Who is Looking after Country? Interpreting and Attributing Land Management Responsibilities on Native Title Lands

Abstract

Australian law imposes certain responsibilities on landholders to protect environmental and economic values of the land, however native title has significant consequences for understanding and attributing these land management responsibilities. In 1992, the High Court recognised Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in land could survive the assertion of British sovereignty, effectively introducing a new category of land tenure into Australian law. Reporting on both law and management practice, we consider the implications for the collective provision of land management functions across Australia – including reforms required for legislative rationale and regulatory models. Relying on a test‐case, we found native title holders are substantial landholders who appear, at least in some circumstances in most jurisdictions, to owe the same legal obligations as other landholders. Much ambiguity remains, especially regarding ‘non‐exclusive’ possession native title. Together, the legal uncertainty and poor policy alignment necessitate a substantial revision of Australia's land management laws and governance.

The natural hazard sector's engagement with Indigenous peoples: a critical review of CANZUS countries

“…Correspondingly, settler governments have repeatedly failed to take Indigenous expertise seriously, and disparities in funding and resources remain clearly evident. Indigenous peoples' governance institutions are typically unfunded, or underfunded, operating within socio‐economically disadvantaged communities that bear extensive consultation responsibilities and legal liabilities (Weir & Duff, ). The difficulties of such intercultural contexts are exacerbated by the high turnover of non‐Indigenous and Indigenous staff in relevant government agencies, which frustrates Indigenous communities and their leaders' attempts to build relationships of trust and influence institutional norms within those agencies.…”

“…In addition, many Indigenous groups have had rights to their lands and waters recognised following the instantiation of laws both state (for example, Queensland's Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1991 ) and federal (for example, Native Title Act 1993 ). These rights have provided new avenues for engaging with government departments on the governance of their lands and waters, although they have also brought new uncertainties about how land management responsibilities are legally attributed (Weir & Duff, ). As in Canada, a culture of agreement‐making has become the norm in dealings between Indigenous land rights holders and others in Australia, including government agencies (Vincent & Neale, ).…”

Indigenous peoples and natural hazard research, policy and practice in southern temperate Australia: an agenda for change

“…As a body, these land tenure changes have profound implications for how Australia is understood and governed. For example, land title is often assumed to be either private or public, but almost half the continent is under communal title, requiring a rethink of models that regulate and fund land-management responsibilities (Weir & Duff 2017). Land tenure changes have been a catalyst for environmental research institutions and funding bodies, with some now prioritising Indigenous people and Indigenous research methodologies across their programs (Moggridge 2019).…”

October 2021

“…The model for funding needs to be fit-for-purpose, co-designed with Indigenous people and funds prioritised for Indigenous organisations. This work involves considering Indigenous peoples' priorities, worldviews, organisational forms, skill sets, resources and legal responsibilities (Weir & Duff 2017).…”