What's New in Native Title - January 2015

whats new january 2015

AIATSIS Research

Jan, 2015
Product type: 
Whats New in Native Title

1. Case Summaries
2. Legislation
3. Native Title Determinations
4. Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate & Prescribed Bodies Corporate
5. Indigenous Land Use Agreements
6. Future Acts Determinations
7. Native Title in the News
8. Related Publications
9. Training and Professional Development Opportunities
10. Events

1. Case Summaries

Sandy on behalf of the Yugara People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2015] FCA 15

27 January 2015, Determination - No Native Title, Federal Court of Australia, Brisbane
Jessup J
In this decision it was found that native title does not exist with respect to two applications for the recognition of native title in the Brisbane area.  The applications were brought under s 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) by:

  • the Turrbal People, lodged on 30 September 1998; and
  • the Yugara/Yugarapul People, lodged on 7 December 2011.

The 15 respondents in this matter included the State of Queensland, the Commonwealth, the Brisbane, Redland and Logan City Councils, the Moreton Bay Regional Council, Brisbane Port Holdings Pty Ltd and the Moonie pipeline Company.

The Yugara/Yugarapul People’s application relates to the whole of the claim area, while the Turrbal People, recognising that native title was likely to have been extinguished, claimed only certain areas.

The court set out the issue for consideration, at [4]:
But for any question of extinguishment of native title:

  • does native title exist in relation to any and what land and waters of the claim area?
  • in relation to that part of the claim area where the answer to (a) above is in the affirmative:
    • who are the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title?
    • what is the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests?”

As Jessup J found that native title did not exist, only the issue identified at (a) was considered.

The Law:
Jessup J relied on Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 440 to determine the meaning of native title in s 223 NTA.  This involved the recreation of the considerations by the High Court with respect to the characteristics of native title, the normative system that sets the basis for native title rights and interests and the inability of the system to revive native title rights and interests.  Jessup J set out, at [14] that:

in the present case it is crucial, that the relevant rights and interests be possessed under the traditional laws and under the traditional customs, referred to in the definition of “native title”. That is to say, the applicants must establish what those laws and customs said, and continue to say, on the question of entitlement to such rights and interests, and bring themselves within those entitling provisions. The importance of these considerations, in the present case, lies in the fact that, at least for relevant purposes, it was filiation that grounded the transfer of interests in relation to land and waters from one generation to the next. Absent the continuous existence of a visible society some of whose members were possessed of the relevant interests, it is inevitable that the applicants, in both applications, would seek to make good their claims that they are the ones now so possessed by reference to their biological descent. The present case has become the occasion to test the viability of those claims.

The Basis of the Applicant’s Claims:
Jessup J set out, at [15]-[17] that the applicants based their claims on biological descent from peoples who formed part of Aboriginal society in south-east Queensland.  When biological descent is raised as the basis of a claim, Jessup J noted that the applicants must establish descent from members of tribal groups which inhabited the claim area, or parts of it.

Turrbal Claim:
The Turrbal applicants proposed that, after the original inhabitants had been displaced from their lands in the claim area, they migrated inland and northwards, ultimately to secure employment on settlers’ properties in areas such as the Mary River Valley, while maintaining their tribal cohesiveness and, inferentially, continuing to acknowledge and to observe their traditional laws and customs.  Then, with the commencement of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act on 1 January 1898, they were removed to the Barambah settlement (later renamed Cherbourg).

Jessup J found at [128] that:

… it could not be seriously suggested that the Turrbal people … had or have either the numbers or the patterns of behaviour, rooted in normative laws and customs, to constitute a society in their own right.

And at [129] observed

I would not hold that the patterns of behaviour … bespeak the existence of a society characterised by a normative system of laws and customs in the Yorta Yorta sense. To have been told, as these witnesses were, about traditional customs, even those implying obligation, is not enough. “Their content may be known, but if there is no society which acknowledges and observes them, it ceases to be useful, even meaningful, to speak of them as a body of laws and customs acknowledged and observed, or productive of existing rights or interests ....” (Yorta Yorta 214 CLR at 445-446) To have visited places of traditional interest, when in the claim area for other reasons … is not enough.

Jessup J concluded in relation to the Turrbal claim, at [131]

Taking all of the evidence into account, I am not satisfied that there has been an uninterrupted acknowledgement of traditional laws, or observance of traditional customs, under which rights and interests in the land and waters of the claim area might arise, since sovereignty, on the part of the Turrbal group and those from whom they claim to be descended. Indeed, on the evidence in this case, I would hold the contrary to be the situation.

Jessup J rejected the Turrbal evidence about biological descent, stating at [253]:

… I am not prepared to put aside the objective evidence in favour of the less reliable, and generally more equivocal, oral history set out in the affidavits of [an applicant], of her children and of her friend …

Yugara/Yugarapul Claim:
Jessup J observed at [153]:

Much of this evidence is concerned with stories, beliefs, fears, taboos, habits and activities which have relevance at the personal or family levels, and which might be expected to be present in an indigenous society having continuity in the Yorta Yorta sense.  But they are not circumstances from which the continued existence of the society which existed at sovereignty might be inferred.  In point of content, the matters to which I have referred above do not bespeak the existence of a normative system of laws and customs.  Further, and crucially, the evidence does not cover anything more than a fraction of the period with which the court must be concerned: even to go back to the grandparents of the oldest of the Yugara applicants, there remains the better part of a century with respect to which the court does not have any relevant evidence.

His Honour concluded at [154]:

… for the most if not the whole part, the evidence related not to the claim area at all but to areas to the south and southwest of the lower Logan, and around Beaudesert.  Although it was the Yugara case that the area in which they hold native title extends as far north as the Pine, at the point of bringing forward concrete evidence from which, even arguably, continuity might be inferred, everything occurred at, or to the south of, the Logan/Beaudesert area.

At [316] Jessup J rejected the claim that both the Yugara/Yugarapul and Turrbal applicants possess communal, group or individual rights and interests in relation to any land or water in the claim area on the basis that:

there has not been a continued substantially uninterrupted, normative system under which traditional laws and customs which would sustain those rights and interests were acknowledged and observed, and because no member of either claim group would, under those laws and customs as they existed at sovereignty and immediately thereafter, be recognised as possessed of those rights and interests.

Of Note:
The court rejected the Yugara/Yugarapul applicant’s submission that, because they had not had an opportunity to cause a thorough, professional, assessment of their connection, and the connection of their ancestors, to the lands and waters of the claim area to be carried out, the court should not find that native title did not exist.

Upon the death of an original Turrbal applicant, the only named applicant sought the deceased’s name be kept on the record as an applicant.  The State supported this and, although the court had misgivings, the name was not removed.

Croft on behalf of the Barngarla Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia [2015] FCA 9

22 January 2015, Existence of native title, Federal Court, Adelaide, South Australia
Mansfield J
This matter relates to the Barngarla People’s native title claim over a large area of land and waters covering the eastern portion of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, from north of Port Augusta to the south beyond Port Lincoln.

In this 187 page judgment, Mansfield J made no orders.  His Honour separated the question of the existence of native title and the question of the extinguishment of native title, presented his findings that the Barngarla People held prima facie native title rights and interests to the claim area and left the question of extinguishment to a later hearing.

There were 346 respondents in this matter including:

  • the State of South Australia;
  • the Commonwealth;
  • the Australian Maritime Safety Authority;
  • the South Australian Native Title Service;
  • the City of Port Lincoln;
  • the Corporation of the City of Whyalla,
  • various District Councils;
  • various primary industry interests, including those of mining and exploration, pastoralists and commercial fishers; and
  • Aboriginal groups with native title interests in the area.

The claim area abuts the native title lands of:

  • the Far West Coast people;
  • the Gawler Rangers people.;
  • the Kokatha Uwankara People; and
  • the Adnyamathanha People.

The claim area also abuts, and overlaps slightly with the Nukunu People’s claim area.  Mansfield J noted that the parties were negotiating a suitable outcome about the overlap and that they intended this to be reflected in an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA).

The Barngarla claim was filed in April 1996, over a much greater area of land.  The claim area was reduced in October 1999 and again in September 2001.  The Barngarla claim was registered in August 2002.  Following mediation, eight areas of overlap were identified under two broad main areas:

  • registered claims by the Kokatha People and the Kuyani People (around Lake Torrens); and
  • two registered claims by the Adnyamathanha People and the claim by the Nukunu People (around the Flinders Ranges National Park).

The dispute resolution processes for the overlapping areas is complex and involves issues of priority with respect to available budget, a state-wide ILUA process, the striking-out of claims, new claims as well as unsuccessful mediation being referred to hearings and back to mediation. 

The Barngarla Claim:
The Barngarla People asked the Court to recognise, in the claim area, their right to:

  • possess, occupy, use and enjoy the area;
  • make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the area;
  • access the area;
  • control the access of others to the area;
  • use and enjoy resources of the area;
  • control the use and enjoyment by others of resources of the area;
  • trade in resources of the area;
  • receive a portion of any resources taken by others from the area;
  • maintain and protect places of importance under traditional laws, customs and practices in the area;
  • maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge associated with the area; and
  • conduct burial ceremonies on the area.

The Response:
The State submitted that:

  • the Barngarla People never possessed native title rights or interests in respect to the south and west of Port Lincoln; and
  • the Barngarla People had not maintained a connection with particular mainland areas and, any laws and customs acknowledged or observed are either:
    • acknowledged or observed only as a result of a revival following substantial interruption or discontinuity;
    • acknowledged or observed in a form substantially different from the form in which they were acknowledged and observed at sovereignty; and/or
    • do not perform a normative or regulative role in contemporary Barngarla relations and at best represent merely observable patterns of behaviour, but not rights or interests in relation to land.

The Commonwealth joined this matter and argued that at sovereignty the Barngarla People:

  • possessed no rights and interests over an area beyond the intertidal zone and adjacent waters; and
  • possessed no right to trade in marine resources.

The Commonwealth further submitted that if the Barngala People’s rights and interests in the sea claim at sovereignty were exclusive, they would not be recognised by the common law of Australia.

The Law:
Mansfield J made a determination under s 225 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA), by reference to the definition of native title and native title rights and interests in s 223(1) NTA.

Mansfield J followed Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 at [83], [87] and [89] and Bodney v Bennell (2008) 167 FCR 84 at [120]-[121], stating, at [69] that s 223(1)(a) NTA would be fulfilled:

only where there is proof that a society acknowledges and observes rules under which rights and interests in land are possessed that have normative content and that find their real origins in the same pre-sovereignty society. The acknowledgement and observance of those normative rules must have continued substantially uninterrupted from the time of sovereignty.

Manfield J stated, at [71], that the proper interpretation of s 223(1)(b) NTA required five matters to be kept in mind:

  • …the inquiry required by s 223(1)(b) is distinct from that required by s 223(1)(a), and … “connection is not simply an incident of native title rights and interests ... The required connection is not by the Aboriginal peoples’ rights and interests. It is by their laws and customs.”
  • …because the laws and customs which provide the requisite connection are traditional laws and customs, the acknowledgement and observance of those laws and customs must have continued substantially uninterrupted and the connection itself must have been substantially maintained since the time of sovereignty.
  • …the inquiry required by s 223(1)(b) involves two steps:
  • identification of the content of the traditional laws and customs; and
  • characterisation of the effect of those laws as constituting a connection of the people with the land. 
  • …to establish connection for the purposes of s 223(1)(b), the connection must involve a continuing internal and external assertion by the claimants of their traditional relationship to the country, as that relationship is defined by its laws and customs. That assertion may be expressed by physical presence on the relevant country, or by other means.
  • …the inquiry required by s 223(1)(b) can have a “particular topographical focus” within the claim area – that is to say, it may be found that there is no evidence of sufficient connection with a particular part of the claim area, despite there being evidence of sufficient connection in other parts of the claim area.

Mansfield J considered a great deal of evidence, presented during 22 hearing days from November 2012 to September 2013.  This included evidence by members of the Barngarla People as well as expert evidence by anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists.

Mansfield J said, at [730], that he was satisfied that, except for the issues identified in his findings, each of the claimed native title rights prima facie exists. 

Mansfield J also highlighted three problematic rights in the Barngarla claim, at [731]:

  • the right to trade in resources of the area;
  • the right to receive a portion of any resources taken by others from the area; and
  • the right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge associated with the area.

Mansfield J did not directly address the second problematic right.

In considering the right to trade, his Honour found at [521] that:

There was no real evidence of trade with other Aboriginal groups amongst the Barngarla witnesses.

His considerations included, at [204], that:

There may have been some exchange of some items, having regard to the evidence of the geographic intersection of tribes at the “borders” of their traditional lands, and in the light of the evidence of shared ceremonies. However, I do not think it is correct to take the step of concluding that the Barngarla society at sovereignty had as one of its traditional laws and customs the bartering of items of value to them for other items from other tribal groups.

With respect to the third problematic right, Mansfield J applied Western Australia v Ward (2002) 208 CLR 1 and found, at [733], that:

a “right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge” was not a right “in relation to land or waters”, as required by s 223 of the NT Act. I do not think the addition to that formulation of the words “associated with the area” alters the substance of the alleged right.

Mansfield J considered the extent of interests beyond the intertidal zone and adjacent waters, including with respect to the Spencer Gulf islands and found, at [208]:

that material does not demonstrate any sophisticated practices of the Barngarla people at settlement relating to the use of the sea beyond areas physically proximate to the low water mark without the use of any seagoing forms of transport.

At [721], Mansfield J found that the lack of evidence of the Barngarla People’s use of watercraft showed that they did not occupy the Spencer Gulf islands and, although dreaming stories included the islands, the Barngarla People did not have any rights or interests in the Spencer Gulf islands.

His Honour made no orders, but asked at [737] that the parties provide formal terms in a document that reflected his findings, including the extent to which native title rights and interests as claimed are to be recognised.

2. Legislation

Federal Parliament:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (A Stronger Land Account) Bill 2014

The Bill originated from the Senate. It is currently with the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, whose report on the Bill is due 4 March 2015.

Stated purpose:  This Bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to clarify the purpose of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account. The amendments to the Act

  • provide for excess returns from Land Account Investments to be equally shared between the Account and the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC)
  • provide that the minister may have regard to advice provided by the ILC about its financial requirements
  • provide for parliamentary review of any proposed changes to the ILC and the Land Account
  • provide for the establishment of a Nomination Committee to take recommendations about appointments to the ILC Board
  • require the ILC Board to establish a Risk and Audit Management Committee
  • limit the tenure and reappointments of directors
  • require the chair and directors to disclose all pecuniary interests, and
  • require the ILC Board to determine a code of conduct.


National Parks and Wildlife (Yumbarra Conservation Park) Regulations 2015

These regulations may be cited as the National Parks and Wildlife (Yumbarra Conservation Park) Regulations 2015.

These regulations came into operation on 22 January 2015. The Yumbarra Conservation Park was constituted as a conservation park under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 on 3 July 1972. The Far West Coast people have a traditional association with the land constituting the conservation park.

Stated purpose: The amendments provide that the conservation park be co-managed pursuant to a co-management agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 between the Minister and the Far West Coast people.

The regulations were gazetted on 22.01.2015, and will expire on 1.09.2026.

3. Native Title Determinations

In January 2015, the NNTT Website listed no native title determinations.

4. Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate & Prescribed Bodies Corporate

The Native Title Research Unit within AIATSIS maintains a RNTBC summary document which provides details about RNTBCs and PBCs in each state/territory including the RNTBC name, RNTBC type (agent or trustee) and relevant native title determination information. The statistics for RNTBCs as of 19 January 2015 can be found in the table below.

Information on RNTBCs and PBCs including training and support, news and events, research and publications and external links can be found at nativetitle.org.au. For a detailed summary of individual RNTBCs and PBCs see PBC Profiles .

Additional information about RNTBCs and PBCs can be accessed through hyperlinks to corporation information on the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) website ; case law on the Austlii website ; and native title determination information on the NNTT and ATNS websites.

National Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) Statistics (19 January 2015)



No. of Successful (& conditional) claimant determinations for which RNTBC to be advised

Australian Capital Territory



New South Wales



Northern Territory






South Australia









Western Australia






Note some RNTBCs relate to more than one native title determination and some determinations result in more than one RNTBC. Where a RNTBC operates for more than one determination it is only counted once, as it is one organisation.    

Source: National Native Title Tribunal and Registered Determinations of Native Title and RNTBCs as at 19 January 2015.

5. Indigenous Land Use Agreements

In January 2015, 9 ILUAs were registered with the National Native Title Tribunal.

Registration date


Tribunal file no.


State or Territory

Subject matter


Thingalkal (Mary Valley) ILUA


Area Agreement


Co-management, tenure resolution


Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Native Title Claim Settlement ILUA


Body Corporate


Native Title Settlement, Access, Community Consultation protocol


Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Parks ILUA


Body Corporate




Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Pastoral ILUA - Kalamurina


Body Corporate


Access, Community, Consultation protcol, Terms of Access


Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Alton Downs Pastoral ILUA


Body Corporate


Access, Community, Consultation protcol, Terms of Access


Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Pastoral ILUA - Macumba


Body Corporate


Access, Commercial, Communication, Public, Tourism


Wangkangurru Yarluyandi Pastoral ILUA - Cowarie


Body Corporate


Pastoral, Terms of Access


St Andrew's Anglican Church, Torres Strait Island Regional Council and Porumalgal (Torres Strait Islanders) Corporation ILUA


Body Corporate


Tenure resolution, Terms of Access


Bulganunna Aboriginal Corporation and Adani Mining Carmichael North Galilee Basin Rail Project ILUA


Body Corporate


Infrastructure, Mining

For more information about ILUAs, see the NNTT Website and the ATNS Database.

6. Future Acts Determinations

In January 2015, 3 Future Acts Determinations were handed down.

Determination date


Tribunal File No

State or Territory



Raymond William Ashwin & Ors on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010) (native title party)
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
Yelo Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)



Objection – Dismissed


Ngarrawanji Native Title Claimants (WC1996/075) (‘Ngarrawanji native title party’)
Koongie-Elvire Native Title Claimants (WC1999/040) ('Koongie-Elvire native title party')
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Sammy Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)



Objection – Expedited Procedure Does Not Apply


Alan Douglas Hatfield and Others on behalf of the Darumbal People (QC2012/008) (native title party)

Civil & Mining Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)
The State of Queensland (Government party)



Objection - Dismissed

7. Native Title in the News

The Native Title Research Unit within AIATSIS publishes Native Title in the News which contains summaries of newspaper articles and media releases relevant to the native title sector.

8. Related Publications

Aboriginal Studies Press AIATSIS

Fighting Hard. The Victorian Aborigines Advancement League – Richard Broome
In this new release book from Aboriginal Studies Press ‘Richard Broome, master storyteller and meticulous historian, brings to life the personalities as well as the politics behind Australia’s longest-lasting Aboriginal advocacy group.’ — Russell McGregor, Adjunct Professor of History at James Cook University.

‘This is not only a history that our people can embrace, it is also a cultural education for the wider community.’ — Esme Bamblett, CEO, Aborigines Advance League Inc.

For further information on this and other books by ASP, visit the ASP website.

Oral History NSW

Oral History Network News – January 2015
In the latest issue of the Oral History Network News is now available

For further information, visit the Oral History NSW website.

Media Releases, News Broadcasts and Podcasts

Australian Law Reform Commission

ALRC President, Professor Rosalind Croucher, awarded the Order of Australia – 26 January 2015
President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, has been presented as a of Member of the Order of Australia for “significant service to the law as an academic, to legal reform and education, to professional development, and to the arts”.

For further information, visit the ALRC website.

Kimberley Land Council

Rangers to the rescue – 16 January 2015
The Bardi Jawi Rangers played a crucial role in a search and rescue mission that successfully found four men who were missing out to sea off the Kimberley Coast yesterday. Bardi Jawi Ranger Kevin George said the rescue was a “really good outcome’’ considering the men were found 15 nautical miles from One Arm Point on the Dampier Peninsula, drifting out to sea in the outgoing tide.

For further information, visit the KLC website.

Secrets of the green sea turtle revealed – 22 January 2015
The Nyul Nyul Rangers have joined scientists from CSIRO and the Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI) to record turtle nesting sistes across the Lacepeded Islands to learn more about the genetics of the green sea turtle and help ensure its survival. Nyul Nyul Ranger Ninjana Walsham said green turtles were listed as vulnerable to extinction which was why it was so important to find out more about their genetics. He said the research trip was a success with the group exceeding proposed targets and collecting 48 genetic samples and installing 12 remote sensors.

For further information, visit the KLC website.

Native Title Services Victoria
Victoria Leads the Way in Native Title – 28 January 2015
Warren Mundine in his Australia Day address, called for an ‘alternative approach’ to native title.  The approach he was talking about directly describes the model that is already delivering recognition, economic independence and joint management of Crown land for Traditional Owners across Victoria.

For further information, visit the KLC website

Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation
Labor and Greens commit to Quandamooka (North Stradbroke Island) Traditional Owners: Promise to repeal ‘disgraceful’ mining legislation; $20M promised for Economic Transition from mining – 28 January 2015
The Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation (QYAC) has secured major commitments from Labor and the Greens if elected at the Queensland State election in 2015. QYAC wrote to all major parties seeking support for addressing infrastructure at the One Mile, good faith implementation of joint management of the National Park, and a significant funding commitment to economic transition from sand mining.

For futher information, visit the QYAC website

9. Training and Professional Development Opportunities

The Aurora Project
See the Aurora Project: 2015 Program Calendar for information on training and personal development for staff of native title representative bodies, native title service providers, RNTBCs and PBCs.


Australian National University

Key Issues in Native Title Anthropology Course
During the 2015 Autumn Session, the ANU School of Archaeology and Anthropology is offering Key Issues in Native Title Anthropology (ANTH8055), an accredited postgraduate course on native title anthropology. The course will be delivered as an intensive over five days from 13-17 April 2015 at the ANU in Canberra.

For further information please contact Nic Peterson – Nicolas.peterson@anu.edu.au

Deakin University

PhD Scholarship - Reconciling Biological and Social Indigeneity in the Genomic Era
Deakin University is seeking an outstanding scholar for a full-time PhD project and scholarship associated with the ARC Discovery Project 'Reconciling Biological and Social Indigeneity in the Genomic Era', led by A/Prof Emma Kowal. The successful candidate will receive a stipend of $25,849 per annum, tax exempt for 3 years and commence by April 2015. Applications close on 27 February 2015.

For further information, visit the Deakin University website.

James Cook University

Masterclass in Native Title for Anthropologists
James Cook University is holding an 8 day Masterclass in Native Title for Anthropologists from 22-29 June 2015, supported by the Australian Government Attorney General’s Department.

Held at JCUs campus in Cairns and facilitated by The Cairns Institute, this Masterclass could be your springboard to a meaningful career in the important world of Native Title. Generous scholarship grants, including full fee waivers, food and accommodation for the full 8 days will be available to eligible early career Anthropologists on application but places are strictly limited.

To pre-register your interest please contact mark.franks@jcu.edu.au


ORIC provides a range of training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations about the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act), the corporation's rule book and other aspects of good corporate governance.

For further information on training courses visit the ORIC website .


The National Centre for Indigenous Studies (NCIS) at The Australian National University seeks to appoint a Research Associate to contribute towards the research effort of the Centre, with a particular focus on the ARC funded project entitled: 'Deficit Discourse and Indigenous Education: mapping the discursive environment, assessing impact, and changing the conversation'.  By mapping the discursive environment and analysing education programs that reject the deficit model, this project assesses whether its removal improves outcomes for Indigenous students.

Please note that this is an identified position and open to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants only.
Applications close on the 23rd of February

For further information visit the ANU jobs website .

10. Events


Occasional Seminar – A web of Aboriginal water rights
In this seminar, based on her doctoral thesis, Dr Virginia Marshall will explore the way Aboriginal people value and conceptualise water and show how ineffective policies and legislative regimes have either marginalised Aboriginal water rights or ignored them completely.

Date:                      25 February 2015
Location:               Mabo Room, AIATSIS

For further information, visit the AIATSIS website

Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC)

Call for Papers
SNAICC is calling for submissions of Abstracts for its National Conference 15-17 September 2015, Perth. Submissions close on Friday, 27 February 2015.  

For further information, visit the Conference Website

Indigenous Policy in Action

Indigenous Economic Development, Policy & Service Delivery
Indigenous Policy in Action is a two-day forum that serves as a platform for key stakeholders from the Government, Community and Private Sector to address a wide variety of issues affecting the Indigenous population in Australia.

Date: 12-13 March 2015
Location: Perth, Western Australia

For further information, visit the Indigenous Policy in Action website.

Managing Information in Native Title (MINT) Workshop
The AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) is organising a workshop for NTRBs and PBCs to discuss the challenges of managing native title information and start working together towards some shared solutions.

Date: 16-17 March 2015
Location: Mabo Room, AIATSIS, Canberra

For further information please contact the MINT team

Annual Conference of Swedish Anthropological Association (SANT) 2015)

DO THE RIGHT THING! Anthropology and Morality
A conference about anthropology and morality which will discuss moral and morally-based ethnography, moral practices and moral discourses and moral dimensions of anthropological practice. Deadline for panels and papers: Sunday 18 January 2015.

Date: 17-19 April 2015
Location: Lund University

For further information please email Tova Höjdestrand – tova.hojdestrand@soc.lu.se

National Native Title Conference 2015

Leadership, legacy and opportunity
In 2015 the National Native Title Conference will be co-convened by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and the Cape York Land Council (CYLC) on the traditional lands of the Kuku Yalanji people, the traditional owners of Port Douglas region. If you would like to submit a proposal to present at the National Native Title Conference 2015, please complete our ‘Call for Papers’ form with an abstract and biography.

Date: 16-18 June 2015
Location:  Sheraton Mirage, Port Douglas, QLD

Further information can be found on the AIATSIS website

SIEF 12th Congress

Utopias, Realities, Heritages. Ethnographies for the 21st century
The International Society for Ethnology and Folklore is calling for papers for the 12th Congress to be held in Croatia in June 2015.

Date: 21-25 June 2015
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Further information can be found on the SIEF website

The Aurora Project

Mineral Law NTRB Scholarship Program
Aurora is hoping in 2015 to once again offer two scholarships to undertake a Masters of Mining Law and Policy at the University of Dundee in Scotland. The scholarships have been renamed the Mineral Law NTRB Scholarships (formerly known as the Australian Government Rio Tinto NTRB Scholarships) and will be open to lawyers who are currently working or interested in working in the NTRB system.

Date: TBC
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Further information can be found on the Aurora website.

Eleventh Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies

Refocusing Hunter-Gatherer Studies
The Eleventh Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies will be held in Vienna, Austria.  The conference will be a joint effort by four among the major anthropological institutions in town – the World Museum Vienna, the Institute for Social Anthropology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Vienna, and the Anthropological Society Vienna. Call for papers close on 20 February 2015.

Date: 7-11 September 2015
Location: Vienna, Austria

Further information can be found on the CHAGS11 website


Call for Presenters at Puliima Nationa Indigenous Language & Technology Forum 2015
Proposals for presenting at Puliima 2015 are now being called. Your primary audience is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language workers, staff of language programs and Indigenous Linguists. In particular, the organisers are looking for presentations that create enthusiasm, share exciting new ideas, provide practical transfer of skills and empowerment, enlighten the audience and create awareness. Puliima would like to provide as many hands-on workshops as possible to our delegates. It is in their best interest to not only hear about what is available to them, but experience it as well.

Date: 14-15 October 2015
Location: William Angliss Institute Conference Centre, Melbourne

Further information can be found on the Puliima website.

AAS 2015 Conference

Moral Horizons
The Australian Anthropological Society’s conference theme is an invitation for ethnographic research and anthropological theorisations that can contribute, critically or otherwise, to widen and multiply those moral horizons.

Date: 1-4 December 2015
Location: University of Melbourne

For further information please email Catherine Gressier – catherine.gressier@unimelb.edu.au

Latin term used in the law meaning at first sight, the evidence seems to indicate a set of facts, but this will be subject to further evidence or information.

Related content

Last reviewed: 22 Aug 2018