Resources and publications

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 explores how Indigenous community-based natural resource management can generate both conservation benefit and economic development opportunity. We begin by noting that much of the Indigenous estate in north Australia is either thinly populated or unpopulated. There is emerging evidence that, in situations where Indigenous people live on their country, ecological and wider benefits are generated via favourable fire regimes, control over weed infestations, and potentially through feral animal harvesting. When people are on country, they generate economic benefit for themselves by harvesting wildlife for consumption and engage with the market sector by using natural resources in commercial enterprise like arts and crafts production. We argue that there is a strong correlation between such activities and cost-effective natural resource management. Links between landcare, wildlife use and biodiversity conservation need to be recognized, celebrated and supported. The removal of many barriers to enhanced and innovative Indigenous participation in such activities, and equitable public support through programs like Landcare, will facilitate sustainable economic development options that are compatible with Indigenous priorities, while ameliorating Indigenous disadvantage.

Outlines the treatment of income tax under native title agreements

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 paper presents a case study of an exercise in Aboriginal community governance. It sets out the background events that led the Yawuru Native Title Holders Aboriginal Corporation to secure information for its own needs as an act of self-determination and essential governance, and it presents some of the key findings from that exercise

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.

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

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.

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

This paper sets out the methodological and conceptual framework for the Indigenous Community Governance (ICG) Project on Understanding, Building and Sustaining Effective Governance in Rural, Remote and Urban Indigenous Communities. The paper describes the Project’s research aims, questions, and techniques; explores key concepts; and discusses the ethnographic case-study and comparative approaches which form the core components of the methodological framework.

As an applied research project, the paper also considers the methodological issues inherent in participatory research, and for the dissemination and application of research findings within Indigenous and policy arenas. The framework draws on the multi-disciplinary expertise of the project team in areas such as anthropology, political science, demography, policy and legal studies, linguistics, and community development.

What processes are available to help Aboriginal people resolve their conflicts internally? What are the most common challenges implementing such a process? This report examines three dispute resolution processes and the differences between Indigenous and Western practices.

This paper explores the critical role that data can play in development scenarios when Aboriginal people are in control of collecting, managing and interpreting data. It was first presented as a pleniary paper at the conference Social Science Perspectives on the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, held at The ANU on 11–12 April 2011.

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.

This paper discusses the current state of play regarding income tax and GST issues in relation to native title agreements, including recent reforms and ongoing areas of uncertainty.

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.

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.

While gender and age are often noted as being important dimensions of Indigenous leadership and governance, they have rarely been examined in detail. This paper focuses specifically on the gender and age of directors on the boards of prescribed bodies corporate (PBCs), the corporations established to hold and/or manage native title rights and interests.

A predominant view persists of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women as excluded or marginalised in native title. Statistical data for the year 2011–12 reveals, however, that women’s representation on PBC boards is higher than that found in mainstream sectors, while the literature reveals a complex picture of cultural, historical, demographic, institutional and intercultural factors that influence men’s and women’s participation and power in the native title arena.

A key generational concern is the relatively low number of older people and the growing number of young people in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Viewed in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population and projected changes, the pool of potential PBC directors looks likely to grow in coming years. This paper argues that, as an increasingly significant sector, PBCs have the potential to both contribute to and benefit from the strengthening of community capacity but this potential will not be realised until the constraints on the capacity of PBCs to meet their statutory obligations and pursue native title holder aspirations are addressed.

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.