Resources and publications

This report is the final report resulting from the federal parliamentary inquiry into the destruction of the Juukan Gorge Aboriginal heritage sites by Rio Tinto on 24 May 2020. This tragic event, and the national condemnation of the actions of Rio Tinto, has sparked action to address the legislative failings that allowed the destruction of the Juukan Gorge sites–and similar sites around the nation. The Juukan Gorge disaster is just one example of countless instances where cultural heritage has been the victim of the drive for development and commercial gain. The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at preventing future destruction.

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.

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.

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

This document provides a brief listing of resources for preservation and information on Indigenous studies.

This resource provides guidance and important questions for organisations to consider when establishing an archive of their own. It includes what an archive is, why archives are important, what can go in an archive, and outlines steps which could be taken to set up an archive.  Links to other resources and contacts are also contained in the booklet.

This paper gives a brief description of what type of documentation is needed for a native title claim, what happens to the materials both during and after the claim process and how the research creates a valuable community asset. Finally, there is consideration of various options for the management of the historical material to give greater access and control to the indigenous communities in NSW.

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

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.

After 15 plus years of native title negotiations there was a lot research information held by the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) to be returned to the PBC Robe River Kuruma Aboriginal Corporation (RRKAC). YMAC had developed a best practice process for returning research materials. This presentation highlights this process, the experiences of the PBC and the lessons learned.

Native title materials created in the process of native title, land claim and cultural heritage work include individual statements, expert reports, genealogies, field notes and other materials. This paper addresses some of the legal issues arising in relation to the transfer of research material from NTRB/SPs to RNTBCs.

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.

This publication reports on the proceedings of a two-day national workshop on the use and security of cultural and other information accumulated through the native title claims process, which was held at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in Canberra on 16–17 March 2015. It provides an overview of the most significant factors affecting the capacity of native title organisations to manage, secure and provide appropriate access to their holdings of native title information.

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.

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.

A key purpose of the plan was to better educate government and nongovernment agencies, researchers and the wider Australian public on Ngarrindjeri connection to Country and their associated rights and obligations to Yarluwar-Ruwe. 

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).

To assist community legal centres (CLCs) to meet the cultural safety standards in the National Accreditation Scheme (NAS), the National Association of Community Legal Centres (NACLC) has developed this Guide to assist NACLC and CLCs to improve the attraction, recruitment, support and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in the sector. 

This report of the discussion, which considered current practice for the treatment of connection material and other documents collected in the claim process, forms part of the 2005 Native Title Conference.