictures to help explain some of the concepts within the rule book.

ORIC information sheet about deductible gift recipient fund, provides DGR rules for PBC rule books.

This guide complements the Rule book info kit and is for prescribed bodies corporate (PBCs) and Registered Native title bodies corporate (RNTBCs) who have extra responsibilities under the Native Title Act 1993. It describes some of the important issues that need to be considered when writing rules for these types of corporations. It also suggests some specific rules. It is designed for PBCs, RNTBCs and groups intending to hold or manage native title.

Summary of what information must be included in a rulebook for corporations registered under the CATSI Act.