Resources and publications

This briefing paper provides general information on the 2018 Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit is a collaboration between the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network and the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute.

This discussion paper presents the issues faced in Australia for the protection and management of Indigenous Knowledge. 

This paper investigates one element of the decision in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, namely Indigenous languages, and whether there has been a transformational shift in the treatment and recognition of Indigenous languages and language rights post-Mabo. 

About Indigenous Protected Areas

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. 

In this statement, the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) and Governance Institute of Australia (Governance Institute) summarise key principles, provide their view on matters to be included in minutes, and consider the approach to board papers and document retention policies.

Junyirri is intended to guide people in thinking about their current language situation, their aspirations for the use of language in their community, what assets their community has available, and the types of language programs that might be suitable for their situation.

In 2002 and 2004 Karajarri had their native title rights and interests recognised to over 31,000 square kilometres of land in the West Kimberley, south of Broome. This is an area about half the size of Tasmania. Here there are pastoral stations, mining interests, coastal and desert lands, and the large Aboriginal community of Bidyadanga. Karajarri had one of the first native title determinations to be recognised in the Kimberley and had the first native title application in which applicants were represented exclusively by the Kimberley Land Council.

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

This paper draws on interviews with leaders of successful Aboriginal organisations to understand the factors behind the successes that they are achieving in their communities.

The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd (NAILSMA) is a leader in finding practical solutions to support Indigenous people manage their land and sea resources into the future. NAILSMA, a not-for-profit company, has over a decade of experience in delivering complex and challenging programs across north Australia.

NNI assists in building capable Native nations that can effectively pursue and ultimately realize their own political, economic, and community development objectives. NNI provides Native nations and other policy makers with accessible research and policy analysis of governance and development in Indian Country and with comprehensive, professional training and development programs designed to meet the needs of Indigenous leadership and management.

This Institute is based at the University of Arizona.

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 paper discusses how the governance potential of PBCs is challenged by the PBC governance context.

Outlines the treatment of income tax under native title agreements

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.

Ourcommunity.com.au provides useful resources for succession planning in Not-for-Profit organisations. 

This website details the changes and processes of the board, staffing, and donors, whilst also covering topics on documentation, recruitment, and induction.

The Community Tool Box contains a range of information about community development including resources on strategic planning, leadership and communication.

This paper outlines two pilot case studies which examine how international development non-government organisations (INGOs) conduct their work with Aboriginal organisations and communities in Australia.

In recent decades, various forms of co-management of national parks and other protected areas1 by governments and Indigenous people have come to the fore. This has occurred as Indigenous peoples have progressively demanded greater access to and decisionmaking power over their traditional lands. The response of governments has also seen the aligning of a number of policy approaches that have contributed to an increase in attention to co-management. In the first instance, there has been a rapid rise in the number of protected areas in Australia since the 1960s, and this is continuing as the Commonwealth Government aims to increase the size of the Australian National Reserve System (NRS) by 25 per cent and Australia’s network of terrestrial protected areas to 125 million hectares by 2013 (Caring for Our Country 2013a).2 In addition, at least 16 per cent of Australia’s land area is now held by Indigenous peoples under a range of tenures, with much of this land being of high biodiversity value (Altman & Kerins 2012). As a mechanism for adding new protected areas to the NRS, the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) has an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program that supports traditional owners of lands or seas who voluntarily dedicate their lands as protected areas to promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation. IPAs now form the second largest component of the National Reserve System, covering over 3 per cent of Australia and making up 23 per cent of the NRS (SEWPaC 2013b).