Content uploaded by Tran Tran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tran Tran on Sep 13, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Changes to country and culture, changes to
climate: Strengthening institutions for
Indigenous resilience and adaptation
Final Report
Tran Tran, Lisa Strelein, Jessica Weir, Claire Stacey
and Anna Dwyer
NATIVE TITLE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Changes to country and culture, changes to
climate: Strengthening institutions for
Indigenous resilience and adaptation
AUTHORS
Tran Tran (AIATSIS)
Lisa Strelein (AIATSIS)
Jessica Weir (UC/AIATSIS)
Claire Stacey (AIATSIS)
Anna Dwyer (UND)
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
University of Canberra (UC)
University of Notre Dame (UND)
Published by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility
ISBN: 978-1-925039-28-3 NCCARF Publication 57/13
© 2013 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the
copyright holder.
Please cite this report as:
Tran, T, Strelein, LM, Weir, JK, Stacey, C & Dwyer, A 2013, Native title and climate
change. Changes to country and culture, changes to climate: Strengthening institutions
for Indigenous resilience and adaptation, National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility, Gold Coast, 192 pp.
Acknowledgement
This work was carried out with financial support from the Australian Government
(Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) and the National Climate
Change Adaptation Research Facility.
The role of NCCARF is to lead the research community in a national interdisciplinary
effort to generate the information needed by decision-makers in government, business
and in vulnerable sectors and communities to manage the risk of climate change
impacts.
The authors acknowledge the support of the case study partners the Karajarri
Traditional Lands Association Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC and Abm Elgoring
Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC. We also thank our research partners Bruce
Gorring from the Nulungu Centre of Indigenous Studies from the University of Notre
Dame, Ari Goring from the Kimberley Land Council, Viv Sinnamon from the
Kowanyama Land and Natural Resource Management Office and Sonia Leonard from
the University of Melbourne for their assistance. The authors would also like to thank
comments provided by two anonymous reviewers.
Disclaimer
The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Commonwealth or
NCCARF, and neither the Commonwealth nor NCCARF accept responsibility for
information or advice contained herein.
Cover image/s © Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
Native title and climate change i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 2
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................. 5
1. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................... 10
1.1 Research Background ....................................................................................... 11
1.1.1 Native title and climate change adaptation ....................................................................... 11
1.1.2 AIATSIS research context ................................................................................................ 16
2. RESEARCH METHODS AND ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 19
2.1 Research Methods............................................................................................. 19
2.1.1 Methodological and conceptual rationale ......................................................................... 19
2.1.2 Action research ................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.3 Research Ethics ................................................................................................................ 21
2.2 Research Activities ............................................................................................ 22
2.2.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 22
2.2.2 Interviews and fieldwork.................................................................................................... 23
2.2.3 Community workshops...................................................................................................... 27
3. OUTPUTS ........................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Literature ........................................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Journal articles .................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.2 Workshop report ............................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Project communication ...................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Newsletter article .............................................................................................................. 29
3.2.2 Project website .................................................................................................................. 29
3.2.3 Community reports ............................................................................................................ 30
3.3 Capacity building ............................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Early career research support .......................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Indigenous research capacity ........................................................................................... 30
3.4 Research engagement and communication ....................................................... 31
3.4.1 Research dissemination.................................................................................................... 31
3.4.2 Policy engagement ........................................................................................................... 33
3.4.3 Stakeholder meetings and workshops .............................................................................. 34
4. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Climate change adaptation and Indigenous peoples .......................................... 35
ii Native title and climate change
4.1.1 Concepts of adaptation ..................................................................................................... 35
4.1.2 Native title and Indigenous relationships to land ............................................................... 36
4.1.3 The role of RNTBCs in climate change adaptation ........................................................... 38
4.1.4 Mainstreamed and rights based approaches to adaptation .............................................. 41
4.1.5 Planning challenges .......................................................................................................... 44
4.1.6 Inherent contradictions of scales and actors ..................................................................... 47
4.2 Case study 1: Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Bidyadanga ...... 49
4.2.1 Native title in the Kimberley ............................................................................................... 49
4.2.2 Karajarri native title ............................................................................................................ 51
4.2.3 Climate change issues for Karajarri .................................................................................. 57
4.2.4 Decision making structures in the Kimberley: land use planning and water ..................... 61
4.2.5 Karajarri involvement in climate change decision making ................................................ 68
4.2.6 Barriers and constraints to adaptation............................................................................... 75
4.3 Case study 2: Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC,
Kowanyama ................................................................................................................ 80
4.3.1 Native title in Cape York .................................................................................................... 80
4.3.2 Kowanyama native title ..................................................................................................... 81
4.3.3 Climate change issues for Kowanyama ............................................................................ 86
4.3.4 Decision making structures in the Cape York ................................................................... 91
4.3.5 Traditional owner involvement in climate change decision making .................................. 94
4.3.6 Barriers and constraints to adaptation............................................................................. 105
5. OVERCOMING BARRIERS, CONTRAINTS AND LIMITS TO ADAPTATION .. 107
6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 115
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 1: Map of current RNTBCs ........................................................................ 121
Appendix 2: Research agreement pp. 123-131 ......................................................... 122
Appendix 3: Interviews .............................................................................................. 132
Appendix 4: Newsletter article pp. 135-150 ............................................................... 134
Appendix 5: Interview workbook pp.152-165 ............................................................. 151
Appendix 6: Community reports pp. 167-192 ............................................................ 166
Native title and climate change iii
List of tables
Table 1: KTLA priorities ............................................................................................................... 72
Table 2: Aboriginal Land Tenures in Kowanyama ...................................................................... 84
Table 3: Abm Elgoring Ambung priorities ................................................................................. 103
List of figures
Figure 1: Example of seasonal flooding in Kowanyama ............................................................. 13
Figure 2: Coastal erosion at Gordon Bay, north of Bidyadanga ................................................. 14
Figure 3: Dr Jessica Weir with Teddy Bernard (Chair, Abm Elgoring Ambung), Viv Sinnamon
(Manager, KLNRMO) and Rodney Whitefield (General Manager, Abm Elgoring Ambung) ....... 24
Figure 4: KTLA directors and members participating in the 4 August 2012 workshop. (left to
right) Joe Edgar (Deputy Chair), Lenny Hopiga (Director), Faye Dean (Director), Joseph Munro
(Director) Anna Dwyer (Nulungu) and Rene Hopiga (Member) .................................................. 27
Figure 5: Dr Lisa Strelein, Dr Jessica Weir, Anna Dwyer (Nulungu Centre for Indigenous
Studies) and Claire Stacey.......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6: Kimberley regional native title map .............................................................................. 51
Figure 7: Map of Karajarri native title lands ................................................................................ 53
Figure 8: Karajarri Traditional Lands Association (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC Deputy Chair
Joe Edgar next to private road signs at Port Smith Caravan Park ............................................. 55
Figure 9: Bidyadanga Aboriginal Community La Grange Inc (Bidyadanga Community Council)
offices, Bidyadanga ..................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 10: Bidyadanga community layout plan ........................................................................... 60
Figure 11: Western Australian State Planning Framework ......................................................... 63
Figure 12: Discussing the role of Karajarri rangers in monitoring programs on Karajarri Country
during an on country visit, 9 October 2012.................................................................................. 70
Figure 13: Indigenous lands in Cape York .................................................................................. 81
Figure 14: Map of native title claim area ..................................................................................... 82
Figure 15: Abm Elgoring Ambung directors and staff ................................................................. 85
Figure 16: Kowanyama Priority Infrastructure Plan .................................................................... 88
Figure 17: Kowanyama Sport and Recreation Centre ................................................................ 91
Figure 18: Cape York Regional Plan Area (with local government areas) ................................. 93
Figure 19: Kowanyama Shire Council Functions ........................................................................ 95
iv Native title and climate change
Native title and climate change 1
ABSTRACT
The roles of Indigenous people in climate change adaptation are little understood.
Current research highlights the contribution of Indigenous knowledge to climate change
monitoring and observation, the role of community organisations in developing adaptive
capacity, environmental justice and regimes for the participation of Indigenous people
in abatement and climate change economies. What has not featured prominently in
climate change adaptation literature is how Indigenous groups interact with the socio-
institutional structures to assert their knowledges and participate in climate change
adaptation activities.
The evidence of rising temperatures, increasing frequency of extreme weather events
including flooding and cyclone activity that is present on Indigenous held lands
throughout Australia brings attention to Indigenous people in climate change discourse.
However, the remote location of many Indigenous communities and the severe
disadvantage suffered by Indigenous people in Australian society has meant that
climate change and vulnerability have become a common coupling in describing
Indigenous peoples’ engagement in recent literature. Questions of how Indigenous
communities make decisions about how they want to respond to new risks arising from
rapid shifts in climate and the socio-institutional environment in which this occurs, are
yet to be fully explored or understood. The risks and uncertainties of climate change
create new impetus to investigate the ways in which Indigenous communities respond
to climatic changes on their traditional lands, redirecting attention and resources to
Indigenous knowledge systems and perspectives. There are also new social and
institutional changes that have been introduced by the retrospective recognition of
Indigenous peoples’ rights under Australian law and the regime established under the
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This research project aims to bring understanding to the
socio-institutional framework for decision-making on Indigenous held lands that impact
on climate change adaptation and has been undertaken with the support from two
Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) from the Kimberley and Cape
York: the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC
(KTLA) based in Bidyadanga, Western Australia and Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal
Corporation RNTBC (Abm Elgoring Ambung) based in Kowanyama, Queensland.
2 Native title and climate change
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The roles of Indigenous people in climate change adaptation have received little
research attention. Current research highlights the contribution of Indigenous
knowledge to climate change monitoring and observation, the role of community
organisations in developing adaptive capacity, environmental justice, and regimes for
the participation of Indigenous people in abatement and climate change economies.
What has not featured prominently in climate change adaptation literature is how
Indigenous groups interact with the socio-institutional structures to assert their
knowledges and participate in climate change adaptation activities, including on an
institutional level. This research project aims to bring understanding to the socio
institutional framework for decision-making on Indigenous held lands that impact on
climate change adaptation. This research project has been undertaken with support
and input from two Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) from the
Kimberley and Cape York: the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association Aboriginal
Corporation RNTBC (KTLA) based in Bidyadanga, Western Australia and Abm
Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (Abm Elgoring Ambung) based in
Kowanyama, Queensland.
The impacts of climate change – rising temperatures, increasing frequency of extreme
weather events including flooding and cyclone activity, and more – on Indigenous held
lands throughout Australia brings attention to Indigenous people in climate change
discourse. The accelerated pace of climate change means that adaptation will need to
occur not over the course of thousands of years, as has been the historical experience,
but within the current and next generation. As natural and cultural values are held
together, these changes affect both the ecological integrity of these lands and waters,
and the cultural connections held to country. The remote location of many Indigenous
communities and the severe disadvantage suffered by many Indigenous people in
Australian society has meant that climate change and vulnerability have become a
common coupling in describing Indigenous peoples’ engagement in recent literature.
Questions of how Indigenous communities make decisions about how they want to
respond to new risks arising from rapid shifts in climate and the socio-institutional
environment in which this occurs, are yet to be fully explored or understood. The risks
and uncertainties of climate change impacts create new impetus to investigate the
ways in which Indigenous communities respond to climatic change on their traditional
lands, redirecting attention and resources to Indigenous knowledges and governance
arrangements. With new understandings about the vulnerability and interdependence
of humans and the landscapes we inhabit, Indigenous knowledge traditions offer
intellectual insight into understanding how to adapt to the changes we face.
There are also new social and institutional changes that have been introduced by the
retrospective recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights under Australian law and the
regime established under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Native title now comprises 20
per cent of Australia’s total land mass covering extensive areas of the coast and
interior. Recognised native title rights and interests are managed through unique
corporate structures known as RNTBCs, which have statutory responsibilities
mandated by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). RNTBCs have evolved into key
governance institutions that are based on recognised cultural relationships, and
Native title and climate change 3
corresponding legal rights and interests, to the areas in which native title is determined.
However, the retrospective recognition of native title has required other legal regimes,
planning processes and organisations to adapt to the emergence of a new governance
institution. Despite the formal recognition of traditional and cultural connections to land
and waters through the native title process, and the obvious concordance in how land
management is conceived, Indigenous people, their key strengths – their knowledge
systems, governance structures and relationships to country – remain marginalised
among the decision-making structures and practices being utilised to facilitate climate
change adaptation.
This research project draws together these two threads on Australia’s capacity to
respond to changing relationships with land: first, Australia’s response to a belated
acknowledgement of our denial of Indigenous peoples rights to their traditional lands
and the impact of past dispossession on the current circumstances of many Indigenous
people; and second, a belated recognition of the interaction of human activity and
atmospheric processes on climate and the implications of failing to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
The determinants of vulnerability are invariably context specific, as the literature shows,
with successful adaptation achieved through processes that are community-driven,
sensitive to local histories, ecologies, and priorities. Critical research questions were
approached through place-based case studies, analysing how national, state, regional
and local socio-institutional structures and dynamics played out in two locales. Drawing
on AIATSIS’s previous research with RNTBCs focused on their aspirations and
capacities of native title institutions to manage their native title lands and waters, the
project team considered the question of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of climate
change adaptation, and how it might be reframed from one of vulnerability to one of
potential strength. These strengths lie in being: significant land owners, important
governance institutions and holders of an invaluable body of knowledge and
understanding of how landscapes work and respond to change.
Action based case study research was prioritised to ensure ethical research practice
with very remote RNTBCs that also face severe resource constraints. Extended field
work and interviews were used to engage with the perspectives and priorities of case
study partners. Research methodologies were collaborative and built the capacity of
case study partners including through research supervision of Anna Dwyer, a Karajarri
member from the Nulungu Centre for Indigenous Studies, and the funded involvement
of nine community representatives in a workshop at the National Native Title
Conference in Townsville 2012.
These research activities contributed to the following findings within the context of our
two case studies:
• There are synergies between RNTBC caring for country priorities, governance
and community development that are consistent with climate change adaptation
priorities, yet the lack of development of and RNTBC priorities, such as through
land use planning, is a significant barrier to Indigenous participation in
adaptation activities.
4 Native title and climate change
• The retrospective recognition of native title has supported traditional owner
authority in land use and natural resource management and decision making,
whilst simultaneously creating the institutional marginalisation of RNTBCs as a
‘new’ governance sector.
• There is a critical need to renegotiate governance arrangements within
Indigenous communities, especially where RNTBCs have been created
alongside existing governance institutions, resulting in the displacement of
previous decision-making processes, causing inconsistencies, tension, and
confusion over roles and responsibilities.
• The complex interaction between native title and planning can be addressed in
a very practical way through the inclusion of RNTBCs at the outset of the
planning process and not at the end.
• The imperative for a long term approach is driven by the communal and binding
nature of decision making over native title lands as well as the intergenerational
consequences of climate change.
• There has been a lack of respect for the plans and priorities developed by
RNTBCs and local communities, coupled with ad hoc and at times divergent
development proposals, undermining agreed upon decisions and decision-
making processes, and affecting sustainable land use planning outcomes that
are central to climate adaptation.
• The former community/Aboriginal councils system, historically used as a means
of enabling self-government, has been slowly replaced by mainstream
structures that impose new forms of accountability or remove accountability to a
broader regional constituency. The regionalisation of planning and local
government risks the under-representation of the unique needs and priorities of
remote Aboriginal communities. The involvement of RNTBCs in planning and
decision-making processes can play a part in mitigating this risk.
• Funding preferences created by different regimes to support different
Indigenous forms of governance can place Indigenous community/shire
councils in competition with RNTBCs, often with an outcome that draws
resources away from RNTBCs.
• The unrealistic expectation that RNTBCs will be able to effectively engage in
equitable and meaningful negotiations over land and water use without funding
support creates a spiral of incapacity that distracts from the planning needs of
remote communities.
• The design of decision-making structures needs to reflect the cultural legitimacy
and representative role of RNTBCs and, at the same time, have this reflected in
the distribution of resources.
• The principle of ‘getting the whole system in the room’ to look at long-term
planning for native title lands is consistent with the successful approach to
agreement-making with native title groups in the Dampier Peninsula Planning
Process, and is of relevance to RNTBCs facing comprehensive planning
challenges.
• Integrated planning that is consistent with native title holders’ holistic and
intergenerational perspective on country holds the greatest potential for
RNTBCs to play an effective enabling role in climate change adaptation.
Native title and climate change 5
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term
Description
Abm Elgoring Ambung
RNTBC (Abm Elgoring
Ambung)
Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC)for the Kowanyama
People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1192 determination over 2 518
square kilometres of exclusive possession Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT)
land and non exclusive 213 square kilometres of sea, beach and tidal
areas. In 2012, the Federal Court recognised the Kowanyama Peoples
native title rights over approximately 1,639,641 hectares of pastoral
property located on the western side of Cape York Peninsula, and the
Township area.
Aboriginal Communities Act
1979 (WA)
Legislation introduced to enable Aboriginal people to formally manage
communities that have a majority of Aboriginal people as residents.
Aboriginal Land Act 1991
(Qld) (ALA)
Legislation introduced to transfer land or grant land (such as existing
community or reserved lands) to the Aboriginal people. The transfer of land
is supported by the Aboriginal Land Regulation 2011 which establishes the
functions of land trusts, powers and responsibilities and administrative and
financial requirements.
Aboriginal Lands Trust
(ALT)
Established by the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972 (WA).The
Act also established the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority that is now
known as the Department of Indigenous Affairs.
The ALT became responsible for the administration of lands previously held
by the Native Welfare Department and other State Government agencies.
The ALT holds 11 per cent of Western Australia’s land area. A significant
proportion of this land are reserves with their purposes mostly being for "the
use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants".
AIATSIS Centre for Land
and Water Research
(ACLWR)
Research centre situated within the AIATSIS Indigenous Country and
Governance Research Program that has a close relationship with the Native
Title Research Unit (NTRU). The quality, independence and ethics of the
research of the Land and Water Research Centre are subject to the
oversight of the AIATSIS statutory Research Advisory Committee, the
Research Ethics Committee and the AIATSIS Council.
Australian Institute of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Studies(AIATSIS)
AIATSIS is a Commonwealth statutory authority committed to producing
information and research about the cultures and lifestyles of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples, past and present.
Bidyadanga Aboriginal
Community La Grange Inc
(Bidyadanga Community
Council)
Aboriginal community council established under the Aboriginal Communities
Act 1979 (WA) designed for Aboriginal people to formally manage
communities that have a majority of Aboriginal people as residents.
Cape York Land Council
(CYLC)
Native title representative body for the Kowanyama traditional owners and
the organisation responsible for finalising their claims and supporting the
Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC.
Cape York Peninsula
Heritage Act 2007 (Qld)
Legislation enacted to ensure ecologically sustainable use of land, including
pastoral land, recognise the economic, social and cultural needs and
aspirations of Indigenous communities in relation to land use in the region;
recognise the contributions of the pastoral industry to the economy and land
management in the region; and identify significant natural and cultural
values of Cape York Peninsula. The act affects trustees of Deed of Grant in
Trust land in the region under the Land Act 1994.
6 Native title and climate change
Term
Description
Cape York Peninsula Land
Use Strategy (CYPLUS)
Result of planning process initiated by the Australian government in 1990 to
protect the natural heritage of the Cape York. It coincided with potential
nomination for World Natural Heritage listing of the area.
Cape York Regional
Planning Committee
(CYRPC)
Committee consisting of local government mayors, Members of State
Parliament, and key industry and community representatives who will
contribute to a formal Cape York Regional Plan.
Caring for our Country
An Australian Government initiative established in 2008 to deliver funding
towards programs that progress the Federal government’s broader
sustainability agenda.
Community Development
and Employment Program
(CDEP)
A scheme established in 1977 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people living in remote, rural and urban areas. CDEP enabled an
Indigenous community or organisation to pool the unemployment benefit
entitlements of individuals into direct wages for those people who choose to
participate in local employment in various community development or
organisation programs as an alternative to receiving individual income
support payments. The scheme came under reform in 2008 and is due to
transition into the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP) by 2013.
Community Services
(Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld)
Enacted to grant Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) land to the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Island communities. Indigenous community councils were
established to administer the land covered in the deed on behalf of the
community. These bodies have broader responsibilities than traditional local
governments due to the nature of land ownership and relationships between
the council and the community. These bodies later became Aboriginal shire
councils.
Dampier Peninsula
Planning Project (DPPP)
The Dampier Peninsula Planning Project (DPPP) is a consultation project
for traditional owners in the Dampier Peninsula region of Western Australia
to workshop and provides recommendations on planning for country on the
Dampier Peninsula.
Deed of Grant in Trust
(DOGIT)
State land granted in trust by the Governor–in-Council under the Land Act
1994 (and previously under the Land Act 1962) for the benefit of Aboriginal
inhabitants or for Aboriginal purposes. An Aboriginal DOGIT may be
surrendered, cancelled or have land compulsorily acquired from it.
Department of Families,
Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA)
Commonwealth department providing funding to native title representative
bodies and service providers and limited funding to RNTBCs.
Department of Indigenous
Affairs (DIA)
Western Australian government departing with a key role in the coordination
of other state and federal departments in town planning and service delivery
in remote Aboriginal communities. It is also responsible for the
administration of Aboriginal Land Trust lands.
Department of Local
Government and Planning
(DLGP)
Queensland government department assisting former Aboriginal councils
transitioned to shire councils under the Local Government (Community
Government Areas) Act 2004 (Qld). The department provides capacity
building to shire councils and provides funding to maintain infrastructure
and services within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Department of Planning
Western Australian government department responsible for state-wide
Native title and climate change 7
Term
Description
(DP)
planning and provides support and expertise to the Western Australian
Planning Commission (WAPC)
Department of
Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Populations and
Communities (SEWPaC)
Commonwealth department of environment that administers funding from
the Caring for our Country program. SEWPaC also manages the
Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program.
Future act
A proposal to do something (e.g. pass legislation or permit a development
on a particular area) that will affect native title (or would if the act were valid
to that extent) by extinguishing it or creating interests that are inconsistent
with the continued existence, enjoyment or exercise of native title.
Examples of future acts include the grant of mining or exploration rights and
the compulsory acquisition of native title.
Future act regime
The future act regime consists of a number of different provisions within
section 24 of the NTA that deal with a range of subject matters. This regime
prescribes that certain procedural rights are provided to native title parties in
the process of validating a future act.
Indigenous Land Use
Agreement (ILUA)
A voluntary agreement that can be about the use or management of an
area of land or waters where native title exists or might exist, including
about whether a future act can be done. The agreement is made between
one or more native title groups and others (such as miners, pastoralists or
governments). An ILUA registered with the National Native Title Tribunal is
legally binding on the people who are parties to the agreement as well as all
native title holders for that area.
Indigenous Protected Area
(IPA)
An Indigenous Protected Area is an area of Indigenous-owned land or sea
where traditional owners have entered into an agreement with the
Australian Government to promote biodiversity and cultural resource
conservation.
Karajarri Traditional Lands
Association RNTBC (KTLA)
RNTBC for the Nangkiriny v Western Australia [2002] FCA 660 and
Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156 determinations
covering over 24 725 square kilometres of exclusive possession native title
lands from the Great Sandy Desert to the coast and a further area of 2000
square kilometres non-exclusive possession native title lands in overlapping
pastoral areas.
Kimberley Land Council
(KLC)
Regional native title representative body which pursues the native title and
land and sea management interests of the Kimberley region.
Kimberley Regional
Planning and Infrastructure
Framework (KRPIF)
A regional planning document currently being drafted that will provide a
regional context for land-use planning in the Kimberley.
Kimberley Regional
Planning Committee
(KRPC)
A committee advising the Western Australian Planning Commission
(WAPC) on planning for the region, or part of the region, making
recommendations on the extent and content of region planning schemes.
Kowanyama Aboriginal
Land & Natural Resource
Management Office
(KLNRMO)
Unique community based organisation established in 1990 by the
Kowanyama community council. It carries out land management work in the
Kowanyama community and is supported by state and federal land
management funding as well as philanthropic programs.
Kowanyama Aboriginal
Shire Council (‘the
Kowanyama Shire Council’)
Aboriginal shire council established under the Local Government Act
2009(Qld).Formerly the Kowanyama Aboriginal Council under the
Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld).
8 Native title and climate change
Term
Description
Land Act (Aboriginal and
Islander Land Grants)
Amendment Act 1982 (Qld)
Legislation enabling the Queensland government to grant land in trust to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Mabo v Queensland (No.2)
[1992] HCA 23 (the Mabo
decision)
High Court decision altering the foundation of property law in Australia by
overturning the doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to
possession of Australia were based. This recognition enabled the legal
doctrine of native title within Australian law.
National Climate Change
Adaptation Research
Facility (NCCARF)
Coordinating body for climate change adaptation research. It also
administers funding provided by the Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) for climate change adaptation research.
National Native Title
Tribunal (NNTT)
An independent statutory body established under the Native Title Act 1993
(Cth) to assist people to resolve native title issues, make future act
determinations, and notify people about native title applications.
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
(NTA)
Federal legislation enacted following the High Court decision of Mabo v
Queensland (No.2) in 1992. It outlines processes for how native title is
recognised and protected.
Native title holder
Also called common law native title holders. A person whose native title
rights and interests over a particular area of land or waters have been
recognised by a court.
Native Title Research Unit
(NTRU)
The Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) was established through a
collaboration between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
and AIATSIS in 1993 in response to the High Court decision in Mabo. The
NTRU's activities are currently supported through a funding agreement with
the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA).
Nulungu Centre for
Indigenous Studies, Notre
Dame University (Nulungu)
Research centre based at the University of Notre Dame In Broome focused
on Indigenous research, teaching and capacity building.
Nyangumarta Karajarri
Aboriginal Corporation
RNTBC (NKAC)
RNTBC for the Hunter v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA
690determination covering approximately 2000 square kilometres of non-
exclusive possession native title lands. NKAC is made up of Karajarri and
Nyangumarta native title holders.
Planning and Development
Act 2005 (WA)
Legislation regulating land use planning in Western Australia. State
Planning Policy 3.2 ‘Aboriginal Settlements’ comes under this legislation
and provides a framework for Layout Plans in Aboriginal settlements.
Layout plans are endorsed by the WAPC.
Prescribed Bodies
Corporate (PBCs)
See Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) below.
Racial Discrimination Act
1975 (Cth) (RDA)
Federal anti-discrimination statute passed in 1975. The RDA makes
discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic
origin unlawful and is designed to protect the rights of all Australians.
Registered Native Title
Bodies Corporate
(RNTBCs)
Legally recognised legal entity that holds determined native title lands on
behalf of the recognised native title claimants. It has statutory duties under
the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies
Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth).
Sustainable Planning Act
2009 (Qld) (SP Act)
Legislation replacing the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) regulating land
use planning and developments in Queensland.
Native title and climate change 9
Term
Description
Water Act 2000 (Qld)
Legislation regulating water access, services and water authorities in
Queensland.
Western Australian
Planning Commission
(WAPC)
The Western Australian Planning Commission is a statutory authority with
responsibility for land use planning and development. It is established under
the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) and has a decision making
function.
Wild Rivers Act 2005 (Qld)
Environmental legislation to protect ‘pristine rivers’ by creating ‘declared
Wild Rivers’ outlining the extent of the wild river area, limitations on
resource extraction and rules that apply when undertaking development .
Development proposals affecting wild rivers are regulated by the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).
10 Native title and climate change
1. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The roles of Indigenous people in climate change adaptation have received little
research attention. Current research highlights the contribution of Indigenous
knowledge to climate change monitoring and observation (Gardana 2010-2011), the
role of community organisations in developing adaptive capacity, environmental justice
(Tsosie 2007) and regimes for the participation of Indigenous people in abatement and
climate change economies (Gerrard 2008, 2012). What has not featured prominently in
climate change adaptation literature is how Indigenous groups interact with the socio-
institutional structures to assert their knowledges and participate in climate change
adaptation activities, including on an institutional level.
Climate change impacts such as rising temperatures, increasing frequency of extreme
weather events including flooding and cyclone activity on Indigenous held lands
throughout Australia brings attention to Indigenous people in climate change discourse.
However, the remote location of many Indigenous communities and the severe socio-
economic disadvantage suffered by many Indigenous people in Australian society
(SCRGSP 2011),1 has meant that climate change and vulnerability have become a
common coupling in describing Indigenous peoples’ engagement in recent literature
(Green, Jackson & Morrison 2009).Questions of how Indigenous communities make
decisions about how they want to respond to the new risks and the socio-institutional
environment in which this occurs, are yet to be fully explored or understood (Petheram
et al. 2012). Yet, the risks and uncertainties of climate change create new impetus to
investigate the ways in which Indigenous communities respond to the impacts of
climate change on their traditional lands, redirecting attention and resources to
Indigenous knowledge systems and perspectives. There are also new social and
institutional changes that have been introduced by the retrospective recognition of
Indigenous peoples’ rights under Australian law and the regime established under the
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This research project investigates aspects of the
institutional framework for decision-making on Indigenous held lands that impact on
climate change adaptation. Specifically, we seek to identify the barriers to and enablers
of the native title corporate entities, Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate
(RNTBCs)2, in facilitating community driven adaptation on native title lands and
1 While this project concerns predominately remote Indigenous populations, where the vast
majority of native title is held, we note that the majority of Indigenous people in Australia live in
urban and semi urban areas. We draw attention to the NCCARF projects focused in this area,
including Daryl Low Choy, Understanding Urban and Peri-urban Indigenous peoples’
vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change.
2Although RNTBCs are sometimes referred to as Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs), this is
not strictly accurate. Following a determination, PBCs are registered with the National Native
Title Tribunal. At this point, the corporation becomes a RNTBC. While the terms PBC and
RNTBC are often used interchangeably, the Native Title Act 1993 deals with them separately.
On the whole, the term RNTBC is more accurate.
Native title and climate change 11
develop best practice for participatory climate change decision-making. The priorities
we set at the start of this research were:
• understanding and communicating the aspiration and capacity of RNTBCs in
relation to climate change adaptation;
• providing relevant stakeholders with knowledge to develop an understanding of
the unique systems of land ownership and governance of RNTBCs; and
• assisting RNTBCs and relevant stakeholders to develop effective working
relationships for long term adaptation planning.
This research project has been undertaken with the support from two RNTBCs from the
Kimberley and Cape York: the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association Aboriginal
Corporation RNTBC (KTLA) based in Bidyadanga, Western Australia and Abm
Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (Abm Elgoring Ambung) based in
Kowanyama, Queensland. These two RNTBCs from the tropical far north and arid
north west form the basis of our case study research to consider the role of native title
holding groups in climate change adaptation decision making.
1.1 Research Background
1.1.1 Native title and climate change adaptation
This research project draws together two threads of Australia’s capacity to respond to
changing relationships with land: first, Australia’s response to a belated
acknowledgement of our denial of Indigenous peoples rights to their traditional lands
and the impact of past dispossession on the current circumstances of many Indigenous
people; and second, a belated recognition of the interaction of human activity and
atmospheric processes on climate and the implications of failing to change human
behaviour. Of particular interest in this research is the capacity of institutions to adapt
and accommodate such paradigm shifts in their philosophical approach.
The project builds on the research team’s interest in institutional relationships of power
in relation to place and the interrelationship between people and the landscapes in
which they live. We understand these relationships to be interdependent, complex and
adaptive. This report’s approach to climate change adaptation, then, does not endorse
a simplistic deterministic relationship, whereby climatic data is used to predict societal
impacts; but instead recognises the multiple feedback relationships that occur between
climates and societies (Hulme 2011). The co-constitution of climate and society is part
of the academic re-think around environmental issues, to better acknowledge the
myriad connections between people and nature, including climatic systems (Tadaki et
al. 2012).
12 Native title and climate change
This connected framework is a recognisable inheritance of Indigenous knowledge
systems: where the land and the people are often expressed as one, and as belonging
to one another; where landscapes are sentient, personified and related to the people;
or where the health of the land and the people are intimately tied to one another
(Griffiths & Kinnane 2011; Rose 1996; Weir 2012).3 These particular connotations of
Indigenous peoples’ traditional territories are often paraphrased as ‘country’. The
relationship with country is enduring; for many people it has sustained their ancestors
from time immemorial and it is this generation’s responsibility to ensure the health of
the country for future generations. To this end, the responsibility that Indigenous
peoples hold for the health of their ancestral country is often referred to as ‘caring for
country’. The notion of caring for country incorporates elements of, but goes beyond,
common notions of natural resource management and conservation. But neither should
Indigenous peoples’ relationship with country be exoticised or romanticised. The notion
of caring for country does not ignore issues of entitlement, or the economic importance
of land and waters in sustaining life and culture. However, when land is not seen as a
fungible thing – where we can pick up and move on when we exhaust the resources
available – the intergenerational connection and interdependency with a particular
place makes that country irreplaceable. With a new understanding of the vulnerability
and interdependence of humans and the landscapes we inhabit, Indigenous knowledge
traditions are useful intellectual approaches for thinking about climate change and
important touch stones in understanding how to adapt to the changes we face
(Petheram et al. 2012; Sithole 2007; Winer, Robertson & Murphy 2012).
3 While it is not possible here to fully articulate these relationships with country, anthropological
studies in the two case study areas have explored these interconnections in detail: Strang, V
1997, Uncommon ground: cultural landscapes and environmental values, Berg and Yu, S 1999,
Ngapa Kunangkul (Living Water): Report on the Aboriginal Cultural Values of Groundwater in
the La Grange Sub-Basin, for The Water and Rivers Commission of Western Australia,
December 2009.
Native title and climate change 13
Figure 1: Example of seasonal flooding in Kowanyama (Image: Tran Tran).
For the native title holders of Bidyadanga and Kowanyama, the accelerated pace of
climate change means that adaptation will need to occur not over the course of
thousands of years, as has been the historical experience, but within the current and
next generation. Indeed, as the effects of climate change will not cease, it is a
challenge that each generation will be required to address. There is a lack of scientific
consensus about the effects of climate change in Northern Australia, although in some
areas it is likely that the wet season will be wetter, and cyclonic activity may decrease
although with an increase in the extremity of cyclones that do form (CSIRO-BOM
2012). In Far North Queensland, there are predictions of more hot days, less run off
into rivers and wetlands, as well as possibly increased fire risk (Sinnamon 2009). Along
coastal areas in the North, sea level rise will increase the risks of storm surges and salt
water intrusion into permanent fresh water sites. There are consequential impacts on
native species not only with respect to land and freshwater but also in tidal and
offshore areas (Dunlop et al. 2012). As natural and cultural values are held together,
these changes affect both the ecological integrity of these lands and waters, and the
cultural connections held to country. Climate change occurs amongst the constant of
land use change – industrial development, agricultural expansion, urban growth, weed
infestation and so on. The profound influence of climate change within this confluence
reinforces the need for a whole of country and intergenerational perspective to
adaptation.
For the Karajarri traditional owners in the West Kimberley and the Kokomnjen,
Kokoberra and Kunjen traditional owners in Far North Queensland, their connection to
14 Native title and climate change
their traditional country forms the basis of their recognised native title rights and
interests. Native title now comprises 20 per cent of Australia’s total land mass covering
extensive areas of the coast and interior.4 In Western Australia alone, exclusive
possession native title accounts for almost 35 per cent of the state (National Native
Title Tribunal 2012).To date, the recognition of native title has concentrated in the more
remote areas of the country as well as regional areas, particularly in the north, although
this will change over time to increasingly include more settled areas of the south. Not
surprisingly, these regional and remote areas are also identified as some of the most
vulnerable to climate change, susceptible to extreme weather conditions, storm surges
and heavy rainfall as well as home to significant biodiversity (Green 2008; Hughes
2003).
Figure 2: Coastal erosion at Gordon Bay, north of Bidyadanga (Image: Claire
Stacey).
Indigenous communities in Australia have become interlinked with vulnerability in
recent adaptation literature, as scholars make the link between remoteness and
socioeconomic disadvantage as well as the climate risks associated with many of the
areas held by Indigenous peoples. However, the ways in which vulnerability is caused
4 This study excludes Indigenous land held under statutory forms of land rights, leasehold,
licenses and DOGIT which accounts for 16 per cent of land in Australia, and is particularly
significant in Northern Territory and New South Wales where native title has not been as
aggressively pursued: SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service
Provision) 2011, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011, Productivity
Commission, Canberra. It is noted that some of these tenures may overlap with native title.
Native title and climate change 15
or addressed has received little or no attention, especially in the context of native title.
Vulnerability is ultimately influenced by adaptation or adaptive capacity and how this is
facilitated through institutional structures (Hennessy et al. 2007, p. 513, Smit & Wandel
2006). Vulnerability extends to socio-institutional systems and the ability of both social
and ecological systems to adjust in response to changes in climate. In the context of
this research, the study of the socio-institutional responses and capabilities is essential
to understanding the potential for climate change adaptation by RNTBCs. This
research project examines the socio-institutional barriers and enablers of RNTBC
involvement in climate change adaptation to consider whether they have the potential,
at least in theory, to address some of the sources of vulnerability caused by socio-
economic marginalisation.
Nationally, native title lands are managed by a total of 1015 native title groups with
diverse land holdings, aspirations, levels of capacity and support. The extent of native
lands and the growing sector of Indigenous native title holders has received
surprisingly little policy attention and government support (Bauman & Tran 2007).
Recognised native title rights and interests are managed through unique corporate
structures known as Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs, or Prescribed
Bodies Corporate (PBCs) as they are commonly known). RNTBCs have statutory
responsibilities mandated by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). Section 58 of the
NTA and regulations 6-7 of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations
1999 (Cth) outline the legal nature of how native title rights and interests are held and
how they are dealt with. RNTBCs have evolved into key governance institutions that
are based on recognised cultural relationships, and corresponding legal rights and
interests, to the areas in which native title is determined. These organisations are in a
strong position to contribute to climate change adaptation, given their land holdings,
responsibilities, and expertise. However, the retrospective recognition of native title has
required other legal regimes, planning processes and organisations to adapt to the
emergence of a new governance institution. Unsurprisingly, RNTBCs often find
themselves in ‘policy vacuums’ and struggle to find an institutional foothold in existing
governance structures that have, until recently, not been required to account for
Indigenous interests. Despite the formal recognition of traditional and cultural
connections to land and waters through the native title process, and the obvious
concordance in how land management is conceived, Indigenous people, their key
strengths – their knowledge systems, governance structures and relationships to
country – remain marginalised among the decision-making structures and practices
being utilised to facilitate climate change adaptation.
The examination of the institutional barriers and enablers for Indigenous peoples to
utilise native title governance structures to contribute to climate change adaptation led
us to focus on long term planning regimes. We identified planning regimes as the site
5As at January 2013, although this number is increasing steadily over time as the large number
of registered native title claims are resolved through determinations of native title (see Appendix
1).
16 Native title and climate change
of greatest opportunity for combining the priorities of native title holders and climate
change adaptation and also the site with greatest potential for significant negative
impacts of missed opportunities. The ‘novelty’ of native title within Australian law, even
after 20 years, is revealed in this report through the analysis of the operation of native
title and planning regimes in the context of climate change, both in theory and in
practice. Our approach to this project, described below, has allowed us to examine
changes in attitudes, as well as structures, of accommodation of the new realities of
climate change and native title. This unique perspective builds on a large body of
research conducted by the research team over the last 10 years.
1.1.2 AIATSIS research context
The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
approaches all of its research from a perspective that embraces the strength of
Indigenous peoples and promotes greater understanding of Indigenous peoples’
cultures and societies. AIATSIS supports and conducts research that contributes to the
wellbeing of Indigenous peoples, which in turn contributes to the wellbeing of all
Australians (Henry 2007a, 2007b; Sen 1999).The project team has built on this tradition
to reframe the question of Indigenous peoples experience of climate change from one
of vulnerability to one of potential strength: as significant land owners, as important
governance institutions and as holders of an invaluable body of knowledge and
understanding of how landscapes work and respond to change at micro-levels. In our
view, if these strengths could be harnessed, there is a significant gain for the broader
society in understanding and adapting to climate change.
The Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) located within AIATSIS, has led national
research focused on the aspirations and capacities of native title institutions to manage
their native title lands and waters. This legacy of research has been designed in
response to the research and policy needs of native title holders through their
RNTBCs, in direct consultation with RNTBCs, and within a research-action
methodology that is supportive of Indigenous peoples and their aspirations. It is also
strongly grounded in relationships with policy and decision-makers who impact on the
recognition and enjoyment of native title, including commonwealth and state agencies
with direct responsibility for native title matters, the courts and tribunals who determine
claims to native title, and also, those bodies and agencies who only infrequently or
tangentially engage with native title. It is this latter group that hold particular interest in
the climate change context. As native title holders emerge as a significant land holding
group within the country, any agency or industry that deals with land or water or
resources, needs to understand and engage with the native title sector.
While Indigenous social systems and governance structures in Australia are ancient
and enduring, RNTBCs are a new corporate form, prescribed by the NTA, to hold and
manage native title interests. For more than ten years, the NTRU research team has
been tracking the activities and aspirations of RNTBCs and the impact of the absence
of a prescribed funding mechanism to support the responsibilities of RNTBCs. In 2001,
the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Land Fund recommended that RNTBCs ‘receive adequate funding to perform
their statutory functions and that they receive appropriate training to meet their
Native title and climate change 17
statutory duties’ (Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Land Fund 2001, p. 138). Similarly, 1999 research commissioned by the
Australian government on the issue of RNTBC funding recommended direct funding,
funding via representative bodies or a regional support mode (Rashid & Corrs
Chambers Westgarth 1999). Neither of these earlier calls for funding were actioned
despite the evidence of emerging issues for all sectors engaging with native title groups
arising from identified incapacity. In 2005 a joint departmental steering committee
developed a Report on the Structures and Processes of Prescribed Bodies Corporate
which recognised that aside from access to funding, RNTBCs also need be able to
recover costs (for example, through mandatory consultations) and require greater
flexibility in their governance arrangements to achieve their native title aspirations
(Attorney-General’s Department Steering Committee (AGDSC) 2006).
In 2007, in response to the policy and research gap for RNTBCs, AIATSIS, with
funding support from the then Department of Families Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) (now FaHCSIA), convened the first national meeting of
native title corporations to discuss their aspirations and understand what native title
holders needed in order to function. This first meeting was followed up with a second
national meeting in 2009. AIATSIS responded to these meetings by mapping the
priorities and needs of native title holders within a national context and investigating the
relationship between RNTBCs and their support structures (including funding, enabling
legislation as well as related institutions such as government and native title
representative bodies that support the work of native title holders). AIATSIS has also
carried out case study research with three case studies in north Queensland, Western
Australia and Torres Strait, including an initial project with the Karajarri traditional
owners on the capacity building needs of RNTBCs. One of the most significant findings
of this research has been the socio-institutional marginalisation of RNTBCs from
decision-making in relation to their country and the absence of significant policy or
legislative reform at the state and national level to accommodate the recognition of
native title in Australian law.
At the national meetings, native title holders stated that they wanted opportunities to
meet together at state or regional levels to discuss issues of common concern, share
experiences and engage directly with state and federal government representatives.
Throughout 2011, a series of regional and state based meetings were held in response
to these recommendations including the first state wide meeting of Queensland
RNTBCs in Cairns in October. These meetings were designed to gather further data on
the aspirations and activities of RNTBCs and bring stakeholders together on issues
such as programs and funding, and coordinating roles and responsibilities with other
state and local agencies. These forums identified, but could not pursue in detail, the
specific elements of cultural, corporate and community governance in managing the
challenges of climate change. At the same time, Chef Investigator on this project, Dr
Lisa Strelein was providing policy advice to agencies in the design and implementation
of the Carbon Farming Initiative legislation to ensure the protection of native title rights
and the participation of native title holders in carbon abatement activities.
As a result of this research base and the clear gaps that were emerging in relation to
the long terms integration of native title and climate change activity, the project team,
18 Native title and climate change
through the AIATSIS Centre for Land and Water Research (ACLWR), applied for
funding through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF)
to explore how Indigenous decision-making authority is asserted in land and water
management, town planning, housing, tenure reform and community governance. This
current project brings together current climate change adaptation understanding with
AIATSIS’ unique research history and expertise in working with RNTBCs in order to
explore the socio-institutional context of climate change adaptation on Indigenous
native title lands.
Native title and climate change 19
2. RESEARCH METHODS AND ACTIVITIES
2.1 Research Methods
2.1.1 Methodological and conceptual rationale
Like climate change research generally, research into climate change adaptation has
been dominated by climate science. In part, this can be explained by the discrediting of
earlier social science climate research that linked climate with the behaviour and
physical appearance of individuals and entire races (Hulme 2011, p. 250). The
subsequent lack of inquiry, methods and theory into human-climate relations has
created space for, ironically, a new environmental determinism whereby the climate
drives an imagined future, be it in relation to the national economy, health, migration,
biodiversity and so on (Hulme 2011, p. 254). That is, climate data from the natural
sciences is used in a predictive capacity to make statements about society, without the
analytical tools of the humanities and the social sciences with respect to culture, value,
belief, politics and power (Hulme 2011, pp. 264-65). Research into climate change
adaptation needs to account for the complexities of adaptation within a decision making
framework otherwise physical risks of climate change are decontexualised in a
‘decision making vacuum’ (Adger, N. et al. 2009; Preston & Stafford-Smith 2009, p. 8).
Further, the interconnectedness of Indigenous perspectives and community
experiences of socio-institutional structures cannot be understood by focusing on
particular research discipline alone, especially where diverse or divergent value
systems have been excluded from analysis (Mehta 2008). Adger et al (2003) refer to
the ‘thick analysis’ originally developed by Clifford Gertz to avoid universal theorising
which is often detached from the fluid and layered meanings found in everyday life
(Adger et al. 2003). They advocate for an interdisciplinary analysis in order to avoid
disciplinary preoccupations such as power and conflict in political science, location,
space and representations in geography, and productivity in economics (Adger et al.
2003). The research team strategically brings together traditions of human geography,
law, and economics, drawing deeply into the philosophical foundations of the
disciplines as well as applying the technical analytical skills of each. A broader
interdisciplinary analysis is particularly important given the retrospective recognition of
native title and the historical social and institutional marginalisation of Australia’s
Indigenous peoples. The limited representation of Indigenous peoples extends to the
narratives that have been developed within specific disciplines.
There are significant challenges faced by remote Indigenous communities to adapt to
climate change .These challenges emerge in the context of limited resources and
political, geographical and social isolation with concerns that that livelihoods and
management approaches in remote areas already being unsustainable (Bardsley &
Wiseman 2012, p. 715). Within this context, the notion of vulnerability and capacity had
become and emergent factor in considerations of the role of Indigenous people in
climate change adaptation. These challenges exist irrespective of climate change and
need to be addressed as a part of considering the role of Indigenous peoples as actors
and agents of change within this context.
20 Native title and climate change
As noted by Cameron (2012) the:
vulnerability and adaptation framework risks delimiting the ways in which
…Indigenous perspectives, concerns and critiques can be heard and can be
effective…and works to circumscribe the politics of climate change and its
effects (pg. 104).
As such, in this project we focus on the role of the Kowanyama and Karajarri traditional
owners in decision making and explore how adaptation initiatives can be better
facilitated through incorporation of Indigenous spheres of authority and decision
making. This project is not intended to focus purely on governance nor environmental
management activities. Nor is it meant to be about perceptions of climate change and
traditional knowledge. While these perspectives are relevant, this project investigates
the opportunities presented through native title recognition and the formation of
RNTBCs for native title holders to be involved in decision making over the
management of their traditional lands in the context of climate change adaptation. The
hypothesis that RNTBCs have potential to contribute to successful climate change
adaptation in Australia requires a detailed study of incredibly complex institutional
arrangements for decision-making on native title lands and waters. This cannot be
done exclusively at a macro level, through analysis of legal regimes and policy
frameworks (Preston & Stafford-Smith 2009). The determinants of vulnerability are
invariably context specific (Liverman & Merideth 2002). Moreover, we know that
successful adaptation is also context-based and community-driven, sensitive to local
histories, ecologies, and priorities (Shaw, Takeuchi & Uy 2011). For these reasons, this
research project approaches the critical research questions through the place-based
case study lens, analysing socio-institutional structures and dynamics at a national,
state, regional and local level; as they relate to two empirical case examples that are
sufficiently demonstrative to elicit wider lessons of greater application. Further, drawing
on Indigenous knowledge systems, these connections extend beyond social actors, to
include country as a participant in climate change adaptation.
Qualitative research methods used throughout the project were chosen because they
are most suited to the research question and to the circumstances of the case study
partners. Empirical case study research was prioritised to facilitate research with very
remote RNTBCs that also face severe resource constraints. The amount of time spent
in the communities was important. The nature of the information we were seeking in
these case studies – exploring how decisions are made and the processes that
facilitate them – in a context where the priorities and aspirations of native title holders
have been traditionally marginalised required the development of relationships of trust.
In addition, we recognise the burden we place on our case study partners through the
course of such a study and therefore built a strong community capacity building
element in to the project. This action research approach (discussed further below)
ensures the project remains relevant to our case study partners, and that case study
partners benefit from the project.
The action research case study methodology is supported by literature review, legal
and policy analysis and the data collected from large scale meetings of RNTBCs at a
national and regional level, akin to ‘focus group’ methods. The wealth of information
Native title and climate change 21
collected in previous research on RNTBC aspirations is an invaluable context to the
case studies.
2.1.2 Action research
This research project was intentionally participatory with applied outcomes, analysing
the case study experiences with respect to laws and policies in order to bring about
practical solutions to the adaptation challenges the communities face (Reason &
Bradbury 2001). Establishing and maintaining a sustained research relationship with
Indigenous communities is particularly important for developing trust, rapport and
gaining reliable and accurate research data. Following the Guidelines for Ethical
Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (AIATSIS 2011), AIATSIS researchers
presented a collective agreement to the directors and chairs of the two RNTBCs for
approval during initial fieldwork in order to ensure that directors were given a clear
indication of AIATSIS research aims and also clarify intellectual property rights
(including the recording and use of materials).These early meetings included
negotiating the aims and purposes of the research, methodology and opportunities for
community and stakeholder engagement. This approach facilitates research that is
collaborative and responsive to community priorities while also providing an opportunity
to build research capacity within the case study communities. These initial research
meetings were crucial in developing continuing existing research relationships with the
two RNTBCs. Whilst in principle support was obtained prior to the lodgment of the
NCCARF research grant application, the building of relationships of trust and mutual
advantage formed a central part of the research work. AIATSIS was able to build upon
an existing research relationship with the KTLA (see Weir 2011), and a new research
relationship was established with Abm Elgoring Ambung.
The formal research agreements were signed during the first field work and second
field work trips. Tran Tran visited the Kowanyama community to present the research
agreement which was accepted by its directors in advance of the first field work trip by
Rodney Whitfield, the general manager of Abm Elgoring Ambung. Similarly, Tran Tran
and Dr Jessica Weir met with three Karajarri directors in October 2011, and a formal
presentation was made to the KTLA on behalf of AIATSIS by KTLA Director Thomas
King at the KTLA general meeting on 19 March 2012. Collective research agreements
form an important part of the relationship between AIATSIS and community case study
partners on an organizational level. Individual consent forms were also signed with
individual interviewees, otherwise oral consent was gained, in order to ensure that
specific elements such as pictures and individual interview recordings were dealt with
on an individual basis. Where individual agreements were unable to be signed,
approval has been sought for specific quotes and attributions that have been made in
formal or public reporting.
2.1.3 Research Ethics
The research project underwent and received ethics approval from the AIATSIS
Research Ethics Committee (the Committee). The Committee provides a peer review
process to ensure that research projects hosted through AIATSIS meet specific
requirements including:
22 Native title and climate change
• Consultation with significant regional and local Indigenous organisations or
groups in the area of the research and/or individuals involved in the
research.
• Community support is sought and given.
• Individual risks and costs of the research are clearly communicated.
• Privacy and confidential information is protected according to research as
well as community protocols.
• The impact of research on culturally restricted information is understood and
agreed.
• Storage and access of materials during and at the conclusion of the project
are agreed.
The project was assessed against these criteria by the Committee to ensure that
community case study partners are participants in the research project, that they share
an understanding of the aims and methods of the research as well as the results of this
work. How community engagement has been achieved is addressed in section 3,
Outputs. The personal privacy of individuals and families have also been protected by
explicit consent forms that were signed by individual interviewees, who can revoke or
change their consent at any point throughout the research project. Further,
interviewees were asked to nominate whether any information is culturally restricted
and under what circumstances. Any culturally restricted materials have not been used
in public documents. As discussed above, a communal research agreement was also
been signed with each of the RNTBCs and authorised by three directors. This ensures
that both communal and individual interests have been considered.
The ethics guidelines also require strict storage and access protocols for research
materials. During the project period, materials have been stored on a password
protected drive and in locked filing cabinets. Participants are able to access materials
or have copies provided to them during the project period. At the conclusion of the
project, interviewees will be asked if they agree to the lodgement of materials with
AIATSIS and/or the RNTBC. If participants do not agree to lodgement the materials will
continue to be stored in the same manner as during the project period and the data will
be destroyed after a period of 5 years. If materials need to be used for any other
purpose other than the verification of results, the researcher will ask for permission
from participants. In order to gain ethical approval, ethical risks were also identified as
a part of the research project in order to implement actions that can mitigate against
those risks including: unrealistic expectations raised with respect to project outcomes
and processes; perceived limited benefit to participants and potentially inflaming
community relationships. Please refer to Appendix 2 for further details.
2.2 Research Activities
2.2.1 Literature Review
Tran Tran conducted a review of climate change adaptation academic and grey
literature on the socio-institutional context. The literature review focused on the current
social and institutional factors that impede or promote the adaptive capacity of
RNTBCs. It assessed current research on the role of community adaptation and the
Native title and climate change 23
design of institutions. This institutional design literature proposes that one of the most
important roles of government institutions within remote communities is the creation of
regulatory and policy frameworks that enable local populations to manage risk. The
literature review combined this research with emerging literature on the role of
RNTBCs as a new governance sector. This literature review was not published
separately but used to inform research design and analysis as well as the discussion in
this report. It was particularly important in integrating the research context of climate
change adaptation, land and water management, community development, intercultural
governance and native title literature.
2.2.2 Interviews and fieldwork
Fieldwork visits were an essential component of the case study research and were
intended to enable not only comparative analysis but also build depth into research
outcomes. We have discussed the importance of spending time in the community to
build trust and elicit the necessary information for the research, as well as providing
something back to the community in recognition of their contribution to the project. To
this end, three fieldwork trips were planned for each case-study site, including:
• an initial short visit to develop and confirm research design;
• an extended research trip (which was split into two trips in the KTLA case
study); and
• a further trip in 2013 at the conclusion of the project to present research
findings (in report and community formats) and return cultural material (such
as interview recordings and images).
Initial visits
In the early stages of the project, two initial fieldwork trips were made to the case study
sites to meet with key research partners and community members, and to discuss
research aims and priorities. The first field work trip to Kowanyama was made in
October 2011 by Tran Tran who formally met with the manager of the Abm Elgoring
Ambung, Rodney Whitefield and Viv Sinnamon from the Kowanyama Shire Council, to
discuss the climate change research proposal. This first meeting provided an
opportunity to see the case study area and introduce the research. The majority of the
time in the community was spent discussing the project and how it can fit in with the
community’s existing research commitments as well as the aims and priorities of the
RNTBC. Overall, the meeting with Abm Elgoring Ambung provided an invaluable
opportunity to confirm research design and develop greater focus for the project. Some
traditional owners were surprised by the action based methodology and were seeking
greater assertion and restriction from AIATSIS.
The positive response received from Abm Elgoring Ambung members was the key
outcome from this first fieldwork trip. Informal discussions with community members
also enabled the researcher to develop a better understanding of the current land
management issues and historical relationships with other stakeholders of the region.
This was particularly important to map stakeholders in the region and gauge the current
capacity and direction of the RNTBC. Travel to the fieldwork site, which required light
24 Native title and climate change
air travel or a long haul four-wheel drive travel depending on weather conditions, also
enabled greater understanding of the landscape and community context of the
research.
Figure 3: Dr Jessica Weir with Teddy Bernard (Chair, Abm Elgoring Ambung), Viv
Sinnamon (Manager, KLNRMO) and Rodney Whitefield (General Manager, Abm
Elgoring Ambung) (Image: Tran Tran).
During October 2011, Dr Jessica Weir and Tran Tran also travelled to Broome and
Bidyadanga to meet with the KTLA to discuss the climate change project and present
the research agreement for consideration. At Notre Dame University in Broome, Dr
Jessica Weir and Tran Tran met with KTLA Chair Mervyn Mulardy Jnr and KTLA
Deputy-Chair Joe Edgar. In Bidyadanga, Dr Jessica Weir and Tran met with Thomas
King, KTLA Director and ranger coordinator, and were reconnected with the current
activities of the KTLA following previous case study work carried out by Dr Jessica
Weir (2007-2008) and Tran Tran PhD research (2009 – 2010). Confidential literature
provided by the KTLA to researchers also helped with scoping the perceived
opportunities and costs of adaptation work. Dr Jessica Weir and Tran Tran also met
with the Chief Executive Officer of the Bidyadanga Aboriginal Community La Grange
Inc (Bidyadanga Community Council), Peter Yip and discussed the project with him.
The Bidyadanga Community Council has a substantial role to play in adaptation
activities on Karajarri native title lands and is a key stakeholder in community planning.
The first fieldwork trip to the Kimberley was also an important opportunity to develop
research networks with staff from the Kimberley Land Council (KLC) and the Nulungu
Centre for Indigenous Studies, Notre Dame University (Nulungu), to assist with the
Native title and climate change 25
second fieldwork trip. Dr Jessica Weir met with Ari Gorring (Manager, Land and Sea
Unit) from the KLC to discuss the project and coordinate with existing KLC work in this
area, including the work of the Land and Sea Management Unit and another NCCARF
application which KLC is party to. Dr Jessica Weir and Tran Tran also met with Bruce
Gorring to strengthen existing research partnerships with Nulungu and Sonia Leonard
from the University of Melbourne to discuss potential congruencies with current KLC
research. This has evolved to include an informal collaboration with the University of
Melbourne, which is hosting a separate but related NCCARF project in conjunction with
the KLC on perceptions of risk in Indigenous communities in the Kimberley.
Confirmation visits were an important aspect of the research project in order to meet
with case study partners; explain the objectives and processes involved in the research
project and gain community support and consent. These initial introductions created an
important starting point for building community support for the project, especially in
Kowanyama where AIATSIS has only had a limited research relationship from 2011
until the present. Similarly, it was an important opportunity to invest in the research
relationship with the Karajarri traditional owners who have been involved in AIATSIS
research since the start of the NTRU RNTBC project in 2007.
Case study work
Fieldwork consisted of a combination of workshops, semi-structured interviews, shared
activities on country, reading the landscape, and participant observation as part of a
participatory action research. In some instances RNTBCs actually lack a physical point
of contact let alone an office, and there are very few opportunities to meet with RNTBC
directors. Fieldwork stays and repeated visits created greater opportunities to meet
with directors in order to introduce the research project and gain support for the project
in line with AIATSIS ethical protocols and action research methodologies.
Extended site visits provided the main opportunity for engaging with community case
study partners, especially in Kowanyama where a new research relationship was being
established. Tran Tran lived in Kowanyama from mid-February to the end of March
2012 to work with the Abm Elgoring Ambung traditional owners. She spent most of the
time in the town of Kowanyama as roads became more inaccessible as the wet season
progressed. This gave her the opportunity to observe meetings with the directors of the
RNTBC and be involved in housing and planning work that was being carried out at the
same time. Dr Jessica Weir also travelled to Kowanyama and joined Tran Tran for one
week. Fieldwork was cut short by a few days because of a tropical low that was
persisting in the Gulf of Carpentaria adjacent to Kowanyama.
Tran Tran travelled to Broome in early May 2012 to meet with the Karajarri traditional
owners. Tran worked with KTLA directors, Mervyn Mulardy (KTLA Chair), Joseph
Edgar (KTLA Deputy Chair) and Thomas King (Karajarri Ranger Coordinator). This
work focused KTLA’s involvement in recent town planning initiatives in the region. Tran
also attended the Dampier Peninsula Planning Project meeting on 8 May 2012 in
Broome which focused on sub-regional planning processes, impacting on Karajarri
native title lands. Attendance at the meeting enabled Tran to engage with key state
government, regional and local representatives that were working under the Local
26 Native title and climate change
Planning Strategy under the Western Australian Planning Framework involving the
Planning Development Act 2005 (WA), Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA) and
Environment Protection Act 1986 (WA) (the planning processes occurring over
Karajarri country are discussed in detail in section 4.5.3 below). In particular, the
meeting focused on the development of regional service areas for the provision of
health and other infrastructure for the surrounding remote Indigenous communities.
Bidyadanga is one of the proposed regional service areas affecting the land holdings of
the KTLA.
An extended field work trip to Bidyadanga was postponed in order to be coordinated
with the University of Melbourne project funded under the NCCARF Indigenous
communities round), as well as the regional priorities established by the Kimberley
Land Council (KLC).The University of Melbourne collaboration was raised with the
KTLA Chair and Deputy Chair during the May 2012 fieldwork trip. During this trip it was
decided that a series of workshops would benefit the KTLA looking at not only the
physical aspects of climate change adaptation, but also roles and responsibilities for
climate change adaptation (this is discussed further below in section 2.2.3).
AIATSIS also contracted Karajarri member Anna Dwyer to conduct community
interviews using a workbook created as a result of the first initial workshop held in
Bidyadanga in August 2012 (Attachment 4). Anna is based at Nulungu, and is an
emerging researcher. This project offered her the opportunity to build upon her existing
research skills, and benefit from taking on a role within the research project which
included attending research meetings convened by KTLA and AIATSIS, and
independently carrying out qualitative interviews. Her position as a researcher and
member of the community has been valuable to the project in terms of accessing key
traditional owners and having their contributions made in a culturally appropriate and
informed manner (see Appendix 3 for a full list of interviews). AIATSIS contracted Anna
through Nulungu who will hold the cost of her employment on behalf of KTLA to
support future research needs. The primary aim of this approach was to build research
capacity for AIATSIS, by having greater access to community members and our case
study partners, who will develop their own research capacity.
Final community visits
Tran Tran and Gabrielle Lauder travelled to Kowanyama on 18 January 2013 for the
final community visit to the community to present research findings, confirm final report
quotes and present the community report to Abm Elgoring Ambung. Their flight into the
community was unable to land due to damage to the runway caused by cyclone
Oswald. Tran drafted and arranged to have copies of the community report and draft
final project report to the community which was presented to the directors by Rodney
Whitfield, general manager of Abm Elgoring Ambung.
Claire Stacey travelled to Broome and Bidyadanga from 18-22 February 2013 for the
final community visit to the community to present research findings (see Appendix 6),
confirm final report quotes and present the community report to the KTLA at their AGM
with Anna Dwyer from the Nulungu Centre for Indigenous Studies (University of Notre
Native title and climate change 27
Dame). The KTLA directors commented on the quality of the community report and
expressed an interest in continuing their research relationship with AIATSIS.
2.2.3 Community workshops
Community workshops were intended for both case study areas, using the 2012
National Native Title Conference in Townsville as an opportunity to bring national
stakeholders to the discussion. A Climate Change Adaptation workshop was held at
the 2012 Conference, with presentations from the two case study areas, a presentation
from the University of Melbourne project, and with invited stakeholders attending and
contributing from the floor (see further under section 3: Outputs). Workshops were
designed on the basis of focused discussion in order to capitalise on communication
between participants in order to generate data for the project. This approach was
particularly important given that many traditional owners have limited opportunities to
meet, enabling the simultaneous collection of data from the group (Kitzinger 1995).
Additionally, the KTLA expressed a desire for community based workshops to facilitate
conversations with their key stakeholders. To extend the research outcomes, these
workshops were designed in collaboration with the University of Melbourne: one in
Bidyadanga in 14 August 2012 and another to be held at Saltwater creek near
Bidyadanga in 8-12 October 2012. During the August workshop, the directors of KTLA
mapped their climate change priorities and the relevant stakeholders that will need to
be involved in order to facilitate the action that they want to carry out on their native title
lands.
Figure 4: KTLA directors and members participating in the 4 August 2012
workshop. (left to right) Joe Edgar (Deputy Chair), Lenny Hopiga (Director), Faye
Dean (Director), Joseph Munro (Director) Anna Dwyer (Nulungu) and Rene
Hopiga (Member) (image: Jessica Weir)
28 Native title and climate change
The second workshop was planned to be four nights camping on Karajarri country at
Salt Creek in October 2012. The agenda was split between the survey of cultural sites
impacted by climate change as part of the University of Melbourne project, and a large
stakeholder meeting that would combine both the AIATSIS and University of Melbourne
projects. Stakeholders were invited from a range of state and Federal government
agencies, neighbouring traditional owner groups, neighbouring stations and other
organisations such as the KLC. However, the workshop was cancelled at short notice
because of a death in the community. This required that appropriate cultural protocols
be followed, and a decision was made by a senior KTLA director to cancel the
workshop. In lieu of the planned workshop, Claire Stacey, Dr Lisa Strelein and Dr
Jessica Weir spent an informal day on country with the Karajarri rangers visiting
cultural sites impacted by climate change and discussing issues of priority to the KTLA
such as the consultation surrounding the establishment of an Indigenous Protected
Area (IPA) on their country. Also in lieu of the workshop, Dr Lisa Strelein and Claire
Stacey also spent time with Bruce Gorring and Anna Dwyer at Nulungu developing a
community workbook to be used by Anna Dwyer during community interviews in
Bidyadanga.
Following the August workshop Dr Lisa Strelein and Claire Stacey met independently
with relevant government stakeholders to discuss the institutional setting and their
perceptions of the role of native title holders within this context. These interviews
served a dual purpose of not only identifying specific contacts within the relevant
government agencies (Department of Planning (DPC), Department of Indigenous (DIA)
Affairs and the Shire of Broome) but also generating awareness of the AIATSIS climate
change adaptation research project. In October Dr Lisa Strelein and Claire Stacey were
also able to meet with the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Perth to discuss the
current context of native title policy in Western Australia. It is anticipated that these
connections can be used to arrange a workshop similar to the proposed Salt Creek
workshop at a later stage or in a later extension project.
Native title and climate change 29
3. OUTPUTS
3.1 Literature
3.1.1 Journal articles
Two international journal articles are currently in draft form as part of the finalisation of
the NCCARF project. One article, focusing on the inherent contradictions of native title
institutions has been submitted and will be published as:
• Strelein L and Tran T, ‘Building Indigenous Governance from Native Title:
Moving away from ‘Fitting in’ to Creating a Decolonised space’ Review of
Constitutional Studies (forthcoming).
The second article focused on Indigenous engagement with concepts of adaptation will
be circulated to case study partners prior to journal submission.
3.1.2 Workshop report
A 50 page workshop report was prepared on the workshop held at the Native Title
Conference 2012. It is published as:
• Regan C and Tran T, (forthcoming), ‘Changes to Country, Changes to Culture:
reflections on Indigenous resilience and adaptation’ Report from the National
Native Title Conference Workshop, Townsville 5 June 2012.
3.2 Project communication
3.2.1 Newsletter article
An article was published in the Native Title Newsletter Number 3/2012 (August) titled
‘RNTBCs and Climate Change Adaptation Workshop ‘Changes to Country and Culture,
Changes to Climate: Reflections on Indigenous Resilience and Adaptation’ outlining the
project and workshop held at the 2012 National Native Title Conference in Townsville
(see Appendix 4):
Regan, C 2012, 'RNTBCs and Climate Change Adaptation Workshop', Native Title
Newsletter, vol. No 3/2012, pp. 10-1.
The article also showcases the research project and fieldwork research findings to an
audience of native title claimants, holders, representative bodies, state and federal
departments, academics and practitioners. The Native Title Newsletter is distributed to
1237 subscribers via either email (927) or mail (310) and is also available for download
from the AIATSIS website: http://www.aiatsis.gov.au
3.2.2 Project website
AIATSIS has been maintaining a project website as a part of the broader AIATSIS
Centre for Land and Water Research website. Information updates, photos and
30 Native title and climate change
projects materials are available through this website:
http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/lw/Adaptation.html. It is intended that the project
website will remain active after the project has concluded to ensure that project reports
and information will still be accessible.
3.2.3 Community reports
An interim community report was prepared for KTLA in a workbook format (Appendix 5)
that could also be used to support follow up interviews. The workbook outlined the
outcomes of the community workshop. Two final community reports have been drafted
based on the final report and focus on developing a research narrative (Appendix 6).
These community reports, along with the final project report were provided to case
study partners during community visits in early 2013.
3.3 Capacity building
3.3.1 Early career research support
Research and community capacity building have been core components of the
research project. The project has provided an important opportunity for early career
researcher Tran Tran to build upon her existing expertise in working with native title
holders and RNTBCs through her former role as PBC (RNTBC) project officer and
research officer at the NTRU and land and water management through her recently
submitted doctoral thesis focused on water management opportunities and the role of
native title holders in the Kimberley, where she worked with the KTLA. This was also
an important funding opportunity to build the research capacity of the new ACLWR,
integrating with existing expertise in relation to native title holders and climate change
adaptation. Later in the project, current AIATSIS PBC (RNTBC) project officer, Claire
Stacey was enlisted to assist in the development of the Kimberley case study and
meetings. Claire has recently completed her Masters in Applied Anthropology and
Development at the Australian National University and this project provided her an
opportunity to develop her research and writing skills.
3.3.2 Indigenous research capacity
Indigenous participation and involvement in the project has also been a core
component of its research process and research outcomes. Anna Dwyer, a Karajarri
woman, based at the Nulungu Centre for Indigenous Studies was contracted as the
community liaison officer to conduct interviews throughout the Bidyadanga community.
She has been providing research assistance at Nulungu with the climate change
project providing her with the opportunity to build her skills in conducting semi
structured qualitative interviews and research writing and analysis. The Research team
met with Anna and provided remote support via phone. Dr Lisa Strelein and Claire
Stacey developed the interview workbook (noted above) to assist Anna in conducting
the interviews. Anna has also agreed that the fees she attracts from her role will
contribute to future KTLA research activities (see Appendix 5)
Native title and climate change 31
Figure 5: Dr Lisa Strelein, Dr Jessica Weir, Anna Dwyer (Nulungu Centre for
Indigenous Studies) and Claire Stacey (Image: Bruce Gorring)
Case study partners also participated in the National Native Title Conference held in
Townsville from 4-6 June 2012. The conference is the largest Indigenous policy
conference of its kind, and in 2012 there was a conference theme on the impact of
climate change on Indigenous held lands with session talks on water management,
land tenure reform and the decision making capacity of native title holders. A total of
nine community representatives from the two case study communities were funded to
present in collaboration with the research team and participate in this workshop.
Government and other climate change institutions were also invited as participants.
The results of this workshop have been compiled into a workshop report made
available on the project website.
3.4 Research engagement and communication
3.4.1 Research dissemination
AIATSIS developed a strong research partnership with Nulungu. AIATSIS also worked
closely with the KLC, drawing on a long term research relationship in order to bring
about the Karajarri community workshops.
Dr Jessica Weir and Tran Tran have also been actively participating in the Canberra
Adaptation Network (CAN), which brings together government agencies working on
climate change and academic speakers to present on best practice. The CAN creates
an opportunity to engage in existing networks. Tran Tran also attended the Water
Governance Research Initiative National Workshop, 21 November 2011 at the
Australian National University to engage with emerging debates in water governance.
The workshop was well attended by regulators, policy makers and leading academics
in water resources management and provided an opportunity to promote the climate
change research carried out by AIATSIS.
32 Native title and climate change
Dr Lisa Strelein and Tran Tran attended the NCCARF Climate Adaptation in Action
Conference in Melbourne in 26-28 June 2012 where they had the invaluable
opportunity to engage with broader adaptation research. Dr Lisa Strelein and Tran Tran
attended the Principal Investigators meeting for the Social, Economic and Institutional
Dimensions (SEID) held in Melbourne 29 June 2012. The meeting provided an
invaluable opportunity to meet with other researches and discuss potential synergies in
concepts as well as research methodology.
Tran Tran was also funded to attend an international conference on Indigenous
governance looking at how the decision making power of Indigenous peoples are
framed both legally and politically. This enabled her to build international networks and
contextualise her own research. Dr Jessica Weir attended a BIARI Climate Change
Research Institute at Brown University, Rhode Island, as Visiting Faculty and a guest of
the department, and gave a seminar on Indigenous Knowledge and Water Planning.
Dr Lisa Strelein, Dr Jessica Weir and Tran Tran, were also a part of the National Native
Title Conference, the largest Indigenous policy conference of its kind, where they were
able to present on their research findings and meet with case study
partners/stakeholders.
Engagement with case study partners has also been a central element of the project.
Joe Edgar (Chair, KTLA), Gordon Marshall (Deputy Chair, KTLA), Teddy Bernard
(Chair, Abm Elgoring Ambung) and Rodney Whitfield (general manager, Abm Elgoring
Ambung) travelled to Canberra to present at the climate change final project seminar
on 26 March and at the Planning Institute of Australia’s planning master class on 27
March with Dr Lisa Strelein.
Details of papers delivered from September 2011 – March 2013 are provided below:
• Strelein, Lisa, ‘Native Title and Climate Change’ (Paper presented at the
NCCARF Climate Adaptation in Action Conference, Melbourne, 28 June 2012)
• Tran, Tran, ‘Building Indigenous Governance from Native Title: Moving away
from ‘Fitting in ’to Creating a “Decolonised” space, (Paper presented at the
‘How to Break out of Colonialism?’ Conference, Montréal, 17-20 April 2012)
• Tran, Tran and Weir, Jessica, ‘Changes to Climate, Changes to Culture:
Reflections on Indigenous resilience and adaptation’ (Paper presented at the
National Native Title Conference, Townsville, 4-6 June 2012)
• Tran, Tran, ‘Changes to Climate, Changes to Culture: Native Title Holder
Experiences in the Kimberley and Cape York’ (Paper presented at the NCCARF
Climate Adaptation in Action Conference, Melbourne, 28 June 2012)
• Weir, Jessica K. ‘The Anthropocene and an Expanded Connectivity: Indigenous
Experiences with River Regulation in Australia’ (Paper presented at the BIARI
Research Institute, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA, 19 June 2012
• Strelein, L, Edgar, J, Marshall G, Bernard, T and Whitfield, R ‘Changes to
Country, Changes to Climate: research findings from the native title and climate
change project ’ (AIATSIS Project seminar, Canberra, 26 March 2013)
Native title and climate change 33
• Strelein, L, Edgar, J, Marshall G, Bernard, T and Whitfield, R ‘Planning and
Aboriginal Experiences’ (Panel session at the Planning Institute of Australia,
National Congress, Planning Master class, Canberra, 27 March 2013)
The following workshops and meetings were attended:
• 'Changes to country and culture, changes to climate: reflections on
Indigenous resilience and adaptation' workshop, chaired by Professor
Marcia Langton, 5 June 2012, Townsville Broome Shire Planning Meeting,
Broome, 8 May 2012
• Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC Planning Meeting, 7 Match 2012
• Project planning meeting with Joe Edgar and Sonia Leonard, University of
Melbourne, Research Fellow (Broome, 2 May 2012)
• Presentation to the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association AGM by Thomas
King on behalf of AIATSIS, 22 February 2012
• Presentation to the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association AGM by Claire
Stacey and Anna Dwyer, 20 February 2013
3.4.2 Policy engagement
Dr Lisa Strelein was also involved in direct policy engagement on climate change, and
native title holders participation in the Carbon Farming Initiative in particular, through
advice to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and membership
on the Ministerial Roundtable on the Carbon Farming Initiative chaired by the Hon Mark
Dreyfus QC MP, parliamentary secretary for climate change and energy and efficiency.
The Research team also made submissions to relevant government reviews and
parliamentary inquiries. Specific activities include:
• Dr Lisa Strelein attended the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) Indigenous
roundtable in Townsville. Discussions surrounded the outcomes of the
consultations on Indigenous land and the development of methodologies
likely to have significant Indigenous participation. Other attendees included
Indigenous organisations, NAILSMA and native title representative bodies.
• Tran Tran and Dr Jessica Weir prepared the AIATSIS submission to the
Productivity Commission Inquiry into Regulatory and Policy Barriers to Effective
Climate Change Adaptation, 20 December 2011.
• Dr Lisa Strelein and Tran Tran prepared a submission to the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the
Arts on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and its impact on
RNTBCs. Dr Lisa Strelein also gave evidence to the Committee and was invited to
participate in round table discussion on the Bill.
• Dr Lisa Strelein was invited to appear to give evidence to the House of
Representatives Standing Committee in Climate Change, Environment and
the Arts, inquiry into Australia’s biodiversity in a changing climate, 20
September 2012. Dr Lisa Strelein gave evidence draining on the research of
the Native Title Research Unit and AIATSIS Land and Water Research
Centre on the role of native title holding bodies in ecosystems management.
34 Native title and climate change
• Dr Lisa Strelein impressed upon the Committee that while Indigenous
peoples were often communities at risk from climate and ecosystem
change, they are also communities of strengths.
3.4.3 Stakeholder meetings and workshops
The project met its first aim, to understand the aspiration and capacity of RNTBCs to
be effective agents in climate change adaptation. Through the national and regional
meetings of RNTBCs we were able to identify the potential synergy between RNTBCs
aspirations for engagement with matters of caring for country, governance and
community development that were consistent with climate change adaptation priorities.
Through our involvement in policy advice and participation in the Carbon Farming
round table we were able to observe the growing interest and understanding of climate
change and the potential for involvement of RNTBCs in abatement activities, but also,
a growing maturity in discussions among native title organisations around climate
change generally. Through the climate change adaptation workshop held at the
national native title conference we were able to introduce the native tile community to
the specific context of climate change adaptation, with our case study partners and
other NCAARF research teams. In the end, the empirical case study research provided
a textured and rich understanding of the extent to which RNTBC could be involved in
climate change adaptation activities, not just as participants but as a key institutional
partner.
The second aim of the project was to engage relevant stakeholders to develop a
greater understanding of the unique systems of land and ownership of Indigenous
peoples and the place of RNTBCs as significant governing institutions in relation to
areas of importance in climate change adaptation. Again, concurrent work on regional
RNTBC meetings have assisted in bringing a greater range of stakeholders into the
native title context, including importantly, departments of planning and infrastructure at
the state level. Some of these agencies have little or no exposure to native title. At the
time of research, the Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning for
example, agreed to review its consultation process for the proposed 30 year
Indigenous regional plans in response to the Queensland workshop. Consultations with
key government and shire stakeholders throughout the project has resulted in a greater
awareness of RNTBCs roles in relation to land use, water and community planning.
These consultations provided an opportunity not only for the project team to gain
greater understanding of the institutions, processes and priorities of government in
relation to climate change adaptation but also for us to provide more information about
native title and the rights and responsibilities of RNTBCs and their aspirations and
capacity challenges. We hope that the relationships that have formed as a part of this
research project and the broader history of AIATSIS’ engagement with RNTBCs and
their governing context, will contribute to further partnerships with state and federal
government stakeholders.
Native title and climate change 35
4. DISCUSSION
Such is the reach of climate change that the ongoing process of adapting to an
uncertain future is something we know we will all share. If, when and how we actively
respond to and engage with climate change adaptation will depend a lot on what we
consider important, and who is included in that decision-making process. These are
issues of culture, values, belief, politics and power. This research project engages with
the particular experience of climate change adaptation for Indigenous people who have
native title rights and interests. The climate change adaptation experiences of native
title holders provide a particularly stark example of the importance of interdisciplinary
approaches to climate change. Their experience includes the politics and institutions
that marginalise their interests; the intercultural context of their work; and their
particular framing of relationships with the climate. For the Karajarri and Kowanyama
traditional owners, the ways in which they want to respond to climate change are
constrained by their relative decision-making authority in existing and historical
processes such as land use and water planning regimes that create the enabling
environment for them to assert their priorities for climate change adaptation activities.
Indigenous forms of tenure, and the governance institutions flowing from them, whether
native title or Aboriginal community and local council structures, impact upon the ways
in which Indigenous priorities and decision making is expressed. This discussion
section outlines the interactions between native title, governance and planning regimes
within which the experiences of the two case study communities, the Karajarri
Traditional Lands Association and Abm Elgoring Ambung, will be contextualised.
4.1 Climate change adaptation and Indigenous peoples
4.1.1 Concepts of adaptation
In the context of climate change, the concept of adaptation has been used to
emphasise how social (including formal economic and legal systems) or ecological
systems adjust in response to changes in climate. Adaptation, as understood in the
socio-institutional sense refers to a ‘process, action or outcome in a system
(household, community, group, sector, region, country) in order for the system to better
cope with, manage or adjust to some changing condition, stress, hazard, risk or
opportunity’ (Smit & Wandel 2006). Until very recently, discussions of climate change
adaptation have been dominated by science rather than the broader social and
institutional frameworks that enable decision making, knowledge production and
dissemination (Dovers 2009). Climate change adaptation is more readily analysed from
commensurate ecological, physical, economic and technological perspectives (Adger,
N. et al. 2009). Within this context, Indigenous peoples are often presented from a
position of vulnerability perpetuating colonial narratives of ‘traditional’ peoples and
disabling productive collaborations for climate change adaptation action (Cameron
2012; Veland et al. 2013).
Adger et al. (2009) argues that analysing adaptation with respect to broader social
values and ethics, underpinning how knowledges are constructed and formed, and the
consequent rules and institutions that develop offers a more holistic perspective. This
perspective places adaptation limitations as endogenous to society and contextualise
36 Native title and climate change
Indigenous experiences within dominant socio-institutional structures (Adger, N. et al.
2009). Given the resource allocation function of socio-institutional structures, it is
important to prioritise the role of institutions in consequent social and environmental
decision making and their outcomes (Adger 2000). These structures frame
interpretations of risk and how the challenges of climate change are articulated in
subsequent policies and processes designed to support adaptive activities.
It remains that understanding Indigenous peoples’ adaptation priorities requires a
broader framing that includes country, and this is where the meta domains of ethics,
knowledge, risk and culture are important starting points (Adger, N. et al. 2009). Given
that Indigenous modes of decision making are rarely assessed on their own terms and
are often compared to or understood in relation to what is considered to be ‘effective’
modes of adaptation, developing a broader perspective of adaptation is crucial.
Moreover, whether or not socio-institutional structures provide for the mechanisms for
the accommodation of differing values underpins the effectiveness of those structures
to manage climate change adaptation. Flexibility to enable the negotiation of differing
value systems is a crucial factor in this research project as the goals of adaptation are
rarely explicitly stated (Adger et al. 2009). These variations in the purposes of adaptive
mechanisms are evident whereby the priorities and aspirations of Indigenous peoples
are not accounted for in adaptation work. The social institutional structures such as
land use planning or water allocation import a specific world view about effectiveness
judged on predominance and the way in which other processes, approaches and
ultimately ideas are excluded.
4.1.2 Native title and Indigenous relationships to land
Australia’s colonial inheritance cannot be separated from its history of the forced
appropriation of Indigenous land and waters. Indigenous relationships to land and
waters are based on traditional laws and customs that define social and ecological
interactions with landscapes, people and places. The centrality of place and
landscapes to Indigenous social and spiritual systems is underrepresented in the way
in which Indigenous authority, knowledge, priorities and worldviews are engaged with
in mainstream decision making processes. Further, these differing priorities have
traditionally been marginalised. Indigenous authority over land and waters has been
consistently denied through successive policies of forced removal, community and
social control and imposed forms of cultural suppression. With the recognition of these
past wrongs, some Indigenous relationships to country have been recognised in the
Australian context in various legal forms.
The legal recognition of Indigenous peoples’ territories has occurred through statutory
land rights and allocations in freehold and other tenures, Indigenous specific lands held
in trust and more recently in the form of native title recognition. These mechanisms
have sought to bring about some measure of recognition of the ongoing relationships
that Indigenous people have with country. This recognition process also involved the
translation and formalisation of cultural relationships to country under Australia’s
property law system. Amongst these tenures, native title is the most unique as it is the
recognition of enduring rights and interests, acknowledging the traditional laws and
Native title and climate change 37
customs of traditional owners as opposed to being a land grant (or something that is
‘given’).
Native title was first recognised in Australian law in the High Court decision in Mabo v
Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23 (3 June 1992) (the Mabo decision). This judgment
recognised the validity of Indigenous rights and interests in land and waters that
existed prior to colonisation and continue to operate. The decision laid out the
relationship between the common law and Indigenous rights and interests through the
concept of ‘native title’. It held that the common law of Australia recognises a form of
title, called native title, which, in turn, recognises and protects (at least to some extent)
the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples to their lands and waters under their own
traditional laws and customs. The decision also held that, while the ‘new’ sovereign
institutions could extinguish those rights (according to their law), the Indigenous
peoples’ rights must be taken into account in decisions regarding their lands and
waters. The decision was based on notions of equality and non-discrimination that posit
Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in land and waters on an equal footing with
western notions of property, whilst at the same time seeking not to force those rights
into a pre-conceived idea of western property (Strelein 2009).
Proof of native title is established by demonstrating that an Indigenous system of law
and custom currently exists, which is rooted in the system of law and custom that
existed at the time that sovereignty was asserted by the British Crown, and that by
those laws and customs the group has rights and interests in land, whether held
communally or by groups and individuals within the native title community. The law of
native title is not concerned with identifying all of the individual rights and interests in an
area of land that may exist under traditional laws and customs, but instead recognises
the right of the group to continue to make decisions about the allocation of rights and
interests and the use and management of land and waters according to their own
system of law and custom. Thus native title does not usurp the role of traditional
governance and societal structures but rather, implicitly or explicitly, recognises the
ongoing institutions of governance of Indigenous peoples.
The potential for the recognition of native title to disrupt the established systems of
property and governance in Australia was not lost on the Court. The High Court
weighed the need to overcome the injustice in Australian law caused by the failure to
recognise Indigenous peoples’ rights upon colonising Australia with the potential of
such recognition at this late stage in Australia’s settlement to ‘fracture the skeleton of
legal principle’ upon which Australian law is founded.
While in the end the Court held that native title did indeed form part of Australian law,
they included a significant compromise in holding that native title could be extinguished
by executive or legislative act. Moreover, the Court held that under common law such
extinguishment did not require consent or compensation. They did, however, hold that
the introduction of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) in 1975
provided a legislative protection to native title that would require all governments to
extend the same protections to native title as might apply to any other property rights.
As discussed above, the ability of the appropriately compensate native title holders can
never be realised as the physical basis of Indigenous cultural connections are lost.
38 Native title and climate change
The recognition of native title and the compromise around compensation and past
extinguishment left a great deal of uncertainty in relation to current rights to land and
future access. The Mabo decision was handed down twenty years ago but many
Australians will remember the animosity and outrage that followed the decision,
particularly from conservative state governments and industry, to the extent that the
then Western Australia government attempted to legislate to wipe out native title before
it could be recognised. In Western Australia, with no statutory land rights in place,
native title would cause a fundamental change to the way in which land was managed
in that state.
After the Mabo decision, the Keating Labor Government sought to overcome some of
the uncertainty by enacting the NTA, which has a number of purposes:
• First, to recognise and protect native title under a Commonwealth legal
framework, which would provide additional protection against state legislation;
• Second, to provide a framework for identifying where native title exists,
including how claims could be made, the establishment of regional
representative organisations to assist in making claims and processes for how
they would be determined by court and tribunal processes;
• Third, to validate any prior acts that may have become invalid by the operation
of the RDA, and provide a process for claiming compensation; and
• Finally, to establish a framework for future dealings in land (the ‘future act’
regime).
As part of identifying and creating a ‘register’ of where native title exists, the NTA
established a fixed regime for holding and managing native title which requires native
title groups to establish a corporate body. Once native title has been established, the
RNTBC are the official point of contact for any dealings in land that may affect native
title. Prior to a formal determination of native title by a court, those claiming native title
also have rights under the future act regime, and may have their own corporation
already established or more likely rely on the support of the regional representative
body (known as Native Title Representative Bodies or Native Title Service Providers).
The processes for establishing native title have become lengthy and onerous.
However, as noted in the introduction, more than 100 native title groups have been
successful in proving their claims over 20 per cent of the continent (National Native
Title Tribunal 2013). With over 440 claims still remaining to be resolved, there is no
doubt that native title groups are central to land management and land use planning in
Australia. The potential for native title holders to be agents of change is demonstrated
in the way that native title has changed the face of mining in Australia (Langton 2012).
However, despite twenty years of recognition of native title in Australia, state
government practices in relation to land management have been more difficult to shift.
4.1.3 The role of RNTBCs in climate change adaptation
As native title seeks to recognise Indigenous laws and customs and have them
reflected in the Australian legal and political system through RNTBCs, native title
holders are required to negotiate their cultural aspirations and priorities within the legal
Native title and climate change 39
form of a corporate entity. The involvement of RNTBCs in decision making is
necessarily linked to the extent to which the priories of native title holders are
represented in socio-institutional structures. Accordingly, concepts of ethics, knowledge
risk and culture need to be considered in broader political discussions as these
elements inform how Indigenous engagement with climate change adaptation is
understood and expressed based upon the unique and indentified relationships that
Indigenous people have with their land and waters. Indigenous experiences of climate
change reflect the diverse values underpinning the goals and objectives of adaptation
measures. These experiences are interpreted and informed by relationships to land
asserted through their knowledges and normative values, evidenced in social practices
that have formed the basis of their recognised native title rights and interests. These
unique relationships are a part of the intercultural context of Indigenous governance
and land management central to climate change adaptation action.
Climate change impacts upon not only ecosystems, species, landscapes, livelihoods
and health but also fundamental relationships that are interrelated with cultural
landscapes. Relationships with country are an essential element of Indigenous
peoples’ identity and culture. As noted by Adger et al (2009) ‘climate change will
continue to modify the relationship of societies with the environment’ (p, 349). Adger et
al (2011) note that ‘the interface of science with the social world view seems dominated
by the material paradigm’ ignoring ‘cultural losses and issues of identity’ (pp. 1 - 2). The
relationships that Indigenous people have to their traditional land and waters is placed
at risk especially where they are unable to negotiate their land and water management
priorities in existing decision making structures and processes.
Institutions and political processes have greater relevance than rights based arguments
as institutions and laws demarcate how Indigenous values and priorities are expressed
in climate change adaptation policy (Adger et al 2011). Socio-institutional structures are
roughly divided between formal and informal structures although there are always
interacting between them. Formal institutional structures are reflected in laws, policies
as well as the government instrumentalities that are created to implement them. Formal
structures are an important element in initiating measures that enable adaptation or
legitimate them (Matten 2004). Informal social structures are often referred to as social
capital; a term used to aggregate varied forms of social interconnections and
relationships that create opportunities for action or likewise cause inaction. From a
methodological perspective, social capital has been analysed based on social network
theory and how linkages are defined through relationships of trust, dependency or
other forms of bonds (Pelling 2003). One of the most important roles of government
institutions within remote communities is the creation of regulatory and policy
frameworks (and support for them) that ensure those communities have the ability to
assess their risks, opportunities and priorities and have the capacity to act on those
within a culturally appropriate decision making process (Productivity Commission
2012). How Indigenous groups are involved in the negotiation of these priorities has a
significant impact on whether or not they are effective participants in the process.
The formalisation or ‘institutionalisation’ of what were previously considered informal
social structures brings further questions to mind. As human interactions are
institutionalised it leads to the reproduction of a dominant scheme or process. As such
40 Native title and climate change
the question of what does and does not become institutionalised and how is it either
formally or informally recognised becomes exceptionally relevant particularly where
norms, values or priorities conflict or are inadequately represented. Importantly,
RNTBCs are often considered to be hybrid organisations or something existing at the
intersection of formal structures (such as corporate governance and financial
management) yet at the same time maintaining an element of informality (such as
retaining directorships based on kinship and relational ties rather than a democratic
election processes). At the same time increased formality and concomitant external
accountability also reduces the independence of RNTBCs in terms of their internal
accountability to their membership.
The enabling environment of dominant laws, policies and institutions means that
Indigenous peoples’ communal rights are realised through those organisations judged
by government as credibly representing the group (Rowse 2002). As such, Indigenous
people have appropriated and incorporated European forms of organising authority and
governance to achieve their own ends (Martin 2003). However, the evolving nature of
the ways in which these forms of governance are articulated, especially with the
retrospective recognition of native title, has meant that RNTBCs have become critical
to the management of native title lands. For example, democratic voting processes
within local community council elections impact upon relationships held among diverse
Indigenous peoples residing in the same community some of which have been forcibly
moved to areas that are not their traditional lands (Little 2000). This raises two issues:
how can Indigenous people work with emergent corporate structures to meet the
expectations of their communities and how can these same corporate structures
operate with respect to existing decision making structures.
Academic thinking on Indigenous decision making in Australia has been informed to
some extent by the findings of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic
Development which has conducted extensive comparative case study research with
Native American communities living on reservations. The research found that natural,
human and financial resources are not the key to development, rather that
development is a political problem, requiring sound institutional foundations, strategic
thinking, and informed action (Cornell & Kalt 2003). Janet Hunt and Diane Smith
describe Indigenous governance as a developmental issue, requiring holistic policies
recognising the social environment, local cultural ‘capital’, and a whole of community
framework (Hunt & Smith 2006, p. 68). Engaging with the unique ways in which
Indigenous priorities are expressed is central for developing planning processes that
enable greater Indigenous participation in managing the impacts of climatic changes on
their traditional lands.
The role of RNTBCs in any formal institutional structure is further complicated by the
continued failure to support the operation of RNTBCs or acknowledge their sphere of
authority. This intercultural context challenges the ability of RNTBCs to be effective
adaptation actors, because, while acting partly within the formal structures, they are
excluded by the existing institutional architecture (Pelling 2003).
The literature on Indigenous governance and the ways in which this is expressed in
formal institutions creates an inherent contradiction: Indigenous people are forced to
Native title and climate change 41
subscribe to foreign structures to legitimate their own. Cultural forms of governance are
rarely considered to be a form of social capital expressed through specific relationships
that form the inter-linkages between informal socio-institutional structures (Pelling
2003). Understanding how community forms of governance sit beneath or, more
accurately, between formal structures is crucial to appreciating the operation and
effectiveness of formal institutional structures in achieving climate change adaptation in
Bidyadanga and Kowanyama. The emergence of RNTBCs creates a further dimension
to Aboriginal community governance with the extension of previously unrecognised
Aboriginal laws and customs into a formal structure.
The literature therefore leaves us with two key bases of exclusion to test; the first is
Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and perspectives, and the second is of institutions and
authority. The underrepresentation and underutilisation of Indigenous peoples’
capabilities leaves unnecessary risk and exposure to climate change. Indigenous
peoples’ knowledge and capacity can be invaluable in land management, including
monitoring and evaluating changes in climate and ecosystems and determining
effective methods of adaptation and abatement.
Many of the critical tasks in climate change monitoring, abatement and adaptation are
consistent with aspirations for the enjoyment of native title once recognised, both in
relation to caring for country and community development. New literature on the role of
RNTBCs as an emerging governance sector necessitates a closer look at the ways in
which vulnerability is caused or addressed (Cameron 2012). In particular, the
vulnerability of Indigenous communities needs to be considered together with the
strengths that Indigenous people also bring to climate change adaptation and the
challenges and barriers that Indigenous people face in drawing on their strengths. The
focus of our current research, Indigenous native title communities, requires an
intercultural understanding that perceives the ways in which measures of vulnerability
and adaptation exclude Indigenous experiences, priorities and perspectives (Green,
Jackson & Morrison 2009).
4.1.4 Mainstreamed and rights based approaches to adaptation
Community based adaptation involves established areas of adaptive action including
land and water management, community development, town or land use planning and
the sustainability of current and future livelihoods. In Australia, there are already
existing policy contexts in which climate change adaptation occurs including water
management, local and regional economic development, environmental management
and biodiversity protection, health and wellbeing, energy reform and emergency and
disaster management (Dovers 2009; Moser & Ekstrom 2010). As noted by Dovers
(2009) ‘a “normalisation” of considerations of climate change adaptation is attractive,
connecting imperatives of future adaptation to more familiar sets of issues, and to
existing decision making and policy processes in areas like conservation planning,
emergency management, regional development programs, and strategic planning’ (pg
5). The aggregation of these diverse areas creates an entry point to assessing the
impact of socio-institutional structures on the ability of native title holders to make
effective decisions about climate change adaptation (Dovers 2009).
42 Native title and climate change
AIATSIS’s research with RNTBCs has revealed that despite the resource constraints,
there are a breadth of aspirations held by native title groups to be involved in decision-
making in relation to their country and their people (Bauman & Tran 2007). While
priorities may differ between groups, there are core aspirations that are common to
most and include: preservation of cultural heritage, language and traditional
knowledge, infrastructure development, including housing, land and natural resource
management and conservation, and development of economic activity. Many of these
aspirations are formulated in the context of ‘providing a future for our kids’ and
‘respecting our ancestors’. The challenges of climate change add a further dimension
and challenge to their existing work. This intergenerational focus and holistic or
integrated nature of the vision makes native title an important site to investigate the
potential enabling and disabling aspects of these, at once emerging and ancient,
governance structures in climate change adaptation.
This research project has explored the question of the decision making on an
organisational level, the inherent challenges created by the processes in which RNTBC
engage in land and water management, stem largely from the historical processes that
have contributed to the existing vulnerabilities in each community. Both traditional
owners groups have been marginalised from key decisions made about the
management, use and allocation of land and resources in their country. The
governance of adaptation decisions within the unique context of remote Indigenous
communities means that governance on all scales is localised within the communities
although there are overlapping state and federal boundaries to the decision making
process.
Understanding how Indigenous native title holders, and the communities with which
they interact and engage in decision making over climate change requires an
understanding of, not only, the status quo of relationships between Indigenous people
and the socio-institutional structures that recognise their rights and interests, but also,
the extent to which these relationships are (re)negotiated. It is this negotiated
institutional space that provides the framework for understanding and managing
climate change adaptation. The contextual history of each community demands
consideration of concepts of justice not only in rights recognised but processes
employed to renegotiate priorities within the context of each community case study.
There have been studies related to the assessment and incorporation of varied
community priorities in shared decision making contexts (Adger et al. 2003); how these
priorities are represented in pre-existing structures (Pelling 2003); as well as the
development of processes of understanding how uncertainty is ‘dealt with’ especially in
the form of risk management (Leitch & Robinson 2012). However in the context of
RNTBCs, their important governance functions are actively removed or unaccounted
for in such processes, denying native title holders with a ‘seat at the table’ in the
negotiation and outcomes of such processes.
Veland et al (2013) argue that understanding Indigenous involvement in climate
change requires understanding of the ways in which colonial structures continue to
suppress Indigenous forms of governance through disabling opportunities for the
negotiation of Indigenous and non-indigenous forms of governance. This ‘secondary
disaster’ refers to the impact of colonisation in remote communities. Climate change
Native title and climate change 43
hazards in this context can distract from the ‘disaster of colonisation’ which are
‘perpetuated in response not to sudden but slow disasters that are created and
perpetuated through neglect’ (Veland et al. 2013, p. 323). Understanding the role of
native title holders in climate change adaptation requires addressing the impact of
colonisation on Indigenous socio-institutional structures (Veland et al. 2013).
The exclusion of Indigenous priories and processes from socio-institutional structures
further aligns with framings of climate change adaptation based on concepts of human
rights and justice (Adger, W. N. et al. 2011). Justice perspectives have been presented
as an alternative where ‘instrumental means of assessing climate change fail to
account for place, identity and loss’ (Adger, W. N. et al. 2011, p. 17). The recognition of
native title rights and interests represents an important starting point for asserting
Indigenous decision making authority. Similarly, international forums and law have
enabled the creation of instruments such as the Universal Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). However, there are serious practical limitations to the
extent to which these concepts are expressed in national contexts. Adger et al (2011)
suggest that ‘cultures can never be compensated satisfactorily for the loss of their
physical bases’ (p. 17). This has also been reiterated in the native title context,
whereby without appropriate consent and planning in the first instance; the ability to
revisit or reverse the actions of the past (through detrimental land and water planning)
is virtually impossible. As noted by Adger et al. (2011), ‘the important issues, therefore,
are institutions and political processes rather than the assertion of rights’ as inevitably,
‘laws create the space and mechanisms by which values in identity and sense of place
can be incorporated in the calculus of climate change’ (Adger, W. N. et al. 2011, p. 20).
Assessing adaptation in the Indigenous context requires engagement with the
processes that inform the creation of policies, laws and processes and identifying
where barriers can be conceptually and physically challenged. This engagement is the
measure of whether rights based approaches are actually realised.
Gaps in the climate change adaptation literature do not enable native title holders to
have recourse to conceptual models that account for their unique relationships to land
and waters in adaptation decision making (Adger et al 2011). The unique relationships
that Indigenous people have to their lands and waters reflect undervalued symbolic and
cultural values that do not form a part of the standard ‘calculus’ of policy making
(Adger, W. N. et al. 2011, p. 2). The policy challenge of creating an appropriate space
for Indigenous involvement in climate change decision making is dependent on how
competing and divergent values can be reconciled. What should be emphasised in the
Indigenous context is the need to account for historical marginalisation, the historical
processes championing the loss of connection between Indigenous people and places
and how the new context of native title has sought to restore these relationships. A
broader understanding of climate change adaptation, based on ethics, culture and
value negotiation, links to the narrative of native title holders and their need to
negotiate intercultural governance within a constrained policy and institutional space
that has formerly sought to exclude Indigenous connections to land and waters in its
design and operation.
44 Native title and climate change
4.1.5 Planning challenges
Climate change can be appropriately described as, ’perhaps the largest planning
challenge humanity has ever faced‘ (Wheeler 2010, p. 260). Planning occurs through
three methods: strategic planning which identifies and describes the issue; statutory
planning which creates the structures for practice; and, interpretation and
implementation of the strategies and structures and consequent funding and resources
to action the outcomes of the planning process. The strategic plan creates a vision of
the future, and then reinterprets and redefines the priorities of the present so as to
meet that future (Kornberger 2012, p. 85). This is where priorities are evaluated and
included in the plan, or not, and the direction of the response is set. Statutory planning
regulates land and water use and development in line with the strategic plan. Statutory
planning includes legislation, regulations, codes and guides. However, this neat linear
relationship between strategy, plan and implementation is in practice an iterative
process, and an ongoing negotiation.
The decision making context for climate change adaptation has centred on urban
development as opposed to broader planning (articulated in land use and water
management, emergency management and hazard mitigation) on a large scale
relevant to the often large areas of native title land holdings. With the emergent and
growing recognition of native title rights and interests over significant areas of land and
waters, native title holders have a central role in addressing concerns raised by climate
change involving land use planning within community and township areas as well as
over their vast surrounding native title lands.
As the managers of native title rights and interested in native title determination areas,
the role of native title holders encompasses infrastructure, housing, and zoning as well
as environmental planning related to land and water use, the management of sensitive
coastal, wetland and inland fresh water springs, weeds and feral animals and fire
regimes. Native title holders are formally engaged in these processes to varying
degrees through formal consultations in accordance with the NTA. Broad land and
water planning on ‘non-township’ lands is generally interrelated with large scale future
developments, namely mining, commercial water extraction, pastoral industries and
conservation work. Addressing Indigenous priorities in the development of these
regimes necessarily involves engaging with the unique identities, cosmologies and
ideologies that Indigenous people bring to land and water management and planning
(Jackson 1997a).
Effective decision making is articulated in appropriate land use and water planning
practices that promote capacity to manage and respond to the risks and challenges
created by climate change. It has been acknowledged by Winer, Robertson and
Murphy that ‘the lack of development of Aboriginal land use and planning schemes has
been viewed as a significant barrier to Indigenous participation in environmental and
natural resource management’ despite the large areas of land (Winer, Robertson &
Murphy 2012). More generally, the imperative of climate change adaptation planning
requires engagement with the laws, policies and processes existing on the legislative,
policy and funding level within state and local governments. These socio-institutional
governance structures that underpin planning are fundamentally about power,
Native title and climate change 45
jurisdiction, control and choice, and include people, relationships and processes, as
well as formal structures and corporate technicalities (Hunt & Smith 2006; Jackson
1997b).
Given the nature of native title holder’s relationships with country and the legal
recognition of their connection to their traditional lands and waters, it should be
apparent that native title holders are a key player in decision making. However, the
indeterminate nature of how this role is exercised is based on the question of whether
there is a legal obligation on planning agencies to respond to the priorities of native title
holders in the development of decision making instruments including town planning or
the formation of legislation. The NTA is clear – any act affecting native title must go
through the future act process. This may include merely notifying the native title group
of the proposed act if it is deemed to have a low impact on native title, or for more
intrusive acts, such as mining or construction, native title groups may have the right to
negotiate over the terms of the act. Native title holders have no right to veto an act
authorised by a government, but the right to negotiate over access conditions has
brought native title groups squarely into the formal legal framework for decision-making
over land use. The recognition of native title rights also arguably creates legitimacy
around broader claims by Indigenous peoples to be involved in decision-making in
relation to their traditional country.
This ‘future act’ regime under the NTA is a central element of any proposed planning
and development in Australia. The NTA makes it illegal to undertake any activity that
may affect native title without complying with the future act provisions. The future act
regime establishes a series of tests for assessing the impact of specific actions on
native title rights and interests and the process that needs to be taken. Future acts are
defined as an act that ‘affects native title’ under section 233(1) of the NTA. For
example:
• The making, amendment or repeal of any legislation, such as:
o statutory based planning schemes and statutory regional and local
plans,
o amended water management legislation and statutory water plans,
• The creation, variation, extension, renewal or extinguishment of any legal or
equitable right,
o such as changed zoning laws, enabling mining development (s
24NA) or extensive water extraction (s 24HA), and
o changed land tenures for conservation or development (s 24JA).
Under section 227 of the NTA, an act ‘affects’ native title if it ‘extinguishes the native
title rights and interests or if it is wholly or partly inconsistent with their continued
existence, enjoyment or exercise’. The nature of the future act affects how it can validly
occur and the required measures under the NTA to ensure its protection. There are
specific provisions in place for water planning under section 24HA whereas land use
planning has varied implications that can fall into a number of stated ‘categories’. On
the most significant level, statutory planning schemes meet the definition of a future
act, as statutory plans are considered to be legislative instruments, yet there are no
46 Native title and climate change
specific measures in place as to how native title should be dealt with under these
circumstances.
Where planning does not result in a statutory instrument, the legal impact of planning
on the native title rights and interests is less clear. Some planning agencies may argue
that the development of a plan itself has no impact on native title and does not trigger
the future act process, as compared with a specific act such as widening a road or
building a house. This argument is based on the native title principle from the decision
of Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53 (7 October 1999) that the exercise of native title
rights and interests can be regulated without being extinguished. In addition, according
to Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) (Ward) native title is not
extinguished by a reservation or dedication of land for a purpose and is only
extinguished by the actual use of the land for the purpose. For example, the dedication
or reservation of land for a road does not of itself extinguish native title, but once the
road is built native title is affected. However, planning decisions such as zoning clearly
seek to make long term decisions about land use that conflict with the right of exclusive
possession native title holders who have the right to make decisions about the use of
that land. Even where native title is not held exclusively, more specific rights such as
the right to take resources for personal and cultural use may be impacted and impeded
by planning restrictions on access or use or a change in use zoning.6 In the result we
must assume that if a planning document creates any legally binding requirements,
such as land use zoning, then this should trigger the future act process. The long term
implications of planning processes indicate that even where there are no specific
legislative provisions that are triggered, the potential impacts on recognised and
unrecognised native title rights and interests would be significant enough to warrant a
precautionary approach.
Uncertainty about the interaction between native title and other rights and interests has
been cited as a key driver of a lack of engagement with native title parties (Margerum,
Hart & Lampert 2003). Overly complex legal questions and protracted dealings with
native title holders have created the basis for ignoring the legally recognised rights and
interests of native title holding groups in land and water use planning, central to native
title adaptation. A precautionary approach would suggest erring on the side of
consultation, as some acts, if carried out without going through the future process can
be invalid, for example the creation of national parks in the Northern Territory were held
to be invalid in Ward. Broader legal decisions on the role of planning authorities
indicates that climate change adaptation litigation could be interpreted broadly to
encompass principles of ecologically sustainable development and a more holistic
approach to understanding impacts (Peel & Godden 2008-2009). It should also be
noted that any impact on native title is compensable by relevant state government
departments who will also need to consider the implications of planning regimes on
6 The NTA provides some relief to native title holders, under section 211, by exempting
personal, communal and cultural use from any licensing regime unless for public health and
safety or conservation concerns.
Native title and climate change 47
recognised rights and interests. Given the lack of clarity of the interaction between
native title rights and interests and planning regimes, in addition to the costs involved in
litigated claims to clarify extant legal issues with respect to the extent to which native
title would be impacted upon, it is incumbent upon state planners to cater for the
unique development priorities of traditional owners in the first instance.
4.1.6 Inherent contradictions of scales and actors
The lengthy and fraught process of meeting the legal requirements of proving native
title has detracted focus away from the post determination environment. Numerous
reviews have pointed to the risks of not providing adequate resources to RNTBCs to
carry out their functions effectively (Attorney-General’s Department Steering
Committee (AGDSC) 2006, Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Land Fund 2001). However dedicated resources for these
corporations remain unforthcoming. Concomitantly, there are significant policy gaps at
both state and federal levels. This failure of engagement is part of the two-decade
standoff between the Federal government, and the States and Territories, as to who is
responsible for funding the holding and managing of native title rights and interests.
The Federal government established the native title system through the Native Title Act
1993 (Cth), however, as a land issue, responsibility for engaging with native title falls to
the States and local authorities. A handful of native title have been negotiated as
packages that include resources for the RNTBCs, while a few others have negotiated
compensation packages or partnerships over future acts but most RNTBCs remain
reliant on a small pool of funds available each year from the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) for limited purposes.
To access and compete for resources, RNTBCs are required to engage with existing
governance structures. For many native title groups, there are other local governing
structures that also hold responsibilities or interests in their lands. Forms of local
government have been established, based on democratic elections, for Indigenous and
non-Indigenous communities and townships. Other forms of Indigenous tenure also co-
exist with native title, such as statutory land rights tenures and Indigenous owned
tenures such as pastoral leases. While these tenures and governance structures are
consistent with the continued enjoyment of native title, they can also benefit different
constituencies, such as residential populations that are not based on cultural
connections to land holdings. These formal structures of local governance now
compete with RNTBCs for decision making authority expressed in resources, legal
interests and competing legislative responsibilities. Even with formal recognition, the
current architecture of the native title system does not enable the effective negotiation
of the interests of RNTBCs.
With respect to formal planning process, native title has been slow to be included
(Wensing 2007, 2011). State planners hold comprehensive roles in defining priorities
for communities, prescribing rules for these priorities, and upholding the regulatory
framework. Local and state governments are linked to climate change adaptation
through their central role in either creating or enabling planning legislation (Peel &
Godden 2008-2009). Especially within the urban context, it has been recognised that
appropriate land use and water planning is central to ensuring that decisions are made
48 Native title and climate change
to adapt effectively to climatic changes through, for example, the implementation of
higher environmental standards, creating measures for greater water and energy
efficiency, effecting changes to urban and building practices are ensuring that
developments occur in both an appropriate manner and in the right areas. However,
planning is broader than traditional town planning implicating policy makers in the
future impacts of the policies and practices that are introduced on the native title lands
of Abm Elgoring Ambung and the KTLA. Decision making in these areas impact on
native title holder as they determine how Indigenous forms of governance are
strengthened, prioritised or ignored, target state and federal institutions with
responsibilities and resources to manage land and water, target climate change risks
and identify areas that are prioritised (Ford et al. 2010).
As a consequence of later legal recognition, native title is viewed as a “latecomer” to
the planning process. Native title is often presented as an initiative of the High Court
when native title is the legal recognition of pre-existing rights and interest, that is,
something that is already in existence. The native title legal regime brings Indigenous
rights and interests formally into the property law regime. There has also been a
problematic relationship with Federalism.
Where the native title regime is deficient, it is open to state planners to adopt their own
equivalent of the future acts process (although this has not occurred to date in any
jurisdiction in Australia) or work with Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) created
under the NTA (Sumner & Wright 2009). The ILUA framework of the NTA establishes
an agreement process for managing interactions between native title and non-native
title rights and interests. In a review of the current types of agreements that are
negotiated about 30 per cent represented environmental management or cultural
heritage (Native Title Research Unit 2008). Significantly, ILUAs have broad scope to
address use and management concerns where planning impinges on native title rights
and interests. ILUAs therefore are an opportunity for climate change planning. The
importance of partnerships that can be developed and sustained by ILUAs, between
key actors in planning for climate change adaptation, a centre finding arising out of the
case studies.
Significantly, while agreement making clarifies contemporary relationships, the impact
of many historical processes are beyond the scope of the agreement. Historical and
contemporary state and federal policies have played a significant role in the function
and operation of RNTBCs and their interrelationships with other organisations such as
Aboriginal Community or Shire Councils. The context of community governance within
remote Indigenous communities places an additional responsibility on Indigenous
forms of governance articulated through community councils and shire councils. As
such, community based planning in and of itself, especially where it is based upon
institutional structures that have failed to appreciate diverse Indigenous interests in
land and resource use, can contribute to the ‘tyranny of localism’ (Lane, M. B. &
Corbett 2005). That is, even where planners and their approaches aim to be inclusive,
intervening layers of legislation, and the governance authority that flows from them
creates further challenges for the planning process (Margerum, Hart & Lampert 2003).
These intervening structures are clearly evident in the way in which Aboriginal
community/shire councils overlap with RNTBC responsibilities, especially where the
Native title and climate change 49
‘colonial culture’ of planning law has excluded native title which is not based on
recognisable forms of democratic governance (Porter 2006). The recognition of
Indigenous forms of governance and authority through native title and the creation of
RNTBCs challenges the marginalising effects of decision making over land and water
use (O'Brien, Hayward & Berkes 2009; Porter 2010). Including RNTBCs within local
governance and decision making is an important element of ensuring that planning
laws and processes appropriately consider the significant role of native title holders in
climate change adaptation.
Governance is central to these processes with imposed modes of validation (such as
financial reporting, cultural legitimacy and decision making authority) influencing the
ways in which Indigenous priorities are represented in socio-institutional structures.
More importantly, the broader history of colonial marginalisation is a central element in
engaging with the ability of Indigenous groups to be involved in decision making
processes and structures linked to the management of adaptation activities. This
marginalisation has been experienced within remote Indigenous communities in the
establishment of religious and state based control over community affairs up until the
1960s – 1970s. Policies to facilitate greater self determination have introduced forms of
community governance based on democratic voting processes through Aboriginal
community and shire councils, although as discussed elsewhere in this report, the
presence of RNTBCs has sparked a renegotiation of these roles
Climate change science can reinforce existing discriminatory structures, if they are
used to overlook historical practices and processes of government and policy that have
contributed to the current vulnerabilities experienced by remote Indigenous
communities (Cameron 2012; O'Brien, Hayward & Berkes 2009; Veland et al. 2013).
Engaging with the political origins of framings of Indigenous peoples’ experiences of
climate change and their ability to drive adaptation activities necessitates unpacking
the broader colonial and political context in which climate change occurs (Cameron
2012). As such assessing the adaptive capacity of the two case study areas involves
not only community capabilities but the historical and social processes occurring at
multiple levels and the way in which values are negotiated through existing institutions
and structures.
4.2 Case study 1: Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC,
Bidyadanga
4.2.1 Native title in the Kimberley
Our first case study is in the Kimberley, a large region in Northwest Australia home to
diverse traditional owners who speak about 27 different languages, and who can be
grouped into five cultural blocs (Griffiths & Kinnane 2011, p. 35). Their country includes
coastline and islands, a central plateau with escarpments, inland ranges, large river
systems, semi-desert country, and the towns of Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls
Creek, and Kununurra (Sullivan 1999, pp. 286-318, 287-88). Generally, the Kimberley
administrative region can be described as the northern part of Western Australia, north
of Eighty Mile Beach and ending abruptly at the Northern Territory border, although the
Aboriginal cultural blocs extend somewhat south and east of these borders. The
50 Native title and climate change
seasons are marked by tropical wet and dry seasons, which provide much momentum
to ecological, social and cultural life. The Kimberley is famous for natural and cultural
values, is an international tourism destination, and in 2011 was added to Australia’s
Natural Heritage List.7 There is substantial industrial and agricultural development,
including: the Ord Irrigation scheme, the Argyle Diamond Mine, and the proposed gas
processing facility at Walmadan (James Price Point) north of Broome. Aboriginal
people constitute about half of the Kimberley population, and outside of the main towns
Aboriginal people can form up to 70 per cent or even 100 per cent of the resident
population in a town or community.
Kimberley traditional owners have a long history of fighting for the recognition of their
land, law and culture, including resisting the brutal experience of colonisation (Sullivan
1999, pp. 290-5). More recently this activity has led to the formation of four peak
organisations: the KLC (established in 1978), the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and
Cultural Centre (established in 1984), the Kimberley Language Resource Centre
(established in 1984), and the Kimberley Aboriginal Pastoralists Incorporated
(established in 1995). With the advent of native title, the KLC became the native title
representative body (NTRB) for the Kimberley. Native title applications in the Kimberley
are generally established around a language group identity, and the successful claim
determinations are usually known by language names (Sullivan 1999). In 2007 about
30 per cent of the Kimberley was recognised as native title land; in 2012 this figure is
65 per cent, with numerous native title applications still awaiting determination
(National Native Title Tribunal 2012). In addition to native title, Aboriginal people have
other formally recognized land interests, including 31 of the region’s 98 pastoral leases,
compromising 30 per cent of Kimberley pastoral land. In 2007, Aboriginal reserved
lands totalled more than 5 million hectares.
7 For a discussion on tourism, native title and authentic Indigenous culture in the Kimberley see
Lane, R & Waitt, G 2001, 'Authenticity in tourism and native title: Place, time and spatial politics
in the East Kimberley ', Social and Cultural Geography, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 381-405.
Native title and climate change 51
Figure 6: Kimberley regional native title map (Reproduced with the kind
permission of the National Native Title Tribunal)
4.2.2 Karajarri native title
Karajarri country is both desert and saltwater country. It is located on the West
Kimberley coast, and extends 200 kilometres inland into the Great Sandy Desert.
There are three Karajarri dialects that accord with geographic areas: Najanaja or
Murrkurt (coastal); Nawurtu (eastern hinterland); and Nangu (central) (Bagshaw
2003).The coastal strip includes numerous fresh water springs, mangroves and
beaches. In the wet season, this is an area of intense cyclonic activity. Pastoral leases
52 Native title and climate change
line the coast, including Karajarri’s own pastoral station Frazier Downs. The coastal
strip is also where the large Aboriginal community of Bidyadanga is located.8 Formerly
a ration depot (1930s), and Catholic Pallottine mission (1950s-1979), Bidyadanga is
now managed by the Bidyadanga Community Council, which is established under the
Aboriginal Communities Act 1979 (WA) designed for Aboriginal people to formally
manage communities that have a majority of Aboriginal people as residents.
Extensive family and community relations belie simplistic interpretations of a one
people-one country match. Karajarri have close cultural and social connections to
Yawuru to the north, Nyikina and Mangala to the east and Nyungamarta to the south.
Significantly, Karajarri are a minority within the diverse majority Aboriginal community
in Bidyadanga. This reflects the history of Bidyadanga as a place where desert groups
have moved to, willingly or unwillingly, in part to take advantage of local services, in
part in response to the destruction of hunting grounds, massacres, and drought
(McKelson 2007, p. 182). The La Grange Mission was established in 1955 in response
to these movements (Edgar 2011). As the new groups moved in, they would wait to be
welcomed to country by Karajarri. This included according walanyu (strangers)
permission to hunt and fish, and identifying law grounds for their own ceremonial
purposes (Edgar 2011). With the withdrawal of the Catholic church from the
administrative management of the La Grange, , the Bidyadanga community was
formed in 1979 by five groups – Karajarri, Nyangumarta, Mangala, Juwaliny and
Yulparija. Bidyadanga is approximately 180 kilometres south of Broome and has a
population of approximately 750 – 800 people (Bidyadanga Community Council 2013).
Diverse community relations are also very much influenced by Catholic traditions and
more recent fundamentalist Christian values that are now part of the beliefs and
practices of many Bidyadanga community members (Edgar 2011).
Karajarri native title has been recognised in three separate determinations: Nangkiriny
v Western Australia (2002) 117 FCR 6; Nangkiriny v Western Australia [2004] FCA
1156; and Hunter v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA 690. In 2002, exclusive
possession native title was recognised on Crown radical title lands, and in 2004 non-
exclusive possession native title was recognised on other land tenures. The 2011
determination Hunter v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA 690, recognises
exclusive and non-exclusive native title to 2,000 square kilometres of coastal country
shared with Nyangumarta, their southern neighbours. This comprises mainly of Anna
Plains pastoral station and parts of 80 Mile Beach, and is held jointly by the two native
title groups. Collectively, Karajarri have native title responsibilities to more than 33,000
square kilometres.
Where Karajarri native title is recognised as exclusive native title to ‘possess, occupy,
use and enjoy’ this land ‘to the exclusion of all others’, Karajarri continue to live on the
8 An ‘Aboriginal community’ is a community or association wholly or principally composed of
persons who are of Aboriginal descent, as defined by the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979
(WA) section 3.
Native title and climate change 53
land, make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the land, hunt, fish and gather,
conduct ceremonies, protect important places, control others’ access to the land and
control activities conducted by others on the land. For example, Karajarri have
established or formalised existing outstations, also called ‘blocks’, as permanent
residences. Karajarri have also placed interpretative signs up at popular tourist spots,
to provide information about country and regulate previously unregulated tourist activity
(Weir 2011, p. 13). These include ‘no access’ signs for prohibited areas. Some of this
work is undertaken by the Karajarri rangers, who report to the Karajarri Elders and the
KTLA Board.
Figure 7: Map of Karajarri native title lands (Reproduced with the kind
permission of the National Native Title Tribunal)
Where non-exclusive native title is recognised, Karajarri must manage their rights and
interests with respect to others who also have land interests, and vice versa. Most of
the non-exclusive possession native title concerns the pastoral lease holders for
Shamrock, Nita Downs and Anna Plains station, as well as the De Grey Stock Route
(Nangkiriny v Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156, [2] and [6]).Under section 104 of the
Lands Administration Act 1994 (WA), Aboriginal people have access to pastoral leases
to seek ‘sustenance in their traditional manner’; native title recognition explicitly
identifies specific people and specific pastoral leases(Western Australian Government
2003, p. 11). Under section 44H of the NTA, if there is a conflict, the rights under the
pastoral lease prevail over the native title interests, to the extent of any inconsistency
and without extinguishing native title. All pastoral leases in WA expire on 30 June 2015
and the KTLA can attempt to recover non-exclusive native title lands, if pastoral leases
are not renewed or have their tenure changed, such as for example, conversion into
54 Native title and climate change
the conservation estate.9 This is a potential option with the Western Australian
government’s attempts to achieve conservation aims through its vast land holdings.
Bidyadanga is established on Aboriginal Land Trust (ALT) land, a type of land tenure
for the benefit of Aboriginal people, and is thus recognised as exclusive possession
native title land. The ALT has leased this land to the Bidyadanga Community Council
for a period of 99 years, commencing from 22 October 1998.10This situation is
complicated by parts of the community not being physically located within the
community lease area.11In WA ALT land includes parcels of land throughout WA such
as old missions, reserves and Aboriginal councils. Recommendations to divest all ALT
land to Aboriginal people have been made since 1996 (Aboriginal Lands Trust Review
Team 1996), yet at that time native title was not recognised as a significant factor in
determining how land would be divested. With the changing landscape that now
includes a growing number of native title holders that hold native title over ALT lands,
ALT is intended to be handed back to these groups.
Incorporated entities have developed alongside this activity. In addition to the
Bidyadanga Community Council, Karajarri are involved as a group in three
incorporated bodies – the KTLA (registered 1998), the Karrajarri Cattle Aboriginal
Corporation (registered 2008), and for the shared country the Nyangumarta Karajarri
Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (NKAC) (registered 2012). The KTLA operates with a
Board of Directors, and any decisions about land are referred to the Elders. Many of
the directors of the KTLA are also directors on the NKAC, whose board has equal
representation from Karajarri and Nyangumarta native title holders. As is the common
experience of RNTBCs, the KTLA and NKAC receive no establishment or operational
funding, and are advised to apply for limited government grant funds. There is a close
relationship between the KTLA and the Karajarri Cattle Aboriginal Corporation, as the
KTLA holds the lease to Frazier Downs (Weir 2011). The Karajarri Cattle Aboriginal
Corporation rule book has as its first objective, ‘To run the pastoral business of Frazier
Downs Pastoral Lease on behalf of and answerable to the Karajarri Traditional Lands
9 The Western Australian Government is currently undergoing a rangelands reform program to
create new land tenures and facilitate the use of pastoral lands for conversation proposes:
Government of Western Australia Department of Regional Development and Lands,
'Rangelands Tenure Options' (Discussion paper April 2011)
<http://www.rdl.wa.gov.au/publications/Documents/RangelandsTenureOptionsDiscussionPaper.
pdf>.
10 The Bidyadanga community is built on Reserve 38399 for which the Management Order is
vested in the Aboriginal Lands Trust (ALT) (with the power to lease) in accordance with the
Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) for the dedicated purpose of ‘use and benefit of Aboriginal
inhabitants’. Personal communication from Bruce Gorring to Jessica Weir, 2 June 2009.
11Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), Bidyadanga Community layout plan no.2,
draft for comment and review, Western Australian Government, July 2007, p. 7. It is worth
noting that the full extent of the community development currently exceeds the area of Reserve
38399. The community bylaws area is not proclaimed and therefore, currently irrelevant.
Native title and climate change 55
Association’ (Karajarri Cattle Aboriginal Corporation, p. 1). Currently cattle from
neighbouring pastoral stations are agisted on Frazier Downs.
Contestations about native title extend in multiple directions and on multiple scales,
within the intercultural relationships with the broader society, and the many layers and
dimensions of government. For many stakeholders, the recognition of native title
challenges perceptions of what was previously considered public, or even privately
held land, rather than land owned or shared with Karajarri traditional owners. This is
evident in activity around Port Smith caravan park, a lease that is excised from and
surrounded by Karajarri native title. There is an unsealed road that leads from the
Great Northern Highway to the boat ramp and mangroves at Port Smith. Where that
road travels adjacent to the caravan lease, chains and other obstructions have been
placed to force drivers into the caravan park before they get to the boat ramp. This
activity is accompanied by a ‘private road’ sign. While it is no doubt a private road, it is
in fact a Karajarri private road, located on the pastoral lease, that the caravan park
leaseholder has no right to exert control over.
Figure 8: Karajarri Traditional Lands Association (Aboriginal Corporation)
RNTBC Deputy Chair Joe Edgar next to private road signs at Port Smith Caravan
Park. (Image: Jessica Weir)
However, native title processes also have the capacity to build relationships and
partnerships over land. Karajarri have been party to three ILUAs. The two most recent
ILUAs were registered a couple of months after the 2012 shared country determination:
the Nyangumarta Karajarri and Mandora Station Indigenous Land Use Agreement
(ILUA) and the Nyangumarta Karajarri and Anna Plains Station (ILUA). These ILUAs
set out the terms of the relationships held between the RNTBCs and the pastoral
56 Native title and climate change
stations. The other ILUA, the Bidyadanga Initial Works ILUA, which was agreed to in
July 2011, is the outcome of a long and fraught negotiation between the KTLA, the
Bidyadanga Community Council, and the State of Western Australia to address the
need for adequate and appropriate housing in the community (Edgar 2011; Weir 2011).
This ILUA is the first part of two sequential ILUAs for Bidyadanga, a second more
comprehensive agreement is currently under negotiation, and is discussed further
below under the heading ‘Government ILUA’.
Figure 9: Bidyadanga Aboriginal Community La Grange Inc (Bidyadanga
Community Council) offices, Bidyadanga (Image: Jessica Weir).
The process that led to the Bidyadanga Initial Works ILUA illustrates the challenges
faced by RNTBCs seeking to have native title included in land use planning. The
Bidyadanga Initial Works ILUA was negotiated to support the building of local
infrastructure needs, including housing, sewerage facilities, a tip and a cyclone shelter
that will also be a basketball court (Edgar 2011; Weir 2011). The KTLA have a formal
role in negotiating the terms of such future acts, such as advising on their location, and
prior to the Initial Works ILUA they were required to undertake this role on an as needs
basis without funding support for the management of such activities. For Karajarri, the
flow on effects of an inadequately administered RNTBC have included: placing undue
pressure upon the personal capacity and commitment of KTLA members; draining
resources and energy from other projects and activities which have governance
capacity within the native title group; and causing tension in the local community (Weir
2011, p. 30). Indeed, the ILUA provided a forum to address the breakdown of relations
between Karajarri and the Bidyadanga Community Council, which occurred
subsequent to the recognition of Karajarri native title rights and interests (Edgar 2011;
Weir 2011). Karajarri were frustrated in undertaking their native title responsibilities for
other parties such as the Bidyadanga Community Council, as well as undertaking their
own native title priorities. Also, distrust and misunderstanding in Bidyadanga grew
Native title and climate change 57
around the implications of native title on activities such as fishing, as well as the
changing governance roles within the Bidyadanga community. Negotiations for the
Initial Works ILUA began in 2007, agreement between the parties was reached in
2010, and the ILUA was formally signed in 2011. The ILUA established arrangements
for the building of the community infrastructure, as well as infrastructure support to
outfit a KTLA office in Bidyadanga although no funding for staff.
4.2.3 Climate change issues for Karajarri
For the Karajarri traditional owners, the land and animals are connected to people, who
have cultural knowledge about the landscape and cultural relationships with animals
and the Pukarrikarra, dreaming place on Karajarri Country. Climate change presents a
very real physical and cultural threat to the Karajarri traditional owners.
According to the Bureau of Meteorology (2013), maximum temperatures for Western
Australia over the last nine years remain well above average. By 2030 the annual
average temperatures in Western Australia are likely to increase by 1 degree (CSIRO-
BOM 2012). At the same time, changing rainfall patterns can potentially impact on the
Kimberley, especially the recharge rates of the Canning Basin, the second largest
sedimentary basin in Australia that sits beneath Karajarri country. It is likely that the
region will experience more severe weather events including more cyclones and
flooding while at the time having longer periods of ‘dry’ days (CSIRO- BOM 2012). The
impacts of climate change on Karajarri County and culture will need to be a part of the
adaptation work of the KTLA.
Water is a central element of Karajarri cultural and spiritual life. You know, in our
Dreamtime they’re [jilas] all connected ... in our Dreaming stories which is the
foundation of our native title, ... our connection to those water holes and the
Dreaming stories attached to them are very important. (J Edgar, 2012, pers.
comm. 26 Nov 2012)
Karajarri describe these waters as ‘living’ (Yu 1999), thereby expressing the central
role of the water in sustaining life in the desert, as well as sustaining Karajarri cultural
and economic activities. The freshwater sources support localised ecosystems, plants
and animals, and are a focal point for Karajarri hunting and camping trips, as well as
more permanent outstations. The waters of the La Grange Basin also provide for the
community of Bidyadanga, pastoral stations, and limited horticultural and pastoral
activities. It is to a large extent an unallocated water resource, and is one of Western
Australia’s largest groundwater resources.
Access to and use of, of the water in the La Grange basin is of great interest to a
number of parties including the State government, horticulturalists, pastoralists and
mining companies. With urban, pastoral and industrial growth, the pressures on this
aquifer are increasing, with some speculating that this water may one day be piped to
the mining town of Port Hedland, 380 kilometres south of Bidyadanga. Not only is there
concern about the limitations of the water, the advent of coal seam gas mining in the
region has caused alarm for Karajarri that jilas, and therefore intrinsically culture and
economy, could be damaged. This is particularly important given the interrelationships
between layers of the underlying aquifer that can be impacted upon through boring
58 Native title and climate change
resulting in the ‘mixing’ of different underground water types. According to Deputy
Chair Joseph Edgar:
…with mining companies’ access to where they boring in, that may be damaging
our water sources. As they dig, as they put their bores in there they could break
the fracture image, releases all sorts of water and... contaminate the water. (pers.
comm. 26 Nov 2012)
The word Bidyadanga comes from a word for “Emu Watering hole” (pijarta or bidyada)
demonstrating both the literal and spiritual importance of water in this area. The
Community was named Bidyadanga in order to acknowledge the cultural significance
of ground water, which formed the basis of the evidence presented in their native title
claim. ‘Water’ revolves around the story line of Karajarri Pukarrikarra dreaming and
creation stories. Some of these stories are about pulany (water snakes), which live in
jilas (springs, waterholes) (Yu 1999, p. 16).
Climate change will impact on the ability of inland fresh water springs to recharge or
recharge in a different way which is a major concern to the Karajarri people living in
Bidyadanga Community, for both spiritual, cultural and practical reasons. The longer
dry season, less rain and hotter weather will likely increase evaporation rates, water in
coastal areas will be saltier, and overall, there will be less fresh water available on
country.
Seasonal changes are occurring on Karajarri country impacting on not only the physical
place but also the livelihoods of the community. One of the major concerns is the rate
in which this change is occurring and the ways in which it has become more undefined,
than traditionally where people knew where to hunt for animals and bush tucker, a
system that has worked for them for thousands of years. More importantly, these
physical changes have a spiritual connection and threaten the movement of water
snakes, known as pulany that provide a source of life and ritual and physical renewal
for Karajarri country (Yu 1999). The physical changes that have been occurring on
country where also observed by traditional owners throughout the interviews. Climate
science for the region, and the impact of changing rainfall on the Canning Basin is
limited (Government of Western Australia, 2012). However, traditional owners have
expressed concerns about climate changed based on their observations.
For example, “heat” used to give signals for the clouds to form rain, or flowering plants
are a sign of the seasons. It can be extremely hot in the evenings, and people can see
the black clouds forming, but still there is no rain. This seasonal pattern is becoming
confusing for the people in Bidiyadanga. Also, fruiting times for bush tucker is
important, but people have noticed that the flowering times are indicating the “wrong”
season.
These changes impact upon Karajarri livelihoods which rely on subsistence hunting
practices. Karajarri people rely on the sea for essential food sources yet some
interviewees noticed that, during the course of these interviews, people were catching
salmons in the hot season. They commented that this was the wrong time of year, and
noted how hot it was on that day – 41.5 degrees (BOM 2012). Also, the dirt tracks
leading to fishing areas are harder to drive on due to higher tides and erosion, which
Native title and climate change 59
makes access to traditional food sources difficult. Traditional owners also observed that
the coral ocean reef can be affected by warmer water and sea animals may migrate
elsewhere further south, again leading to less available traditional food sources. These
observations need to be confirmed through further study in the region.
While seafood is considered the most important food source for the community, the
hunting of inland animals is also practiced regularly. However, due to different weather
patterns, in some areas respondents commented that the waterholes are drying up and
it is becoming harder for animals to drink from and this may affect hunting practices in
the future.
These local observations may be recording climate variation that has always occurred,
or they may be observing evidence of climate change. Certainly they are being
appreciated as climate change, and are a trigger for local adaptation activity.
Karajarri cultural sites are predominantly along the coast, and both cyclones and storm
surges can lead to coastal erosion and the saltwater infiltration of freshwater sources,
having a lasting effect on burial sites, midden sites, other sites and the jilas that line the
coast:
We’ve noticed already, along our coast, other things, it affects our culture, and
protecting significant sites along our coastline, our Dreaming sites... all the shell
middens which are significant places that told the history of our people. There are
also... Yatangal places or Dreaming places which are important for our culture, so
we’re wanting to look after that side of things and be conscious of what’s
happening with the environment with regards to how it affects us.(J Edgar, 2012,
pers. comm. 26 Nov 2012)
The importance of the Karajarri coast means that sea level rises are an important
concern. Here, there are burial sites where human remains that have been found
washed up, and shallow graves near the sand dunes being exposed by erosion.
“finding these bones, these human bones on the beaches being washed up
because of the high tides,... it sort of indicate to you that old people used to bury
these bones further back into the sand dunes and it didn’t affect these bones in
the early days when they were laying down”. (M Mulardy Jnr, pers comm.. 2012)
Traditional land management practices will also need to adapt to the changing climate.
At the time of conducting the fieldwork at Bidyadanga in November 2012, there were
late season fires burning near the pastoral stations Munroe Springs and Shamrock
Station, and at Mil Mijil Miya community. Some Karajarri traditional owners were
concerned about the effect on animals and plants to regenerate. Cultural burning is
important to Karajarri people and this means that the land is clean, ready for new
regrowth of vegetation such as grassland, and easier for hunting practices. However,
the people believe there will be more fires and smoke happening due to hotter
temperatures would be detrimental to patterns of renewal on Karajarri country.
60 Native title and climate change
The impact of changing climate on plant and animal life is of direct concern to the
Bidyadanga community. Many people in the community supplement store bought food
with traditional hunting and fishing practices. The loss of these sources of fresh food
would place greater pressure on the capacity of households to be self-sufficient.
Increases in the rate and severity of cyclones and storm surges will place pressure on
the infrastructure within Bidyadanga, particularly the threats of contamination from
poorly placed waste management services. Concern over cyclones is increased by the
lack of a cyclone shelter in Bidyadanga, meaning evacuations require people to travel
to Broome, 96 kilometres away. In the past when Bidyadanga has been evacuated, the
displacement of people and the difficulty many face in being able to return home in a
timely way (often taking months) causes great stress and trauma for the community. A
cyclone shelter, also doubling as a basketball court, was negotiated in the Initial Works
ILUA, but this has been arranged into two phases, with the completion of the basketball
court confirmed and underway, and the cyclone shelter a not yet secured prospect.
Anxiety for how old people and children would be looked after in the event of a disaster
was identified by many of the KTLA:
We’re trying to put a building up there for them... we wanted a building up there
for them... for a cyclone building so that we can rush the old people and the kids
into there before it.. you know, we can’t take them out too far. But it is. It’s
dangerous, even when you’re travelling with a lot of kids and old people, if you go
to Broome or Headland in the cyclone season. It’s ... it’s very hard. We’d love to
get something done about it, [laughs] you know? (KTLA Director, 2012, pers.
comm. 2 Nov 2012).
Figure 10: Bidyadanga community layout plan (source: Western Australian
Planning Commission)
Native title and climate change 61
Climate change also places pressure on community infrastructure. The Bidyadanga
population has grown very rapidly in the past 20 years and it is expected that the
community will experience constant growth in the future, especially as one of the
largest communities outside of Broome, earmarked as a potential service hub in the
future. Currently there are new houses in the Community and people have moved into
them. Some of the respondents interviewed had highlighted the need for future housing
to be planned out and designed properly, to be safer in case of severe cyclones,
flooding and any unusual weather change. Karajarri people talked about having clean
energy and suggested that plans for future housing should have solar power systems
in place, to prevent in some way climate change from getting worse. Karajarri
traditional owners were worried about the possibility of relocating inland, to move to
higher grounds due to the impact of sea level rises, stronger cyclones, storm patterns,
erosion and hotter temperatures. This would mean a major shift and change to a new
way of life.
The disruption to schooling and social life of the community caused by weather events
could be largely ameliorated, significantly reducing vulnerability of the community to
climate change (Edgar 2011). The vulnerabilities area compounded by existing
concerns over the need to develop economic vitality and sustainability. Bidyadanga’s
community is predominantly supported by welfare payments, and has seen only one
source of generated income from its market garden (Edgar, 2011). The loss of CDEP
wages and the review of ATSIC in 2005 saw the loss of $4.5 million annually from the
local economy (Edgar 2011). The development needs of the community are
exacerbated by the potential loss of food sources within and surrounding the
community with climate change. As such, for the KTLA, their decision making about
climate change adaptation not only involves land and water management but the need
to address very real community concerns that have come about as a direct result of
intervening government policies within the community.
4.2.4 Decision making structures in the Kimberley: land use planning and
water
4.2.4.1 Land Use Planning
Across the tiers of planning policies and frameworks from state to regional to
community level, there are a large number of different stakeholders who play a role in
authorising, negotiating and engaging in planning decisions on Karajarri country. At a
state level, planning is directed by the Western Australian Planning Commission
(WAPC) and enacted through the Department of Planning (DP). For the KTLA, land
use planning is focused on public infrastructure, water use, mining, conservation and
agriculture. Karajarri planning decisions are therefore influenced by a range of different
state government departments and agencies representing specific agendas, including
the Department of Water (DoW), the Department of Environment and Conservation
(DEC), DIA, the Department of Regional Development and Lands (DRDL), DPC,
Department of Housing (DoH) and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA).
Other organisations that play a role in planning decision making include the KLC,
Rangelands NRM and Federal Government departments such as the Department of
62 Native title and climate change
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (SEWPaC) and
FaHCSIA.
Planning in Western Australia is guided by five key principles: environment, community,
economy, infrastructure and regional development (Western Australian Planning
Commission, 2006). The key policy document for planning in Western Australia is the
Statement of Planning Policy No 1 (Variation No 1) State Planning Framework Policy
(‘SPP1’), which has been in existence since 1998 (Department of Planning, 2012).
SPP1 ‘provides the overall vision and will be further articulated and applied by policies
and plans dealing with particular planning issues or regions of the State’ (Western
Australian Planning Commission, 2006, p. 1).Climate change adaptation is treated as a
policy, rather than practitioner issue, yet it is not yet a feature of state planning
strategies.
SPP1 makes no reference to native title, and the only mention of cultural values occurs
under the application of land use planning and development to the principle of
‘environment’ which is defined as, ‘protecting areas and sites with significant historic,
architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values from inappropriate land use and
development’ (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2006, p. 5). Sitting
underneath SPP1 are Statements of Planning Policy, with many of relevance for
climate change adaptation in Karajarri country, including SPP2 – Environment and
Natural Resources Policy (2003) and the SPP3.2 – Planning for Aboriginal
Communities (2000).
Native title and climate change 63
Figure 11: Western Australian State Planning Framework, (source
Statement of
Planning Policy No.1 State Planning Framework Policy (Variation No.2)
)
Below the policies and frameworks of state planning are regional planning processes.
Regional plans ‘interpret the State Planning Strategy at the regional level and provide a
basis for cooperative action to be taken by State and local government on land use and
development’ (Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, p. 8). Within the
Kimberley there is currently no regional plan, only a draft document that has been in
existence since 1990 (Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, p. 8). To the
South, the Pilbara Regional Planning and Infrastructure Framework (PRPIF) was
finalised and published in January 2012. The level of traditional owner engagement
that occurred during the drafting and negotiation of the PRPIF is considered by the
Department of Planning to be inadequate (C Gustavvson, 2012, pers. comm.16 August
2012). In response, a key focus of the Kimberley Regional Planning and Infrastructure
Framework (KRPIF), has been the engagement of Traditional Owners, and more
64 Native title and climate change
specifically native title holders, through a Traditional Owner Reference Group (TORG)
that makes up part of the Kimberley Regional Planning Committee (KRPC). The TORG
is made up of two representatives from each RNTBCs in the Kimberley, and the KLC
who have an interim seat while negotiating representation from other Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander groups in the Kimberley (e.g. stolen generations, native title
applicant groups and other Indigenous people living in the region). The representative
for the TORG on the KRPC is Thomas King, a director of the KTLA.
The first project of the TORG has been to draft a cultural and natural heritage chapter
for the KRPIF, followed by an environment chapter. The structure of the KRPIF aims to
reflect the recognition that cultural and natural heritage needs to come first (C
Gustavvson, 2012, pers. comm. 16 August 2012). The KRPIF aims to emphasise the
recognition and engagement of cultural and natural heritage in the Kimberley through
setting protocols for land use planning for state government departments and agencies
(of key relevance are the Department of Indigenous Affairs, Department of
Environment and Conservation, Department of Housing, Department of Water and the
Department for Regional Development and Lands). Cultural protocols developed or
acknowledged within the KRPIF aim to create a space for cultural rights and interests
to be recognised and included in the decision-making processes of the relevant state
government departments and agencies.
At the level of sub-regional planning, Karajarri country sits within the boundary of the
Shire of Broome, which covers an area of approximately 56,000 square kilometres
(Shire of Broome 2006). Sub-regional plans ‘provide for the comprehensive planning of
regions, sub-regions or particular locations to guide change in the short to medium
term’ (Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, p. 9). The recent Dampier
Peninsular Planning project (DPPP) is a unique example of sub-regional planning that
focused on connection to country, access management and cultural heritage on the
traditional lands of the Bardi Jawi. In addition to the Bardi and Jawi Niimidiman
Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (Bardi Jawi RNTBC), the Peninsula is also home to
three discrete Aboriginal communities, each with their own community council. The
DPPP included a new zoning for a ‘cultural and natural resource use’. Guided by a
Traditional Owner Steering Committee (TOSC), the DPPP was an extensive process
that took 18 months and brought together Bardi Jawi Traditional Owners and relevant
key stakeholders in six workshops.12 Unlike Bidyadanga, Bardi Jawi people are by far
the majority of the population in the Dampier communities. Nevertheless, there was
fierce conflict and division at an institutional level.
There is currently no mechanism for the KTLA to engage in planning within the Shire of
Broome, although indications in our discussions with the DIA and DP were that
Bidyadanga, at least, was considered a high priority. Importantly, the DPPP is seen as
12 Chief investigator on this project, Dr Lisa Strelein, co-facilitated the first of these workshops. It
was held on 17-18 May 2011, and focused on building better relationships and communication
between the RNTBC and the local councils, and establishing the priorities for future workshops.
Native title and climate change 65
a model for future planning and there are aims to continue this process throughout the
Kimberley. The process was successful due to the critical investment of significant time
and resources at the front end to ensure a sustainable planning framework that is
owned by the traditional owners of the Peninsula. For example, the initial meeting
focused on relationship building between the Bardi Jawi RNTBC and the three
aboriginal communities located on the Peninsula. This initial meeting, facilitated by
AIATSIS researchers Dr Lisa Strelein and Toni Bauman, sought to overcome bitter
disputes over land use and decision-making before tackling more technical issues such
as tenure reform and plan development. Interestingly, the majority of the workshops
have focused on cultural governance. It was recognised that the institutional framework
was imperative to progressing more technical questions. The extensive involvement of
the KLC in coordinating the native title holders’ engagement in the DPPP has been
recognised. However, there are concerns that the model could be adapted without the
necessary time and resources invested in the cultural governance and therefore lead to
poor outcomes (A Gorring, 2012, pers. comm. 15 August 2012).
While the Shire of Broome is required to have a local planning strategy, there has
never been one. Within the township of Broome, planning is guided by the Shire of
Broome Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (Shire of Broome), however this does not cover
any Karajarri country. Outside of this area all planning in the Shire is conducted under
an ‘interim-development order’ (IDO). The Shire of Broome Local Interim Development
Order No. 4 (IDO No. 4) covers all land within the Shire boundary that is outside of the
Town Planning Scheme No. 4, including Bidyadanga community and the lands within
the Karajarri native title determination (Shire of Broome 2011) The IDO No. 4 outlines
the Shire as the authority for all planning decisions that fall under the IDA No. 4 and
that all development decisions require the approval of the Shire (Western Australian
Planning Commission, 2008, p. 26).
The IDO No.4 is a key procedural document for any development that occurs on
Karajarri country, however within Bidyadanga community there is an additional level of
planning that relates to the community’s status under the Aboriginal Communities Act
1979 (WA). Aboriginal communities in Western Australia are required to have layout
plans (previously community layout plans or ‘CLPs’), which are effectively ‘mini-town
planning schemes’ that identify residential areas, tips and water protection. The layout
plans are driven by a ‘Planning for Aboriginal Communities’ team comprised of staff of
both the DoH and the DP. For the layout plan to be endorsed it needs to be approved
by the KTLA, the Bidyadanga Community Council and the WAPC. A draft CLP exists
for Bidyadanga however the plan has never been finalised due to a communication
breakdown between the Bidyadanga Community Council and the KTLA.
Additional to the planning frameworks, the system of ALT land is becoming an
increasing part of native title holders’ engagement with planning. ALT sits within the
portfolio of the DIA and is treated like another planning stakeholder. However in it’s
current form of tenure, ALT lands can only be used ‘for the benefit of Aboriginal
people’, and this is recognized as a zoning category. The divestment of ALT lands will
therefore either require the creation of a new form of Aboriginal title, or the
transmission of ALT tenure into more ‘vulnerable’ tenures such as inalienable freehold
that do not have some of the same protections, for example in relation to mining as
66 Native title and climate change
ALT reserves. Divestment is also dependent on the resources required to maintain the
properties, coupled with the challenges of functionality of RNTBCs, divestment could
create difficulties for the majority of RNTBCs such as the KTLA that receive little to no
annual income.
The impact of intervening tenures on the ability of the KTLA to assert their decision
making authority is highlighted in the overlapping tenures in the township area. As
Bidyadanga is on ALT lands, a priority for the KTLA is to have these lands divested to
KTLA to grant Karajarri people legal, if largely symbolic, status as the effective
‘landlords’ of the community. However, this course of action is likely to be controversial,
given that Karajarri are not the only Aboriginal people living in Bidyadanga. The
broader group of beneficiaries (which includes all Aboriginal people) may have grounds
to object to the transfer, despite the extant community lease. While ALT land transfers
will be ‘like to like’ tenures, there are concerns about the costs of maintaining the lands
or the additional challenge of rehabilitating lands that are currently in a poor condition
or contaminated. These conditions, imposed by a state government legislative regime
do not match the decision making authority of the KTLA recognised under their native
title determination.
Decision making is also impacted upon by policy initiatives that seek to diminish the
authority of traditional owners to make decisions over their recognised land. Land use
planning in Bidyadanga is subject to the suite of Commonwealth policy driven by
FaHCSIA under the paradigm of ‘Closing the Gap’. Aboriginal communities in Western
Australia work closely with DIA and FaHCSIA given their joint role in service provision
within these communities. DIA and FaHCSIA’s role is also driven by a number of large
policy arrangements such as the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service
Delivery (‘NPARSD’), which informs the priorities of service provision from DIA in
Bidyadanga. While many aspects of DIA and FaHCSIA’s work are solely of relevance
to community service programs, the provision of adequate public infrastructure to meet
the needs of Bidyadanga’s education, housing, policing and council requirements,
places pressure on the KTLA when negotiating the zoning and use of their land.
Especially where key cultural sites are located near the town area. The NPARSD has
led to the creation of service delivery centres throughout the Kimberley (including in
Bidyadanga) which has also driven reforms to rationalise ALT lease lands and native
title rights in order to enable the provision of future infrastructure and services.
Alongside the NPARSD, the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous
Housing (NPARIH) was introduced in 2008 with a budget of $5.5 billion to radically
improve the condition of public housing in remote Indigenous communities. The impact
of such a significant budget investment into a single policy objective was to place
undue pressure state governments to deliver housing. In Bidyadanga, this came into
conflict with the time required to adequately negotiate with the KTLA (Stacey & Fardin,
2011). With increased population and other pressures on the need for adequate
housing in Bidyadanga community, KTLA will be involved in ongoing negotiations
around the provision of housing in Bidyadanga and will face the challenge of protecting
native title rights from “effectual extinguishment” (Stacey & Fardin, 2011).
Native title and climate change 67
The reference to public infrastructure on Aboriginal lands here is significant for
Karajarri. Prior to the 2011, the building of public infrastructure, such as roads, schools,
health centre, police buildings (and housing for staff) would have attracted the right to
negotiate. This was the foundation for the Initial Works ILUA process between Karajarri
and the state over housing and infrastructure. During the ILUA process, which had
been running for more than 18 months, the state, along with their counterparts in other
jurisdictions successfully lobbied the federal government to amend the NTA to bypass
the right to negotiate for such purposes. The rationale put forward by the state
governments was that the time required to negotiate, which at that time was on
average two years, was excessive in the face of urgent infrastructure needs in those
communities. With significant federal funding for housing and infrastructure on the line,
the states and federal government withdrew a critical leverage point for native title
holders in securing outcomes from the native title process. The introduction of the
provision, section 24JAA, was highly criticised (Weir 2011, Stacey & Fardin 2011).
Native title representative bodies, academics and non-government organisations
responded to the amendments, arguing that both State and Federal governments were
overlooking their responsibilities in engaging with Traditional Owners in an effective
and timely manner when planning to engage in public infrastructure projects on native
title lands (Stacey & Fardin 2011). The accusation that ILUA negotiations hold up
development is a false one. Even if negotiation processes extend beyond two years,
this is comparable when the planning processes as a whole can take several years,
and rightly so. WA plans are intended to be in place for a minimum timeframe of 20-30
years, which requires careful and lengthy discussions to negotiate outcomes. The
difficulty has been that native title groups are brought into the planning process far too
late. Because native title is considered after much of the consultation and decision-
making has occurred, it is not surprising when it is perceived as a ‘delay’.
The fact that state and federal governments can retrospectively legislate to remove the
consultation provisions of the NTA means that the decision making authority of native
title holders can be removed, if it is considered to be politically ‘necessary’ to do so.
4.2.4.2 Water Resources Planning
Karajarri traditional owners have also been engaged in a sustained water planning
process for the LaGrange sub aquifer area, resulting in the finalisation of the La
Grange sub basin plan in 2010. This planning process began in the 1990s after a
Memorandum of Understanding was developed between the Western Australian
Government and Western Australia Industries to investigate large scale irrigation in the
region. Concerns over the impact of the irrigated farming on Karajarri lands was one of
the motivations behind their original native title application, which was determined in
2002.The initial development proposal included vast water extractions from the La
Grange aquifer; clearing and planting the land; the construction of dams in the Fitzroy
and Margaret River catchments; and the building of a canal to transport water from the
Fitzroy River to Shamrock and Nita Downs pastoral leases (Cotton on Trial 2001).
Whilst the proposal did not go ahead (see further Weir et al. 2012), subsequent
national water reforms and the need to implement state and region wide water planning
throughout Western Australia led to the finalisation of the LaGrange sub basin plan in
2010. The plan highlights areas of ecological importance, extraction limits and how the
68 Native title and climate change
native title rights and interests of the Karajarri people will be dealt with. Current
activities, including horticulture, pastoralism, domestic consumption and tourism are
likely to increase in scale and may also include mining activity. Importantly, water
planning also establishes population growth parameters for the area and thus informs
the basis of broader land use planning in the region. Under the LaGrange water plan,
interactions between native title and water planning have been dealt with through the
future acts provisions of the NTA under section 24HA.
Whilst the La Grange Basin water planning consultation process with the traditional
owners was an innovative methodology for the Water Department, Karajarri remain
concerned about their capacity to influence decisions, and how their interests are
prioritised. At the Broome Shire planning meeting in 2012, KTLA Director Thomas King
raised his concerns over how other interests are prioritised in the planning process. He
was specifically concerned over how water resource needs for mining developments
are determined and approved outside of the water planning process, with water
licenses being granted as part of agreements with mining companies. It has also been
confirmed that planning processes do not impact upon mining interests. There is
growing concern from members of the KTLA that mining activities such as coal seam
gas mining will have detrimental impacts upon their country, particularly groundwater.
4.2.5 Karajarri involvement in climate change decision making
KTLA identified their responsibilities for managing climate change based on their role
as the traditional owners for Karajarri country, and the custodians for this country. One
of the most important aspects of Karajarri involvement in climate change is teaching
others how to care for country.
I think our responsibility is informing people; this is not their country, they don’t
really care about looking after country or what’s going to happen to country, it’s
our responsibility, the TOs, [traditional owners]. So we got to say to people, ‘this
thing’s serious what’s going to happen, so, it’s our responsibility to let you mob
know what’s going to happen and how’s it going to affect you’. (T King, 2012,
pers. comm. 8 November 2012).
As Joe Edgar has also said:
We have everything to lose if we don’t react and try to look after our country.
That’s a responsibility that our Elders left for us, to do the best we can to look
after that country, and to make proper decisions about it. (J Edgar, 2012, pers.
comm. 26 Nov 2012).
The Karajarri rangers were identified as playing a key role in addressing the
management and monitoring needs of Karajarri country, while the protection of country
incorporates the political functions of KTLA within the broad range of decision making
processes occurring in relation to Karajarri country.
The relationship between KTLA and the Karajarri rangers is manifold. They are funded
through the Indigenous Protected Area program, however, they are responsible to the
RNTBC and the Elders. The IPA program provides funding for staff, vehicles, an office,
Native title and climate change 69
and includes funding for the governance of the rangers, and in practice this also means
support for the KTLA. Karajarri ranger coordinator Thomas King is also a KTLA
director. The ranger coordinator works with other directors who play a cultural advisory
role to the operation of the rangers:
My role [as a KTLA director] is to keep them [Karajarri rangers] on their toes.
Ask them where they been, what they done there... what time they going to
finish it all.. I come in the office and I have look at their slides and everything
where they been and... how far more they got to go… Ceilia, me and Faye and
Joey, we’re the...cultural advisor for them.(KTLA Director, 2012, pers. comm. 2
Nov 2012)
Intersections between native title and environmental management opportunities have
enabled the Karajarri traditional owners to express their land management priorities in
a limited form.
In particular, the Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA) program, established through
SEWPaC enables traditional owners to enter into an agreement with the government to
promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation (SEWPaC, 2012). The KTLA is
currently in the five year consultation phase for an IPA, which offers Karajarri people
the opportunity to receive income through dedicating their land to the Australian
conservation estate. However as this arrangement is made through the Commonwealth
government, there is currently no state legislation that recognises IPAs. This results in
IPAs being seen within the scheme of planning as a ‘land use document’ which does
not necessarily mean that the state will protect the land for conservation purposes.
For the Karajarri Rangers, caring for country is focused around protection of cultural
sites such as burial grounds from deterioration and the threat of further impact, as well
as the culturally significant jilas which may be faced with decreased water supply
(whether from land use change or possibly under climate change) and the threat of salt
water intrusion. Karajarri caring for country priorities encompass the protection of
plants and animals and their habitats, particularly threatened species and places, but
remain inextricably linked with a range of activities that are not necessarily
commensurate with narrower conservation objectives. Their IPA work is part of a
strategic and pragmatic engagement with funding bodies, that is informed by a much
broader governance frame steeped in Karajarri knowledge traditions and relationships
with country. It is a very welcome and appreciated opportunity, however, the implication
for best practice climate change adaptation is that their planning and work is
fragmented by the agenda of the funding body.
70 Native title and climate change
Figure 12: Discussing the role of Karajarri rangers in monitoring programs on
Karajarri Country during an on country visit, 9 October 2012. (left to right) Kate
Braham (SEWPaC), Joe Edgar (KTLA), Dr Jessica Weir, Sonia Leonard
(University of Melbourne), Dr Lisa Strelein and Thomas King (KTLA and Karajarri
Rangers) (Image: Claire Stacey)
One point that the KTLA directors repeatedly raised as an essential element of
managing climate change was the need to build relationships and partnerships.
Bidyadanga Council was identified as the most immediate priority, but this extended to
other agencies within the community, as well as state and federal government.
The broad range of climate change impacts described above can all be linked to
specific stakeholders with responsibilities in areas such as conservation, planning,
water management, housing provision and community service provision. These are
summarised in Table 1 below. The sheer number of stakeholders with which KTLA
engages is daunting. What it demonstrates however, is that the RNTBC is at the centre
of a complex web of actors who all have role in relation to a particular area of land and
water. This pivotal role is important for climate change adaptation. If Karajarri can
develop a climate change adaptation plan or priorities, they can potentially influence all
of the necessary elements to successfully implement those priorities.
Karajarri people want and need to build good governance to strengthen their decision-
making. This is particularly important in the context of the diverse community which has
evolved from its former mission days. In the past, elders were fluent in their language,
as part of their strong and vibrant culture. They were also very generous, welcoming
the other four tribes onto Karajarri land where the tribes lived as one (Edgar 2011).
After these elders passed away, a new era in governance began, with more kartiya
(‘white fella’) rules to follow and the new generation had to step into these roles to carry
on the wishes of these old people. In the recent Karajarri Annual General Meeting in
Native title and climate change 71
February 2013, a new board of directors was elected as well as a new chairperson and
cultural advisors. This younger generation has adapted to a new form of leadership,
which must bridge both cultural governance and kartiya ways. Making good decisions
to address this challenge will consolidate and confirm the strengths of the cultural
governance on Karajarri country.
72 Native title and climate change
Table 1: KTLA priorities13
Priority
Relevant stakeholder
Detail
Opportunities
Barriers
Joint management of
Indigenous land
Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC);
Commonwealth Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Populations and Communities
(SEWPAC); Kimberley Land Council
(KLC)
Joint management of coastal areas
(including the declaration of the 90
mile marine park)
Opportunity to negotiate
management priorities and attract
funding and resources to carry out
management work. The KTLA also
have the opportunity to be a part of
the Kimberley Science and
Conservation Strategy.
Access to joint management
opportunities are relatively rare
and only cover a small proportion
of KTLA country.
Conservation
planning and action
Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC);
Commonwealth Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Populations and Communities
(SEWPAC); Department of Water
(DOW); Department of Agriculture
Rangelands NRM
Conservation planning occurs
through the Working on Country
program and in consultation with the
rangelands NRM. KTLA have
engaged in sustained water
planning for the LaGrange Basin
since the 1990s. The plan has
recently been finalised. The IPA
program (through SEWPAC) also
enables opportunities for
conservation planning.
KTLA are engaged in planning work
for water management, coastal
management and fire burning on
county. The IPA consultation
process is almost complete and will
be declared in the near future.
Planning is responsive to funding
opportunities or government
funded environmental programs
rather than based on KTLA
planning processes.
Water policy
development
Department of Water (DOW);
National Water Commission; First
Peoples Water Engagement
Council; North Australia Land and
Indigenous development of the
national water reform agenda
advocating for cultural water rights
KTLA can influence national water
reform agenda and assert
ownership rights over water in their
Experiences and priorities of
Indigenous peoples are varied.
Difficulty of reaching a consensus
on a national level as water
13Adapted from Ford, JD, Pearce, T, Duerden, F, Furgal, C & Smit, B 2010, 'Climate change policy responses for Canada's Inuit population: The importance
of and opportunities for adaptation', Global Environmental Change, vol. 20, pp. 177-91.
Native title and climate change 73
Priority
Relevant stakeholder
Detail
Opportunities
Barriers
Water Taskforce;
in water planning processes.
native title lands.
planning is localised/regional.
Community/township
planning
Department of Planning; Broome
Shire Council
KTLA have been involved in the
development of the Bidyadanga
Community Development plan.
Involvement in this process has
enabled the KTLA to have their
priorities for Bidyadanga recorded
alongside the Community Council.
Layout of community plan and
infrastructure constrained by poor
relations between the KTLA and
the Bidyadanga Community
Council, as well as cultural
protocols. SPP1, the key planning
framework, does not mention of
native title.
RNTBC capacity and
financial support
Department of Indigenous Affairs
(DIA); Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
Department of Premier and Cabinet
(DPC)
The DIA plays a coordinating role in
engagement between the Western
Australian Government and
RNTBCs
The Western Australian government
is providing an opportunity for
RNTBC resourcing through the
signing of a global ILUA.
Global ILUAs mean that future
acts are negotiated in block form,
imposing long term planning
decisions on a short time frame.
Cultural transmission
Yiriman Project; local community
school (see also conservation
planning and action above)
Using opportunities to be out on
country to enable cultural
transmission (see also conservation
planning and action above).
Preservation and knowledge
transmission made possible to
younger members of the
community.
Cultural transmissions programs
are not formalised and often
‘tacked on’ to other forms of work
such as heritage clearances.
Outstation maintenance and
accessibility is central to being on
Country.
Housing and
community services
Bidyadanga Council; Department of
Indigenous Affairs (DIA);
Department of Housing; FaHCSIA
The lack of appropriate housing in
the community has been identified
as a key issue for Bidyadanga as
well as Karajarri traditional owners
who wish to return to the community
(Edgar 2011).
The loss of traditional council
responsibilities over housing and
other community services (due to
mainstreaming or centralisation)
creates an opportunity for RNTBCs
to take over these functions
RNTBCs will need to renegotiate
these responsibilities with State
governments who may be
reluctant to enable community
control . Housing allocation also
based on inefficient processes that
are not always culturally
74 Native title and climate change
Priority
Relevant stakeholder
Detail
Opportunities
Barriers
appropriate. Lack of funding to
maintain outstations undermines
opportunities to be out on country.
Health and wellbeing
Department of Health and Aging,
Departing of Housing, FaHCSIA
Ensuring appropriate service
provision and access to
infrastructure and facilities within the
community.
KTLA make their land and water
management decisions based on
well being for people and country.
KTLA lack funding and support to
drive their own health programs;
land management decisions are
coerced in exchange for
infrastructure and housing.
Community
development (eg
Cattle stations and
agriculture)
Neighbouring pastoralists (Anna
Plains, Nita Downs, Munro Springs
and Thangoo); Kimberley Resource
Economic Development (KRED);
Department of Agriculture
The majority of the community are
supported by welfare payments or
pensions with very limited economic
development opportunities (Edgar
2011). For example, the loss of the
community market garden due to
changes to the CDEP program and
suspension of ATSIC had
detrimental effects on the small
economy of the community
throughout 2000 (Edgar 2011).
KTLA have the opportunity to
develop industries on their
traditional lands by for example,
reinvigorating the market garden,
providing environmental services to
the neighbouring pastoral stations,
developing their own cattle business
through the Karajarri Cattle
Aboriginal Corporation. The KTLA’s
office has also been recently
completed as a part of earlier ILUA
negotiations.
Limited planning or community
investment in place to ensure that
economic opportunities can be
realised and sustained.
Emergency
management
Fire and Emergency Services
Authority (FESA)
The Bidyadanga community
currently lacks a permanent cyclone
shelter. This was a significant when
Cyclone Sam forced the community
to evacuate to Broome and remain
there for two weeks while houses
were being repaired (Edgar 2011).
The KTLA can engage in planning
for emergencies in the community
and improve procedures for
evacuations.
Native title and climate change 75
4.2.6 Barriers and constraints to adaptation
I can’t see how we’re going to play a lead role in getting people to acknowledge
and manage climate change in this region, in this area, unless we have
resources, we have backing of council and the community, and
acknowledgement, and we have decent funding from stakeholders and
stakeholders all join and participate and come together to nut out how we’ll
manage things.(T King, 2012, pers. comm. 8 November 2012).
The case study research revealed the extent to which Karajarri native title holders are
identifying the implications of human induced climate change and are willing and able
to contribute their knowledge and expertise to climate change action. There is no doubt
that Karajarri country and the communities in which they live are vulnerable to climate
change, given the ecological, geographic and cultural features of their country and the
socio-economic circumstances of their people. But there are clearly opportunities to
reduce the risks and strengthen the resilience and agency of the Karajarri lands and
people.
In the workshops the KTLA identified a number of specific measures that can be taken
to monitor, mitigate and adapt to climate change. They clearly articulated their role in
these measures and the stakeholders they needed to talk to in order to action them.
The affinity with and understanding of the KTLA directors of their country makes
discussions of climate change surprisingly straightforward – they see it happening.
The KTLA is also in a position to effect change, through the negotiation of agreements
under the NTA. Whether they are negotiating the priorities for an IPA, the transfer of
ALT land, water licensing of LaGrange basin, or the expansion of housing and
infrastructure in Bidyadanga, they are in a position to influence the long term adaptive
capacity across their country. There are processes in place that have seen the KTLA
develop their capacity and decision making role over country. In Bidyadanga, the KTLA
have finished renovating their new office and it is now ready to use. With the
completion of the office, the Karajarri Peoples’ Ngarlu (inner spirit) ‘feels good’ because
the new office not only represents a practical working space but more importantly
opens up greater possibilities for the people to work collaboratively with the KTLA. A
new office encourages the staff, the KTLA Traditional Owners and key members of the
community to plan and think about the options available for KTLA to manage climate
change in the future. This has been a long process. For most of their existence the
KTLA has operated out of a filing cabinet in the KLC Broome office, and more recently
a temporary ranger office. With a physical location in Bidyadanga for the KTLA, formal
and informal communication can occur and be coordinated.
Relationships with stakeholders are critical, but underlying these relationships must be
a fundamental capacity to engage. The lack of resources available to RNTBCs has
been a resounding message to governments across the country, not only from
RNTBCs, but also those industries and agencies that seek to engage with them. The
lack of resources impedes the capacity to carryout responsibilities in relation to country
to engage effectively and proactively with stakeholders. Without staff, the KTLA Board
is without support to insure the implementation and follow up of decisions (Weir 2011).
Information can be lost between meetings and inefficiencies occur during valuable
76 Native title and climate change
meeting time. The KTLA Directors participate as volunteers, finding time in between
their other responsibilities. As Deputy Chair Joe Edgar has said:
for KTLA to be effective, we need to have all the resources in our hands in. Our
directors have to work – they work for their, all of them work, or have other
responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. (pers. comm. 26 Nov 2012)
There is a high risk, which is repeatedly realised in Karajarri Board meetings, of the
RNTBC constantly responding to the priorities of others and being unable to proactively
develop and pursue their own priorities for country and people, drawing on their holistic
knowledge traditions that are at the heart of their cultural strength and RNTBC
governance.
For Karajarri there exists a seemingly endless number of policies, departments,
forums, processes and procedures that affect the enjoyment of their native title rights
and interests. Amongst these interactions some policies, documents and legislation will
have been drafted prior to the existence of native title, and others after. Therefore at
times there is an opening for native title rights and interests to be involved in decision
making processes, whereas at other times there is consultation but it might be of
limited impact, such as in water planning. For the occasions where Karajarri are
effectively engaged, the level of power they are afforded in decision making still
remains at a minimum and often only in an ‘advisory’ role. There is an ongoing need for
governments and agencies to review their policies and practices in relation to engaging
with native title groups. This would enable adaptation to be approached as a matter of
justice in real terms.
At the same time, successful adaptation would require the KTLA to engage with their
own governance processes, especially the way in which they respond to imposed
governance regimes. Put succinctly, as KTLA Director Faye Dean said, ‘We need
better governance, that is what it boils down to’. Faye is not just referring to the KTLA,
but also to the work of the Bidyadanga Community Council. This local relationship is
the most critical one to get right. There is no doubt that the relationship was adversely
affected by the assertion of native title. There has been an undermining of the informal
social structures and social capital that were embedded in and supported the formal
governance institutions previously, including, importantly, the convention that a
Karajarri person would hold the chair of the Council. As Faye said:
It’s actually trying to get the Council to sit with KTLA and go through this thing
together as one and not split down the middle. That’s what happened when we
got our land rights, there was a split..... We were the outsiders and we didn’t
then have much say then on the community...But if we could actually sit down
with them and the ILUA could bind us together where we do work together in
looking after country.... I am hoping that we do start a good relationship with
them to work together to do this, to keep up with the climate change. (pers.
comm. 2 Nov 2012).
The majority of Karajarri people in the group feel that in responding to climate change,
the first priority is taking care of the people living in the Bidyadanga community. As
Barbara White, a Karajarri Councillor and KTLA member, said:
We all live in the same community and we should all get together and help one
another. That’s what we there for. Not fighting, ‘you got to do this, you got to do
Native title and climate change 77
that’. No, that’s not it. We all got to get together and help one another. Doesn’t
matter who landed, it is the people who staying in this place. (B White, 2012,
pers. comm. 9 Nov 2012).
As one of the five groups that established Bidyadanga, Karajarri people have
representation on the Bidyadanga Community Council, although there is no formal
relationship or communication process with KTLA outside of the ILUA process.
The current ILUA process in Bidyadanga was designed in two stages. The first stage,
which is now completed, was the Initial Works ILUA, discussed above, to meet
immediate community infrastructure needs. After this, a ‘global’ ILUA was planned to
address more complex and comprehensive matters, such as inconsistencies in tenure
and development, the identification of the future land requirements of the Bidyadanga
community, and the divestment of ALT land lease to the KTLA (Weir 2011, p. 24).
There is potential, for this global ILUA process to be based on sound long term
planning with all of the key stakeholders and to incorporate Karajarri priorities for
climate change. The DPPP process stands as an example of good practice that could
be adapted for Karajarri country and Bidyadanga township. Also on the table for the
Global ILUA are more resources for the KTLA, including for staff to work in the RNTBC
office. Although, an effectively run organisation should be an investment in the process
not just an outcome (Weir 2011, p. 30).
However, the planned ‘Global’ ILUA has now been conflated with what the State has
termed a ‘Government’ ILUA. The objective of the Government ILUA is to:
achieve greater certainty in a post native title determination environment for
land access and use…clarity about post determination land use is in the
interests of native tile claimants and other land users, and has the potential to
accelerate economic and social benefits for Indigenous interests (Department of
Premier and Cabinet Government of Western Australia 2012, p. 2).
As described earlier, a common forum for engagement and dispute between native title
holders and the state is in relation to future acts. The state government has proposed
the Government ILUA as a format for ‘resolving’ the negotiation of all future acts that do
not trigger the right to negotiate (Department of Premier and Cabinet Government of
Western Australia 2012). The Government ILUA incorporates a number of different
state interests on native title lands, including: the grant of exploration and prospecting
titles; public infrastructure in Aboriginal communities; access to native title lands;
creation of conservation reserves; and other ‘low impact’ future act activities which
could include activities such as signage. Under section 24LA of the NTA no major
building or infrastructure works that have significant or permanent impact are
considered to be ‘low impact’ future acts. The NTA however, does not describe what
these acts could be so it is difficult to benchmark the Government ILUA The
Government ILUA also aims to address cultural heritage through a Government
Standard Heritage Agreement (GSHA), which is guided by the Aboriginal Heritage Act
1972 (WA). The objective of a GSHA is to create Aboriginal heritage procedures to be
followed by government agencies.
From the state’s perspective the Government ILUA offers RNTBCs an opportunity to
gain revenue streams from exploration and prospecting licenses that they may not
currently have access too. That is, it helps facilitate the existing future act process for
78 Native title and climate change
exploration and prospecting licences. These are important revenue streams, however,
this is based on a conclusion from the state government that the only economic
opportunity for native title lands is mining, however this is overlooking a range of other
pathways to economic development that are being explored, such as around
environmental servitude contracts. Critics of the Government ILUA have described the
process as an ultimatum from the State government for native title holders, which
requests the exchange of native title rights and interests in return for a possible income
stream for the RNTBC. That is, the RNTBC must trade its native title, in order to have
funding to manage its native title. Further, with the government’s power to introduce
amendments, such as section 24JAA which suspended future act rights for a discrete
period, native title holders are very aware of the precariousness of the bargaining
power they hold.
It is implicit in the Government ILUA that the aim is to set native title processes aside to
facilitate development. This can either ensure ongoing conflict within the Bidyadanga
community over decisions or it could incorporate a more integrated planning process
from the very earliest, so that the ILUA results in a shared vision for the future of the
community, and Karajarri lands more broadly. As KTLA Deputy-Chair has said:
what could improve is better communication between the Bidyadanga council
and the Karajarri directors – board of directors. More exchangeable information,
... and us reaching common goals and visions about where the community will
be in 15 to 20 years time, 50 years time. We need to start planning today. The
economic, well the political environment is changing quite dramatically, the
environmental – the economic environment is changing quite dramatically. We
need to create industries for all of the people that live in that area - all the
Indigenous people. ….. so, what will slow us down or stop us is the ... inability
of the ... or the unwillingness of the community, like Bidyadanga and the Shire
and other government agencies to support the activities that we put in place, or
agree to put in place, to make, you know the good will to support those projects
as... and not just see it as a Karajarri problem when it is – the problem belongs
to the whole community. (J Edgar, 2012, pers. comm. 26 Nov 2012).
The need to clarify the interaction between native title and other interests has driven
the ILUA process in Western Australia. The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
in Western Australia is the key point of negotiation between native title holders and the
state. Given that Traditional Owners are recognised native title rights and interests
under Commonwealth law, there is an ongoing challenge to negotiate the interaction of
federally recognised rights and interests with state legislation and policy. Between and
across jurisdictions, the ability of native title holders’ to effectively manage and enjoy
their native title rights and interests are highly dependent on the negotiation of this
relationship. Thus, a rights based approach to adaptation can be undermined by the
influence of institutions regulating the exercising of those rights. In our view the end
result relies on native title being integrated into other planning processes, rather than
effectively removed from the equation by formal agreement. These underlying
concerns occur in tandem to the management role of the KTLA.
The seeds of change are evident. Karajarri were one of the first in the Kimberley to
have their native title recognised, and as the other Bidyadanga groups have their native
title recognised on their desert homelands further inland, there is a growing
Native title and climate change 79
understanding of the distinction between community and native title rights and
interests. In his interview, Chair of the Bidyadanga Community Council James
Yanawana, who is not Karajarri, expressed his support of KTLA members having more
involvement in Bidyadanga community matters to do with climate change adaptation,
such as around FESA, the water issues with the tip, and the horticultural program. He
stated that there needed to be an agreement on how the KTLA and the Council would
work together.
Bidyadanga Chief Executive Officer Peter Yip also expressed his support for Karajarri
and the KTLA:
To me the Karajarri KTLA has the full responsibility on managing country
because it is their country, this is their land, Bidyadanga sits on the lease hold,
a lot of people will come and go.....but for Karajarri people this is their country
they live here.......So I think ultimately they should ..... have the full responsibility
on managing climate change and whatever. The Council is also responsible to
make sure that they assist the Karajarri people...... If you make any changes in
the land that does not belong to you, then you must consult with the owners,
therefore the Karajarri people....In total, if the KTLA and the Bidyadanga
Community work together you can have a proper manageable situation here....
Even though we got a lease here that doesn’t necessarily say we got the
ultimate control. We do not. We should be working with the KTLA because they
are the people who could make decisions on their land and how it can be used.
It’s been slowly [that] things are working together now. (pers. comm. 5 Nov
2012).
The relationship between KTLA and the Council is currently focused around the
negotiation of the next ILUA. This ILUA process has enormous potential to engender
strong governance and good community relations, or further entrench the exclusion of
the RNTBC from planning and decision-making over the longer term.
Further, the involvement of the KTLA is based on not only current processes and
relationships but the inherent power relationships and vulnerabilities that have been
created by successive government policies in the region. The history of conflict and
dispossession, the issuing of pastoral leases over their lands, the ongoing failure to
provide community and public infrastructure and services for a growing community, all
circumscribed the health and well being of the people of Bidyadanga. These concerns
are held by both the KTLA and the broader community. However, it is the KTLA who
have the greatest responsibility, the greatest inheritance, and the most to lose, if they
cannot sustain life and community on their lands. Addressing the legacy of the removal
of autonomy and authority of Indigenous peoples, is central for governments seeking to
implement best practice climate change adaption (Cameron 2012; Bardsley &
Wiseman 2012). These pervasive power relationships include the failure to
acknowledge the connections and responsibilities held between people and country,
that inform the governance practices of traditional owners across Australia.
80 Native title and climate change
4.3 Case study 2: Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation
RNTBC, Kowanyama
4.3.1 Native title in Cape York
The Cape York region has a total area of 128,880 square kilometres, or 7.4 per cent of
the total area of Queensland (Queensland Treasury and Trade 2012b).Over 56 per
cent of the 15 000 people who live in Cape York are Indigenous people who have
strong cultural and traditional links to the area (Queensland Treasury and Trade
2012b). Custodial relationships to the land and waters of Cape York are central to the
culture and society of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and have formed
the basis of their recognised native title. These native title rights and interests intersect
with other land tenure regimes created under distinctive policies designed to return
land back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In acknowledgement of the
impacts of dispossession on their unique culture and identities and the subsequent
socio-economic marginalisation that flowed from this, land tenure reform has sought to
recognise and restore Indigenous connections to land and articulate those relationships
in legally recognised land holdings. These introduced tenures are based upon
Indigenous communities that were formed in the post colonial period based on family
groupings drawn in from surrounding areas or those that had been forcibly removed
from other areas. The land tenure introduced was initially articulated as a ‘self-
management’ system whereby the Queensland government issued Deeds of Grant in
Trust (DOGITs) were issued to Aboriginal community councils under the Land Act 1962
(Qld). The lands were managed via the government mechanisms created under the
Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld) providing for the creation of local
community governance structures.14 The subsequent enactment of the Aboriginal Land
Act 1991 (Cth) created Aboriginal freehold title and recognised the historical and
cultural interests in land, through providing for land to be granted based on ‘traditional
affiliation’ or ‘historical association’ under sections 58 with specific requirements
outlined under sections 65 and 66. The former DOGITs became transferrable to this
tenure and are held largely by what are now Aboriginal shire councils.
The Mabo decision and the enactment of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) created a
national legislative regime for the recognition of pre-existing rights and interests based
on the laws and cultures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Native title
exists, not as an imposed grant under a statutory regime, but by the recognition of pre-
existing rights and interests. As a recognised interest, native title ‘sits under’ other
statutory tenures. Native title now comprises 9.6 per cent of the total area of
Queensland (National Native Title Tribunal 2012). As of December 2012 there were a
total of 12 native title determinations in the Cape York (Australian Instutute of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2012a). The rights and interests of these
determinations are held by a total of nine RNTBCs (Australian Instutute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2012b).
14Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 (Qld) applies in the Torres Strait.
Native title and climate change 81
These organisations represent the collective interests of the determined native title
holders of the Cape York Region. It has been estimated that native title rights and
interests can potentially be recognised over 87 per cent of the Cape York Peninsula
(Fitzgerald 2001). These significant land holdings now ‘compete’ with pre-existing land
tenures and the governance structures and have largely driven tenure reform
processes central to land use and town planning throughout Cape York. The pressures
of climate change bring added complexity to the overlapping decision making
structures in place that facilitate land use planning, water management and housing.
How native title interacts with these ‘historical’ forms of tenure have driven not only the
outcomes of native title claims in the region but also how the Indigenous communities
of the Cape York have expressed their ownership of their custodial lands within formal
decision making opportunities that will place them in a greater position to manage the
impacts of changes to the climate on their traditional lands.
Figure 13: Indigenous lands in Cape York (Reproduced with the kind permission
of the National Native Title Tribunal)
4.3.2 Kowanyama native title
Kowanyama is a remote Aboriginal community on the west of the Cape York
Peninsula, about 600 kilometres west of Cairns. Kowanyama (or in the local language
Yir Yoront, ‘kawnyama’) means the place of ‘many waters’. The Kowanyama Aboriginal
82 Native title and climate change
community is home to about 1150 people and is connected to Cairns by the Bourke
Developmental road, which is only partially sealed, and opens during the dry season.
Wet season access is provided by regional airline, SkyTrans, and freight needs to be
flown into the community to bring basic goods. The community is based in Magnificent
Creek, which runs from the Mitchell River, one of the largest river deltas in Australia.
The physical landscape of Kowanyama lands are a mix of ‘forest country’ – with
woodland cover, perennial rivers and permanent fresh water lagoons in the river beds
where there are also key cultural sites – and ‘saltwater country’ – consisting of tidal
rivers, salt marshes, and grass plains that are flooded in the wet – forming five
distinctive forms of landscape based on the soil vegetation and typography identified by
Monaghan (2005). The region has three main language groups Yir Yoront, the
Kokoberra and Kunjen who have close connections to the country and rely on its
cultural and economic resources. These connections were recognised by Justice
Greenwood in the decision of Kowanyama People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA
1192 (Kowanyama Part A). The Kowanyama decision recognised the exclusive rights
and interests over 2 518 square kilometres of the DOGIT land in the claim area and
non-exclusive rights and interests over 213 square kilometres of sea and tidal areas.
The Part A determination was separated from the more complex Part B and C claims
over pastoral leases and the ‘inner’ DOGIT or town site area. The entire native title
determination covers 19 800 square kilometres. The claim over Part B and C, including
the town site were recently resolved in 5 December 2012 with exclusive possession
rights and interests to live and erect structures on pastoral lease areas. These rights
and interests are based upon a continuing connection to the region spanning over 37
000 years. Native title recognises what the ‘community already knew’ and affirms their
connections to the land and waters of Kowanyama country under the formal regime of
the NTA.
Figure 14: Map of native title claim area (Reproduced with the kind permission of
the National Native Title Tribunal)
Native title and climate change 83
The retrospective formal recognition of native title rights and interests is problematic for
the community and in some ways represents another imposed formal regime on its
traditional owners. Historically the priorities and cultural identity of the Kowanyama
people have been subjected to evolving government policies. The Kowanyama
community was established in the late nineteenth century, where policies of forced
removal and dispersal from traditional lands were standard practice. It was not until
1864 that permanent settlements were established by the Anglican Church.
Administration of Indigenous lands occurred through missionaries and governments
who exerted control over decision making on traditional Indigenous held lands. Cyclone
Dora triggered the enactment of the 1966 legislation which enabled the State
Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to oversee the reconstruction of the
mission. In 1967, state administration over Indigenous communities was centralised
with the administrative control of Kowanyama and the neighbouring Pompuraaw
handed over from church missions to the Queensland State government. This
effectively led to the introduction of non Indigenous housing and town planning which
replaced old villa housing reflecting social and cultural groupings in the area (Sinnamon
2009).
84 Native title and climate change
Table 2: Aboriginal Land Tenures in Kowanyama
Legislation
Land Tenure
Area
Holder
Community Services (Aborigines)
Act(Qld)
DOGIT. Does not extinguish native title.
Kowanyama Township and surrounds (2
518 square kilometres) also known as
the “Mitchell River Aboriginal Reserve”
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council
Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) (ALA)
Inalienable Aboriginal freehold granted
on the basis of ‘traditional affiliation’ or
‘historical association’ through a claim or
administrative transfer. Since 2006,
claims are not longer available. Does not
extinguish native title.
Errk Oykangand National Park (Mitchell
Alice Rivers National Park)
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council
(ILUA with Abm Elgoring Ambung
RNTBC)
Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal Land
None currently created in the case study
area.
New form of reserve converting national
parks to Aboriginal ownership and
enabling joint management.
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Kowanyama People v State of
Queensland [2009] FCA 1192
(Kowanyama Part A)
Recognised exclusive rights and
interests over 2 518 square kilometres of
the DOGIT land in the claim area and
non-exclusive rights and interests over
213 square kilometres of sea and tidal
areas. The Part A determination was
separated from the more complex Part B
and C claims over pastoral leases and
the ‘inner’ DOGIT or town site area. The
entire native title determination covers
19 800 square kilometres.
Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal
Corporation RNTBC
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders
(Land Holding) Act 1985(Qld)
Introduced long term leases for
individual land title over original DOGIT
lands known as ‘Katter leases’. The legal
status of individual lease holdings has
been under dispute with outstanding
issues such as lease transfers and rights
of inheritance requiring resolution.
Individual lease holders
Land Act 1994 (Qld)
Sefton and Helmsley (also known as
Oriners) pastoral stations
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council
(adapted from Memmott & Blackwood 2008)
Native title and climate change 85
Under the Land Act (Aboriginal and Islander Land Grants) Amendment Act 1982 (Cth),
title to the Mitchell River Aboriginal Reserve (known as the DOGIT) was vested in the
Kowanyama Aboriginal Council as Aboriginal Land placing greater autonomy in the
Kowanyama people. In 1990, the Kowanyama Aboriginal Land & Natural Resource
Management Office (KLNRMO, known locally as the ‘Lands Office’) was established
under the auspices of the Aboriginal Council which carries out land management
activities on behalf of the Kowanyama traditional owners (Sinnamon et al. 2008). The
KLNRMO was established in response to growing concerns over conflicts over river
system use between recreational fishermen, grazers, miners and tourists (Kowanyama
Aboriginal Land & Natural Resource Management Office 1994). The KLNRMO
currently supports land management work in the community and surrounding areas.
The work of the KLNRMO has parallels with other Land and Sea Management Units
that have emerged in many native title representative organisations. What is unique
about the KLNRMO, however, is that it is entirely community driven and operated and
asserts principles of sovereignty and authority in its approach to land management
(Kowanyama Aboriginal Land & Natural Resource Management Office 1994). As such
there is close alignment between the KLNRMO and the aspirations of the traditional
owner groups of the area. Some of its most significant work includes negotiating joint
fisheries management, representing the community in development proposals,
establishing a tourism management plan and working towards integrated management
of the water resources of the Mitchell River (Kowanyama Aboriginal Land & Natural
Resource Management Office 1994). While land management comes under the
auspices of the Kowanyama Shire Council it is directly managed by KLNRMO, which is
funded externally and receives direct input from an informal elders counsel.
Figure 15: Abm Elgoring Ambung directors and staff. (left to right) Anzac Frank
(Director), Rodney Whitfield (General Manager), Charlotte Yam (Director) (Image:
Gabrielle Lauder).
86 Native title and climate change
The Kowanyama Shire Council continues to hold the original Mitchell River Aboriginal
Reserve lands on behalf of the Kowanyama community as well as two pastoral leases
(Sefton and Helmsley, also known as Oriners). Responsibility for community services
and recreation, local infrastructure such as roads, the airport and fire brigade, the
Community Development and Employment Program (CDEP), education and training
and land management falls under the Kowanyama Shire Council.15 Land management
and community governance has recently fallen back on the traditional owners directly
through the recognition of native title in 2009 over the original trust lands area. Abm
Ambung Elgoring manages the native title lands of the Yir Yoront (also known as
Kokomenjen), Koko Bera, Kunjen and Koko Berrin Peoples. Abm Elgoring Ambung
currently receives some administrative funding from FaHCSIA and received
Kowanyama Shire Council funding for a full time manager until June 2012. The RNTBC
also receives legal and administrative support and training facilitated by the Cape York
Land Council (CYLC) but lacks long term support and funding. The RNTBC has
aspirations to expand and subsume some of the functions of the Kowanyama Shire
Council, especially the work of the KLNRMO. This is particularly important given the
threat of local council amalgamations and the perception that Kowanyama Shire
Council assets should be directly controlled by the corporation established by the
recognised native title holders. The relationship between the Kowanyama Shire Council
and the RNTBC, and the legislative and policy structures that govern them have been
central to understanding the role of native title holders in making decisions about
climate change on their traditional lands.
4.3.3 Climate change issues for Kowanyama
The socio-institutional dimensions of decision making with respect to climate change
adaptation are compounded by the very real physical threat of the changing intensity,
irregularity and unpredictability in weather patterns. Kowanyama is located on the
Mitchell River Delta, an area that is 9000 square kilometres larger than the Nile Delta
(Sinnamon & Frank 2010). It is also relatively flat country that is only 10 metres above
sea level. The annual wet season inundates the area with fresh water through
recharged swamps and water holes and stream flooding from other catchment areas
(Monaghan 2005). Flooding is a common and expected occurrence and interconnected
with the ecological renewal of the area. However, this also creates infrastructure
challenges including the accessibility of roads and associated impacts upon community
supplies including food, fuel and other basic goods. Housing, power, communications
and drainage within the township area also become unreliable in the wet. For example,
the town is reliant on diesel generators that are located just on the edge of Magnificent
15In 2008 the Federal government announced a reform of the CDEP scheme, which has been in
operation in a large number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities since 1977.
These reforms including transitioning CDEP participants onto ‘mainstream’ unemployment
benefits such as Newstart Allowance, and changing the funding model for CDEP which had
traditionally provided community councils with a large amount of operational funding. The CDEP
scheme will be transitioned into the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP) by July
2013.
Native title and climate change 87
Creek which runs on the boundary of the township area. This is due to the fact that the
layout of public facilities has largely been based on a town plan developed after
Cyclone Dora in 1964. Some aspects of poor town planning have also meant that
newer houses are located closer to main drainage areas south of the community, are
subject to flooding during periods of high water flows – it is not uncommon to see
crocodiles in the main street during the wet season!
The proximity of the community to the coast and large delta also means that the area is
prone to flooding and cyclones. In particular, storm surges can lead to the loss of
heritage on coastal areas and the salination of wetlands, threatening ecological and
cultural areas of importance (Sinnamon & Frank 2010). King tides and high tides
connected to cyclonic winds are a particular threat to the area Monaghan and Taylor
2003 cited in Monaghan 2005). The people of Kowanyama also have their own
explanations for these events and link them with their own cultural knowledge. For
example, Monaghan has recorded understanding of how key ecological sites are
interconnected with cultural and physical place and notes in his field work that:
What needs to be noted here is that, in a natural disaster context, these traditions
imbue the indigenous community at Kowanyama with a greater appreciation of, and
resilience to, natural disaster events than their social profile might suggest. We may
speculate that this is the outcome of their ancestors' occupation of the region over the
millennia and having to deal with natural hazards with very little intervening technology
to shelter them from the effects of the major hazards in the area. More importantly,
bush foods are still actively hunted and gathered. Families frequently camp out in
conditions little different from their hunting and gathering ancestors. Their bush
subsistence activities and the knowledge base that supports them make them hardy
survivors in an environment that would clearly nonplus most eastern seaboard
Australians. Outstations provide the major vehicle for the transmission of these skills
and knowledge (Monaghan 2005, p. 10).
Understanding the physical impacts of climate change provides an important basis for
the Kowanyama people to bring their own unique knowledge system to bear on the
challenges created by climate change. There are very real threats to the people and
ecology of the area. For example, even though storm surges are not a new
phenomenon to Australian coastlines, the potential increase in intensity and frequency
in which they occur means that key areas will have shorter time periods to recover from
these impacts (Sinnamon & Frank 2010). For instance, the community experienced a
wet season surge south of the South Mitchell River estuary where the depth of water
on the coastal plain reached 1.7 metres leading to saltwater intrusion in old fresh water
well sites caused by the destruction of sand dune mass (Sinnamon & Frank 2010).
Dune woodland was also impacted by increased salinity levels in the swales
(Sinnamon & Frank 2010).
88 Native title and climate change
Figure 16: Kowanyama Priority Infrastructure Plan (source: Kowanyama
Aboriginal Shire Council 2012,
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Planning Scheme
2012
)
Potential physical impacts of climate change are compounded by limited social and
economic development in the region, limiting community capacity and opportunities to
engage in management of climate change threats and adapt existing cultural, natural
and economic assets in order to match these threats. Kowanyama has an estimated
population of about 1154 with a population structure unaffected by a disproportionately
large older generation (Queensland Treasury and Trade 2012a). Over 90 per cent of
the population is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin. However, despite being
the primary land holders of the area, the local Indigenous population have lower
average incomes, education and health outcomes linked to high welfare dependency,
poverty and poor health (Queensland Treasury and Trade 2012a).Kowanyama is
predominantly a welfare economy which has been reliant on CDEP with the remaining
15 per cent of the population employed in the State and local government services
within the community (Sinnamon 2009). There is a strong subsistence culture in the
community that is reliant on the health of the river system. There is also a small level of
controlled tourism and fishing licenses that provide a fee for service income to the land
council that also currently supports the RNTBC. It is unlikely that tourism will become a
major economic industry given that traditional owners want to retain the land and see
minimal disturbance areas that could potentially support tourism.
Native title and climate change 89
The Kowanyama Shire Council is the largest employer in the community with public
administration roles accounting for over 62 per cent of employment in the region,
followed by health and education services provided by the state government
(Queensland Treasury and Trade 2012a). Many of these services are externally
administered meaning that various government departments impact on service delivery
within the community (Monaghan 2005). Other initiatives to bring economic
development to the area have not succeeded in the long term due to a failure of
governance and limited funding and capacity support. For instance, when the DOGIT
was transferred to the Kowanyama Shire Council it was estimated that the then
Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement (DAIA) had approximately 8000
cattle in the DOGIT area. It was intended that cattle could be purchased and used to
supply a local butchers a proposal which ultimately failed to eventuate due to limited
business and governance experience. Other unsuccessful business enterprises have
been attributed to the limited market economy and loss of corporate knowledge due to
the transient non-indigenous population. Wealth creation through secured tenures for
home ownership has been a key policy measure aimed to promote capital
accumulation within Indigenous communities. However, issues of a closed market and
some of the failed Katter leases have meant that home ownership has been
approached with caution in the community (Moran et al. 2002).
The residents of Kowanyama live in permanent housing located in both the town centre
and in ‘homelands’ (most commonly known as outstations) that are located based on
specific relationships to country. All housing located in the Kowanyama township is
rented through the Kowanyama Shire Council (Queensland Treasury and Trade
2012a), however some are owned through the Katter Lease system under the
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act 1985 (Qld) , which creates
perpetual leases for home ownership on DOGIT land. Many houses that were on Katter
leases had fallen into a state of disrepair within the Kowanyama community and
needed to be updated. Throughout the early 2000s the Kowanyama Shire Council was
in the process of taking over the leases in exchange for new houses (Moran et al.
2002). The Queensland Department of Communities has sought to recently explore
home ownership through the old Katter lease system, identifying The issue of Katter
leases were stopped with the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) by the
Queensland government and have the effect of creating ‘holes’ in the underlying
DOGIT lands held by the community communally.
The establishment of homelands has been consistent with former state government
policy aimed to support the maintenance of connections to country by providing funding
for infrastructure including permanent buildings, bathroom facilitates, water supply and
cooking areas via the Kowanyama Shire Council. However, with limited funding and the
desire to increase the quality of accommodation in outstation areas, interest and
investment in outstations have stagnated, especially where access to centralised
services such as telecommunications, water and sewerage are not generally available
in these areas. How outstation occupation could be revitalised has been a subject of
concern for the RNTBC, which has sought to develop meaningful ways of engagement
on country (Kowanyama Aboriginal Land & Natural Resource Management Office
unpublished). Further, perceptions of inequitable allocation of resources via the
Kowanyama Shire Council office has fuelled some conflicts within the community as to
90 Native title and climate change
decision making over which outstations of which families are developed and those that
are not. Competition over limited resources also compromises opportunities to return to
outstations and contribute to care of country despite their importance to cultural
transmission. As noted by Monaghan the location and authority over homelands
‘reflects present understandings about traditional land affiliations’ (2005, p.10).Initially
funds of about $20 000 were made available to establish homelands with many
traditional owners expressing aspirations to develop enterprises (Monaghan cited in
Monaghan 2005). However, despite literature on the central role that homelands play in
continuing connections to country, the lack of consistent government policy has
contributed to the oscillation between centralisation of services and housing and
opportunities to stay out on country.
Inconsistent funding and policy focus has also meant that infrastructure and resources
can be inappropriately allocated. For example, there are bus stops throughout the
community and a community pool that have been policy ‘one offs’ and have become
run down and disused. Similarly, emergency management in the region falls under
State guidelines and Local Council laws. However funding for planning is diverse and
contingent on the capacity of the community to secure grant funding. The remote
nature of the community means that many functions of planning and emergency
management overlap. For example the recently completed multi-purpose sport and
recreation centre also serves as an emergency shelter and accommodation during
severe weather including self-contained power and water, and meal preparation,
washing and storage amenities (Attorney-General’s Department 2009). Funding for the
facility comes from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department via the
Queensland State Government yet the Kowanyama Shire Council operates and
maintains the facility. These intricacies in policy and funding, coupled with the
intermediary role of the Kowanyama Shire Council contribute to the uncoordinated
nature of community infrastructure and services.
Native title and climate change 91
Figure 17: Kowanyama Sport and Recreation Centre (image: Tran Tran).
4.3.4 Decision making structures in the Cape York
The traditional owners of Kowanyama have sought to assert their priorities and
interests within the constraints of historical and current institutional arrangements.
Existing governance structures that define responsibilities held by Aboriginal Shire
Councils has largely driven the planning scheme and diverse overarching state
government policies to restore Indigenous lands, encourage conservation and facilitate
development. This includes state government legislation which was introduced in 1968,
that created DOGIT land tenures in 15 Queensland Aboriginal communities when
Aboriginal communities moved from Church run missions to areas of State
administration. Trusteeship of DOGIT lands were eventually transferred in 1987 to
Community councils which were locally elected. The roles and responsibilities of
community councils were defined under the Aboriginal Communities (Justice and Land
Matters) Act 1984 (Qld). Community councils were administered by the Queensland
Department of Communities and met regularly through the Aboriginal Coordinating
Council (ACC). They did not have any requirements under the former Integrated
Planning Act 1997 (Qld) to carry out formal planning functions, unlike other local
government authorities. In Aboriginal communities collaborative planning and tenure
resolution was introduced in 1996 through the Cape York Land Use Heads of
Agreement which was an attempt to acquire pastoral leases and return land to
traditional owners through negotiated management and ownership agreements in
addition to land subject to the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld). This approach was
adopted in the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS). At the same time,
92 Native title and climate change
the Commonwealth provided support to the plan through the establishment of the
Natural Heritage Trust plan for Cape York providing additional funds for land use and
management planning as well as land acquisition. These processes occurred in parallel
to Kowanyama Shire Council planning.
As a sector, RNTBCs are the largest land holder in Queensland and particularly the
Cape York region yet have lacked any involvement in land planning. Currently,
planning in the Cape York has been largely driven by the need to ‘balance’ ecological
and development interests (Queensland Government Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection 2012). The new state based planning regime has been transposed
over other planning processes already in existence in the Cape York. Effectively, there
are currently three concurrent planning processes in place in the region: the Cape York
Peninsula Bioregion Management Plan focusing on protecting the heritage values of
the Cape York Peninsula and clarifying development opportunities, the protection of
rivers and Indigenous water resources, facilitated through the Cape York Peninsula
Heritage Act 2007 (Qld); the Wild Rivers declarations under the Wild Rivers Act 2005
(Qld) regulating development in and surrounding rivers classed as pristine; and the
Cape York Regional Statutory Planning process integrating conservation and
development interests under the SP Act (replacing the Integrated Planning Act 1997
(Qld)).
Most Aboriginal shire councils require plans under the SP Act. Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island Councils are recognised as Local Authorities and are responsible for
developing their planning schemes. These planning schemes apply to the whole
Council area regardless of the underlying tenures of the land. The Local Government
Act 2009 (Qld) also introduced a requirement that Local Governments prepare long
term community plans. How this planning process is to occur is not prescribed by the
legislation (although the Community Planning by Local Governments in Queensland is
intended to be a resource to guide this process and is intended to provide a ‘basis and
context’ for strategic land use planning under the SP Act (Queensland Government
Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2010, p. 3).
The state government is currently in the process of preparing a statutory Cape York
regional plan that involves the establishment of the Cape York Regional Planning
Committee (CYRPC) consisting of the mayors of all the Aboriginal shire councils of the
area, members of Parliament as well as industry community representatives (The
Honourable Jeff Seeney Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development
Infrastructure and Planning 2012). Native title however, is not specified under the SP
Act and RNTBCs are not a part of the CYRPC.A draft regional plan will be finalised by
January 2013 for a formal consultation process concluding in April 2013. It is assumed
that local governments will be ‘well placed to contribute to local and regionally specific
information to the regional plan preparation process on behalf of local communities’
(Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning 2012, p. 2). Without
formal involvement under the SP Act, native title holders are required to negotiate
effective relationships with their shire councils in order to be a part of state statutory
planning processes.
ILUAs are a central component to clarifying rights and interests with respect to different
tenures especially where native title has been recognised on to exist concurrently with
Native title and climate change 93
other tenures including exclusive possession. In Queensland, the state government
has been focused on providing assistance to RNTBCs to negotiate land transfers of
trust lands as a means of clarifying Aboriginal tenures. ILUAs can be used to identify
‘transferable’ land and clarify decision-making structures for Aboriginal held land. The
obvious impact of moving to representative structures based upon native title is the
potential dilution of existing Aboriginal shire council arrangements – although this is
likely to occur externally through potential shire council amalgamations that have been
proposed in the past. A further complicating factor is that other organisations, such as
shire council offices have existing infrastructure on native title lands. This has been a
core consideration in the Kowanyama Shire Council’s current attitude towards native
title holders.
Figure 18: Cape York Regional Plan Area (with local government areas) (image:
Queensland Government).
A policy vacuum on the state government level has also meant that departments such
as the Department of Local Government and Planning do not proactively consult with
RNTBCs (Australian Instutute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
unpublished). Existing processes mean that state government planners are relying on
local governments to determine who needs to be consulted within Aboriginal
94 Native title and climate change
communities. The discretion that is created through such an approach can leave native
title holders with very little opportunity to engage in planning especially where there is
an aggressive or unrepresentative shire council involved in the decision making
process (Australian Instutute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
unpublished).The KLNRMO has undergone community initiated planning to coincide
with its Working on Country and Wetlands management programs. There are also
strategic plans in place and a draft for the 2010-2015 period. These recent initiatives
follow on from the history of advocacy and strategic lobbying carried out by the
Kowanyama community to assert their priorities in formal land management processes.
The establishment of clear principles and a strategic vision for the KLNRMO at the time
of formal independent governance has created a foundation from which the community
continually refers. These principles have enabled the assertion of some measure of
control over the outcomes of policies and programs applied in the region. However, as
discussed above in section 4.3 and 4.4 opportunities for planning are also a relative
luxury given the ad hoc nature in which land management activities are funded. Further
opportunities to carry out planning have been opportunistic and contingent on access
to resources through networks and partnerships that have been formed by the
KLNRMO. The need to navigate formal and informal relationships and processes will
extend to the RNTBC in its formal land management role.
4.3.5 Traditional owner involvement in climate change decision making
Kowanyama’s traditional owners play a significant role in land management activities to
protect key cultural areas with high ecological value on their native title land. With
respect to these activities, traditional owner involvement is facilitated through the
KLNRMO which receives and manages funding provided to the community to carry out
land and water management activities. The original community based mandate of the
KLNRMO and ability of the organisation to innovatively attract funding and research
has ensured its financial strength and ability to protect the community’s interests. The
KLNRMO also benefits from the fact that broader decision making processes involving
town planning, housing, development and infrastructure are mediated through the
Kowanyama Shire Council. Indigenous community councils throughout Cape York
have traditionally had, on average, 59 areas of functional responsibility compared to
the 34 responsibilities that are carried out by mainstream local councils (Fitzgerald
2001, p. 248).The Kowanyama Shire Council is responsible for a diverse range of
community functions and infrastructure (see Figure 19: Kowanyama Shire Council
Functions).
Native title and climate change 95
Figure 19: Kowanyama Shire Council Functions (Source: Kowanyama Aboriginal
Shire Council Annual Report 2010-2011).
96 Native title and climate change
The centralisation of functions in the Kowanyama Shire Council is a part of the
historical tendency of church and government authorities to be responsible for social
programs and reinforced by the remote location and population characteristics of
Kowanyama. The current form of the Kowanyama Shire Council has been largely
driven by the need to innovate community governance structures in remote Aboriginal
communities throughout Cape York. A review carried out by Justice Tony Fitzgerald in
2001, the Cape York Justice Study identified how ‘governance structures labour under
numerous failings including lack of legitimacy and representative bodies, a tendency
toward the concentration of resources and responsibility, and accountability issues’ (p.
236). The Cape York Justice Study led to the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices,
2002, a commitment to review the current laws for governance and the subsequent
preparation of a Green Paper, Making Choices about Community Governance, 2003. A
final White Paper outlining proposed new laws led the transitioning of Aboriginal
councils to the Local Government Act 1993 (Cth).As a result, the Local Government
(Community Government Areas) Act 2004(Qld) was enacted into to transition
Aboriginal councils to shire councils standardizing the local government within
Aboriginal communities and declaring Aboriginal councils/council areas as local
governments/local government areas under the Local Government Act 1993 (Qld). The
disproportionate state government policy focus on reforming Aboriginal councils has
largely excluded the role of Aboriginal legal traditions in decision making.
Interestingly, the Legislation Review Committee had formerly reported in 1991 that the
local government model was inappropriate given that Indigenous Councils (as they
were then known) were responsible for ‘almost every aspect of the functioning of their
communities’ and that existing governing structures failed to include Indigenous legal
traditions (cited in Fitzgerald 2001). Further the Cape York Justice Study outlined a
number of reasons for the limited support available to achieve community governance
and the serious barriers created by ‘dated and inappropriate structures for local and
regional governance’ (Fitzgerald 2001, p. 243). Fitzgerald further warned that:
clearly paring back the formal powers of councils to basic local government
functions without adequate alternative structures in place would be a retrograde
step. It has the potential to further fracture decision making authority in a
community and to see power over important issues relocated to organisations
that may have the same problems of legitimacy as the council, or to regional
bodies, or back to State Government without adequate local ability to control
how this occurs’ (2001, p. 249).
These recommendations and underlying issues were not taken up by the Queensland
Government in its mainstreaming of Aboriginal councils. Similarly, in a further review of
the ACC (see discussion at 4.6.3 above) it was noted that from an administrative
perspective, integration into mainstream local government would clarify operational
requirements. This same review did not consider whether such a model would be
appropriate for Indigenous forms of governance within communities. As stated in the
explanatory notes to the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 2004,
‘a fundamental principle underpinning the White Paper is that Aboriginal communities
will receive the same standard of governance from their councils as enjoyed by other
Queenslanders’ through a ‘model that institutes best practice local governance’ (p.
2).However, local decision making is not always transparent or inclusive:
Native title and climate change 97
Whether you’re in council or whether you are a community member in a board,
whether you are a traditional owner, or just a person from the community. At the
end of the day, if you need something to be resolved that’s going to benefit
Kowanyama, the consultation needed to be done properly and it needed to be
done to the public for the people. Sitting in a room with 12 or 14 people is not
going to get to everyone else (L Gilbert, 2012, pers. comm. 5 March 2012).
In practice, decision making authority in the Cape York region is interrelated with the
overlapping land tenures that need to be rationalised with native title rights and
interests. Existing policies in Queensland are skewed towards Aboriginal shire councils
limiting opportunities for native title holder participation in planning processes. In the
Cape York Justice Study, finalised in 2001, it was recognised that overlapping policy
approaches contributed to existing fragmented land tenures fuelling social conflict over
decision making over how those lands should be used and managed (Fitzgerald 2001).
In particular, the conflict between native title holders and their representative
organisations, RNTBCs and shire councils and the DOGIT lands held under the
Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) is driven by these overlapping policies and subsequent
land tenures created under them. Interestingly, this was an observation made by
Fitzgerald over 10 years ago who noted that there was a ‘need for harmony between
the identity and administrative processes associated with each of the two legislative
structures that may now recognise traditional ownership over the same land’
(Fitzgerald 2001, p. 364). Similarly, as noted in a study carried out by the CYLC and
the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) by Memmott and Blackwood it was noted
that:
While this complexity tends to be viewed by wider Australian public in terms of
Indigenous versus non-indigenous rights, what is less well appreciated is that
many Aboriginal groups find themselves caught within the very same web, trying
to integrate and reconcile their newly recognised native title rights with other
forms of traditional and non-traditional Aboriginal land ownership (2008, p. 5).
(Memmott & Blackwood 2008).
In particular, the existing governance structure inefficiently places the KLNRMO in
direct conflict with the RNTBC who need to compete for resources within the
community. At the same time, preference for the KLNRMO to remain with the
Kowanyama Shire Council is based not only the historical links based upon its creation
as a community council but also the resourcing and governance structures that it
supports in order to access resources (especially grants funding) that are central to its
operation. As noted by Fitzgerald in the Cape York Justice Study, ‘the fact that
Aboriginal communities have been consistently asked to accept non-Aboriginal
structures in order to have greater control over their own affairs is an irony’ (2001, p
246). The introduction of native title and the governance structure for its administration
– RNTBCs – have created a mechanism to recognise community governance, based
on cultural authority, yet remains challenged in terms of mainstream governance.
RNTBCs are inherently a reflection of cultural social arrangements yet remain ‘new’ in
terms of mainstream governance. However, its own cultural authority is determined by
how well RNTBCs function within the community (see table 3 below).
98 Native title and climate change
The transition from community council to RNTBC representation has not been
completely understood or supported in the community. The limited membership of the
RNTBC indicates not only a lack of awareness of the RNTBC but a view from the
community that their interests are in practical terms negotiated through the shire
council structure. The changes that have occurred within the community have meant
that the role of the ‘translator’ has now changed. Leslie Gilbert notes that:
I think that over the past years in working together with the council and running
the land office, it was good to see that it came this far...You’ve got educated
younger people now coming through that are working on the same progress
with land claim and ILUA....you get people that have to put pen to paper and
read what is in black and white now today, instead of other people translating it
for them (L Gilbert, 2012, pers. comm. 5 March 2012).
The Kowanyama Shire Council acts as the conduit for assets and resources that flow
into the community and ultimately decision making yet community control can
potentially be diluted with the threat of a lack of legitimacy, conflict over resources and
external attempts to amalgamate the council. As a shire council, grant monies for the
provision of community services and development, and land and water management
are monopolised through its current governance form. For example, the RNTBC is
unable to access resources that are already provided to the existing KLNRMO as the
organisation predates the establishment of the RNTBC. Ideally, the functions of the
KLNRMO should fall under the management of the RNTBC, which ‘holds and manages
native title’ although its role and functions would not change. However, from a funding
perspective the existing governance and administration structures of the Kowanyama
Shire Council (some of which are centralised in Cairns) have been more appealing to
funders. For example funding received from SEWPaC for the Working on Country
program has been explicitly denied to the RNTBC in Kowanyama as it viewed the
KLNRMO as the legitimate receiving body – ignoring statutory land management
functions of the RNTBC. At the same time, the expertise development by the KLNRMO
would be lost if funding were to be redirected to the RNTBC. This is particularly
important given the land and water management roles that the Kowanyama Shire
Council had traditionally performed through the KLNRMO. The KLNRMO has a
tradition of pioneering land management with a strong community focus for example,
limiting recreational fishing in the area. These activities include funding from a variety
of sources which are constantly under threat. As former KLNRMO staff member and
RNTBC general manager Rodney Whitfield notes:
What we are trying to do over there was create an environment where we’re not
totally dependent on governments, whether it’s state or federal, for income,
because the change of government could change the whole thing (R Whitfield,
2012, pers. comm. 23 February 2012).
The local government model is under increasing threat of amalgamation, compromising
the security of any form of Indigenous decision making that is expressed through
Aboriginal shire councils. Research carried out by the Local Government Reform
Commission in 2007 into the functionality of Indigenous councils has led to a decision
to regionalise local councils in order to suit infrastructure and administrative interests,
with particular impacts on the Torres Strait (Local Government Reform Commission
Native title and climate change 99
2007). However, with respect to Kowanyama, the Commission concluded ‘that there is
insufficient information to make a recommendation…In particular, concerns were noted
with implementation issues relating to land tenure’ and considered structural reform at
a later date (Local Government Reform Commission 2007, p. 65).
While it is not viable to duplicate functions or create competition between organisations
within a small community, the shire council structure, and the risks of amalgamation,
place additional pressure on the sustainability of current governance arrangements.
Misinformation and a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities restrict
opportunities to collaborate and clarify functions within the community:
One of my problems is trying to get the council up to speed with what we’re
doing, what we’re up for and that...they are genuinely trying to find out more,
and they’ve agreed to be fully supportive of the PBC. So wherever I need
assistance, its a matter of asking. But then again its a big difficulty with the
system they have (R Whitfield, 2012, pers. comm. 23 February 2012).
The nature of the DOGIT land holdings has been central to authority over decision
making in the Kowanyama context. As it currently stands, the Kowanyama Shire
Council holds the DOGIT lands on trust for the Kowanyama community. Decision
making in Kowanyama has traditionally occurred through its elders counsel who direct
the activities of the Aboriginal Council (as it then was) and the KLNRMO, formed as a
part of the Council. However, these changes to the governance structures of Aboriginal
shire councils mean that the ability to control community administration has become
increasingly transferred to the state government where there are even fewer
Indigenous representatives. Former Mayor and Kokoberra traditional owner Leslie
Gilbert raised his concerns over the loss of community control:
Kowanyama people really look after their land, and manage their land...but
under the structure of the Shire Council....most communities are not going into
local government, so I think there should definitely be a board of PBC
representatives that represent the community and their traditional land(L
Gilbert, 2012, pers. comm. 5 March 2012).
In the instance of Kowanyama, the resolution of a native title claim over the township
area involves the potential transfer of the Kowanyama DOGIT (including the township
area) to Abm Elgoring Ambung under s 28 of the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) (ALA).
Central to the transfer are the new leasing arrangements and the impact that this will
have on current Kowanyama Shire Council assets over native title lands. Given that
DOGIT lands do not extinguish native title rights and interests, it is logical that DOGIT
lands be held by the native title holders via their RNTBC. An RNTBC can be appointed
as a grantee of ‘transferred’ land under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
Amendment Act 2008, there is potential to rationalise administrative structures and
enabling traditional owners to be represented by one organisation through which they
have membership. The differences in criteria for native title recognition and ALA land
grants however, means that one structure cannot hold two forms of land tenure based
on differing legal responsibilities (Memmott & Blackwood 2008).RNTBCs represent
traditional owners that are recognised based upon traditional connections to lands and
waters, whereas the DOGIT is currently held on trust ostensibly for a wider group
100 Native title and climate change
based on residence. The governing and membership structure of RNTBCs (as
recognised in their determinations and outlined within individual RNTBC constitutions)
can exclude other members of the community who, while residing within the area, lack
recognised cultural connections. Non native title holders would otherwise be
recognised under the ALA regime (Moran et al. 2002).The need to reconcile the
‘requirements’ of these legislative regimes and their underlying tenures creates a
barrier to expressing appropriate authority and decision making; especially where
traditional owners are forced to subscribe to the requirements of a specific legislative
regime in order to express their priorities for community land use and management.
Subsequent access to DOGIT lands and how this will be managed by the RNTBC were
central issues in the proposed transfer. Despite being consented to by the state
government, the Kowanyama Shire Council raised concerns over the limited capacity
of the RNTBC to carry out the function of the trustee and at the same time, the Shire
also raised concerns over how the DOGIT lands would be leased back. The
Kowanyama Shire Council has repeatedly said that it would only consent to a transfer if
it were to be offered a perpetual lease. However, this would negate any decision
making authority that would have been handed over to the traditional owners, via their
RNTBC as a result of the DOGIT transfer.
The difficulty of reorienting towards RNTBCs is further compounded by the lack of
capacity of these native title corporations. While there is an opportunity to engage with
RNTBCs through NTRBs, the relationship between native title holders and their
representative organisations is far from clear (Attorney-General’s Department Steering
Committee (AGDSC) 2006). Representative organisations have traditionally been the
contact point for native title holders. This occurs especially where there have been
mandated rights and interests recognised as future acts under the NTA or heritage
under state based heritage legislation. Current funding arrangements entrench the
dependency between RNTBCs and representative bodies rather than promoting an
iterative and interdependent relationship (Department of Families 2009). Where
RNTBCs have no staff or work voluntarily it is often difficult to find a contact point let
alone organise to arrange meetings to engage in land management. While this is not
the case in Kowanyama, the general lack of clarity about who to ‘talk to’ has
compounded the marginalisation of native title holders from policy planning processes
(Margerum, Hart & Lampert 2003).
Interestingly however, traditional owners act as both councillors and RNTBC directors.
Under the constitution of Abm Elgoring Ambung, at least one traditional owner is
required to be a councillor of the Shire. The current existence of two parallel
governance structures, one supported by the federal government and another by the
state government, one based on the recognition of pre-existing traditional laws and
customs and the other historical and cultural interests, creates an inherent conflict over
resources. In Kowanyama, family groups are represented through the board of
directors of the RNTBC whereas the Kowanyama Shire Council only has 5 councillors
including the Mayor acting under an informal elders counsel. Under the Local
Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004 (Qld) the number of councillors
was reduced from 7 to five. It was intended that electoral divisions would be based on
Indigenous social groups (LGCGA Explanatory notes). However, the last election in
Kowanyama in April 2012 was hampered by a lack of access. Fees for nominations
Native title and climate change 101
had been significantly increased from $80 to $250 and deadlines for nominations were
changed without informing the general community leading to a limited list of potential
candidates. In contrast, RNTBC elections are guided by the constitution of the RNTBC
and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). Further
these processes are overseen by the CYLC.
The question of how decision making authority is exercised, and whether they equate
with the legal traditions of the Kowanyama people or those imposed, and later adapted
from external legal requirements, has greater implications on how traditional owners
become involved in practical aspects of managing climatic changes on their country.
For instance, Kowanyama underwent natural disaster risk management planning with a
report produced in 2005 by Monaghan on the decision making infrastructure within the
community. The report only identifies the role of the elders counsel as native title
holders were not collectively recognised as such until the determination of native title in
2009. The role of RNTBCs, while representing the traditional owners organised through
their native title rights and interests needs to be considered in decision making
protocols along with existing governance structures. Native title interests however,
based on traditional law and custom are articulated through the RNTBC corporate
structure, governed by Commonwealth legislation without support or funding. RNTBCs
operate in tandem with existing Aboriginal shire council structures. Unlike RNTBCs,
councillors receive training and remuneration and area supported by the state
government in order to develop their governance capacity. This form of administrative
authority however, can exclude people who belong to traditional claim groups, elders,
women and young people who are not members of the formal institutional structures in
place. As Leslie Gilbert explains:
... The council and everyone should respect now that the PBC board is set up
here for the people of Kowanyama....[when] other organisations that come in
and through this place, they’ve got to understand that there is a PBC board
there and that they must learn to meet not, not just coming in and want to meet
the council...At the end of the day, when you think of it all, the issue comes
back because whose land we are on...and whose community it is (L Gilbert,
2012, pers. comm. 5 March 2012).
Furthermore, where their skills are based on a traditional process, older people may
elect to speak through a younger person who has an intermediary role, such as the
manager of the RNTBC. The RNTBC however, does not have access to the same
levels of training or has significant barriers to overcome in order to do so. Rodney
Whitfield recalls one experience with Kowanyama Shire Council administrators working
from Cairns:
He actually did not know who the PBC was...this is two and a half years down
the track...And yet we are supposed to be working together, so there’s a bit of a
problem, they’re trying to catch up (R Whitfield, 2012, pers. comm. 23 February
2012).
An appropriate administrative structure for decision making on a community level
needs to create a role for people in community governance, rather than marginalise
them. The decision making requirements for native title also mean that the ‘right
102 Native title and climate change
people’ are involved in land management decisions. A failure of the formal governing
structure (the Kowanyama Shire Council) to provide appropriate representation and
equity within Kowanyama hampers the ability of the community to be involved in
adaptation activities. For example, ‘consultations’ with state government parties are
held through intermediaries within the communities. While this is ideal where
community members do not want to engage on a day to day basis with state
government policy, intermediary parties also have significant discretion in terms of how
information is communicated and the level of understanding the community has in
areas that concern it most. As such, the way in which the Kowanyama Shire Council
and equally the way in which the RNTBC is accountable to its constituents has a
significant impact on the quality of the decision making process.
The governance and resourcing needs of Kowanyama are above those of a local
council. Often many community members rely on a ‘one stop shop’ provided by a
trusted and reliable member (or members of the community) rather than specialised
services that exist in the mainstream. Under the original recommendations made in the
Cape York Justice Study, Fitzgerald recommended that Aboriginal communities should
have an option to develop their own sui generis authority or be given flexibility to
develop their own community constitutions (Fitzgerald 2001, p. 254). Interestingly,
RNTBCs do develop their own constitutions and have formed their representative
structures based on cultural forms of legitimacy. The obvious issue is the lack of state
government support for these structures and the general bias in existing policy and
legislation to support shire councils in community governance and the land and water
management function. It was suggested by some Kowanyama traditional owners that if
two governance systems were in place, then the Kowanyama Shire council should only
be a local government, that is collect rates, ensure garbage collection and town water
quality, and leave the additional aspects of land management decision making and
community development to the RNTBC. The fact that these two organisations are
forced into a competitive position, through no fault of the community members involved,
requires greater opportunity for planning and collaboration to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the RNTBC and those of the Kowanyama Shire Council. As it stands
the inherent conflict between these organisations undermines both systems of law
(Fitzgerald 2001).Conflicts between the inherent structures of these two organisations
also lack a clear resolution process. In particular, there have been no clear planning
processes that enable both the Aboriginal shire council and the RNTBC to clarify their
roles and functions, whether the existing representation structures are appropriate and
where opportunities exist for greater collaboration. The complex interlinkages between
land tenure and planning demand partnership models focused on resolving underlying
tenures and how they are prioritised in decision making processes. Similarly, the
history of governance in the Kowanyama community and in the Cape generally
indicates a need to rationalise traditional and non traditional forms authority as a
means of enabling greater functionality in decision making within the communities.
Native title and climate change 103
Table 3: Abm Elgoring Ambung priorities16
Measure
Relevant stakeholder
Detail
Opportunities
Barriers
Native title recognition
Kowanyama Aboriginal
Shire Council, Department
of Environment and
Resource Management
(DERM), Cape York Land
Council (CYLC)
Cultural connections of the Yir
Yoront, Kokoberra and Kunjen
peoples have been recognised
in native title determinations in
the area.
Consultation provisions of the NTA under the
future acts regime create opportunities for
agreement making (e.g. ILUAs)
There are limitations to future
acts regime and ILUA processes
need to be considered at the
outset by proponents.
Rationalisation of land
tenures
Kowanyama Aboriginal
Shire Council, DERM,
Cape York Land Council
(CYLC)
The Kowanyama Aboriginal
Shire Council also holds the
DOGIT tenure, two pastoral
leases and fishing licenses in
the region.
Former Deed of Grant in Trust Lands can be
handed back to Abm Elgoring Ambung.
There are overlapping tenures
that are not managed by one
organisation.
Traditional owner
engagement in land
and water
management work
DERM; KLNRMO
Kowanyama has a strong
history of independence and
community based land
management supported by a
diverse range of funding
sources.
The land management role of the RNTBC is
not subject to the same threat of
amalgamation as the Aboriginal Shire Council
structure.
Land management is located
primarily with the KLNRMO and
its Shire Council structures rather
than directly through traditional
owners.
RNTBC independence
and capacity
DERM, Department of
Families, Housing,
Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs
RNTBC capacity building has
been facilitated through the
CYLC, volunteer support from
regional development bodies
Abm Elgoring Ambung receives support from
the Aboriginal Shire Council and the work of
the KLNRMO. These key community
relationships and expertise can be used to
Abm Elgoring Ambung cannot
access funding that is already
being received by the Shire
Council via the KLNRMO for land
16Adapted from Ford, JD, Pearce, T, Duerden, F, Furgal, C & Smit, B 2010, 'Climate change policy responses for Canada's Inuit population: The importance
of and opportunities for adaptation', Global Environmental Change, vol. 20, pp. 177-91.
104 Native title and climate change
Measure
Relevant stakeholder
Detail
Opportunities
Barriers
(FaHCSIA), Cape York
Land Council (CYLC)
and through the local Shire
Aboriginal Council. There is
currently no sustained source
of funding.
assist the RNTBC at start up. For example, the
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council provided
funding for the salary of a general manager for
a period of one year.
management work.
Abm Elgoring Ambung needs
support to apply for and acquit
grants in addition to its land
management responsibilities. The
small scale of grants makes
funding inaccessible and
prohibitive relative to their
administrative burden.
Community
development (e.g.
Cattle stations and
tourism)
Indigenous Business
Australia (IBA), CYLC,
regional development
bodies; non for profit
organisations
Abm Elgoring Ambung have
developed a business plan
outlining their enterprise
development aspirations.
The RNTBC can adopt corporate structures
that could support enterprise development
outside of the Aboriginal Shire Council
structure.
Business opportunities require
ongoing mentoring and support to
be successful.
Cultural
transmission/health
and wellbeing
Community, Department of
Health and Aging
The Kowanyama traditional
owners have stated in their
planning for the KLNRMO and
Abm Elgoring Ambung that that
want to ensure cultural
transmission especially through
reinvigorating their homelands.
Homelands infrastructure already exists based
on traditional relationships to land. There is
also significant planning work that has been
carried out to identify sources of funding that
could support cultural activities. For example,
Abm Elgoring Ambung have been running the
Awin Udnum (Good Path) workshops to
promote community health and wellbeing and
pass on traditional knowledge.
There are no sustained programs
in place. For example, homelands
have lost significant policy and
financial support.
Housing and
community services
Community/State (federal
funding)
Housing and infrastructure
projects are engaged through
state and federal government
programs.
The loss of traditional council responsibilities
over housing and other community services
(due to mainstreaming or centralisation)
creates an opportunity for RNTBCs to take
over these functions.
RNTBCs will need to renegotiate
these responsibilities with State
governments who may be
reluctant to enable/reinstate
community control .
Native title and climate change 105
4.3.6 Barriers and constraints to adaptation
There is genuine commitment to building the capacity of the RNTBC in the Kowanyama
community but there is also genuine concern that existing community developed
governance arrangements will be undermined by any change. Kowanyama community
is in a process of institutional change that cannot be avoided. The emerging RNTBC
asserting its responsibilities in relation to land management, access and decision-
making about the native title lands will continue to be a part of the governance
landscape in a legal, social and cultural sense. At the same time the historical role of
the Aboriginal Council as the manager of all Kowanyama business is being eroded as
Aboriginal councils become more aligned with non-Indigenous municipal roles,
including the possibility of amalgamation. There is a real risk of destabilisation during
this time, which the KLNRMO is understandably concerned about, given its current
successful model of grant management. In order to avoid this risk, the KLNRMO and
the RNTBC will need to work in strong partnership and progressively allocate roles
between them while ensuring current funding bodies remain confident in their capacity
to deliver.
Like many native title groups and Indigenous communities in the two jurisdictions
studied, Abm Elgoring Ambung and the Kowanyama Shire Council will be examining
tenure reform, and the transfer of DOGIT in the context of regional planning. Any
planning process in Indigenous communities need to be developed with a view to not
only enable the recognition of Indigenous relationships to land and waters but also
employ mechanisms to restore lost connections created by the patchwork of past
policies that have created layered tenures and processes for dealing with them.
There is a significant opportunity for the RNTBC to partner with the KLNRMO and
benefit from its historical experience and engagement with processes for asserting the
self-governance and sovereignty of the Kowanyama traditional owners. Inevitably, the
same challenges that have been successfully navigated by the KLNRMO will also
present themselves to the RNTBC. Current community conflicts need to be
conceptualised within the broader context of imposed governance structures within the
community. The Kowanyama traditional owners need to have access to networks and
expertise that can supply advice to be a part of an informed decision making process.
The RNTBC will need to develop secondary partnerships with key stakeholders
delivering services and seeking access to native title lands who are currently used to
dealing strictly through the Council. The experience of the KLNRMO in stakeholder
management is a great community asset that not all native title groups can draw from.
However, future stakeholder partnerships will need to be considered in the native title
context with a view to the cultural aspects of native title governance. Engaging with the
foundations of native title is essential to any partnership model. As Rodney Whitfield
notes:
If you don’t spend the time and effort with your foundations and building your
supporting the correct way then you are in trouble from the start. You can’t build
anything without putting these steps in place. If you go full steam ahead and
build the top floor penthouse suit with all the trimmings before the correct
supporting walls and foundations then you will end up in a pile of rubble and
dust in no time (R Whitfield pers. comm. 16 March 2012).
106 Native title and climate change
Like the Karajarri, the Queensland government proposed statutory planning process
would be more likely to succeed over the long term if an investment is made in
providing the Indigenous institutions an opportunity to discuss cultural and municipal
governance arrangements and reach a shared vision of the future institutional
arrangements. Table 3 above outlined some of the key entry points for successful
adaptation in the Kowanyama community, identifying the specific role of Abm Elgoring
Ambung as the native title holding body on behalf of the traditional owners. Without
planning expertise and opportunity, the community is faced “death by a thousand
meetings”.
Formal decision making processes would be of greater value and relevance to the
traditional owners, and more likely to adequately account for climate change adaptation
priorities if it prepared on a whole of country/whole of shire basis, inclusive of future
lands use and infrastructure needs as well as land and water and cultural heritage
priorities.
Native title and climate change 107
5. OVERCOMING BARRIERS, CONTRAINTS AND LIMITS TO
ADAPTATION
Indigenous peoples relationships with country connect the land to the people, forming
the basis of an engagement with territory and places in which natural and cultural
values are held together. As our emerging understanding of the vulnerability and
interdependence of humans and landscapes grows, Indigenous knowledge traditions
provide valuable intellectual insight for conceptual and practical approaches to climate
change adaptation. In Australia, native title holders form a significant part of this
Indigenous contribution, and it is inevitable that their role in climate change action will
be increasingly acknowledged, whether in relation to monitoring, abatement or
adaption. In contrast to research linking Indigenous communities with vulnerability, the
research into the capacities of RNTBCs places them in the position of potential
strength as agents of change, based on: significant land holdings; role as important
governance institutions; and as holders of an invaluable body of knowledge and
understanding of how landscapes work and respond to change at micro-levels. Despite
this, Indigenous people and native title groups remain marginalised among the
decision-making structures and practices being utilised to facilitate climate change
adaptation. This is evident in the legal and political disputes over native title. The
marginal position of Indigenous people is actively enforced by proponents who prefer
the pre-Mabo arrangements.
The successful engagement between native title groups and climate change adaptive
practices will depend on how the various stakeholders that hold interests on native title
lands navigate the institutional limitations and opportunities presented to them. The
close alignment between the aspirations of RNTBCs to care for country and address
adaptation priorities has been demonstrated through our two case studies. Planning
regimes were examined in each place to map out the opportunities for combining the
priorities of native title holders with climate change adaptation. The potential for
collaboration between climate adaptation and native title priorities is challenged by the
limitations of existing institutional frameworks and practices, and their capacity to
change and accommodate the emerging role of native title holders and their RNTBCs.
In Table 4, we summarise the institutional barriers to the effective participation of
RNTBCs in climate change adaptation decision-making that exist at the legislative,
policy and funding level.
108 Native title and climate change
Table 4: Elements of successful adaptation
Scale17
Component
Current Activities
Barriers
Opportunities
Individuals
Institutional/individual capacity
expressed through education levels,
financial literacy, health, formal and
informal skills, mentoring that
enable individuals to make
decisions and take on their
responsibilities.18
RNTBC directors have access to
training and support programs.
RNTBCs also receive support from
regional organisations including
local Shire Councils or their native
title representative body (NTRB).
Having resources and the ability to
attract and retain skilled staff is a
challenge for Indigenous organisations
located in remote areas. Continuity of
staff and resources also compounds
these issues. Education is a long term
investment.
RNTBC directors voluntarily
work within their organisations.
They are willing to work for their
RNTBCs but require appropriate
resourcing to do so.
Entity/governa
nce culture
Culturally appropriate governance
structures and decision making19
Abm Elgoring Ambung have
developed a corporate plan
highlighting their land and
community development
aspirations. KTLA have developed a
coastal management plan and are in
the process of IPA planning.
RNTBCs are required to engage in
urgent and long term decision making
without appropriate strategic policy and
land use planning.
RNTBCs require opportunities to
develop their own holistic
planning processes to articulate
their climate change priorities
(rather than responding to ad
hoc opportunities or funding
programs).
Entity/governa
Ability to express laws and customs
RNTBC constitution requires group
Constitutions formed at the time of
RNTBCs can consider review of
17 Adapted from Smith, D, 2005 ‘Capacity Development of Indigenous Governance” Emerging Issues and Lessons from the Indigenous Community
Governance Project (ICGP)’, CAEPR-Reconciliation Australia ICG Project Workshop, 18 October 2005.
18 Adapted from Smith, D, 2005 ‘Capacity Development of Indigenous Governance” Emerging Issues and Lessons from the Indigenous Community
Governance Project (ICGP)’, CAEPR-Reconciliation Australia ICG Project Workshop, 18 October 2005.
19 Veland, S, Howitt, R, Dominey-Howes, D, Thomalla, F & Houston, D 2013, 'Procedural vulnerability: Understanding environmental change in a remote
indigenous community', ibid.vol. 23, pp. 314-26.
Native title and climate change 109
Scale17
Component
Current Activities
Barriers
Opportunities
nce culture
in governance structures20
representation and decision making
structures to be appropriately
recognised.
native title determination without review.
constitutions with assistance
from the Office of the Registrar
of Indigenous Corporations
(ORIC) and their representative
bodies.
Enabling
environment
Formal recognition of Indigenous
rights and interests
Future acts regime provides some
measure of protection but is applied
without consideration of importance
of native title rights and interests.
Misunderstanding of the future acts
process and the scope of native title
rights and interests.
Native title is the recognition of
pre-existing rights and interests
and should be treated as such in
the application of land and water
planning practices.
Enabling
environment
Consistent and stable resourcing
RNTBCs receive variable funding on
yearly basis from FaHCSIA after
making a funding submission via
their NTRB. Abm Elgoring Ambung
have also received financial
assistance from the Kowanyama
Aboriginal Shire Council.
Funding is mediated through third
parties and not always consistent or
reliable. Funding is not provided for
salaries.
Negotiations with state
governments provide an
opportunity to access more
stable funding.
20 Ibid.
110 Native title and climate change
Scale17
Component
Current Activities
Barriers
Opportunities
Enabling
environment
Appropriate and inclusive policies
and processes
Native title rights and interests are
currently protected under the Future
Act provisions of the NTA.
There is limited understanding of the
Future Acts regime and what constitutes
and activity that impacts on native title
rights and interests. Native title is also
poorly articulated or understood in land
and water management.21
Agreement making processes
supported by effective
relationships can enable the
negotiation of how native title
interacts with other regimes.
Networks and
interactions
Community
collaboration/addressing community
conflict over resources and
authority22
RNTBCs have sought to
communicate with community and
develop formal relationships with
Shire/Community Councils. There
has been limited planning and policy
support to enable these
relationships to be clarified and
agreed upon.
Remote communities have strong
history of church and government
control that need to be accounted for. 23
Climate change is an important
area for community collaboration
and action.
Networks and
interactions
Effective relationship building and
maintenance with regional bodies
Both the KTLA and Abm Elgoring
Ambung are supported through the
work of regional NTRBs.
RNTBCs need to develop clear
pathways/responsibilities with regional
bodies that have been responsible for
their formation and support.
Support of regional bodies
means that RNTBCs have
access to expertise and support
within existing infrastructure.
21 Weir, JK (ed.) 2012, Country, Native Title and Ecology, ANU E Press, Canberra.
22 Ibid. See also Preston, BL & Stafford-Smith, M 2009, Framing vulnerability and adaptive capacity: discussion paper, 2, CSIRO.
23 O'Brien, K, Hayward, B & Berkes, F 2009, 'Rethinking Social-Contracts: Building Resilience in a Changing Climate', Ecology and Society, vol. 14, no. 2, p.
12.
Native title and climate change 111
The retrospective recognition of native title has supported the assertion of traditional
owner authority over their territories. Legal determinations of native title outline their
rights and interests in relation to land and waters, and include critical decision-making
responsibility for land use and natural resource management, whether as exclusive
rights of native title holders or shared with other interests. Formal processes under the
NTA provide specific mechanisms for engagement with native title holders, including
processes for dealing with activities affecting native title interests and agreement-
making functions to overcome potential conflicts. However, there is a concomitant
disabling aspect to this belated recognition in the institutional marginalisation of the
RNTBCs. With the introduction of native title, systems and relationships continue to be
renegotiated within communities as well as at the regional and state levels.
Inconsistencies created by intervening government policies and administrative
approaches have created inefficiencies within the two remote communities which have
formed a part of this research. A lack of respect for existing planning work and the
aspirations of RNTBCs and local communities, coupled with ad hoc and at times
divergent attempts to enable development within Bidyadanga and Kowanyama, have
meant that decision-making processes have not been able to generate effective and
sustainable land use planning outcomes central to effective adaptation. Traditional
owners have commented on the repetitive and unresolved nature of policy
administration:
The phase of taking a piece of paper and putting it in the draft and then keep on
coming back and saying ‘its only a draft and its only a draft’, well, when its going
to come to an end of it when the decision’s going to be made, you know? Is that
you keep on coming back, you’re fighting the same issue that was from way
back in ’87 or ’88 coming all the way up to now, 2012 and you’re still dealing
with some of the issues that were on the table back then. Well, why is it that it
takes so long (L Gilbert, 2012, pers. comm. 5 March 2012).
RNTBCs have been created in addition to other community governance arrangements,
displacing previous decision-making processes , and causing tension or confusion over
roles and responsibilities. The two case studies here have revealed the need to
renegotiate decision making within Indigenous communities. However, funding
arrangements that preference one organisation over another, place Indigenous
councils in competition with the RNTBC, often with an outcome that draws resources
away from RNTBCs. In Kowanyama, this has required traditional owners to wear ‘two
hats’ and adhere to two sets of rules in their decision-making. In, it has resulted in
conflict between traditional owners and the broader resident Indigenous population.
These local adjustments are further complicated by the national Indigenous affairs
policy shift away from the self-determination policies established in the 1970s. The
former community/Aboriginal councils system, historically used as a means of enabling
self-government, has been slowly replaced by mainstream structures that impose new
forms of accountability or remove accountability to a broader regional constituency.
The regionalisation of planning and local government risks the unique needs and
priorities of remote Aboriginal communities being increasingly under-represented.
Government’s play an important role in remote communities in creating the regulatory
112 Native title and climate change
and policy frameworks that ensure those communities have the ability to assess the
risks imposed by climate change and have the capacity to act on those within a
culturally appropriate decision making process. For RNTBCs seeking greater
engagement with governments, in part through partnerships with Community Councils,
these national shifts move away from local Indigenous authority and set up a different
proposition. The shifts run counter to the legal and philosophical turn towards
recognising Indigenous authority, as triggered by the Mabo decision; although, the
authority of Indigenous communities is based on a homogenous Indigenous identity,
whilst traditional authority is based in the laws and customs of country
The lack of RNTBC establishment and operational funds is a stumbling block that
profoundly affects their adaptive capacity. RNTBCs are not funded to participate in
negotiations over land and water use in an equitable and meaningful way. Further, it is
unreasonable to expect that traditional owners will be able to sustain any active
engagement with their native title corporate structure without funding and support to do
so. Because of the pivotal role of RNTBCs, this is a lack of investment in: planning and
managing these lands, supporting the interests of others wishing to engage with
RNTBCs, and building the long term sustainability of these organisations. This is not an
uncomplicated work environment. Native title is a new and very technical legal regime.
Further, RNTBCs are accountable to their membership, governments, and other parties
with business on native title land. They must necessarily manage an intercultural
governance, bridging corporate forms with cultural practices, so as to establish both
corporate and cultural legitimacy. This requires formulating and adhering to policies
and protocols that can satisfy diverse parties.
Confusion over the scope and ‘place’ of native title complicates how native title and
planning interact. The complex nature of these interactions can be addressed in
practical ways, such as early inclusion of RNTBCs in planning regimes that impact
upon their significant land holdings, rather than at the end of a process. The imperative
for a long term approach is driven by the communal and binding nature of decision
making over native title lands, as well as the intergenerational consequences of climate
change. To support this, state and regional planning and land management
frameworks need to be revised to reflect and incorporate native title in the decision-
making processes. In Western Australia, we saw that SPP1, the key planning
framework, does not mention of native title. This report has shown that the lack of
understanding of native title within planning circles, and inadequate understanding of
planning within native title organisations, has resulted in missed opportunities. Planning
agencies need to fully integrate native title into their policies and practices and move
beyond the view of native title as ‘red tape’.
The Karajarri experience with the Initial Works ILUA is an example of how poor
planning can have lasting negative impacts. Whilst the ILUA reached agreement on
particular infrastructure, the process failed to provide a comprehensive, integrated and
long-term approach for community infrastructure. Instead, a new ILUA is now required
for the next round of community infrastructure. Further, nationally we have a legislative
legacy that allows governments to sideline native title corporations in the interests of
rapid infrastructure development. While the Queensland government has publicly
Native title and climate change 113
committed not to use the section 24JAA provision, other state and local governments
have readily employed this mechanism.
In both Western Australia and Queensland, long-term planning processes are currently
underway and will soon directly involve our case study communities. There is an
opportunity for a more integrated planning process that engages with RNTBCs,
including incorporating mechanisms to build relationships that will sustain decisions
over the period of the plan. In the first instance, this approach will require an
acknowledgement of the relationships between Indigenous institutions in order to
establish a shared vision. This shared vision is a necessary element of planning and is
a valuable investment that benefits all of the stakeholders involved in Indigenous held
lands.
Integrated planning that is consistent with native title holders’ holistic and
intergenerational perspective of country holds the greatest potential for RNTBCs to
play an effective enabling role in climate change adaptation. The principle of ‘getting
the whole system in the room’ to look at long-term planning for native title lands is
consistent with approaches to agreement-making with native title groups such as the
global ILUA process proposed for the KTLA and the DPPP. Comprehensive
agreements, such as the one contemplated for the KTLA, should include planning
expertise as a central platform upon which other aspects such as housing,
infrastructure, water use, cultural heritage and caring for country strategies are built.
Climate change has imposed challenges on the way in which we approach land and
water management through decision making and planning processes. However, the
broader narrative of community based adaptation coupled with the unique knowledges
and traditions of the Karajarri and Kowanyama people has created an opportunity to
involve unique forms of Indigenous governance in managing vast and significant native
title land holdings.
The growth of the RNTBC sector and the legal and cultural foundations of their
recognised native title rights and interests require further research in order to develop
pathways for the inclusion of Indigenous governance structures in all scales of decision
making with respect to effective adaptation action. What was evident from our research
was with further time and scope we would have liked to have brought stakeholders
together to focus on the role of native title holders in planning processes. Even though
this had occurred in a different form, through stakeholder interviews (in Western
Australia) and state-wide meetings with state government departments (in
Queensland), the opportunity to hold a series of workshops with key stakeholders, in a
similar way to the Bardi Jawi planning process was not available to us. Bringing
relevant stakeholders together into the same meeting would be a key element of future
research. Further this places the onus of clarifying processes and reconciling
competing regimes on the state government departments with the authority and means
to implement changes to the planning process for the benefit of native title holders.
The case study approach meant that we were limited to two jurisdictions and regions.
Opportunities to explore experiences in other states and territories can be used to
identify best practice and also initiate dialogue on a national scale, given that the
114 Native title and climate change
governance structure of RNTBCs (in terms of funding and enabling legislation) is dealt
with on a federal level.
Testament to the impact of this engagement was the level of enthusiasm for
participation from the long list of identified stakeholders in the planned on country
workshop with the KTLA. Although the meeting could not go ahead during the life of
this project, all of the parties are committed to finding an opportunity to hold the
meeting in the near future, including a state wide workshop between Western
Australian government departments and native title holders from state.
Our experience working with the KLC in developing the governance workshops for
DPPP was critical in formulating our thinking around our final project aim, which
focused on the potential for long term planning processes involving RNTBCs and their
stakeholders to be a key framework for giving effect to climate change adaptation
priorities. The DPPP process enabled the creation of a space for RNTBCs in the
existing institutional structures, and the establishment of working relationships between
RNTBCs and their stakeholders. This was in clear contrast to our experience with the
KTLA five years ago in the negotiation of the interim infrastructure ILUA, in which the
RNTBC was seen as an outsider to the planning process and native title as ‘red tape’.
The project has revealed that there are existing long term planning processes that, if
carried out appropriately, will create the space required for RNTBCs to pursue their
priorities, enabling their adaptive capacities. This project has put climate change and
RNTBCs in the forefront of the minds of the various stakeholders as they enter in to
these planning processes. Relationship building between Indigenous institutions, and
the creation of a space in which RNTBCs are able to operate effectively, is critical to
the sustainability of decision-making and implementation.
Climate change and native title bring together two key threads of Australia’s capacity to
respond to changing relationships with land: the belated acknowledgement of the
denial of Indigenous peoples rights to their traditional lands and the impact of past
dispossession on the current circumstances of many Indigenous people; and, the
recognition of the interaction of human activity and atmospheric processes on climate
and the implications of failing to change human behaviour. As this research has shown,
decision making processes can do more to accommodate both of these emerging
priorities. The intergenerational nature of the planning process provides the perfect
platform for the engagement and inclusion of native title holders in climate change
adaptation. RNTBCs hold rights and interests which have been passed and transmitted
through generations, and so hold significant responsibilities to protect and care for
these cultural values for future generations. Further the intergenerational nature of the
way in which decisions made by RNTBCs are binding also calls for a sustainable and
long term approach to their participation in climate change decision making in the
policies, legislation and processes that will impact upon the unique and extensive
relationships that native title holders have to their country.
Native title and climate change 115
6. REFERENCES
Aboriginal Lands Trust Review Team 1996, Report of the review of the Aboriginal
Lands Trust, Aboriginal Affairs Department, Perth.
Adger, N 2000, 'Institutional Adaptation to Environmental Risk under Transition in
Vietnam', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 90, no. 4,
pp. 738-58.
Adger, N, Brown, K, Fairbrass, J, Jordan, A & Paavola, J 2003, 'Governance for
sustainability: towards a 'thick' analysis of environmental decision making',
Environment and Planning A, vol. 35, pp. 1095-110.
Adger, N, Suraje Dessai, Marisa Goulden, Mike Hulme, Irene Lorenzoni, Donald R
Nelson, Lars Otto Naess, Johanna Wolf & Wreford, A 2009, 'Are there social
limits to adaptation to climate change?', Climatic Change, vol. 93, no. 3-4, pp.
335-54.
Adger, WN, Barnett, J, Chapin, IFS & Ellemor, H 2011, 'This Must Be the Place:
Underrepresentation of Identity and Meaning in Climate Change Decision-
Making', Global Environmental Politics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1-25.
Attorney-General’s Department Steering Committee (AGDSC) 2006, Structures and
Processes of Prescribed Bodies Corporate.
Attorney-General’s Department 2009, Annual Report 2008-09..
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Studies 2011, AIATSIS
Corporate Plan 2010-11 to 2012-13.
---- 2012a, Native Title Determinations Summary,
<http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/documents/Determinationsummary.pdf>.
---- 2012b, Registred Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBC) Summary
---- unpublished, Queensland RNTBC Meeting Report 25-27 October 2011, Australian
Instutute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2011.
Bagshaw, G 2003, 'The Karajarri Claim: A case-study in native title anthropology',
Oceania Monograph, vol. 53.
Bardsley, DK & Wiseman, ND 2012, 'Climate change vulnerability and social
development for remote indigenous communities of South Australia', Global
Environmental Change, vol. 22, pp. 713-23.
Bauman, T & Tran, T 2007, First National Prescribed Bodies Corporate Meeting :
issues and outcomes : Canberra, 11-13 April 2007 Native Title Research Unit
Research Report 3/2007, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Studies, Acton.
Bidyadanga Community Council 2013, viewed 10 March 2013
<http://www.bidyadanga.org.au/>.
Cameron, ES 2012, 'Securing Indigenous politics: A critique of the vulnerability and
adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the
Canadian Arctic', Global Environmental Change, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 103-14.
Cornell, S & Kalt, JP 2003, Sovereignty and Nation-Building: The Development
Challenge in Indian Country Today, Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs
No. 2003-03.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Bureau of
Meteorology (CSIRO-BOM) 2012, State of the Climate 2012.
Cotton on Trial 2001, public forum held at Broome Courthouse, 27 October 2001.
116 Native title and climate change
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA) 2009, Guidelines for the support of PBCs’ provides for ‘emergency’
funding for basic administrative assistance through NTRBs.
Department of Premier and Cabinet Government of Western Australia 2012, Guide to
the Government Indigenous Land Use Agreement and Standard Heritage
Agreements, Version 1.2.
Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning 2012, Regional Planning
in Cape York, <http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/factsheet/regional/cape-
york-factsheet.pdf>.
Dovers, S 2009, 'Nomalizing Adaptation', Global Environmental Change, vol.19, pp.4-6.
Dunlop, M, Hilbert, DW, Ferrier, S, House, A, Liedloff, A, Prober, SM, Smyth, A, Martin,
TG, Tom Harwood, Williams, KJ, Fletcher, C & Murphy, H 2012, The
implications of climate change for biodiversity conservation and the National
Reserve System: Final synthesis, CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship,
Canberra, September 2012.
Edgar, J 2011, 'Indigenous Land Use Agreement - Building relationships between
Karajarri traditional owners, the Bidyadanga Aboriginal Community La Grange
Inc. and the Government of Western Australia', Australian Aboriginal Studies,
vol. 2., pp. 50-62.
Fitzgerald, T 2001, Cape York Justice Study.
Ford, JD, Pearce, T, Duerden, F, Furgal, C & Smit, B 2010, 'Climate change policy
responses for Canada's Inuit population: The importance of and opportunities
for adaptation', Global Environmental Change, vol. 20, pp. 177-91.
Gardana, A 2010-2011, 'Is newer technology always better?: Why Indigenous peoples'
technology should be incoporayed into the international fight against climate
change', Sustainable Development Law and Policy, vol. 11, p. 64.
Gerrard, E 2012, Towards a Carbon Constrained Future: Climate Change, Emissions
Trading and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, ANU E Press, Canberra.
Gerrard, E 2008, 'Climate Change and Human Rights: Issues and Opportunities for
Indigenous Peoples', Univeristy of New South Wales Law Journal, vol.31, p941.
Gorringe, S, Ross, J & Fforde, C 2011, ‘Will the Real Aborigine Please Stand Up’:
Strategies for breaking the stereotypes and changing the conversation, 28,
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Government of Western Australia 2012, West Canning Basin groundwater allocation
limit report, Department of Water, October 2012.
Green, D, Jackson, S & Morrison, J 2009, Risks from Climate Change to Indigenous
Communities in the Tropical North of Australia, for the Commonwealth
Department of Climate Change, the Western Australian Department of the
Environment and Conservation and the Northern Territory Department of
Natural Resources, 2009.
Green, D 2008, 'Climate impacts on the health of remote northern Australian
Indigenous communities', in Garnaut Climage Change Review.
Griffiths, S & Kinnane, S 2011, Kimberley Aboriginal Caring for Country Plan, Nulungu
Centre for Indigenous Studies, 2011.
Hennessy, K, Fitzharris, B, Bates, BC, Harvey, N, Howden, M, Hughes, L, Salinger, J &
Warrick, R 2007, 'Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of working Group II e', in M Parry, O Canziani, J Palutikof, Pvd
Native title and climate change 117
Linden & C Hanson (eds), Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Chang, Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, p. 507.
Henry, K, Secretary to the Treasury 2007a, Addressing Extreme Disadvantage
Through Investment in Capability Development, 6 December 2007.
---- 2007b, Creating The Right Incentives For Indigenous Development, Cairns, 26
June 2007.
Hunt, J & Smith, D 2006, Building Indigenous community governance in Australia:
Preliminary research findings, CAEPR Working Paper 31, Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research, Canberra.
Hughes, L 2003, 'Climate change and Australia: Trends, projections and impacts',
Austral Ecology, vol. 28, pp. 423-43.
Hulme, M 2009, Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding
Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hulme, M 2011, 'Reducing the Future to Climate: A Story of Climate Determinism and
Reductionism', Osiris, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 245-66.
Jackson, S 1997a, 'Land Use Planning and Cultural Difference', in D Rose & A Clarke
(eds), Tracking knowledge in North Australian landscapes, Australian National
Univeristy, Canberra, p. 87.
---- 1997b, 'A disturbing story', Australian Planner, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 221-6.
Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land
Fund 2001, 19th Report: The Native Title Act 1993 – Inquiry under s. 206 [d] –
second interim report: Indigenous land use agreements, Parl Paper Number:
220/2001.
Karajarri Cattle Aboriginal Corporation Rule Book.
Kitzinger, J 1995, 'Introducing focus groups', BMJ, vol. 311, pp. 299-302.
Kornberger, Martin 2012,’ Governing the City: From Planning to Urban Strategy’,
Theory, Culture & Society (March 2012), 29.
Kowanyama Aboriginal Land & Natural Resource Management Office 1994, Strategic
Directions for Natural Resource Management on Aboriginal Lands of
Kowanyama.
---- unpublished, Strategic Plan 2010-2015.
Lane, MB & Corbett, T 2005, 'The Tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in
community-based environmental management', Journal of Environmental Policy
& Planning, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141-59.
Lane, R & Waitt, G 2001, 'Authenticity in tourism and native title: Place, time and
spatial politics in the East Kimberley ', Social and Cultural Geography, vol. 2,
no. 4, pp. 381-405.
Langton, M 2012, Changing the paradigm: minig companies, native title and Aboriginal
Australians, 18 November 2012.
Leitch, A & Robinson, C 2012, 'Shifting Sands: Undertainty and a Local Community
Response to Sea Level Rise Policy in Australia', in T Measham (ed.), Risk and
Social Theory in Environmental Management, CSIRO Publishing.
Little, FP 2000, The community game: Aboriginal self-definition at the local level,
Research Discussion Paper 10, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.
Liverman, DM & Merideth, R 2002, 'Climate and society in the US Southwest: the
context for a regional assessment', Climate Research, vol.21, no.3, pp.199-218.
118 Native title and climate change
Local Government Reform Commission 2007, Report of the Local Government Reform
Commission, July 2007.
Margerum, R, Hart, V & Lampert, J 2003, 'Native title and the planning profession',
Australian Planner, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 46-54.
Martin, D 2003, Rethinking the design of indigenous organisations: The need for
strategic engagement, CAEPR Discussion Paper 248, Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research, Canberra.
Matten, D 2004, 'The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and
management in a globalizing economy - principles, proficiency, perspectives',
Journal of Risk Research, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 377-98.
McKelson, K 2007, Nganarna nyangumarta karajarrimili ngurranga = We Nyangumarta
in the country of the Karajarri : excerpts from field notes in Northern
Nyangumarta / as told to and translated by Father McKelson ; and assisted by
Tommy Dodd 1968-1969, Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre.
Mehta, L 2008, 'Over the rainbow: The politics of researching citizenship and
marginality', Action Research, vol. 6, p. 233.
Memmott, P & Blackwood, P 2008, 'Holding Title and Managing Land in Cape York –
Two Case Studies', AIATSIS Research Discussion Paper, no. 21.
Monaghan, J 2005, Natural Disaster Risk Management - Kowanyama Stage 1 Report.
Moran, M, Memmott, P, Long, S, Stacy, R & Holt, J 2002, 'Indigenous home ownership
and community itle land: a preliminary household survey', Urban Policy and
Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 357-70.
Moser, SC & Ekstrom, JA 2010, 'A framework to diagnore barriers to climate change
adaptation', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 51,
pp. 22026-31.
National Native Title Tribunal 2011, National Report: Native Title, Native Title, August
2011.
---- 2013, Determinations of Native Title, National Native Title Tribunal,
<http://www.nntt.gov.au/Mediation-and-agreement-making-
services/Documents/Quarterly%20Maps/Determinations_map.pdf>.
Native Title Research Unit 2008, Native title payments and benefits Australian Institute
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.
O'Brien, K, Hayward, B & Berkes, F 2009, 'Rethinking Social-Contracts: Building
Resilience in a Changing Climate', Ecology and Society, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 12.
Peel, J & Godden, L 2008-2009, 'Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change: Land
mark cases from Australia', Sustainable Development Law and Policy, vol. 9,
pp. 37-71.
Pelling, M 2003, Social Capital and Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change, 2,
Rapid Climate Change Project, 2003,
<http://www.rcc.rures.net/documents/WP2.pdf>.
Petheram, L, ZAnder, K, Campbell, B, High, C & Stacey, N 2012, ''Strange cases':
Indigenous perspectives of climate change and adaptation in NE Arnhem Land
(Australia)', Global Environmental Change, vol. 20, pp. 681-92.
Porter, L 2006, 'Planning in (Post)Colonial Settings: Challenges for Theory and
Practice', Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 383-96.
Porter, L 2010, Unlearning the colonial cultures of planning, Ashgate, Surrey.
Preston, BL & Stafford-Smith, M 2009, Framing vulnerability and adaptive capacity:
discussion paper, 2, CSIRO.
Native title and climate change 119
Productivity Commission 2012, Barrier to Effective Climate Change Adaptation
Australian Government, Productivity Commission, April 2012.
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012,
Cape York Peninsula Bioregion Management Plan, June 2012.
Queensland Government Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2010, Community
planning by Local Governments in Queensland.
Queensland Treasury and Trade 2012a, Kowanyama Shire, 23 November 2012.
---- 2012b, Queensland Regional Profiles: Cape York Region, 23 November 2012.
Rashid, SB & Corrs Chambers Westgarth 1999, Review of Native Title Representative
Bodies, ATSIC, March 1999.
Reason, P & Bradbury, H (eds) 2001, Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry Practice Sage.
Rose, DB 1996, Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and
wilderness, Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.
Rowse, T 2002, Indigenous Futures:Choice and Development for Aboriginal and
Islander Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2011,
Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011, Productivity
Commission, Canberra.
Sen, A 1999, Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shaw, R, Takeuchi, Y & Uy, N 2011, 'Local adaptation for livelihood resilience in Albay,
Philippines', Environmental Hazards, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 139.
Shire of Broome 2006, About the Shire of Broome, viewed 12 November 2012,
<http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/council/about.htm>.
---- 2011, Interim Development Order No 4,
<http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/planning/pdf/IDO4.pdf>.
Sinnamon, V 2009, Kowanyama Aboriginal Community North Queensland Australia
Climate Change, prepared for Climate Change Research Centre, University of
New South Wales, 3 February 2009.
Sinnamon, V & Frank, A 2010, Climate change on the Northern Gulf of Carpentaria
Plains, Darwin, 21 April 2010.
Sinnamon, V, O’Brien, R, Munnelly, C & Kerr, K 2008, Managing Aboriginal Lands and
Culture, <www.kowanyama.qld.gov.au/kac/assets/Documents/KALNRMO-
Prospectus2.pdf>.
Sithole, SGB 2007, Sustainable Northern Landscapes and the Nexus with Indigenous
Health: Healthy Country, Healthy People, Land and Water Australia, June 2007.
Smit, B & Wandel, J 2006, 'Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability', Global
Environmental Change, vol. 16, pp. 282-92.
Smith, D, 2005 ‘Capacity Development of Indigenous Governance” Emerging Issues
and Lessons from the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP)’,
CAEPR-Reconciliation Australia ICG Project Workshop, 18 October 2005.
Stacey, C & Fardin, J 2011, 'Housing on native title lands: responses to the housing
amendments of the native title act', Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title,
vol. 4, no. 6.
Strang, V 1997, Uncommon ground: cultural landscapes and environmental values,
Berg.
Strelein, L 2009, Compromised Jurisprudence: Native title cases since Mabo, 2nd
Edition, ASP.
120 Native title and climate change
Sullivan, P 1999, 'Claims, regions, agreements - the Kimberley', in M Edmunds (ed.),
Regional agreements: Key issues in Australia: Summaries, AIATSIS, vol. 2,
issue 21.
Sumner, C & Wright, L 2009, 'The National Native Title Tribunal’s Application of the
Native Title Act in Future Act Inquiries', UWA Law Review, vol. 34, pp. 191-227.
Tadaki, M, Salmond, J, Heron, RL & Brierle, G 2012, 'Nature, culture, and the work of
physical geography', Transactions of the institute of British geographers, vol.
37, no. 4, pp. 547–62.
The Honourable Jeff Seeney Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development
Infrastructure and Planning 2012, State prepares Cape York for regional plan,
Media Statement, 30 August 2012,
<http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Id/80358>.
Thieberger, N 1996, Handbook of Western Australian Aboriginal Languages South of
the Kimberley Region.
Tsosie, R 2007, 'Indigenous People and Environmental Justice: The Impact of Climate
Change;' Univeristy of Colorado Law Review, vol. 78, p. 1625.
Veland, S, Howitt, R, Dominey-Howes, D, Thomalla, F & Houston, D 2013, 'Procedural
vulnerability: Understanding environmental change in a remote indigenous
community', Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, pp. 314-26.
Weir, JK 2011, Karajarri: a West Kimberley experience in managing native title,
Research Discussion Paper 30, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.
---- (ed.) 2012, Country, Native Title and Ecology, ANU E Press, Canberra.
Weir, JK, Stacey, C & Youngetob, K 2011, The Benefits Associated with Caring for
Country, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander Studies
prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities, June 2011.
Weir, JK, Stone, R & Jnr, MM 2011, 'Water Planning and Native Title: a Karajarri and
government engagement in the West Kimberley', in JK Weir (ed.), Country,
Native Title and Ecology, ANU Epress, Canberra.
Wensing, E 2007, 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians', in S Thompson
(ed.), Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and Regional Planning,
Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
---- 2011, Improving Planner's Understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians and Reforming Planning Education in Australia, Perth, Western
Australia, 4-8 July 2011.
Western Australian Government 2003, Aboriginal Access & Living Areas Final Report.
Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, Statement of Planning Policy No.1,
State Planning Framework Policy.
Wheeler, SM 2010, 'A new conception of planning in the era of climate change',
Berkeley Planning Journal, vol. 23, no. 1.
Winer, M, Robertson, H & Murphy, H 2012, 'Environmental Justice for Indigenous
People in the Cape York Peninsula: Enabling Potential and Navigating
Constraints', in Cape York Instiute for Policy and Leadership (ed.), Policy and
Research: Key policy papers and submissions from 2009-2012.
Yu, S 1999, Ngapa Kunangkul (Living Water): Report on the Aboriginal Cultural Values
of Groundwater in the La Grange Sub-Basin, for The Water and Rivers
Commission of Western Australia, December 2009.
Native title and climate change 121
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Map of current RNTBCs
(source: NNTT)
122 Native title and climate change
Appendix 2: Research agreement pp. 123-131
AIATSIS research agreement and engagement documents
Who is involved in the project?
The Australian Instute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
(AIATSIS) has received a research grant from the Naonal Climate
Change Adaptaon Research Facility (NCCARF) to invesgate how
to beer support nave tle holders in climate change adaptaon,
including the role of culture, social pracce and decision-making.
Changes to Country and
Culture, Changes to Climate:
Strengthening institutions for
Indigenous resilience and adaptation
About AIATSIS research
Australian Instute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
aims to promote greater understanding
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
cultures. Our current research is based
on building a greater understanding of
Indigenous peoples’ relaonships with
country and the governance of their
lands and waters. This includes a greater
understanding of Indigenous peoples’
engagement with government policies
and programs.
hp://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/lw/
overview.html
What will happen?
Tran Tran and Jessica Weir will
come to Bidyadanga in May
2012 and will be working with
the Karajarri Tradional Lands
Associaon (KTLA).
How does the research benet
your PBC?
This research will assist your PBC by:
• idenfying what helps your PBC take a leadership role
in climate change adaptaon, including resources,
opportunies and instuonal arrangements; and,
• looking at the best ways available to involve your PBC
in climate change adaptaon.
What are the aims of the research?
AIATSIS is interested in learning about your climate change
adaptaon priories for your culture, country and people.
For example, land, sea and water issues, pastoral and other
businesses, community infrastructure and development,
outstaons, and other priories.
Contact: Dr Jessica Weir, 02 6246 1162, jess.weir@aiatsis.gov.au
Contact: Tran Tran,
02 6246 1181, tran.tran@aiatsis.gov.au
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 123
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 124
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 125
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 126
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 127
A
ppendix 2
Native title and climate chan
g
e 128
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 129
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 130
Lawson Crescent, Acton Peninsula, ACTON ACT 2601
GPO Box 553, CANBERRA ACT 2601
Tel: 61 2 6246 1111 Fax: 61 2 6261 4285
www.aiatsis.gov.au
Publishing as Aboriginal Studies Press
Further understanding of Australian Indigenous cultures, past and present through undertaking and
publishing research, and providing access to print and audiovisual collections
Research
Dr Jessica Weir
Research
Dear Dr Weir
Research project: Changes to Country and Culture, Changes to Climate: strengthening
institutions for Indigenous resilience and adaptation
The AIATSIS Research Ethics Committee considered your application for ethics approval for
this project at its meeting on 3 November 2011
I am pleased to advise that the Committee approved your application, subject to two changes
being made:
• Storage of materials (page 2) currently states “ …..If participants do not agree to
lodgement the materials will continue to be stored in the same manner as during the
project period. ….”. The Committee requested that a more definitive comment be
provided eg the data will be destroyed after five years.
• The “aims of the research” at page 7 (Attachment C, two dot points) should be the
same as listed in page 10 (Attachment E)
The Committee was particularly impressed with the way that intellectual property and moral
rights had been dealt with
Yours sincerely
Tony Boxall
Director Research Business
for the Committee
3 November 2011
Appendix 2
Native title and climate change 131
132 Native title and climate change
Appendix 3: Interviews
• Teddy Beard and Rodney, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Board Member and
Chief Executive Officer (Kowanyama, 20 October 2011, 21 October 2011)
• Viv Sinnamon, Kowanyama Land Office, manager (Kowanyama, 20 October
2011)
• Thomas King, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Ranger
Coordinator (Bidyadanga, 24 October 2011)
• Joe Edgar and Mervyn Mulardy Jnr, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association
RNTBC, Chairman and Deputy Chairman (Broome, 25 October 2011)
• Bruce Gorring, Nulungu Centre for Indigenous Studies, Notre Dame University,
Research Coordinator (Broome, 25 October 2011)
• Ari Gorring, Kimberley Land Council, Land and Sea Unit Manager (Broome, 28
October 2011)
• Rodney Whitfield, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Chief Executive Officer
(Kowanyama, 23 February 2012, 25 February 2012, 17 March 2012)
• Teddy Bernard and Raven Greenwool, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Director
(Kowanyama, 29 March 2012)
• Glenette Greenwool, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Director (Kowanyama, 16
March 2012)
• Leslie Gilbert, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, (Kowanyama, 5
• March 2012)
• Viv Sinnamon, Kowanyama Land Office, manager (Kowanyama, 18 March
2012)
• Joe Edgar and Mervyn Merlardy Jnr, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association
RNTBC, Chairman and Deputy Chairman (Broome, 3 May 2012)
• Joe Edgar, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Deputy Chairman
(Broome, 2 May 2012)
• Joe Edgar, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Deputy Chairman
(Broome, 4 May 2012)
• Ariadne Gorring, Kimberley Land Council, Manager, Land and Sea Unit
(Broome, 15 August 2012)
• Ian Thomas, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Co-Manager, Regional
Operations Centre (Broome, 15 August 2012)
• Cate Gustavsson, Department of Planning, Principal Planner, Kimberley,
Northern Regions Planning (Broome, 16 August 2012)
• Andre Schonfeldt, Shire of Broome, Director Development Services (Broome 16
August 2012)
• Rob Baker, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Land Branch Manager, Aboriginal
Lands Trust (Perth, 17 August 2012)
• Adrian Murphy and Simon Davis, Department of the Premier and Cabinet,
Cabinet and Policy Division, Native Title Unit, Director and Principal Policy
Officer (Perth, 12 October 2012)
• KTLA Director, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Director
(Bidyadanga, 2 November 2012)
Native title and climate change 133
• Faye Dean, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Director
(Bidyadanga, 2 November 2012)
• James Yanawana, Bidyadanga Community Council, Council Chair
(Bidyadanga, 3 November 2012)
• Peter Yip, Bidyadanga Community Council, CEO (Bidyadanga, 5 November
2012)
• Thomas King, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Ranger
Coordinator (Bidyadanga, 8 November 2012)
• Barbara White, Bidyadanga Community Council, Karajarri Councillor
(Bidyadanga, 9 November 2012)
• Joe Edgar, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association, Deputy Chairman RNTBC
(Broome, 26 November 2012)
• Mervyn Mulardy Jnr, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association RNTBC, Chairman
(Broome, 10 December 2012)
• Viv Sinnamon, Kowanyama Land Office, manager (Kowanyama/Canberra, 15
March 2013)
• Joe Edgar, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association, Chairman RNTBC
(Canberra, 26 March 2013)
• Gordon Marshall, Karajarri Traditional Lands Association, Deputy Chairman
RNTBC (Canberra, 26 March 2013)
• Rodney Whitfield, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Chief Executive Officer
(Canberra, 25 March 2013)
• Teddy Bernard and Raven Greenwool, Abm Elgoring Ambung RNTBC, Director
(Canberra, 25 March 2013)
134 Native title and climate change
Appendix 4: Newsletter article pp. 135-150
Regan, C 2012, 'RNTBCs and Climate Change Adaptation Workshop', Native Title
Newsletter, vol. No 3/2012, pp. 10-1.
NATIVE TITLE
NEWSLETTER
AUGUST 2012
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 135
WELCOME TO THE NEW LOOK NATIVE TITLE NEWSLETTER
The Native Title Newsletter has been redesigned to enhance readability, with an
emphasis on native title feature articles. The Newsletter will now be produced three
times a year (April, August and December). Content that is published in the monthly
publication What’s New in Native Title will no longer be published in the Native Title
Newsletter so as to eliminate duplication. This information — native title case law,
Indigenous land use agreements, Native Title in the News, publications, events and
professional development opportunities — will still be available through What’s
New and at http://aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/overview.html.
The Newsletter will continue to include feature articles, including Traditional Owner
comments, articles explaining native title reforms, book reviews and NTRU project
reports. The Native Title Newsletter is distributed to subscribers via email or mail
and is also available at http://aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/newsletter.html.
We welcome feedback, which should be sent to: gabrielle.lauder@aiatsis.gov.au
Cover image: Kaylene Malthouse, Nola Joseph, Dawn Hart, Coralie Cassady and Patricia
Dallachy, Directors of the North Queensland Land Council (NQLC) Board, holding the
Arrernte coolamon at the National Native Title Conference held in Townsville, July 2012.
Credit: Kerstin Styche
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are respectfully advised that this publication
may contain names and images of deceased persons, and culturally sensitive material.
AIATSIS apologises for any distress this may cause.
Editor: Gabrielle Lauder, NTRU, AIATSIS
Design and typesetting: Amity Raymont, NTRU, AIATSIS
Printed by: BlueStar Print Group, Australia
© Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
National Native Title Confence 2012 1
RNTBCs and Climate Change 10 Changes to the Native Title
Respondent Funding Scheme
Through the Looking Glass 8
12
CONTENTS
1
3
4
5
7
8
10
12
Native Title
Conference 2012
Keynote address
by the Attorney-
General, Nicola
Roxon MP
Australian Native
Title Studies
Eyes and Ears of
the North
Native Title
Institutional Reforms
Changes to the
Native Title
Respondent Funding
Scheme
RNTBCs and Climate
Change Adaptation
Workshop
Through the
Looking Glass
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 136
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϭ
By Elizabeth Tsitsikronis
After a weekend of celebration with the
Reconciliation Festival, the National
Native Title Conference 2012 opened
with a welcome to country and traditional
dancing by Bindal and Wulgurakaba
people, upon whose land the conference
was held. The conference was convened
by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies
(AIATSIS) and North Queensland Land
Council. The Conference was held, at the
Townsville Entertainment and Convention
Centre from 4 to 6 June.
Over 700 delegates shared experi-
ences and engaged in a wide range of
debates. The delegates included native
title holders and claimants, traditional
owners, native title representative
bodies and service agencies,
representatives of the Federal Court,
the National Native Title Tribunal and
government, academics, consultants and
industry representatives. The chair of the
opening session, Errol Neal, announced
that ‘the opportunity to come together
from across the country to review
current native title practice, policy and
law is an invaluable occasion.’ He said
it gave Aboriginal people a ‘chance to
VWDQGRQRXURZQUHFRUG·DQG¶LQÁXHQFH
the government in the directions they
might take’.
This year’s conference theme, ‘Echoes
of Mabo: Honour and Determination’,
ZDVUHÁHFWHGWKURXJKRXWWKHFRQIHUHQFH
through keynote and plenary speeches,
debate forums, workshops and
Indigenous talking circles covering
topics focused on recognition, reform,
revolution, leadership, legacies, families,
youth, culture and country.
Every year the conference attracts a
distinguished cohort of speakers, and
this year was no exception. Dr Neil
Sterritt, a member of the Fireweed
Clan of the Gitxsan Nation in northern
British Columbia and an authority on
Aboriginal governance, delivered the
Mabo Lecture. Dr Sterritt spoke about
the legacies of Mabo in parallel to
the landmark Canadian decision of
Delgamuukw, and commented on the
advantages of the incremental native
title process in Australia. Gail Mabo, the
Images: Errol Neal and Dr Neil Sterritt.
daughter of Eddie Mabo, accompanied
by her mother, Bonita Mabo, provided
the introductory remarks to the
Mabo Lecture and spoke about her
recollections of growing up while her
father pursued land justice through the
Australian legal system.
The conference also featured a keynote
address by the Attorney-General, the
Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, who announced
the reforms to native title which are
LQWHQGHGWR UHVXOWLQPRUHHIÀFLHQWDQG
cost-effective native title processes
and claim settlements. The announced
reforms focus on creating criteria for
good faith negotiations, making native
title land use agreements and claim
UHVROXWLRQV PRUH ÁH[LEOH DQG OHVV
technical, permitting parties to put
aside historical extinguishment in parks
and reserves, and deeming payments
from native title agreements non-
assessable for income tax and capital
gains tax purposes.
However, in another keynote address
Brian Wyatt, the Chief Executive of the
National Native Title Council, stated the
reforms were not enough. He said ‘We
can no longer tolerate our old people
dying while successive governments
simply tinker around the edges.’ Wyatt
and other Indigenous groups believe
the process for native title claims should
be changed; native title claimants
should not have the burden of proof for
establishing connection to land.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 137
ϮപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
In her address entitled ‘Recognising and
encouraging honour and determination’,
June Oscar spoke about the ‘courage
to hold onto a belief, the courage to
stand alone, the determination to keep
going’. She also spoke as a Bunuba
claimant about the key principles that
guide the Bunuba people and focusing
our energies on what we can all do to
bring change. She suggested a ‘new
skill set may be required for these new
times, skills which incorporate a blend
of: activism, development of intellectual
capacity, anchored by the knowledge
and lived practice we hold of who
we are and meeting the real truth by
combining this knowledge with modern
western thinking’.
The conference program also featured
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner,
Mick Gooda; the Foundation Chair of
Australian Indigenous Studies at the
University of Melbourne, Professor
Marcia Langton; the lawyer with the
conduct of the Mabo case from 1981
to its conclusion, Greg McIntyre SC; and
the Minister for Families, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, the
Hon. Jenny Macklin MP.
Other guests included Ramy Bulan,
who is an Associate Professor at the
Faculty of Law, University of Malaya,
where she teaches Equity and Trust in
the undergraduate program and Issues
Relating to Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples in the LLM program. Ramy was
on the panel of “The Legacy of Mabo:
5HÁHFWLRQVRQ1DWLYH7LWOH\HDUV2Qµ
The AIATSIS Chairperson, Professor
Mick Dodson AM, said that this year’s
conference was the time to ‘survey the
inequities’ that exist in processing the
native title applications.
The conference organisers ensured
that Indigenous people were strongly
represented in the conference program.
This year’s program consisted of
one day of closed workshops for
Indigenous people and their native
title representative bodies and
service providers, followed by two
days of a public program which
included Indigenous talking circles,
women’s forums, workshops and panel
discussions as well as the delivery of
conference papers.
Above: The Limits of Change: Mabo and Native Title 20 Years On; Mrs Bonita Mabo
shaking hands with media delegate Jeff McMullen. Credit: Kerstin Styche.
Throughout the conference, delegates
were able to browse and purchase
goods from the conference trade fair,
which enabled local Indigenous people
to exhibit, display and sell art, craft
and other products. Some of the stalls
included the 3 Sisters who sold local
arts and crafts; Merisa Crafts, who sold
jewellery and clothing; and AIATSIS /
Aboriginal Studies Press.
Next year’s conference will be co-
convened by AIATSIS and the Central
Land Council and will take place at the
Alice Springs Convention Centre from 3
to 5 June 2013.
PAPERS, AUDIO AND
POWERPOINTS FROM
THIS YEAR’S CONFERENCE
WILL BE AVAILABLE
SHORTLY ON THE
NATIVE TITLE
RESEARCH UNIT
WEBSITE AT
HTTP://WWW.AIATSIS.
GOV.AU/NTRU
CONFERENCE.HTML
The conference also marked the launch
of the AIATSIS publication The Limits of
Change: Mabo and Native Title 20 Years
On, edited by Toni Bauman and Lydia
Glick. This is an unprecedented collection
RI FRPPHQWDU\ DQG UHÁHFWLRQV RQ WKH
Mabo case as well as the enactment and
operation of the Native Title Act 1993
(Cth). To purchase this publication or for
more information go to http://www.
aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/publications.html.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 138
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϯ
On 6 June 2012, speaking
at the National Native Title
Conference, the Attorney-
General announced that
the Australian Government
would progress a package of
legislative reforms to the Native
Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon MP
To build on [past] reforms, today I would
like to talk to you about the next steps
we want to take with you to further
improve native title.
Under the right to negotiate native
title, agreements must be negotiated in
‘good faith’. Unfortunately, many would
argue that some parties have been
paying little more than lip service to the
good faith provision.
So, the government will seek to legislate
criteria to outline the requirements for a
good faith negotiation. No longer will
parties be able to sit back and wait for
the clock to tick down until an arbitrated
outcome is available to them.
The government will consult closely with
Indigenous groups, state and territory
governments, farmers, miners and others
on the terms of this legislative reform.
Much work has already been done that
now needs to be acted upon.
We’ve also heard, including from
many people in this room, the need
to make native title agreements and
FODLP UHVROXWLRQV PRUH ÁH[LEOH DQG
less technical. That’s why we also plan
legislative change to reform Indigenous
land use agreements. These voluntary
DJUHHPHQWVZLOOEHPDGHPRUHÁH[LEOH
A wider range of topics will be able to
be negotiated on between Indigenous
groups and land rights holders.
Thirdly, the government will work
with stakeholders to allow parties to
agree to put aside issues of historical
extinguishment in parks and reserves.
Our discussions may even identify a
wider application of this concept if
there is broad support for change.
Time and money will be saved by
parties forming agreements over native
title, rather than just automatically
resorting to litigation.
/DVWO\ \RX·OO EH SOHDVHG , FDQ ÀQDOO\
clarify the tax treatment of payments
from native title agreements — income
tax and capital gains tax will not apply;
an issue many of you have called for
and we are able to agree to today.
7KLV ZLOO ÀW ZLWK VWURQJ ,QGLJHQRXV
involvement in the reforms to the not-
IRUSURÀWVHFWRU
I want to emphasise today that the
government will be listening and
meeting with you and others about
these proposed changes. I am looking
forward to working with you all on how
to speedily implement these important
legislative reforms.
I know that there are people that have
argued for more radical changes. But
incremental change is lasting, and our
government has shown we can deliver
ERWK VKRUW DQG ORQJWHUP EHQHÀWV WR
the native title system from this strong
but sensible approach.
The Attorney-General’s Department
will invite submissions on an exposure
draft of the legislation. Details about
the timing of this process will be
made available on the department’s
website at:
http://www.ag.gov.au/Indigenous
lawandnativetitle/NativeTitle/Pages/
Nativetitlereform.aspx.
The department welcomes any
comments or input on the reform
proposals through this process.
NATIVE TITLE CONFERENCE 2012
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, NICOLA ROXON MP
AMENDMENTS TO THE
NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 (CTH)
The proposed reforms will:
Clarify the meaning of ‘good
faith’ under the ‘right to negotiate’
provisions and make associated
amendments to ‘right to negotiate’
provisions.
Enable parties to agree to
disregard historical extinguishment
of native title in areas such as
parks and reserves.
Streamline Indigenous land use
agreement (ILUA) processes by
simplifying the process for minor
amendments to ILUAs, improving
objection processes for area
ILUAs, and clarifying the coverage
of ILUAs.
AMENDMENTS TO TAX LAW
The proposed reforms will amend tax
legislation to make it clear that native
WLWOH SD\PHQWV DQG RWKHU EHQHÀWV DUH
not subject to income tax (which includes
capital gains tax).
Above: Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP.
Credit: Kerstin Styche.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 139
ϰപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
By Deane Fergie
In 2011 the School of Social
Sciences at the University of
Adelaide established a lively
focus for Australian Native Title
Studies, known colloquially as
‘ANTS’.
ANTS is committed to the development
of vibrant communities of professional
practice in native title. It seeks to
collaborate with others to develop the
most up-to-date academic knowledge
on native title and its contemporary
practice so that this knowledge can
shape rigorous research and training
to support the native title system and
enhance the circumstances of Indigenous
Australians.
In 2011–14 ANTS will focus on native
title anthropology because ‘under-
supply’ in this area of professional
practice is causing a critical ‘blockage’
in the native title system. Supported
by grants from the Attorney-General’s
Native Title Anthropologist Grants
Program, ANTS is:
coordinating an initiative to
establish a national curriculum in
native title anthropology
developing the ‘ANTS NEST’, a
virtual community for native title
anthropologists;
hosting study leave fellowships and
researching society and governance
questions.
Our top priority this year is the
development of a national curriculum
in native title anthropology to provide
an articulated sequence of post-
graduate awards (from Grad. Cert. to
Masters level). This endeavour will be
built on partnerships among Australian
universities, NTRBs, the Federal Court,
academics, senior practitioners and
other stakeholders. Units in the program
will be provided by a number of
cooperating universities and delivered
online and in short on-campus intensive
programs. Financial support will be
sought from government and non-
government sources.
In 2012–13 we aim to scope this
initiative, undertake a needs analysis,
establish and coordinate a national
curriculum development committee,
develop a curriculum framework,
negotiate the institutional architecture
for its realisation, prepare a business
plan to sustain the program, and plan
WKHÀUVWWZRXQLWV IRUGHOLYHU\LQ
And that’s not all!
The ANTS Nest, is another exciting
initiative enabled by an Attorney-
General’s grant. This dynamic,
interactive, members-only site for native
title anthropologists provides:
3URIHVVRU3HWHU6XWWRQWDNHVSDUWLFLSDQWVWKURXJKVRPHLQQRYDWLYHÀQGLQJVDWWKH¶6RFLHW\DQG*RYHUQDQFH·ZRUNVKRS(QJDJHGZLWK
his analysis are Prof. Nic Peterson (ANU), Dr David Martin (Anthropos), Dr Sally Babidge (UQ), Ray Wood (NSW), Dr John Morton (Qld)
and Dr Rod Lucas (AU). Credit: Deane Fergie.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 140
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϱ
a clearing house for a broad range
of resources, with live media feeds
and links to specialist bodies such
as AIATSIS, ANU’s Centre for Native
Title Anthropology, rep. bodies, the
Aurora project and more.
facilities for members to upload
material such as work-in-progress
papers, publications, training and
professional development material,
videos and contributions to our
‘soap-box’.
a context for direct interaction
among members through live chat,
blog and email facilities.
ANTS also hosts a study leave scheme,
which brings native title anthropologists
to Adelaide. ANTS Fellows praise the
SURJUDP IRU SURYLGLQJ DFFHVV WR ÀUVW
class research facilities, including a
research library, enabling synergies
among colleagues and time out from
their day-to-day work to think, write
and learn with others. This year we
hosted David Martin (Canberra), who
worked on a plain English guide to the
design of PBCs; Petronella Vaarzen-
Morel (Alice Springs), who examined
social organisation, transformation and
change among Lower Southern Arrernte
people; David Raftery (Perth), who
looked at social organisation and
governance models for the Noongar;
Sidrah McCarthy (Alice Springs), who
explored the role of youth in native
title claims; and Caro MacDonald
(Melbourne), who explored the poten-
WLDO RI HWKQRJUDSKLF ÀOP LQ QDWLYH WLWOH
processes.
Finally, ANTS hosted the ‘Society and
Governance in Native Title’ project.
This brought experienced practitioners
to Adelaide in December 2011 and
June 2012 for two-day workshops which
discussed approaches to ‘the society
question’ in native title claim research
and sought ways in which such work
might better inform post-determination
challenges such as governance.
In opening the June meeting, Professor
Greg McCarthy, Chair of the ANTS
Board and Head of the School of Social
6FLHQFHV VDLG WKDW $176 UHÁHFWV WKH
University of Adelaide’s commitment to
social justice for Indigenous Australians
and in particular the recognition of
Indigenous rights.
Native title anthropologists are
encouraged to apply for membership
of the ANTS NEST at
www.austnativetitlestudies.org
Enquiries:
Dr Deane Fergie
ANTS, School of Social Sciences
University of Adelaide SA 5005
deane.fergie@adelaide.edu.au
+61 (08) 8303 7197
My people
The population of Murray Island is
around 450 and there are more families
living in Townsville, Cairns, Mackay and
other parts of the Australian mainland.
Our people are pretty straightforward.
There are people I would describe more
as kober and te kober means ‘eyes and
ears of the north’. They will approach
you immediately and say ‘what are
you doing in my country?’ Then there
are those in the eastern and southern
part of the island that are sor kober,
people that don’t talk much. They will
not approach you straight away. They
normally sit back and observe you, to
try to understand who you are. The
people in the northern part of Murray
,VODQGDOZD\VLQWURGXFHWKHPVHOYHVÀUVW
to visitors and send a message to the sor
kober people to say, ‘this is what that
group are doing in our country.’
Malo’s Lore
:KHQ \RX ÀUVW DUULYH RQ WKH LVODQG ,
believe, and it’s been handed down from
generation to generation, you should
approach the Traditional Owners. As is
written in Mabo, Malo’s lore says malo
tag mauki mauki, teter mauki mauki,
which means to say: you can’t touch
what is not yours. You can’t enter into
AN INTERVIEW WITH DOUGLAS PASSI,
CHAIR OF MER GEDKEM LE
EYES AND EARS
OF THE NORTH:
private land. You have to get permission
to enter any property. The lore, as
decided by the elders and high priests,
is about 25 to 26 clauses. I believe
clauses 1 to 8 lay the foundations of the
lore itself, and from 9 to 12 is directed
at the person, and that person is muiar.
Muiar ad le ged mimika. This means that
he can’t enter another man’s property.
He must walk on his path, to the front
door, and get permission to enter.
We have a system in place. All Indigenous
people have a system in place. This is
something for western society to learn to
understand and believe: we were in this
country a long time. When you look at
the system of government in Australia, it
has three levels, federal, state and local
government... We have a similar thing,
but like I said, on a smaller scale. We
have clan groups, which is family. Like
the Passi Clan. We have 8 tribes on Mer.
One tribal leader from each tribe sits on
the ait ira per. The ait ira per is like the
parliament, where people sit and listen
before arriving at a decision. Imagine
Douglas Passi, Chair of Mer Gedkem Le
Credit: Kerstin Styche
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 141
ϲപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
that our system is like the octopus. The
8 tentacles are the 8 tribes, the suckers
on the tips of the tentacles are the clan
groups, and the head is the ait ira per.
Mer Gedkem Le [the RNTBC] has this
same structure.
I’ve seen university students and
anthropologists come to Mer to learn
our culture, custom and tradition. Then
they go and write their report, essay, or
whatever. But when they give it back to
us, and we read that report, it’s really
complicated to us. It’s no longer ours.
Our native title experience
Native title for me is from generation to
generation. We always think and believe
that we own the land, the water and the
resources around us, under and above.
This is native title for us. And when I
mention resources, this includes sea
rights. Native title is recognition of this
to make the western society understand
that we have a system in place and we
have lores in place.
For me, native title doesn’t mean the
Native Title Act. You can amend the
Native Title Act. Our law, Malo’s lore,
stays the same forever. I don’t know
when they actually amend that lore,
I couldn’t say that. It’s the same from
generation to generation, from time
immemorial, that’s what Eddie and the
others would say.
The sea and trade
The water is common, but we believe
that we own the resources in the water:
the trochus shell, the cray, the prawn.
Our forefathers sank Spanish ships and
attacked any boat that came into our
water. We travelled to PNG, right up
the Lockhart River, and to Raine Island,
not far from Lockhart, to do trade. We
have a name for Raine Island which is
Bub Warwar Kaur. Bub mean chest,
Warwar means stripes and Kaur means
the island itself. And when you are at
Raine Island you see crocodiles, you
VHHÀVKDQG\RXVHHELUGV7KDW·VZKDW,
interpret as the ‘land of many species’.
We have trades to PNG. We have
trades to our Southern brother in the
mainland. Like I said, we trade. If we
want red ochre we go to Lockhart
DQG ZH WUDGH LQ VNXOOV RU ÀVK ,W·V D
commercial thing, but on a smaller scale.
Before the Coming of the Light, back in
the 1800s, they traded the tomahawk
for land. Trade is our way of life.
The birth of Mer Gedkem Le
,W ZDV LQ WKDW , ÀUVW KHDUG RI D
PBC. I was the Deputy-Chair of the Mer
Community Council. The council called
on TSRA [the Torres Strait Regional
Authority], engineers, builders, an
accountant, and we drew up a plan
for the development of infrastructure
on Mer. I remember sitting in a room
in Cairns waiting for legal advice. The
lawyer walked in and said, ‘Sorry, I
have bad news for you, before you can
commence any construction or develop
any infrastructure on the island, you
have to form a body called a native
title corporation’. We said, ‘Why? We
won native title in 1992.’ He told us, that
it is what the Native Title Act says. We
SXW LQ RXU WLPH DQG HIIRUW WR Á\ GRZQ
there from Murray Island just to get this
answer and go back. What a waste!
At our next council meeting we decided
to call a meeting for all people from the
Meriam nations living in the mainland.
This meeting, in Townsville, was paid
for out of the council budget. For the
second meeting, held on Murray Island,
the council paid for 10 to 15 elders to
Á\ IURP WKH PDLQODQG WR 0HU MXVW WR
set up this corporation and to write the
rule book. It took us 18 months to set
up the corporation. In August 1998, Mer
Gedkem Le was born.
Mer Gedkem Le today
Fourteen years later we are still
under-resourced. We receive no
funds from FaHCSIA [the Department
Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs] and only
recently, in 2011, we received a
peanut from TSRA. Most of us are doing
volunteer work, and I am personally
frustrated. I have been frustrated for
years now. The cost of living is high
for us. I suffer. We need paid work to
support our families.
In 2009, at our AGM, I was appointed
Chair of Mer Gedkem Le and at this
same meeting we endorsed fees for
service. It’s really sad to say this, but
only if they can give us resources, pay
for 2 to 3 people full-time, can our PBC
survive. I’ve got two others working,
like myself, and we are just doing our
best to get our PBC up and running. We
have ORIC sitting there, like big brother,
saying ‘you have to do this, you have to
do that’… but they don’t recognise who
we are and what we are. A PBC for me
is something set up by the government,
not under our lore or structure.
The 20th anniversary: whose day is
this? Is it supposed to be for the Meriam
People? For us it’s a day to recognise, not
20 years, but a much longer struggle. I
remember sitting as a kid listening to my
parents, aunties, uncles and grandfather
talking about the DNA [Department
of Native Affairs] police, saying ‘look
at this bureaucrat telling us what to
do’. Today, the bureaucrats sitting on
Thursday Island are meant to be there
to help us. But they do nothing for us.
We have to do everything ourselves.
This is the system. Fight the system back.
i
l
h
c
a
h
t
w
i
S
t
a
A
t
M
T
Dancer from Komet Kus, a collective of Mer
Islanders from the Eastern Torres Straits.
Native Title Conference 2012
Credit: Kerstin Styche
For more information you can contact
Mer Gedkem Le and elders within the
Mer community on:
mer_gedkem_le@y7mail.com
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 142
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϳ
The Australian Government recently
announced a number of key native
title institutional reforms focused on
LPSURYLQJ WKH HIÀFLHQF\ RI WKH QDWLYH
title system and assisting the Federal
Court to strengthen its ability to achieve
native title outcomes.
Under the reforms, native title claims
mediation and Indigenous land use
agreement (ILUA) negotiations related
to native title claims mediation will, over
time, cease to be undertaken in the
National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)
and be taken up by the Federal Court:
The government has stated its expect-
ation that most native title matters will
cease to be mediated in the NNTT as
of 1 July 2012 but some matters —
for example, those that are close to
resolution — are likely to remain with
the NNTT for mediation, including any
assistance with ILUA negotiations until
ÀQDOLVHG
All of the NNTT’s other statutory
functions will remain with the NNTT
after 1 July 2012, including:
ILUA negotiations not related to
native title claims mediation
future acts functions
maintenance of various registers
application of the registration test.
Since 1 July the court’s key priority in
respect of the mediation workload
has been to maintain the impetus and
progress of existing mediation of cases
in the priority list.
To achieve this the court has sought the
views of the applicant and respondents
in the majority of cases in mediation
and put in place a mediation or case
management strategy. This process
of review considers what case will
continue to be the subject of mediation,
when mediation (or other form of ADR)
should occur, and whether the mediation
should continue with the NNTT or be
referred to a registrar or external
mediator, or cease.
Such an assessment takes place through
callovers and review hearings, as well as
before Registrars in case management
conferences in order for the court to be
fully apprised of the nature of the extant
issues and to propose an approach to
resolve these, including a timetable.
The initial focus of judges and registrars
has been on the requirements over
the six months from July to December
2012. However, the court’s Native Title
Committee has noted that there is a
need to develop a plan for the future.
It is important for the court to continue to
identify priority cases and publish these
with the indicative resolution dates but it
is equally important for it to develop a
longer term plan to allow for a balanced
approach to allocation of resources.
The transfer of the responsibility for the
mediation of claims from the NNTT to
the Federal court complements various
legislative changes that have occurred
to the court’s responsibilities over
recent years. These changes include the
2009 amendments to the Native Title
Act 1993 (Cth), which empowered the
Federal Court to, amongst other things,
refer a claim to ‘an appropriate person
or body for mediation’, including a
Registrar of the Court, the tribunal or
another individual or body.
Also in 2009, amendments were made
to the Federal Court of Australia Act
1976 (Cth) to make clear that the court
has both responsibility and authority to
actively manage cases. The changes
also placed similar responsibilities on
parties and their legal representatives,
including all parties involved in native
WLWOH FODLPV 2I VLJQLÀFDQFH DUH VV
37M and 37N of the Federal Court of
Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which makes
‘the overarching purpose of the civil
practice and procedure’ of the court
the just resolution of disputes according
to law as quickly, inexpensively and
HIÀFLHQWO\ DV SRVVLEOH DQG UHTXLUHV
parties to act consistently with this
purpose.
The mediation reforms, along with the
other changes to native title in recent
years, offer an opportunity for all
parties to resolve native title claims,
and the court looks forward to working
with all parties involved in native title to
achieve long-awaited results.
‘[N]ative title claims mediation will, over time, cease to be
undertaken in the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)
and be taken up by the Federal Court’
NATIVE TITLE
INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
By Louise Anderson, Federal Court of Australia
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 143
ϴപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
By Susan Phillips
In May 2012 the Attorney-General
announced that, from 1 July 2012, all
mediation of native title proceedings
(both claims and claim related ILUAs)
will be dealt with by the Federal Court.
Funding for the National Native Title
Tribunal (NNTT) from 1 July 2012
becomes a subprogram within the
Federal Court’s appropriation and a
number of the NNTT registries have
been relocated, where possible, to
spaces adjoining or within the court’s
premises. A number of the NNTT staff
have been absorbed by the court, and
the Federal Court District Registrars are
now convening conferences in each state
and region to work out the management
of all the matters in mediation. The NNTT
retains its ILUA and claims registration
IXQFWLRQV DQG QRWLÀFDWLRQ IXWXUH DFW
mediation and arbitral functions.
The architecture of the Native Title Act is
premised upon mediation as the means
by which native title will be recognised.
In passing the Native Title Act the
Commonwealth Parliament promised
parties would be brought together in
what the Act’s Preamble describes as ‘a
special procedure to be available for
the just and proper ascertainment of
native title rights and interests which will
ensure that, if possible, this is done by
conciliation and, if not, in a manner that
has due regard to their unique character’.
The Act promised ‘Governments should
facilitate negotiation on a regional
basis between the parties in relation to
claims to land or the aspirations of ATSI
peoples and proposals for the use of
land for economic purposes’.
The statutory design for progression of
native title claims still requires parties to
be brought together and assisted to work
out by agreement how their interests
coexist and express the practical way
in which that coexistence should be
enjoyed in the future. However, the court
will now have complete control over
that process and it will be interesting to
see whether the oft expressed judicial
frustration with the pace of native title
proceedings abates as the court brings
its powers to bear on the issues which
have, in the past, taken a long time
to resolve.
There is a long history in Australia of
reliance upon dispute resolution through
procedures other than resorting to
litigation in a court. The conciliation
and arbitration systems for workplace
disputes pre-dated Federation and
were incorporated into our Constitution.
Section 51(xxxv) provides conciliation
and arbitration should be provided by
the Commonwealth for the prevention
and settlement of industrial disputes.
The immediate model for the NNTT was
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC), where parties
complaining of breaches of their human
rights could be brought together and a
binding solution found.
However, a feature of our constitutional
arrangements has been the courts’
vigilance regarding their domain
under Chapter III of the Constitution.
Delegations of power to tribunals which
the courts have found encroached
upon judicial functions have been
found unconstitutional. Shortly after the
establishment of the NNTT in Brandy
v HREOC (1995) 183 CLR 245, the
capacity of HREOC to provide binding
solutions for parties in dispute was set
aside. The consequences of Brandy
meant the NNTT’s capacity to determine,
where the parties had reached agree-
ment, that native title exists was no
longer possible. The determination of
facts and declaration of native title
as an in rem interest binding upon the
world at large could only be done by
the court.
The 1998 amendments to the Native
Title Act FDXVHG VLJQLÀFDQW GLVFRPIRUW
to the court. The Federal Court was
very proud of its disposition rate — the
average time it took for a matter to
be disposed of from commencement to
ÀQDORUGHUVZDVPRQWKV ,Q 6HQDWH
estimates this could be contrasted
usefully with Supreme Court proceedings
with an average disposition rate of
three years. The transfer to the Federal
Court overnight in September 1998 of
almost 900 matters — irrespective of
their status before the NNTT — meant
proceedings commenced in 1994 and
THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE FEDERAL
COURT’S ACQUISITION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MEDIATING NATIVE TITLE PROCEEDINGS
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 144
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϵ
1995, — of which there were (and still
are) many, confounded these statistics.
To accommodate the change the court
set a provisional disposition target
for native title matters of three years,
having regard to their unique nature. It
is doubtful that this goal has ever been
achieved in a claimant application.
Eventually in its annual reports the court
started to quarantine the native title
matters to their own category so that the
‘balance’ of the court’s statistics could
be restored. Wilcox J complained in a
national Native Title Users’ Group forum
in 2003 that to hear and determine
all the active native title claims would
take the court 75 years. This showed
a fundamental misunderstanding of
the nature of native title proceedings
and the role of the court in relation to
them. The docket system in the Federal
Court means matters are managed by
the same judge from the beginning to
the end. Where claims are in mediation
and eventually resolved by consent the
judge acts largely administratively until
the very end, when they make orders
that the parties have worked out — if
the court regards them as appropriate.
Many legal representatives of parties
to native title proceedings have had the
H[SHULHQFHRIÀQGLQJWKDWWKHLUSULPDU\
objective after the transfer in 1998 of
native title proceedings to the Federal
Court was to keep the court at bay so
that the work of progressing the claim
could continue or, in the alternative
trying to use the court as a way of
urging other respondents and the NNTT
on through some of the blockages that
occur. The court has frequently noted
that parties are not getting on with
progressing the claim and matters have
been brought into closer and more
intensive judicial management now
with full control over mediation of the
claims. It will be interesting to monitor
the effect.
Out of all the matters that have been
ÀOHG XQGHU WKH Native Title Act, only
25 are litigated determinations. There
have been 1985 claims (claimant,
compensation and non-claimant) made.
Only 474 are active proceedings,
meaning 1511 have been resolved by
one means or another — the bulk of
them, 1486, by means other than judicial
determination following a hearing.
There have been 187 determinations,
Opposite page: illustration by Sir John Tenniel from Through the Looking-Glass, and
What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll, 1871: This page: The Nyangumarta Karajarri
determination in May 2012: Judge and Nyangumarta dancers. Credit: Susan Phillips.
out of which 143 have recognised the
existence of native title. Determination
of contested proceedings regarding the
existence of native title by the court has
therefore only happened in 25 out of
WKHSURFHHGLQJVÀOHG
Julius Stone commented in relation to
mediation :
By the nature of mediation, directed
as it is to secure agreement, the merits
of the dispute on the facts or law are
almost necessarily subordinated.
“To achieve success, the mediator
is inclined, therefore, to encourage
compromise rather than advise
DGKHUHQFH WR OHJDO SULQFLSOHµ 7KH
mediator tends, in short, to follow
the line of least resistance, and does
not—or at least does not have to—
bring an objective judgment to bear
on the issues before him. On the
other hand, mediation has a value
corresponding to this shortcoming,
namely, that a settlement thereby
produced may be better designed
to settle not merely the merits of the
dispute, but the mutual relations of
the disputants.
The extent to which the court falls within
or without of this paradigm will now
be susceptible to the same assessment
as formerly applied to the NNTT. The
H[WHQWWRZKLFKWKLVLVDQDSSURSULDWHÀW
with the judicial purpose and functions
of a court will be demonstrated in the
months and years to come. The loss of
corporate experience and memory the
NNTT possessed may itself be a setback
for many of the claims where mediation
was fairly advanced. The accumulation
of experience in native title matters
for all of the clients, institutions and
practitioners since 1998 has made
disposition of matters far quicker than
was possible in the past. As has already
occurred, full credit for the increasing
number of consent determinations has
already been claimed for the court
before Senate estimates. More thorough
analysis of the processes by which the
determinations made since the 2009
amendments were achieved may show
that the credit for the increasing rate
of resolution of native title claims by
consent should at least be shared.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 145
ϭϬപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
National Native Title
Conference, Townsville,
4-6 June 2012
By Christine Regan
The Centre for Land and Water
Research at AIATSIS is undertaking case
study research into what helps and what
hinders climate change adaptation for
registered native title bodies corporate
(RNTBCs) and the native title holding
groups they represent. This is part of
a research grant from the National
Climate Change Adaptation Research
Facility (NCCARF). The research project
focuses on the social and institutional
barriers to and enablers of RNTBCs in
facilitating community driven climate
change adaptation.
RNTBCs, sometimes also referred to
as PBCs, are the corporate entities
that are established after a successful
determination of native title has been
made. Their key role is to protect and
manage native title lands and waters
on behalf of the broader native title
holding group. There are currently 93
RNTBCs across Australia, with formal
land management and community
development responsibilities on native
title land, which now comprises around
17 percent of the Australian continent.
RNTBCs have a key role to play in
climate change adaptation practices
because of their legislative, cultural and
social responsibilities and because they
are a contemporary structure through
which traditional Indigenous authority
can be exercised. However, research by
AIATSIS has found that these governing
Indigenous bodies are marginalised
in the governance, institutional and
decision-making structures and practices
designed to facilitate climate change
adaptation.
As part of the project a workshop was
held at the Native Title Conference in
June 2012. The aim of the workshop,
entitled 'Changes to country and culture,
FKDQJHV WR FOLPDWH 5HÁHFWLRQV RQ
Indigenous resilience and adaptation',
was to engage in a dialogue between
RNTBCs and Indigenous and non-
Indigenous researchers and stakeholders
about:
the social, economic and institutional
factors that drive or undermine
RNTBC facilitation of climate
change adaptation in remote
Indigenous communities
the gaps in Indigenous involvement
in climate change policy and
decision making
the use of traditional Indigenous
knowledge to adapt to and mitigate
the impacts of climate change.
The workshop was co-convened by Dr
Jessica Weir, a Research Fellow at the
University of Canberra, and Tran Tran,
Research Fellow at the Centre for Land
and Water Research at AIATSIS, and
chaired by Professor Marcia Langton.
There were presentations by Traditional
Owners from the Karajarri Traditional
Lands Association (KTLA), Abm Elgoring
Ambung RNTBC and Yanunijarra
Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (with
Sonia Leonard from the University of
Melbourne). The critical issues that
emerged from the workshop were:
how the governance, land holding
and management, and community
development responsibilities of
RNTBCs places them in a strong
position to contribute to climate
change adaptation
how RNTBCs, local councils and
governments can more successfully
and inclusively collaborate on the
building of infrastructure, town
planning, economic development,
land and water management and
other adaptation work
the need for the knowledge,
experiences and unique situation
of RNTBCs to be taken into account
in recommendations for institutional
design for climate change
adaptation
the gaps in Indigenous involvement
in climate change adaptation
decision-making processes, and the
need to identify what constitutes
best practice for that decision-
making.
The workshop began with the presen-
tation by Ngurrara Traditional Owners,
from the Yanunijarra Aboriginal
Corporation, who, in partnership with
Sonia Leonard from the University of
Melbourne, discussed the Ngurrara
Climate Change Initiative project. The
RNTBCs AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION WORKSHOP
‘CHANGES TO COUNTRY AND CULTURE, CHANGES TO CLIMATE:
REFLECTIONS ON INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION’
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 146
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϭϭ
project establishes a methodology
for using traditional knowledge to
provide a better understanding of
climate patterns and ways to adapt
to environmental changes on native
title lands.
Traditional Owners from the KTLA
discussed how PBCs can play an
important role in coordinating the use
of traditional knowledge to care for
country.
The Karajarri also focused on ways
of maintaining cultural identity in the
context of climate change and its
impacts on Indigenous cultural practices
relating to country.
Representatives from the Abm Elgoring
Ambung spoke about how RNTBCs are
the governing Indigenous institutions
,PDJHV2SSRVLWHSDJH6HDVRQDOÁRRGLQJLQ.RZDQ\DPD4/'&UHGLW7UDQ7UDQ
Above: Tran Tran and Thomas ‘Dooli’ King, Bidyadanga, WA. Credit: Jessica Weir.
THE OUTCOMES AND
EMERGENT THEMES OF THE
WORKSHOP ARE DISCUSSED
IN MORE DEPTH IN THE RNTBCS
AND CLIMATE CHANGE
WORKSHOP REPORT, WHICH
WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN
OCTOBER TO VIEW ONLINE
AT THE AIATSIS CENTRE FOR
LAND AND WATER RESEARCH
WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.
AIATSIS.GOV.AU/RESEARCH
LW/ADAPTATION.HTML
through which Traditional Owners can
potentially exercise control over the
decisions that are made about country,
but that lack of investment in RNTBCs
is preventing them from having a voice
in climate change decision making.
Tran Tran and Jessica Weir presented
on the social and institutional dimensions
of climate change adaptation and
the role of native title holders in this
context, noting that there are many
areas of law and legislation, policy
making and institutional processes that
are yet to adapt to the introduction of
native title and to the even more recent
establishment of the RNTBCs. Tran and
Weir discussed how existing legal,
political and academic institutions can
compartmentalise and exclude native
title holders.
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 147
ϭϮപEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST 2012
On 1 January 2013, changes to the
Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme
will come into force, with consequences
for the level of funding available and
WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV LQ ZKLFK ÀQDQFLDO
assistance will be granted. These
changes are part of a broader move
by the Attorney-General’s Department
to consolidate the administration of 26
&RPPRQZHDOWK ÀQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH
schemes, which took effect on 1 July
2012. In the consolidated framework,
ÀQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH ZLOO JHQHUDOO\ EH
limited to disbursements and only
available for the cost of legal repre-
sentation in exceptional circumstances.
The Native Title Respondent Funding
Scheme is designed to assist parties
whose interests may be affected by the
recognition of native title to participate
in native title proceedings. Financial
assistance under section 213A of the
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is available
to respondents involved in native
title proceedings or disputes, parties
to Indigenous land use agreement
negotiations and grantee parties in
future act matters. Native title claimants
are not included in this scheme.
Under s 213A(4), the Attorney-General
KDV GLVFUHWLRQ WR JUDQW ÀQDQFLDO
DVVLVWDQFHLIVDWLVÀHGWKDWDQDSSOLFDQWLV
not eligible for assistance from any other
VRXUFHWKDWWKH\IXOÀO WKH GHSDUWPHQW·V
guidelines, and that the grant would
be reasonable in the circumstances. As
part of the 2011–12 budget process,
the department announced that it would
revise existing guidelines and develop
a new interest test for respondents. The
current funding guidelines will remain in
place until 31 December 2012 and will
be replaced by the new scheme on 1
January 2013.
The Attorney-General’s Department
has indicated that the new ‘interest test’
will introduce two tiers of eligibility.
Generally, native title respondents will
be eligible for disbursement funding
only; however, legal representation
costs will still be funded in exceptional
circumstances. The Attorney-General’s
'HSDUWPHQW GHÀQHV GLVEXUVHPHQWV DV
the costs associated with legal action,
such as the costs of obtaining court
transcripts, but not the costs of legal
representation fees.
Under the new revised interest test,
applicants will have to satisfy the
following requirements in order to
qualify for disbursement funding:
For native title inquiries, mediation
or proceedings, the respondent
must be joined as a party to the
claim.
In relation to the negotiation of
Indigenous land use agreements
(ILUAs), the applicant for funding
PXVW KDYH LGHQWLÀHG D UHOHYDQW
party who is willing to negotiate an
agreement. If they intend to seek
assistance for dispute resolution,
they must be joined as a party to an
inquiry, mediation or proceeding.
In the case of future acts, the
JUDQWHHSDUW\PXVWKDYHLGHQWLÀHG
a relevant party who is willing and
able to negotiate an agreement.
Funding for legal representation will be
restricted to exceptional circumstances,
and in particular:
Legal representation funding will no
longer be available for future act
grantee parties.
For native title proceedings, medi-
ations or inquiries, there must be
a novel legal issue that is directly
relevant to the respondent’s interests
or the court must require the
respondent’s participation beyond
standard procedural processes.
In relation to ILUA negotiations or
disputes about access rights, the
Attorney-General will consider a
number of factors, including whether
a template or a standard agreement
exists, whether the native title party
is willing and able to negotiate,
whether there is a novel legal issue
directly relevant to the respondent’s
interests, whether there is a need
for the respondent to be involved
LQWKHVSHFLÀFVWDJHRISURFHHGLQJV
and whether the court requires the
respondent’s participation in a
substantial sense.
Under the new scheme, limits to
ÀQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH ZLOO EH LPSRVHG
While there will be no overall cap
placed upon disbursement grants,
VSHFLÀFW\SHVRIGLVEXUVHPHQWVVXFKDV
photocopying costs, may be capped.
)XUWKHUPRUH ÀQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH IRU
legal representation will be capped
at $50,000. For disbursement funding,
group respondents are not subject to
CHANGES TO THE NATIVE TITLE
RESPONDENT FUNDING SCHEME
By Alice Nagel and Samuel Stapleton
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 148
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌAUGUST ϮϬϭϮപϭϯ
means testing, whereas individuals
must undergo an assessment of their
ÀQDQFLDO VLWXDWLRQ 0HDQV WHVWLQJ PD\
apply to both individuals and groups
seeking legal representation assistance.
Organisations will not be able to seek
IXQGLQJ IRU QDWLYH WLWOH RIÀFHUV RU
administrative costs.
The major drivers behind the funding
reforms, as explained by the Attorney-
General’s Department, are budgetary
cuts and the changing nature of native
WLWOHSURFHHGLQJV,Q²ÀQDQFLDO
assistance funding will be reduced
by $0.71 million through a stricter
application of funding guidelines, and
after 2012–13, when the consolidated
scheme takes effect, by $2.5 million.
The Attorney-General’s Department has
stated that it considers it an opportune
time to reassess the funding of native
title respondents, given that many legal
issues are now settled, the effect on
existing rights is more certain and the
resolution of claims has shifted away
from adversarial litigation towards
negotiation and mediation.
The new scheme will take account of
ÀQGLQJV E\ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW UHYLHZ
conducted by Mr AC Neal SC in 2011.
Mr Neal’s report examined all aspects
of the existing funding arrangements,
including the scheme’s effectiveness and
the circumstances in which funding should
EH JUDQWHG WR QDWLYH WLWOH RIÀFHUV DQG
legal representatives. It involved public
consultation with 32 stakeholders across
Australia and written submissions from
23 stakeholders. The government has
stated its commitment to access to justice
principles, greater support for pro bono
work and an effective distribution of
limited funds.
Several issues raised in Mr Neal’s report
are likely to attract continuing debate.
The most contentious aspect of the
government’s proposal is the impact it
could have on respondent organisations
and whether current outcomes can
be maintained in such a reduced
funding environment. Submissions by
respondent peak body organisations
made the claim that if funding is
UHGXFHG WKHQ WKH EHQHÀWV WKDW DULVH
from respondent organisations linking
ZLWK TXDOLÀHG QDWLYH WLWOH ODZ\HUV
will wane. Furthermore, if native title
respondents began participating in
claim proceedings without legal repre-
sentation this would certainly lead to
heightened stress being placed on the
Federal Court and the National Native
Title Tribunal’s management processes.
However, Mr Neal considered that
LW ZDV GLIÀFXOW WR HYDOXDWH VXFK QHJ
ative implications when dealing with
hypothetical situations and little
empirical information. He noted that
he was not persuaded by the argument
that reducing Commonwealth funding
will lead to the disappearance of
native title lawyers acting on behalf of
respondent organisations. He argued
that there will always be incentives
present for respondent organisations
to allocate available funds to a
representative agent to act in their
interests when necessary.
In summary, the main change will be
the introduction of a two-tiered system
of native title respondent funding,
with different eligibility requirements
for disbursement funding and legal
representation. Funding for legal repre-
sentation costs will be limited to
exceptional circumstances and will be
part of a broader move by the Attorney-
General’s Department to consolidate
legal assistance schemes. Overall, it
LV GLIÀFXOW WR DVFHUWDLQ WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV
of the new scheme, as it is yet to be
implemented and the revised native
title respondent funding guidelines are
VWLOOWREHÀQDOLVHG
Opposite page: Road to Jarlmadangah, Karajarri country, Kimberley WA.
Credit: Jessica Weir.
This page: heritage survey, central Pilbara 2008. Credit: Cath McLeish
FOR MORE
INFORMATION:
HTTP://WWW.AG.GOV.AU
OR CONTACT THE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
SECTION OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S
DEPARTMENT ON
02 6141 4770
OR BY EMAIL ON
FINASS@AG.GOV.AU
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 149
d,Ed/sd/d>Z^Z,hE/d
/d^/^ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƐƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞEĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞĂŶĚ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƌĂŶĐŚŽĨƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐ
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚ/ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐīĂŝƌƐ;&Ă,^/Ϳ
ΞƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂŶ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞŽĨďŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĂŶĚdŽƌƌĞƐ^ƚƌĂŝƚ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ
EĂƟǀĞdŝƚůĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚhŶŝƚ
ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂŶ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞŽĨďŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĂŶĚdŽƌƌĞƐ^ƚƌĂŝƚ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ
'WKŽdžϱϱϯ
ĂŶďĞƌƌĂdϮϲϬϭ
Telephone: 02 6246 1161
&ĂĐƐŝŵŝůĞϬϮϲϮϰϵϳϳϭϰ
ŵĂŝůŶƚƌƵΛĂŝĂƚƐŝƐŐŽǀĂƵ
ƉĂƌƚĨƌŽŵĂŶLJĨĂŝƌĚĞĂůŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƐƚƵĚLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĐƌŝƟĐŝƐŵŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĂƐƉĞƌŵŝƩĞĚƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞ
Copyright Act 1968ŶŽƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƵďůŝĐĂƟŽŶŵĂLJďĞƌĞƉƌŽĚƵĐĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƚŚĞǁƌŝƩĞŶƉĞƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝƐŚĞƌ
sŝĞǁƐĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐEĞǁƐůĞƩĞƌĂƌĞŶŽƚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌŝůLJƚŚŽƐĞŽĨ/d^/^
/^^EϭϰϰϳͲϳϮϮy
Ed/sd/d>Z^Z,hE/d
ABOUT US
The Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) was established through collaboration between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission and AIATSIS in 1993 in response to the High Court decision in Mabo v Queensland [No 2], which recognises Indigenous
peoples’ rights to land under the legal concept of native title. The NTRU’s activities are currently supported through a funding
agreement with the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA).
The NTRU provides high quality independent research and policy advice in order to promote the recognition and protection of the
native title of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We facilitate access to the Institute’s records, materials and collections
and publish the results of our research both as a source of public information and in academic publications.
Located within the wider AIATSIS research program, the NTRU aims to provide ongoing monitoring of outcomes and developments in
native title; independent assessment of the impact of policy and legal developments; longitudinal and case study research designed
to feed into policy development; ethical, community based and responsible research practice; theoretical background for policy
GHYHORSPHQWUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUSROLF\GHYHORSPHQWDQGSROLF\DGYRFDF\GHVLJQHGWRLQÁXHQFHWKLQNLQJDQGSUDFWLFH
SUBSCRIBE TO NTRU PUBLICATIONS AND RESOURCES
All NTRU publications are available in electronic format. This will provide a faster service for you, is better for the environment and
allows you to use hyperlinks. If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to the Native Title Newsletter electronically, please send an email to
ntru@aiatsis.gov.au. You will be helping us provide a better service.
For previous editions of the Newsletter, go to http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/newsletter.html
Appendix 4
Native title and climate change 150
Native title and climate change 151
Appendix 5: Interview workbook pp.152-165
Climate Change Adaptation on Karajarri Country; Workbook for Interviews
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION ON
KARAJARRI COUNTRY
WORKBOOK FOR INTERVIEWS
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
October 2012
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 152
2
ABOUT THIS WORKBOOK
dŚŝƐǁŽƌŬŬŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂƐƐŝƐƚ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝdƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů>ĂŶĚƐ
ƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ;<d>ͿĂŶĚŽƵƌƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶǁĞĂƚŚĞƌŽŶ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJĂŶĚ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝ
ƉĞŽƉůĞdŚĞǁŽƌŬŬŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĨƌŽŵĂǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŚĞůĚŝŶ
ƵŐƵƐƚƚŚŝƐLJĞĂƌĂŶĚĂƐŬƐƐŽŵĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJĂŶĚ
ŐŽǀĞƌŶĂŶĐĞƚŽŚĞůƉƉůĂŶŚŽǁ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝǁŝůůŵĂŶĂŐĞĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶƚŚĞ
ĨƵƚƵƌĞdŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉǁĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚǁŽƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚ<d>ŝƐĂ
ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶ
dŚŝƐǁŽƌŬŬŝƐďŽƚŚĂƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚĂƚƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ
ĂŶĚĂŐƵŝĚĞĨŽƌĨŽůůŽǁͲƵƉŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁƐ
THE WORKSHOP
ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉǁĂƐŽƌŐĂŶŝƐĞĚďLJ<d>ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐĂŶĚǁĂƐ
ŚĞůĚĂƚƚŚĞŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĞŶƚƌĞŽŶϭϰƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϭϮ
<d>ŵĞŵďĞƌƐǁŚŽĂƩĞŶĚĞĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ:ŽƐĞƉŚDƵŶƌŽ&ĂLJĞĞĂŶ:ŽƐĞƉŚ
ĚŐĂƌdŚŽŵĂƐ<ŝŶŐ>ĞŶŶLJ,ŽƉŝŐĂZĞŶĞ,ŽƉŝŐĂĂŶĚ^LJůǀŝĂ^ŚŽǀĞůůĞƌ
ƉŽůŽŐŝĞƐDĞƌǀLJŶDƵůůĂƌĚLJĞĐŝůŝĂĞŶŶĞƩůĂŝŶĞDĐDĂŚŽŶĂŶĚ
'ŽƌĚŽŶDĂƌƐŚĂůů
ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ>ŝƐĂ^ƚƌĞůĞŝŶ:ĞƐƐŝĐĂtĞŝƌůĂŝƌĞ^ƚĂĐĞLJ
ŶŶĂǁLJĞƌĂŶĚ^ŽŶŝĂ>ĞŽŶĂƌĚ
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 153
3
THE RESEARCH PROJECTS
<d>ŚĂƐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌĞĚǁŝƚŚƚǁŽƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ŽŶ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
ϭ dŚĞ ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂŶ /ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ ŽĨ ďŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ĂŶĚ dŽƌƌĞƐ ^ƚƌĂŝƚ /ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ
^ƚƵĚŝĞƐ;/d^/^ͿĂŶĚEƵůƵŶŐƵĞŶƚƌĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨEŽƚƌĞĂŵĞ
ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƚĞĂŵ>ŝƐĂ ^ƚƌĞůĞŝŶ :ĞƐƐŝĐĂtĞŝƌdƌĂŶdƌĂŶůĂŝƌĞ ^ƚĂĐĞLJ
ĂŶĚŶŶĂǁLJĞƌ
/d^/^ŚĂƐĂƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚǁŝƚŚ<d>
This project is asking who makes decisions about responding
to climate change and what role the KTLA should be playing in
regional planning.
ϮhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨDĞůďŽƵƌŶĞ
ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƚĞĂŵDĂƌĐŝĂ>ĂŶŐƚŽŶ^ŽŶŝĂ>ĞŽŶĂƌĚĂŶĚDĞŐWĂƌƐŽŶƐ
hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨDĞůďŽƵƌŶĞŚĂƐĂĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚǁŝƚŚ<ŝŵďĞƌůĞLJ>ĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝů
This project is asking how Karajarri feel about climate change, what
are the risks for Karajarri country and how Karajarri can manage
climate change.
ŽƚŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŽƚŚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƟƚůĞŐƌŽƵƉƐĂƐǁĞůů
dŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞĨƵŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞEĂƟŽŶĂůůŝŵĂƚĞŚĂŶŐĞĚĂƉƚĂƟŽŶ
ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ;EZ&ͿĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨůŝŵĂƚĞŚĂŶŐĞĂŶĚ
ŶĞƌŐLJĸĐŝĞŶĐLJ
If you do an interview with a member of one of the research team you
ǁŝůůďĞĂƐŬĞĚƚŽĮůůŝŶĂĨŽƌŵƚŽƐŚŽǁƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĐŽŶƐĞŶƚƚŽLJŽƵƌĂŶƐǁĞƌƐ
ďĞŝŶŐŐŝǀĞŶƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĞƌƐĨŽƌƵƐĞŝŶǁƌŝƟŶŐƵƉƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƐĞ
projects.
ŽŶƚĂĐƚŶŶĂǁLJĞƌ
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 154
ϰ
! !
!"!'
!!!
!&
"'
& !!
"+%+#'#%# #/
''#' !'><=>%$#%'&''4
+&'% """+ ,% /!"'!$%'+%&,"%&
/<5D9&"=D=<5
# ,%!"& , #%><==-&>=<!!#,'
, "=CC<5
&+%'!$%'+%&,"%&/#+'<5C9&"
=D=<5
!"+&#'#&%,"%&"%#"#.
#""'%(#""''!#&$%&'#!+&(#"##&& + &
&"'"+&'% %,# +(#"5
+&'% ",%'!$%'+%&%$%#''#%&/=5<'#@5<
9/><B<-"#!$%-'' !'#%"'&5
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
tŚĞŶǁĞƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁĞĂƌĞƚĂůŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚŚŽǁƚŚĞ
ƐĞĂƐŽŶƐĂŶĚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌĂƌĞĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĂŶĚŚŽǁƚŚŝƐĂīĞĐƚƐ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝ
ƉĞŽƉůĞĂŶĚĐŽƵŶƚƌLJƚƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉǁĞƚĂůŬĞĚĂďŽƵƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ĂƐůŝŬĞĂĐĂƌďŽŶďůĂŶŬĞƚŵĂŬŝŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƌƚŚŚŽƩĞƌ^ĐŝĞŶƟƐƚƐŚĂǀĞƐĂŝĚ
ƚŚĂƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƐŚĂƉƉĞŶŝŶŐďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƉŽůůƵƟŽŶdŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂ
ƐƵƌƉƌŝƐĞƚŽ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶǁĂƌŶŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨ
ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶĐŽƵŶƚƌLJhŶƟůŶŽǁŶŽďŽĚLJŚĂƐůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ
/ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐƉĞŽƉůĞƐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŽĨĐůŝŵĂƚĞĂŶĚĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
dŚĞƐĐŝĞŶƟƐƚƐŚĂǀĞƐĂŝĚƚŚĂƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŚĂƐĐĂƵƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĞĂƌƚŚƐǁĞĂƚŚĞƌƐƵĐŚĂƐ
ͲǁĂƌŵĞƌƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐ
ͲƐĞĂůĞǀĞůƌŝƐĞƐ
ͲĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŝŶƉĂƩĞƌŶƐĂŶĚ
ͲŵŽƌĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐĞƌŇŽŽĚƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵƐ
What does ‘climate change’ mean to you:
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 155
5
!$
><?<
><@<
><B<
RISKS AND IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR KARAJARRI COUNTRY
tĞƚĂůŬĞĚĂďŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƐĐŝĞŶƟƐƚƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐǁŝůůďĞŽŶ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
ͲŚŽƩĞƌĂŶĚůŽŶŐĞƌĚƌLJƐĞĂƐŽŶ;ŵĂLJďĞϯͲϰĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĨŽƌ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJŝŶϮϬϳϬͿ
ͲůĞƐƐƌĂŝŶĂŶĚĂƐŚŽƌƚĞƌƌĂŝŶLJƐĞĂƐŽŶ
ͲƌŝƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƐĞĂůĞǀĞů
ͲƌŝƐĞŝŶƚŚĞƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĂ
The changes in the weather will have the following impacts on Karajarri
country:
Ͳ>ĞƐƐƌĂŝŶĂŶĚŚŽƩĞƌǁĞĂƚŚĞƌǁŝůůŵĞĂŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŵŽƌĞĞǀĂƉŽƌĂƟŽŶŽĨǁĂƚĞƌ
ĨƌŽŵĐŽƵŶƚƌLJǁĂƚĞƌŝŶĐŽĂƐƚĂůĂƌĞĂƐǁŝůůďĞƐĂůƟĞƌĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂůůůĞƐƐĨƌĞƐŚ
ǁĂƚĞƌǁŝůůĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŽŶ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
ͲDŽƌĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐĞƌƐƚŽƌŵƐĂŶĚĐLJĐůŽŶĞƐǁŝůůůĞĂĚƚŽŚŝŐŚĞƌƐƚŽƌŵƐƵƌŐĞƐĂŶĚ
ŵŽƌĞĐŽĂƐƚĂůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶǁŚŝĐŚĐŽƵůĚĂīĞĐƚƐŚĞůůŵŝĚĚĞŶƐĂŶĚĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƐŝƚĞƐ
ͲtĂƌŵĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƐĞĂĐŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƌĞĞĨƐĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨĮƐŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJĚĞĞƉǁĂƚĞƌĮƐŚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŐŽŽƵƚƚŽĐŽůĚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌ
ĚĂƉƟŶŐƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
tŚĞŶƐĐŝĞŶƟƐƚƐƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚŚŽǁǁĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞLJƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚ
ĂĚĂƉƚĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶ
DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶŵĞĂŶƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞŽƌĂǀŽŝĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ
ͲůĞƐƐƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ
ͲĮƌĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ͲďĞƩĞƌĨĂƌŵŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ
;ŵĂŶĂŐĞƉŽůůƵƟŽŶͿ
ĚĂƉƚĂƟŽŶŵĞĂŶƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
dŚŝƐŵŝŐŚƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ
ͲĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ͲŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ͲƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚůLJ
;ŵĂŶĂŐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚͿ
><?<
><@<
><B<
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 156
6
AT THE WORKSHOP WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WILL NEED TO BE
MANAGED TO ADAPT TO THE CLIMATE CHANGES
ͲDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĂŶĚĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
ͲDŽŶŝƚŽƌĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚďƵƌŝĂůŐƌŽƵŶĚũŝůĂƐ;ƐƉƌŝŶŐƐĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŚŽůĞƐͿĚƵŶĞƐĂŶĚ
ĐĂŵƉŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚƐ
ͲDŽŶŝƚŽƌƐĂůƚǁĂƚĞƌŝŶƚƌƵƐŝŽŶĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƌĂŝŶ
ͲDŽŶŝƚŽƌƉůĂŶƚƐĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐŶĞƐƟŶŐĨƌƵŝƟŶŐƐĂůŵŽŶďƌĞĞĚŝŶŐ
ͲŽŵƉĂƌĞĚĞƐĞƌƚĂŶĚĐŽĂƐƚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ͲƐƐĞƐƐŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĨĂƌŵŝŶŐĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐ
ͲtĂƚĞƌƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ͲƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJ
ͲtŚŽƵƐĞƐǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ
Ͳ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůLJ
ͲWůĂŶůŽĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƌƵďďŝƐŚĚƵŵƉƐ
ͲWůĂŶůŽĐĂƟŽŶƚLJƉĞĂŶĚĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ͲWůĂŶĨŽƌŽƵƚƐƚĂƟŽŶƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ
Ͳ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞĚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŚŽǁůŽŶŐŝƚƚĂŬĞƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƌĞĐŽǀĞƌ
ĨƌŽŵĂĚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƐƵĐŚĂƐĂĐLJĐůŽŶĞ
ͲĞǀĞůŽƉĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂďŽƵƚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ĂŶĚǁŚĂƚŝƚŵĞĂŶƐ
ͲhŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞƌŽůĞŽĨĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐŝŶĂĚĂƉƟŶŐƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ͲĞǀĞůŽƉŽƌĂĚĂƉƚĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĨŽƌƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ
ͲĞǀĞůŽƉŽƌĂĚĂƉƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĨŽƌŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚƚŽĐŽƉĞǁŝƚŚĐŚĂŶŐĞ
Are there any other impacts you can imagine if those changes happen?
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 157
ϳ
ͲtĂŶŐŬƵƉĂůƉĂů
ͲĞŵĞƚĞƌLJďƵƌŝĂůŐƌŽƵŶĚ
Ͳ^ŽĂŬ
ͲtĂƌĂŬƵƟŶLJĂƌŝ
ͲtĂƌƌǁĂŶLJ
ͲDĂũŝůŝ
ͲtĂůĂŶŐŬĂũĂƌƌŝ
ͲWŝůŝŶŐWŝůŝŶŐ
ͲDƵƌƚƵů
ͲtĂŶĂŶŐƵƌƚƵ
ͲzĂƌĂůLJũŝ
ͲtŝƌƌŝƚŵĂů
Ͳ>ĂŵĂŶŝŶLJ
Ͳ:ŝůĂʹŬƵƌŝŶŐĂŶLJĂƌƌŝƉŝŶƉŝ
ͲWĂůŝƚĂŶŐŬĂ
ͲtĂƌĂƉĂ
ͲZĞĚƚĂŶŬ
ͲEĂŶŬƵŶĂ;ĮƐŚƚƌĂƉͿ
ͲEĂŶŬƵŶĂ;ƐŽĂŬͿ
ͲĞŵĞƚĞƌLJĂƌĞĂʹůĂůƵƌƌũĂƌƚƵ
ͲzĂůĂůĂŬĂƌƌ
ͲŽŶŶĞůůLJͲŵĂLJĂ
What do you think are the biggest threats to Karajarri country from
climate change?
AT THE WORKSHOP WE IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING
PLACES AT RISK
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 158
8
KARAJARRI INVOLVEMENT IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
ƚƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉǁĞŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƉƟŽŶƐĨŽƌ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽďĞ
ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞ
Ͳ'ĞƚŐŽŽĚĚĂƚĂĨŽƌ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ
Ͳ<ĞĞƉĂŶĞLJĞŽŶƉƌĞĚŝĐƟŽŶƐƐƚĂLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ͲĂƉĂĐŝƚLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƚƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůůĞǀĞůĂďŽƵƚĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĂŶĚƌĞĂĐƚ
Ͳ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶŶĂƟŽŶĂůĨŽƌƵŵƐƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ
ͲtĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
Ͳ^ĐŚŽŽůĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
ͲZĞŐŝŽŶĂůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ;ŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂĂŶĚĐŽĂƐƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌƐͿ
ͲWůĂŶŶŝŶŐůŽŶŐƚĞƌŵ
ͲDŽǀĞƚŽƐŚŝƌĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵŽĚĞů
Ͳ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƟŽŶŽĨ<d>
ͲdžƚĞŶĚŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽĨŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂŶĞĞĚƐĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƟŽŶ
ͲKƵƚƐƚĂƟŽŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĞdžĐůƵĚĞĚĨƌŽŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
Ͳ<d>ĂŶĚĐŽƵŶĐŝůƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉ
ͲĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞŽŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĐŽƵŶĐŝůƐ;ƐƚĂƚĞǁŝĚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵͿ
How do you think Karajarri people should respond to climate change:
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 159
9
THE ROLE OF KTLA IN MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE
dŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚƚǁŽĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƌŽůĞƐĨŽƌ<d>ŝŶŵĂŬŝŶŐĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚ
ŚŽǁƚŽƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ϭ/ŶŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůŚĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJƌŽůĞĂŶĚ<d>ŶĞĞĚƐƚŽŐŝǀĞ
ƉĞƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƐ
ϮKŶ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶƚƌLJ;ŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂͿ<d>ŚĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJƌŽůĞĂŶĚ
ŵƵƐƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚǁŝƚŚĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐǁŚĞŶŵĂŬŝŶŐĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ
What is KTLA responsible for in managing climate change?
1. In Bidyandanga and surrounding land
2. On country
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 160
ϭϬ
LIMITS AND OPPORTUNITIES
tŚĞŶƉĞŽƉůĞƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚ<d>ƚŚĞLJƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚ
Ͳ<d>
ͲZĂŶŐĞƌƐ
ͲzŝƌŝŵĂŶ
ͲKƵƚƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ
ͲƉĂƐƚŽƌĂůůĞĂƐĞ
tĞƚĂůŬĞĚĂďŽƵƚǁŚĂƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ<d>ŚĂƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ
Ͳ&ŝƌƐƚ/>hŝƐŝŶƉůĂĐĞǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ
ͻ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŽĚĞĂůǁŝƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞ
ͻ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƟŽŶŽĨƌŽůĞ
ͻ ĚĞĮŶĞƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉ
ͻ ĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬĨŽƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŵĂŬŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
ͻ ŶĞǁŽĸĐĞ
ͲZĂŶŐĞƌƐ
ͲEĂƟǀĞƟƚůĞĂŶĚ/>hĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞĨĞŶĐĞƌĂŶŐĞͲΨϮϬŬ
ͲdŚĞ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝZĂŶŐĞƌƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŚĂƐĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ^tWĂŶĚŚĂƐĂŇĞdžŝďůĞ
ǁŽƌŬƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŚĂƚĐĂŶƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝƉƌŝŽƌŝƟĞƐ
ͲWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌŽĨ>důĂŶĚƐƚŽ<d>ǁŝƚŚĂůĞĂƐĞďĂĐŬŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƚŽ
ƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůĐŽƵůĚŵĞĂŶƚŚĂƚ<d>ďĞĐŽŵĞůĂŶĚůŽƌĚƐdŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞ
ƐLJŵďŽůŝĐƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉďĞƚǁĞĞŶ<d>ĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝů
Ͳ<d>ĂƌĞŐĞƫŶŐŵŽƌĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƟŽŶĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ<d>ĨŽƌ
ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ<d>ŚĂǀĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞƐŽŶƌĞŐŝŽŶĂů
ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐďŽĚŝĞƐ
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 161
ϭϭ
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE ON KTLA CAPACITY
ͲŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽ<d>ŝƐŶŽƚĂƐŐŽŽĚĂƐŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ͻ dŚĞƌŽůĞŽĨ<ĂƌĂũĂƌƌŝĐŽƵŶĐŝůůŽƌƐŝƐŶŽƚůŝŶŬĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ<d>
ͻ dŚĞ/>hĚŽĞƐŶƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵƐĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ͲdŚĞ/>hĚŽĞƐŶƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵďĞƚǁĞĞŶ<d>ĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ
ͲdƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůKǁŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŚŝŐŚĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ<d>
ͲKƵƚƐƚĂƟŽŶƐŚĂǀĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚƚŚŝƐĐŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽƵŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚŽŶĞĞĚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƌƵďďŝƐŚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ͲKĸĐĞŝƐŶŽƚĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂůĂŶĚŚĂƐŶŽƐƚĂī
tŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚ<d>ŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĂďůĞƚŽƉůĂLJĂƌŽůĞŝŶĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĂĚĂƉƚĂƟŽŶ
tŚĂƚǁŝůůƐƚŽƉ<d>ƉůĂLJŝŶŐĂƌŽůĞŝŶĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĂĚĂƉƚĂƟŽŶ
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 162
ϭϮ
PARTNERSHIPS
ƚƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŝƚǁĂƐƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƐĞĚƚŚĂƚŶŽďŽĚLJĐĂŶĂĚĂƉƚƚŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ďLJƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐʹƚŚĞǁŚŽůĞŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŚĂƐƚŽďĞŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚtĞŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚĂ
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐƚŚĂƚ<d>ĐŽƵůĚǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚŝŶŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ͲŝĚLJĂĚĂŶŐĂŽƵŶĐŝů
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ/ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐīĂŝƌƐ;/Ϳ
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
Ͳ<ŝŵďĞƌůĞLJ>ĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝů;<>Ϳ
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨtĂƚĞƌ
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ;Ϳ
ͲĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞĂŶĚ&ŽŽĚ;&Ϳ
ͲEĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŝŶŐdKŐƌŽƵƉƐ;ELJĂŶŐƵŵĂƌƚĂEŐƵƌƌĂzĂǁƵƌƵELJŝŶŬŝŶĂDĂŶŐĂůĂͿ
ͲEĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŝŶŐƉĂƐƚŽƌĂůŝƐƚƐ;ŶŶĂWůĂŝŶƐEŝƚĂŽǁŶƐDƵŶƌŽ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ
dŚĂŶŐŽŽͿ
ͲZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽƌŐĂŶŝƐĂƟŽŶƐ;/d^/^hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨDĞůďŽƵƌŶĞEƵůƵŶŐƵEŽƚƌĞ
ĂŵĞͿ
Ͳ<ŝŵďĞƌůĞLJZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;<ZͿ
Ͳ&ŝƌĞĂŶĚŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ;&^Ϳ
ͲZĂŶŐĞůĂŶĚƐEZD
ͲEĂƟŽŶĂůtĂƚĞƌŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ&ŝƌƐƚWĞŽƉůĞƐtĂƚĞƌŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽƵŶĐŝů
Ͳ<ŝŵďĞƌůĞLJŶǀŝƌŽŶƐ
ͲŽŵŵŽŶǁĞĂůƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ
WŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ;^tWͿ
ͲŽŵŵŽŶǁĞĂůƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚEŽƌƚŚƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂ>ĂŶĚ
ĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌdĂƐŬĨŽƌĐĞ
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 163
ϭϯ
Who do you think are the most important people KTLA need to work with
tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉ
What could improve/how
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 164
THANK YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS INTERVIEW
Appendix 5
Native title and climate change 165
166 Native title and climate change
Appendix 6: Community reports pp. 167-192
Community Report Abm Elgoring Ambung
Community Report Karajarri Traditional Lands Association
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION ON
KOWANYAMA
COUNTRY
COMMUNITY REPORT
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
January 2013
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 167
ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY REPORT
This community report is about the climate change research project
carried out by AIATSIS in the Kowanyama community with the Abm
Elgoring Ambung RNTBC. The project period is from September
2011 – March 2013. This community report aims to summarise
research activities and findings from the climate change project.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
AIATSIS was funded by the Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency’s Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants
Program administered by the National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility (NCCARF) to look at how native title holders make
decisions about the management of their land and waters to help
them to better respond to changes in climate. We carried out our
research with Abm Elgoring Ambung and the Karajarri Traditional
Lands Association (KTLA) in the Kimberley, Western Australia.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 168
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
When we talk about climate change we are talking about how the
seasons and weather are changing, and how this affects
Kowanyama people and country. Climate change has caused
changes in seasons and weather such as:
• Warming temperatures
• Sea level rise
• Different rain patterns
• More and stronger floods and storms
The Lands Office has a strong history of looking after country for
the Kowanyama people and is “Kowanyama’s own black EPA”.
Climate change adaptation work is already being carried out
through work such as:
• Wetlands monitoring
• Fire monitoring
• Town planning
• Water planning
• Feral/animal eradication
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 169
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND
HOW DOES IT RELATE TO NATIVE TITLE?
Climate change adaptation is the work we do to reduce the adverse
consequences of this. For example, better land use planning and
changing water management practices.
Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs or PBCs as they
are commonly known) are in a strong position to contribute to
climate change adaptation because of their:
• Native title and other land holdings;
• Responsibilities under legislation; and
• Unique knowledges and experience.
However, PBCs are not included in the governance, institutional
and other decision-making structures and practices that are
important for climate change adaptation.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 170
WHY IS PBC EXPERIENCE IMPORTANT?
In Kowanyama and other remote Aboriginal communities there is a
history of church and state government control over what people
can and can’t make decisions about. The creation of the Aboriginal
council has meant that community decisions can come from the
community.
Setting up the Lands Office has created a unique land management
organisation for the Kowanyama people.
With native title determined in 2009 and 2012, the Kowanyama
people have had their culture and relationships with land
recognised under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The PBC has a
legal responsibility to look after Country.
It is important for government and others who want to do business
on Country to talk to the Kowanyama native title holders.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 171
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In Kowanyama there is a strong history of the Lands Office
protecting the interests of the Kowanyama people. However, in our
research we found that the way in which land is managed in
Kowanyama has been changed by:
• The recognition of native title and the formation of the PBC.
The PBC has legal responsibilities to manage Country.
• The need to work out how decisions are made and what
Council and PBC are responsible for.
• The mainstreaming of community governance through local
government structures that can be amalgamated,
potentially taking away community control.
• Planning work required by state governments requiring the
input of native title holders.
There is a need for partnerships between Council and PBC to work
together and plan for development, housing and land and water
use. This helps prepare the Kowanyama community for climate
change.
We hope the research will encourage government agencies to
consider PBCs and climate change in their planning decisions.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 172
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
National Native Title Conference Townsville, 4-6 June 2012
Teddy Bernard, Charlotte Yam, Raven Greenwool, Robert Holness
and Rodney Whitfield were funded to participate in a workshop at
the 2012 National Native Title Conference. At the workshop,
Rodney talked about the experiences of Abm Elgoring Ambung and
how it was hard to be handed native title without tools, funding or
resources to look after country for the Kowanyama people. The
conference was attended by native title holders across Australia. Dr
Christine Regan wrote a newsletter article on the workshop and a
longer workshop report.
Fieldwork February – March 2012
Tran and Jess visited Kowanyama from February – March 2012 to
learn more about the Kowanyama community and meet with the
directors of Abm Elgoring Ambung. Tran and Jess (with Dr Lisa
Strelein and Claire Stacey) wrote a project report based on their
research experiences.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 173
CASE STUDY 2: KARJARRI TRADITIONAL LANDS
ASSOCIATION
Bidyadanga, Western Australia
“We’re not on our own when it comes to climate change and that’s what we
need to realise that, but we need to also be putting in the effort, and
consciousness and the decision-making process that will assist us to make the
right decisions. And having the policy and structures in place to be able to
support the decision-making process....We need to form alliances and
partnerships with the community, and the community needs to understand the
native title holders’ – traditional owners’ – perspective and responsibility to look
after country.”
Joe Edgar, Deputy Chair
“Being the custodians of this place ‘you know’ of this community we are the
custodians and because Bidyadanga has taken over the community........it’s
actually trying to get the council to sit with KTLA and go through this thing
together ’you know’ as one and not split down the middle like that’s what
happen when we got our land rights and we then was split, we were the
outsiders and we didn’t then have much say then on the community...but if we
could actually sit down with them and the ILUA could binds us together where
we do work together ‘you know’ into looking after country....the broader ILUA
and I am hoping that we do start a good relationship with them to work together
to do this to keep up with the climate change.“
Faye Dean, Director
KTLA directors and members participating in a workshop in Bidyadanga on climate
change, 4
August 2012. (left to right) Joe Edgar (Deputy Chair), Lenny Hopiga (Director),
Faye Dean (Director), Joseph Munro (Director) Anna Dwyer (Nulungu) and Rene Hopiga
(Member) (image: Jessica Weir)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 174
CONTACT US
If you have any questions please contact the research team:
Tran Tran
Indigenous Country and
Governance Researcher
AIATSIS
Lawson Crescent Acton
Peninsula, Acton ACT 2601
(02) 6246 1181
Tran.Tran@aiatsis.gov.au
Dr Jessica Weir
Senior Research Fellow
University of Canberra
University Drive South, ACT
2601
(02) 6201 2633
Jessica.weir@canberra.edu.au
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 175
Thank you for taking part in this research
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 176
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION ON
KARAJARRI COUNTRY
COMMUNITY REPORT
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
February 2013
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 177
ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY REPORT
This community report is about the climate change
research project carried out by AIATSIS in the
Bidyadanga community with the Karajarri
Traditional Lands Association RNTBC.
This project ran from September 2011 – March
2013. This community report aims to provide a
summary of this research project.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 178
PROJECT BACKGROUND
AIATSIS was funded by the Federal Government through
the Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency’s Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants
Program administered by the National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF).
The University of Melbourne was also funded by NCCARF
to run a separate research project focused on risks and
perceptions on climate change on Karajarri country.
These questions connected with the AIATSIS project
about who makes decisions about responding to climate
change and the role the KTLA should have in planning.
AIATSIS and University of Melbourne ran some of their
workshops together to make it easier for KTLA directors
by having less meetings.
Dr Lisa Strelein, Dr Jessica Weir, Anna Dwyer (Nulungu Centre for Indigenous
Studies) and Claire Stacey (Image: Bruce Gorring)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 179
WHAT WAS THIS PROJECT ABOUT?
“how traditional owners, who have had
determinations of native title on their
country, make decisions about the
management of their land and ground waters,
to help them to better respond to changes in
climate”
How adapting to climate change means being
involved in decision making about country.
What opportunities and what barriers KTLA face in
being involved in decision making about country.
AIATSIS worked with two PBCS: KTLA and also
AbmElgoringAmbung RNTBC in Kowanyama, Cape
York, Queensland.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 180
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
When we talk about climate change we are talking about
how the seasons and weather are changing, and how this
affects Karajarri people and country. Climate change has
caused changes in seasons and weather such as:
• Warming temperatures
• Sea level rise
• Different rain patterns
• More and stronger cylcones, floods and storms
We can help deal with climate change by working to
manage the important impacts. For example if there
is less fresh water, Karajarri people can be part of
changing water management practices so that key jilas
are not impacted by agricultural and mining activity.
Another impact from climate change might be more
damage from cyclones, floods and storms. This would
mean having better land use planning so that
infrastructure, like housing, is safe.
This work is called climate change adaptation.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 181
HOW DOES CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION RELATE TO NATIVE
TITLE?
Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs or PBCs as they
are commonly known) like the KTLA are in a strong position to
contribute to climate change adaptation because of their:
• Unique knowledges and experience
• Native title and other land holdings;and
• Responsibilities under legislation.
The KTLA and the Karajarri rangers are already playing a role in
climate change adaptation through work such as:
• Town planning
• Water planning
• Coastal erosion monitoring
• Feral/animal eradication
• Cultural mapping
In looking after country, this work has important links with the role
of the Karajarri people in climate change. However, PBCs are not
always included in the governance, institutional and other decision-
making structures and practices within local and state government
that are important for climate change adaptation.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 182
WHY IS THE PBC EXPERIENCE
IMPORTANT?
Setting up the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association (KTLA) has
created an organisation to represent and protect native title for the
Karajarri people.
With native title determined in 2002, 2004 and 2012 the Karajarri
people have had their culture and relationships with land
recognised under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The PBC has a
legal responsibility to look after Country.
It is important for government and others who want to do business
on Country to talk to the Karajarri native title holders.
Jessica Weir, Lisa Strelein and Thomas King visiting sites impacted by climate
change (image: Claire Stacey)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 183
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In Bidyadanganative title has brought about the need to consider
everyone’s roles and responsibilities on Karajarri land. In our
research we found that relationships and resources are the most
important things for KTLA to make effective decisions about their
Country.
For example:
• KTLAs voice being included in land and water planning with
government
• Relationship with Bidyadanga Council
• Relationships with all important organisations
• Respect, recognition and acknowledgement of KTLA
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 184
TALKING TO GOVERNMENT
We hope the research will encourage government
agencies to consider the priorities of native title
holders in their planning decisions. This could
affect for example:
• how jilas are protected in water planning
• the construction of a potential cyclone
shelter
• funding for the work of the rangers to look
after country
• funding and resources for the KTLA to carry
out its land management responsibilities
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 185
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
National Native Title Conference Townsville, 4-6 June
2012
MervynMulardy, Joe Edgar, Jacqueline Shoveller and Billy
Joe Shoveller were funded to participate in a workshop at
the 2012 National Native Title Conference in Townsville.
At the workshop, Mervyn spoke about the importance of
traditional knowledge in healing and managing Country.
Mervyn also talked about the impacts of the changing
climate upon cultural practices and ways of maintaining
cultural identity. Joe Edgar spoke about how securing
native title recognition has meant that the KTLA have a
legal right to be formally consulted about projects that
are important for climate change adaptation (such as
town planning and water planning).
The conference was attended by native title holders
across Australia. Dr Christine Regan wrote a newsletter
article on the workshop and a longer workshop report.
Mervyn Mulardy and Rodney Whitfield presenting at the National Native
Title Conference in Townsville (image: Gabrielle Lauder)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 186
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
14 August 2012 – Climate scenarios, impacts and
responsibilities, Bidyadanga
A workshop was organised by KTLA and the research
partners and was held at the Bidyadanga Community
Resource Centre. KTLA members who attended include:
Joseph Munroe, Faye Dean, Joseph Edgar, Thomas King,
Lenny Hopiga and Sylvia Shoveller. This workshop was
organized with the University of Melbourne, and while
the morning focused on their research project, the
afternoon focused on the AIATSIS research project.
At the workshop, we discussed what is climate change,
the risks and impacts of climate change on Karajarri
country and what we need to do to adapt to climate
change. We also identified important areas that will be
affected by climate change and how the KTLA can be
involved to protect these areas. We also spoke about the
role of the KTLA in climate change and the partnerships
that will need to be formed to better manage country to
respond to climate change.
Apologies: MervynMulardy, Cecelia Bennett, Elaine McMahon and
Gordon Marshall.
Research participants: Lisa Strelein (AIATSIS), Jessica Weir (AIATSIS),
Claire Stacey (AIATSIS), Anna Dwyer (Nulungu) and Sonia Leonard
(University of Melbourne)
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
KTLA directors and members participating in the 4August 2012 workshop.
(left to right) Joe Edgar (Deputy Chair), Lenny Hopiga (Director), Faye Dean (Director),
Joseph Munro (Director) Anna Dwyer (Nulungu)
(image: Jessica Weir)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 187
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
8-12 October 2012 – Impacts of climate change on
Karajarri country and governance structures and
stakeholders on Karajarri land, Saltcreek
A second workshop was planned for four nights camping
on Karajarri Country atSaltcreek. The agenda included:
• a survey of cultural sites impacted by climate
change, and
• a stakeholder meeting.
Invited stakeholders include Federal and state agencies,
neighbouring traditional owner groups, surrounding
stations and other organisations such as the Kimberley
Land Council.
The meeting was unfortunately cancelleddue to sorry
business in the community.
There has not been an opportunity to reschedule this
workshop before the end of the AIATSIS project (end of
March 2013) but we hope that a similar meeting could be
held in the future.
Joe Edgar (Deputy Chair) near the private road (image: Jessica Weir)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 188
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Community interviews, November 2012
Anna Dwyer has been conducting interviews throughout
the Bidyadanga community using the interview
workbook. Anna has been focusing her questions on what
climate change means and the biggest threats to the
Bidyadanga community and Karajarri country. She also
focused on the role of the KTLA in decision-making and
the partnerships needed to work on climate change.
Anna interviewed:
• Mervyn Mulardy, KTLA, Chair
• Joe Edgar, KTLA, Deputy Chair
• Elaine Marshall, KTLA Director
• Faye Dean, KTLA Director
• Thomas King, KTLA, Director and Ranger
Coordinator
• Barbara White, Bidyadanga Community Council,
Karajarri Councillor
• James Yanawana, Bidyadanga Community Council,
Chair
• Peter Yip, Bidyadanga Community Council, CEO
These interviews have informed the final project report.
Anna is also working with Gillian Kennedy from Nulungu
to write a report on her findings from the interviews.
As a part of the terms of Anna’s involvement, consultancy
money has been paid to Nulungu to be used for future
research as decided by the KTLA.Anna Dwyer will be
writing a research report about this project which will
become a discussion paper that will be publicly available.
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 189
CASE STUDY 2: ABM ELGORING
AMBUNG
Kowanyama, Queensland
“Kowanyama people really look after their land, and manage their
land...but under the structure of the Shire Council....most
communities are not going into local government, so I think there
should definitely be a board of PBC representatives that represent
the community and their traditional land.”
Leslie Gilbert, Former Mayor and Kokoberra traditional owner
“If you don’t spend the time and effort with your foundations and
building your supporting the correct way then you are in trouble
from the start. You can’t build anything without putting these steps
in place. If you go full steam ahead and build the top floor
penthouse suit with all the trimmings before the correct supporting
walls and foundations then you will end up in a pile of rubble and
dust in no time.”
Rodney Whitfield, AbmElgoringAmbung, General Manager
AbmElgoringAmbungdirectors and staff (left to right) Anzac Frank, Rodney Whitfield
(General Manager) and Charlotte Yam (image: Gabrielle Lauder)
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 190
CONTACT US
If you have any questions please contact the research team:
Lisa Strelein
Indigenous Country and
Governance Research
Director
AIATSIS
Lawson Crescent Acton
Peninsula, Acton ACT 2601
(02) 6246 1155
Lisa.Strelein@aiatsis.gov.au
Dr Jessica Weir
Bushfire CRC Senior Research
Fellow
University of Canberra
University Drive South, ACT
2601
(02) 6201 2633
Jessica.weir@canberra.edu
Anna Dwyer
Indigenous Researcher
School of Arts & Science
&Nulungu Centre for
Indigenous Studies
The University of Notre
Dame
88 Guy St Broome WA
6725
(08) 9192 0641
anna.dwyer@nd.ed.au
Tran Tran
Indigenous Country and
Governance Researcher
AIATSIS
Lawson Crescent Acton
Peninsula, Acton ACT 2601
(02) 6246 1181
Tran.Tran@aiatsis.gov.au
Claire Stacey
PBC Project Officer
AIATSIS
Lawson Crescent Acton
Peninsula, Acton ACT 2601
(02) 6246 1158
Claire.Stacey@aiatsis.gov.au
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 191
Thank you for taking part in this research
Appendix 6
Native title and climate change 192
