Resources and publications

This information sheet provides brief information about materials relating to native title compensation research.

This fact sheet provides general information for native title compensation under the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA).

This guide is designed to help corporation auditors and accountants (or bookkeepers) prepare reports

Factsheet about reporting requirements for Indigenous Corporations registered under the CATSI Act.

The topic 'Getting started' from the Indigenous Governance Toolkit has four sections,

1. Getting started on building your governance
2. Assessing your governance
3. Mapping your community for governance
4. Case studies

AIATSIS completed three case studies in the joint management of conservation and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in partnership with the Australian Collaboration, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), as part of the AIATSIS 'Success in Aboriginal Organisations' Project.

Within this project, Ms Toni Bauman completed a case study of Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. Mr Dermot Smyth carried out two case studies on the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area and the Booderee National Park in the ACT.

On 3 and 4 April 2012, the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS) and the Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) convened a workshop of state, territory and Commonwealth government staff working in joint management and native title at the Alice Springs Desert Park. The workshop was titled Joint Management of Protected Areas in Australia: Native Title and Other Pathways towards a Community of Practice.

This report captures the workshop where government staff working in joint management shared information about their approach and identified practical issues in developing a community of practice.

Policy and procedure guide for Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC

Much of the attention paid to native title in Australia has focused on court proceedings and other legalities, but what does it actually mean to live with native title? This book presents the experiences of native title holders and the corporations they have established to look after their native title interests.

The influence of the renowned High Court Mabo case is such that there are already more than 100 Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) across Australia with responsibilities for about 18 per cent of the continent. RNTBCs operate in a profoundly intercultural context where ‘western’ and Indigenous laws are constantly interpreted and negotiated as part of a new suite of landholding and land management practices for contemporary Australia.

Through seven case studies from the Torres Strait, Far North Queensland, the Kimberley and Central Australia, Living with native title documents the experiences of RNTBCs, including those that are parties to large mining agreements. Each case study is accompanied by a short update written immediately prior to publication.

Living with native title is a product of the AIATSIS research project Prescribed Bodies Corporate: Research Action Partnerships.

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.

The 2012 Native Title report includes a section on Indigneous Governance and a human rights approach to Indigenous governance.

One of the key aspirations of native title holders is the ability to independently make decisions about and take care of country. This aspiration is often realised through collaborative management arrangements such as joint management. For many native title groups, joint management is often the only substantive land management outcome, yet there has been little research into either its planning process or its drivers.

Between October 2013 and December 2014, AIATSIS undertook case study research in partnership with Central Desert Native Title Services and the Wiluna native title holders — Martu people — to document their land management journey and the critical success factors that have contributed to positive outcomes in Matuwa (Lorna Glen) and Kurrara Kurrara (Earaheedy). This report describes the research and planning undertaken as a part of the partnership.

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).

This handout offers some ways of thinking about grant proposals and advice about the process of  planning and writing a proposal. 

A number of native title groups have seeded their own Future Funds and are growing an asset base to meet the needs of future generations. We will discuss the governance policies, investment strategies and transparent reporting structures of Future Funds, including their ability to take a long term view of investments and ride out world economic cycles.

In Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (Timber Creek Decision) the Federal Court ordered that the Northern Territory Government pay $3.3M including $1,488,261 for interest, to the Traditional Owners as compensation. The court considered that ‘the appropriate interest calculation is simple interest’ as there was insufficient commercial activity to justify compounding returns. 

In this presentation we will explore how investing a portion of available funds in a Future Fund may influence the courts to apply compound interest. Economic modelling will demonstrate that with a Future Fund the settlement amount could’ve been entirely different.

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.

Short factsheet about joint ventures.