Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Australian Federal Native Title Act 1993 marked a revolution in the recognition of the rights of Australia’s Indigenous peoples. The legislation established a means whereby Indigenous Australians could make application to the Federal Court for the recognition of their rights to traditional country. The fiction that Australia was terra nullius (or ‘void country’), which had prevailed since European settlement, was overturned. The ensuing legal cases, mediated resolutions and agreements made within the terms of the Native Title Act quickly proved the importance of having sound, scholarly and well-researched anthropology conducted with claimants so that the fundamentals of the claims made could be properly established. In turn, this meant that those opposing the claims would also benefit from anthropological expertise. This is a book about the practical aspects of anthropology that are relevant to the exercise of the discipline within the native title context. The engagement of anthropology with legal process, determined by federal legislation, raises significant practical as well as ethical issues that are explored in this book. It will be of interest to all involved in the native title process, including anthropologists and other researchers, lawyers and judges, as well as those who manage the claim process. It will also be relevant to all who seek to explore the role of anthropology in relation to Indigenous rights, legislation and the state.

Native title has often been one of the most controversial political, legal and indeed moral issues in Australia. Ever since the High Court's Mabo decision of 1992, the attempt to understand and adapt native title to different contexts and claims has been an ongoing concern for that broad range of people involved with claims. In this book, originally published in 2003, Peter Sutton sets out fundamental anthropological issues to do with customary rights, kinship, identity, spirituality and so on that are relevant for lawyers and others working on title claims. Sutton offers a critical discussion of anthropological findings in the field of Aboriginal traditional interests in land and waters, focusing on the kinds of customary rights that are 'held' in Aboriginal 'countries', the types of groups whose members have been found to enjoy those rights, and how such groups have fared over the last 200 years of Australian history.

Traditional custodians of the Martuwarra (Fitzroy River) derive their identity and existence from this globally significant river. The First Laws of the Martuwarra are shared by Martuwarra Nations through a common songline, which sets out community and individual rights and duties. First Law recognizes the River as the Rainbow Serpent: a living ancestral being from source to sea. On 3 November 2016, the Fitzroy River Declaration was concluded between Martuwarra Nations. This marked the first time in Australia when both First Law and the rights of nature were recognized explicitly in a negotiated instrument. This article argues for legal recognition within colonial state laws of the Martuwarra as a living ancestral being by close analogy with the case concerning the Whanganui River. We seek to advance the scope of native title water rights in Australia and contend that implementation of First Law is fundamental for the protection of the right to life of the Martuwarra.

Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents for the purposes of other litigation (whether native title or otherwise). By examining recent decisions dealing with the 'Hearne v Street obligation', non-party access requests and legal professional privilege, this article explores how courts have grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes that courts have refused to create special rules for native title, but rather have pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of one's clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure.

A David-and-Goliath story set in the ancient landscape of the Pilbara.

Native title rights to take resources for unconstrained or commercial purposes were first recognised almost a decade ago, but the significance and uptake of such rights in Australia is now heightened. Resource ownership and management are critical components of global sustainable development and Indigenous interest holders play a key role in that space. The gradual acceptance of resource use by traditional owners in a modern economy reflects more developed trends overseas such as in Canada. Reluctance to concede the commercial exercise of native title rights may be due not only to evidential thresholds (required by state governments to enter consensual determinations), but also concerns about the possible consequential legal impacts for those governments and other interest holders. This article considers potential consequences of recognising native title rights to take resources for any purpose in several developing areas of native title jurisprudence including: quantum of native title compensation, the regulation of native title under resource management legislation enacted since the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), competing claims to resource ownership and use, and the risks for government where prior assumptions of resource ownership are displaced by determined native title.

The common law rejects 'Aboriginal sovereignty' as being inconsistent with Crown sovereignty. Yet the common law defines 'Aboriginal sovereignty' as a single, homogenous sovereignty adverse to the Crown. The position at common law differs from the literature by First Australians which maintains that their sovereignties are a spiritual notion, have not been ceded, and are heterogeneous. In the same way that the 'Uluru Statement from the Heart' conceives of its authors' sovereignty as 'shining through' legal and political institutions, this article contends that the recognition of additional rights at common law would be an implicit recognition of sovereignty.This article puts forward three interconnected and alternate sources for such rights: as additional land-related rights as presupposed by native title, via the 'preferable rule' in 'Mabo', or via the connection to land as identified in 'Love'.

Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents for the purposes of other litigation (whether native title or otherwise). By examining recent decisions dealing with the \"Hearne v Street' obligation\", non-party access requests and legal professional privilege, this article explores how courts have grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes that courts have refused to create special rules for native title, but rather have pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of one's clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure.

Native title rights to take resources for unconstrained or commercial purposes were first recognised almost a decade ago, but the significance and uptake of such rights in Australia is now heightened. Resource ownership and management are critical components of global sustainable development and Indigenous interest holders play a key role in that space. The gradual acceptance of resource use by traditional owners in a modern economy reflects more developed trends overseas such as in Canada. Reluctance to concede the commercial exercise of native title rights may be due not only to evidential thresholds (required by state governments to enter consensual determinations), but also concerns about the possible consequential legal impacts for those governments and other interest holders. This article considers potential consequences of recognising native title rights to take resources for any purpose in several developing areas of native title jurisprudence including: quantum of native title compensation, the regulation of native title under resource management legislation enacted since the 'Native Title Act 1993' (Cth), competing claims to resource ownership and use, and the risks for government where prior assumptions of resource ownership are displaced by determined native title.

This paper discusses the controversial ways the Australian Commonwealth Government is enforcing the use of the Basics Card (BC) and Cashless Debit Card (CDC) (also known as Indue cards) as economic instruments, thereby preventing self-determination for many First Nations peoples and communities around Australia. Imposing these cards in communities has resulted in barriers to First Nations peoples' social, cultural and economic rights. I will draw upon literature that addresses the implications and obstacles associated with these cards for many First Nations peoples receiving income support. Addressing the Australian Government's' historical and current involvement in the income management of First Nations peoples, this literature review considers the political contexts behind the decision to extend trials in communities and what this means for First Nations communities across these trial sites. In light of the Australian senate's recent approval for a two-year extension of the CDC, legitimising the BC or CDC without providing robust research or evidence is highly problematic. Enforcement of these cards has not explicitly proven to counteract social or economic disadvantages for First Nations peoples. Clearly, it demonstrates that government policy is unjust and considered by many to be racist and punitive. The final component of this paper briefly evaluates the policy implementation so far, and in closing, advocates for the revocation of the current legislation, which disregards the human rights of First Nations peoples and others.