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. 

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.

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.

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.