Resources and publications

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.

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. 

The purpose of this Commissioner’s Interpretation Statement is to provide guidance on the ACNC’s view on the meaning and scope of the charity subtype of ‘Public Benevolent Institution’ (PBI) for ACNC purposes.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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. 

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

The Northern Territory’s four Land Councils and the Northern Territory Government have today signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding (the “Barunga Agreement”), paving the way for consultations to begin with Aboriginal people about a Treaty

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.

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.