Resources and publications

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

This paper discusses the current state of play regarding income tax and GST issues in relation to native title agreements, including recent reforms and ongoing areas of uncertainty.

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.

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.

For native title holders, the ability to exercise native title rights for commercial purposes is crucial to full and meaningful participation in the social, cultural and economic life of Australia. This article examines the extent to which native title gives its holders the power to manage resources, govern their use and exploit them commercially.

This article evaluates the taxation concessions and other advantages that flow from being a charity and how these might apply to native title groups under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Specifically, it examines the role of the Prescribed Body Corporate (‘PBC’) under the Native Title Act and the potential for, and limitations of, these bodies carrying on business, engaging in community development and accumulating funds whilst also having charitable status. 

Outlines the treatment of income tax under native title agreements

In the Native Title ‘hot tub’ outlines the history and development of expert conferencing and expert concurrent evidence in Australia, including in the Federal Court. These approaches to expert evidence are a major development of the last decade, greatly reducing the hearing time of Native Title proceedings and the costs to the parties involved. The authors explore how expert conferences and concurrent evidence can narrow the issues in the Native Title claims of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, discussing in particular their experiences in four recent cases.

These presentation slides during National Native Title Conference 2015 present the topic, good Indigenous governance and effective native title management: Travelling companions on the road to Self Determination. 

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.

The recognition of native title in the Mabo decision has led to consideration and debate in the media and the Australian community over the content and scope of native title rights for hunting, fishing and the taking and using of resources.

This presentation will look at the content of these native title rights, and how they are understood and regulated, including the protections in section 211 of the Native Title Act, the effect of the decision in Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, and how this interacts with other environmental management and threatened species legislation. It will then look forward to more recent recognition of commercial fishing and trading rights, as considered in Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Islanders of the Regional Seas Claim Group v Queensland (No 2) [2010] FCA 643 and Rrumburriya Borroloola Claim Group v Northern Territory of Australia [2016] FCA 776, how those rights can be demonstrated and their interaction with government regulation.

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.

The report focuses on the amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 which were passed on 8 July 1998. 

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.

This report examines,

• native title and the right to development
• native title policies throughout Australia
• native title and agreement making.

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 National Native Title Conference 2016 (the conference) was co-convened by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and the Northern Land Council, and hosted by the Larrakia people in Darwin, Northern Territory, 1-3 June 2016.

With the success of past Indigenous talking circles, such as the men’s and women’s circles at the conference each year, and a growing level of recognition of the importance and value of Indigenous youth voices in the native title sector, this year’s conference program became host to the inaugural Indigenous youth forum.

The forum, comprising two talking circles held on the first and last day of the conference, aimed to maximise the potential attendance of conference delegates under the age of 35 years. The forum was facilitated by Natalie Rotumah, CEO of NTSCorp, and attended by 24 delegates from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Also in attendance was Professor Taiaiake Alfred, international keynote speaker and Professor of Indigenous Governance and Political Science at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Professor Alfred led discussions around cultural resurgence and confidence and provided an international perspective on the issues discussed by the delegates, using his extensive experience advising First Nations governments on Indigenous land, governance and youth issues. The delegates shared their native title experiences and aspirations, and examined the barriers to their participation in the native title sector. The delegates then explored ways of overcoming the barriers to achieve increased youth involvement in the sector.

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.

This report examines human rights standards relevant to the recognition of native title and the legal recognition of native title.