Resources and publications

This report provides insights into a digital approach to returning native title materials using digital forensic analysis. Great volumes of hardcopy and digital materials can be interrogated with a keyword search once ingested into a NUIX database to retrieve relevant documents. It provides step-by step diagrams and the ETNTAC Native Title Materials Policy and Procedure.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.