Resources and publications

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

An outline of some of the legal issues surrounding PBCs charging fees for service and what PBCs can and cannot charge fees for.

Assessing research impact is a crucial element of AIATSIS’ aspirations to collaborate with Indigenous partners and create meaningful change within communities. However, the way in which impact is defined and assessed is unclear and there is currently no established methodology for assessing AIATSIS’ research. This annotated bibliography lists a selection of the literature on assessing the impact of research projects. It highlights the importance of research impact evaluation, approaches to incorporating Indigenous perspectives in evaluation, and which methods may be valuable in evaluating the impact of the research that AIATSIS carries out. This bibliography provides a step forward in developing a methodology for assessing research impact, leading to a better understanding of whether we are meeting the priorities of the Indigenous communities we work with and how our research can evolve to better support these priorities.

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

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.