Annual report 2005—2006

Print-friendly version | Tribunal website

• About this report
• Letter of transmission
• List of figures
• List of tables
• President's overview
  • The year in review
    • Introduction
    • External factors affecting the Tribunal
    • Trends within the Tribunal
  • Context of native title
    • Legal context, community attitudes and the projected workload
    • Native title is not a panacea, but a range of outcomes can be negotiated
    • By-products of native title
    • Native title and a whole-of-government approach service delivery
    • Governance issues before and after determinations of native title
    • Customary law and native title
    • International law developments and native title
  • Conclusion
• Tribunal overview
  • Role and function
  • Tribunal members
  • Organisational structure
  • Outcome and output structure
• Report on performance
  • Financial performance
  • Outcome and output performance
  • Overview of current applications
  • Output group 1-Stakeholder and community relations
    • Output 1.1-Capacity-building and strategic/sectorial initiatives
    • Output 1.2-Assistance and information
  • Output group 2 -Agreement-making
    • Output 2.1-Indigenous land use agreements
    • Output 2.2-Native title agreements and related agreements
    • Output 2.3-Future act agreements
  • Output group 3 - Decisions
    • Output 3.1-Registration of native title claimant applications
    • Output 3.2-Registration of indigenous land use agreements
    • Output 3.3-Future act determinations and decisions whether negotiations were undertaken in good faith
    • Output 3.4-Finalised objections to expedited procedure
• Management
  • Corporate governance
    • Members' meetings
    • Strategic Planning Advisory Group
    • Agreement-Making Liaison Group
    • National Future Act Liaison Group
    • ILUA Strategy group
    • Research Strategy Group
    • External Relations Working Group
  • Tribunal Executive
    • Role and responsibilities
    • Senior management committees
    • SES remuneration
  • Corporate planning
  • Management of human resources
    • Learning and development
    • Workforce planning
    • Indigenous employees
    • Indigenous Study Awards, traineeships and cadetships
    • Indigenous Advisory Group
    • Occupational health and safety performance
    • Performance of disability strategy
  • Certified Agreement and Australian Workplace Agreements
    • Certified Agreement 2003-2006
    • Workplace agreement negotiations
    • Employee survey
    • Australian Workplace Agreements
  • Risk management
  • Information management
    • Strategic information and technology management
• Accountability
  • Ethical standards and accountability
    • Code of Conduct
  • External scrutiny
    • Judicial decisions
    • Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account
    • Freedom of information
    • Other scrutiny
  • Accountability to clients
    • Client satisfaction
    • Client Service Charter
    • Social justice and equity in service delivery
    • Online services
  • Performance against purchasing policies
    • Procurement
    • Information technology outsourcing
    • Consultancies
    • Asset management
  • Environmental performance
• Appendices
  • Appendix I Human resources
  • Appendix II Significant decisions
  • Appendix III Consultants
  • Appendix IV Freedom of information
  • Appendix V Use of advertising and market research
  • Appendix VI Audit report and notes to the financial statements
  • Appendix VII Glossary

Output group 1 — Stakeholder and community relations

Output 1.1—Capacity-building and strategic/sectorial initiatives

Description

Initiatives in this output category include large-scale projects and activities contributing to strategic planning of native title activities with stakeholders and building the capacity of participants in native title processes.

These are part of the Tribunal's key role in informing stakeholders about the native title processes and establishing relationships with, and between, stakeholders.

Performance

Performance indicators for capacity-building and strategic/sectoral initiatives are:

• Quantity—the number of initiatives completed within the reporting period
• Quality—80% of respondents are satisfied with the quality of the initiative*
• Resource usage—average price per unit and total price for the output.

Performance at a glance

Measure	Estimate	Result
Quantity	5	8
Quality	See note below*
Average price per unit	$95,722	$87,625
Total price of output	$479,000	$701,000

Note: The qualitative measure was not assessed this reporting period as standards of measurement were not introduced until the third quarter after the majority of initiatives had been completed.

Comment on performance

Tribunal registries continued their work to establish productive environments for native title activities by maintaining links with stakeholders and creating networks between them. Initiatives in this area included setting up and coordinating strategic committees and regular forums for discussions, such as the Queensland Native Title Liaison Committee. A forum for stakeholders to solve problems and look for opportunities to align activities and allocate resources effectively, its members include the Queensland native title representative bodies; local, state and commonwealth governments; peak industry groups and the Federal Court. The committee held two meetings during the reporting period.

In July 2005, the South Australian registry of the Tribunal set up an informal meeting with representatives from the state and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (the representative body for South Australia) and with the consultant who leads the Statewide ILUA Strategy. The objective was to explore ways to integrate the Federal Court program for the resolution of native title claims and the state's ILUA strategy. Subsequently, participants showed an increased focus on prioritising native title claims that were more likely to be finalised because agreements could be made.

In New South Wales, the Tribunal's registry initiated a program where, for the first time, representatives from the state and New South Wales Native Title Services Ltd (the body fulfilling the functions of the native title representative body for that state under s. 202 of the Act) discussed, within a Tribunal-mediated context, the application of the state's requirements for credible evidence to particular native title applications. Meetings helped strengthen relationships with the state and Native Title Services, and promoted a productive dialogue between these stakeholders.

Output 1.2— Assistance and information

Description

This output category covers a wide range of Tribunal services to assist native title claimants and other participants in native title processes.

Under the Act, the Tribunal provides various types of assistance — from help with the preparation of applications and information about native title, to the provision of maps, research reports, workshops, seminars and media information.

Performance

The performance indicators for assistance and information are:

• Quantity measure — number of assistance services or products
• Quality measure — 80% of respondents are satisfied with the assistance, service or product
• Resource usage — average price per unit and total price for the output

Performance at a glance

Measure	Estimate	Result
Quantity	505	461
Quality	80% of stakeholders are satisfied	94% of stakeholders were satisfied
Price per unit	$4,800	$5,887
Price for output	$2,425,000	$2,713,907

Comment on performance

One of the most significant types of assistance the Tribunal provided as part of this output category was technical and geospatial assistance in relation to ILUA applications. On request from parties, the Tribunal checked draft ILUA applications and accompanying documents to ensure that they met the legal requirements for registration. The Registrar 's delegates gave comments and the Tribunal's geospatial services also provided advice and maps to ILUA parties before the applications were lodged for registration. The majority of comments on ILUA drafts were given to parties in Queensland (21) and Victoria (18), with smaller numbers to parties in the Northern Territory (3), Western Australia (3) and South Australia (1).

The Tribunal also continued to conduct information sessions and workshops for various client groups. For example, in Queensland , case managers held 11 workshops with native title claimants to clarify the mediation processes and the role of applicants, and explore options to resolve their claims. The Western Australian registry organised three workshops with claimants in the central Goldfields. The Tribunal's legal services conducted five specialist workshops for representative body employees in Queensland , Western Australia and Victoria .

In Western Australia , the state's Office of Native Title requested a workshop to discuss the Tribunal's response to its discussion paper ‘Agreement-making Strategy–Alternative Settlement of Native Title'. The Tribunal facilitated a high-level strategic workshop where Office of Native Title representatives and Tribunal members discussed a process to move claims towards settlement without litigation.

In Victoria , the Tribunal worked closely with local governments in the north-west of the state, organising meetings and providing information to help build their capacity to participate in forthcoming mediations. The Victoria/Tasmania registry also continued its monthly native title forums at which guest speakers spoke on topics related to native title or other topics of direct interest to Tribunal stakeholders. The presentations were well attended and provided an opportunity for debate and discussion amongst stakeholders.

Throughout the reporting period employees of the Northern Territory registry conducted an access and awareness program, going out to communities and agricultural shows to promote the services of the Tribunal and provide information on how to make use of those services.

Tribunal geospatial specialists continued to play a key role in assisting claimants and other Tribunal clients. For example , geospatial experts assisted at the North West Goldfields Land Summit in Western Australia and the Central and Western Land Summits in Queensland . By visualising proposed boundary changes for the participants during the meetings, they helped improve the understanding of parties in relation to the spatial aspect of the native title process which assisted in making decisions.

Working closely with the Research Unit of the Tribunal, geospatial staff linked historical, family and clan information with location details in research reports related to areas in Western Australia and South Australia . This ‘geo-enabling' allowed parties to visualise and research details in relation to other material such as claim boundaries; language and linguistic boundaries; cultural sites and land features, such as watercourses; property and tenure information. The Tribunal provided these ‘geo-enabled' research products to parties as a CD package, together with training on their use.

The Tribunal also continued to provide custodial native title geospatial datasets to clients online in compliance with the Australian Government Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy, through Geoscience Australia .

Native TitleVision, the Tribunal's online self-service system which gives clients and stakeholders the ability to visualise and analyse spatial information on native title matters, gained prestigious recognition during the reporting period. In September 2005 it won the Asia-Pacific Spatial Excellence Award in the category of Community, recognising products that make a difference to the community via 'grass roots' initiatives, educational programs, new services, extension programs and/or tools that permit the widespread use or access to spatially derived products or services. For further information see Online services.

Communication reform and information products

As explained in the President 's Overview the Tribunal commenced a reform of its external communication during the reporting period.

The features of the new visual design are reproduced in this annual report, and include:

• the addition of a third design element in the Tribunal's logo, i.e. a symbol representing people and their relationship to country;
• correct size reproduction of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms; and
• promotion of the Tribunal's outcome statement in communication products and electronic communication.

The Tribunal produces two national newsletters, both of which adopted the new visual identity during the reporting period. Talking Native Title provides general native title news each quarter and has a distribution of more than 4,000 copies (see below); and Native Title Hot Spots contains information on legal developments such as judicial decisions and Tribunal determinations. It is aimed at legal practitioners and is produced about every eight to ten weeks, depending on the level of legal activity in native title. Native Title Hot Spots is delivered electronically to more than 700 people. Five issues were published during the reporting period. Both publications are available on the Tribunal's website at www.nntt.gov.au/publications/newsletters_index.html .

Additionally during the reporting period, readers were introduced to a new subscription opportunity for state-based updates on native title news issued in an e-newsletter direct to their in-box. The first editions of Talking Victoria, Talking South Australia and Talking Western Australia were made available in March 2006.

The Short Guide to Native Title was updated and republished as About Native Title in the new corporate design, as was Using the Registers of the National Native Title Tribunal. Other publications, including the popular Native Title Facts, will be reissued under the new design as printed copies run out.

Other, targeted information products produced during the year included three brochures about the determinations of native title in the Western Yalanji, Mandigalbay Yidinji and Wimmera matters.

Client satisfaction for Talking Native Title

As part of the effectiveness measures for this output, client satisfaction of Talking Native Title was evaluated in June 2006. Talking Native Title is one of the Tribunal's primary stakeholder information sources. The evaluation was included in mailed copies of issue 19. This was the second edition of the newsletter to be printed in the Tribunal's new corporate style.

Results revealed a 94 per cent satisfaction rate with the newsletter, with 56 per cent being highly satisfied with the product, rating it 8 out of 10 or better.

More than 100 responses were received within the first eight days of the survey, indicating a real interest in the product, that it is read as soon as received and that clients are keen to be involved in the way the Tribunal presents information to them.

Responses were received from a range of stakeholders. Legal clients rated the product as highly as claimants, and pastoralists and miners were equally satisfied. Comments included that the product:

• is easy to read and well designed;
• is clearly recognisable;
• looks interesting and people wanted to pick it up;
• cuts through the jargon;
• shows that the Tribunal wants to provide information.

Training for the media

During the reporting period at the Western Australian Registry a workshop was given for media advisers and communications officers in Western Australia working with native title representative bodies and state departments with a role in native title. There were 14 participants in the workshop, which developed from discussions between the Tribunal, the Western Australian Office of Native Title, and the Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation.

The aim of the day was to provide an opportunity for public affairs professionals working in the areas of native title, indigenous land issues, heritage and culture to improve the broader community's understanding of these issues through media or other communication strategies.

Research assistance for overlapping claims — CASE STUDY

In May 2006 the Research Unit of the Tribunal was asked to produce a report to assist in the mediation of two overlapping native claims in South Australia.

Based on publicly available material, the research report revealed that the two groups have different systems governing the transmission of rights to sites in the area and there was a long history of migration in the region. The report also indicated that there are many histories or 'Dreaming' tracks crossing the area which is rich in mythology. Heritage survey reports prepared over the preceding 30 years showed that both groups had been willing to work together to protect their heritage in that area.

In June 2006 the Tribunal met with the claimants, their representatives and the native title representative body to try to resolve the disagreement over the overlap. Over the course of the meeting the claimants gained an increased understanding of the native title process and the key principles involved. The Tribunal member, Bardy McFarlane, also pointed out that the Tribunal's research showed that both groups did have an interest in the area, and emphasised that they had previously cooperated to protect their heritage.

The claimants suggested that a Deed of Cooperation might be a way to acknowledge each others' interests and resolve the disagreement. A Deed was drawn up and signed at the meeting. It provides that the groups will work cooperatively together in dealing with any developments in the area and in protecting their heritage.

Although the claim boundaries will remain as they are until a determination of native title is made, it is anticipated that the agreement will allow third parties to enter into negotiations over the area. In addition, with the overlap no longer contested, both groups are now in a stronger position to negotiate with the State Government in the resolution of their native title claims.