Australian Government, Reform of Indigenous heritage protection laws :Improving protection for Indigenous traditional areas and objects, Departmentof Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australian Government, Canberra,2009.
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/indigenous/lawreform
This discussion paper canvasses possible reforms to the legislative arrangementsfor protecting traditional areas and objects, specifically the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) (ATSIHP Act).The aims of the reform are twofold. First, to ensure that Indigenous Australianswill have the best opportunities to protect their heritage. This could bedone by using existing processes such as native title to secure agreementson heritage protection. Second, to cut duplication and red tape by establishinga nationally consistent approach to protecting Indigenous heritage basedon best practice standards.

Western Australian Government, Review of Approvals Processes in Western Australia, Industry Working Group, Western Australian Government, Perth,2009.
This report provides a two phased approach to improving approval processesin Western Australia. Phase one recommendations are essentially administrativeand can be addressed without legislative change. Phase two recommendationsrequire legislative change. The report stresses that the need to addressand change the present flawed and complex approvals system is critical,and the time for implementing phase one recommendations is now.Chapter 3 discusses native title and provides a case study example. Ther eport notes that the effective and efficient administration of the processes contemplated by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is critical for the developmentof projects in remote and regional Western Australia. Most of the (reported)major native title agreements benefit a relatively small number of Aboriginal people and a few groups have received (and continue to receive) very largefinancial payments as a result of the development of multiple large projectswithin their claim areas. The report acknowledges the critical role playedby the State.
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/Review_of_Approval_Processes>

Armstrong, R. 2009. An overview of Indigenous rights in water resource management, Revised: Onshore and offshore water rights discussion booklets, Prepared by the Lingiari Foundation and North Australian Indigenous Landand Sea Management Alliance. Available at: http://www.nailsma.org.au/publications/indigenous_water_rights.html
http://www.nailsma.org.au/publications/indigenous_water_rights.html

Department of Justice, Report of the Steering Committee for the Developmentof a Victorian Native Title Settlement Framework, Department of Justice, Victorian Government, Melbourne, December 2008. Available at: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/resources/file/ebf9a00adc6c233/FINAL%20SC%20Report%2013May09.pdf
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/resources/file/ebf9a00adc6c233/FINAL%20SC%20Report%2013May09.pdf

Opinion : Slurring laws will criminalise Aborigines, not stop crime

Slurring laws will criminalise Aborigines, not stop crime
New laws give police the power to move on people who are slurring their words, cementing a tradition of criminalising Aboriginal people.Law & Liberties - Thalia Anthony - posted 18/5/2009

AIATSIS releases

Holocene Pty Ltd/Western Australia/Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation(Jamukurnu – Yapalikunu) [2009] NNTTA 8 Future act determination application concerning a proposed mining lease.A primary issue was whether the grantee party had negotiated in good faith.There was an in principle agreement and the grantee party was not requiredto further negotiate about agreed commercial terms. A second issue waswhether the grantee party agreed to pay negotiation costs of native titleparty. An unreasonable demand for the native title party to execute agreementwas not fatal as the conduct is to be judged from negotiations overall.The court held that the grantee party had negotiated in good faith. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/NNTTA/2009/8.html

Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2009] FCA 18 (19 January 2009) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/18.html

Application under O 20 r 4 for summary dismissal. The native title determinationapplication claim area split into areas A and B and earlier determinationthat no native title exists for area A because the traditional Aboriginalsociety that existed at sovereignty had a substantial interruption in acknowledgementand observance of traditional laws and customs. Issue estoppel was consideredregarding whether an earlier determination decided what the relevant Aboriginalsociety was at sovereignty. Whether this was an abuse of process becausethere was a failure to claim particular Aboriginal society possessed nativetitle rights and interests in earlier proceedings and because there wasan attempt to pursue that claim in proceedings for area B.See the National Native Title Tribunal Website: ILUAs
http://www.nntt.gov.au/Indigenous-Land-Use-Agreements/Pages/default.aspx

‘Native title litigation reform’ (2008) 8 Native Title News12, 193-195.Jason Behrendt ‘The Wellesley Sea Claim and the gap between Indigenous seacultures and native title recognition’ (2008) 2 Ngiya: Talk the Law 2, 2-16.Jeswynn Yogaratnam ‘Mabo: whistle blowing the state government on nativetitle in Malaysia’ (2008) 33 Alternative Law Journal 4, 240-243.Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations2007
http://ntru.aiatsis.gov.au/publications/2009/whatsnew/whatsnew_feb09.pdf

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (‘the Act’) commenced operation on 28 May2007. The commencement of the Act proceeded as soon as practicable afterthe completion of the Regulations. This new legislation substantially changedthemanagement and protection of Aboriginal heritage in Victoria.Given the substantial change to the legislation, it was accepted that aperiod of operation was required before some aspects of the Regulationscould be reasonably evaluated. Firstly, the Regulatory Impact Statement(RIS) process had highlighted that the cost of the Regulations could onlybe accurately assessed after the Regulations had been in operation for aperiod. Secondly, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs wanted to ensurethat the list of High Impact Activities in the Regulations was sufficientlytargeted, and considered that an operational period may be needed to identifycorrections (if any) in this list. In addition to these issues, a reviewwas considered beneficial in assessing the effectiveness of the Regulationsin meeting the aims of the Act.This report sets out the results of the review of the Aboriginal HeritageRegulations 2007 (‘the Regulations’) conducted by Lily D’Ambrosio, ParliamentarySecretary, Community Development, and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. The AllenConsultingGroup assisted with the review in terms of the evaluation of the Regulationsand the revised cost estimates.The program commences in September 2009. Rio Tinto NTRB Scholarships RioTinto is once again offering two scholarships to lawyers currently workingor interested in working at Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) orNative Title Service Providers (NTSPs). Successful candidates will undertakea one-year Master of Laws (LLM) in Mineral Law and Policy at the Centrefor Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP) at the Universityof Dundee and must commit to work within an NTRB or NTSP for a minimum periodof two years upon their return. Candidates must be Australian citizensor permanent residents and reside in Australia and there is no age restrictionfor applicants. FaHCSIA provides an additional AU$15,000 towards the livingexpenses of those recipients of the scholarship who are working within theNTRB system at the time they receive the scholarship. Applications openfrom Monday 16th February through Friday 20th March 2009. Further informationcan be found at: www.auroraproject.com.au/RioTintoScholarships.htm Forfurther information on the LLM in Mineral Law and Policy Program pleasevisit: www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/main/html/academic/FT-LLM%20and%20Diploma-Generic.php http://www.auroraproject.com.au/RioTintoScholarships.htm

Rudd Government introduces Legislation to improve the Native Title system

Rudd Government introduces Legislation to improve the Native Title system
PORTFOLIO: Attorney-General'sURL: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/www/ministers/robertmc.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2009_FirstQuarter_19March2009-RuddGovernmentintroducesLegislationtoimprovetheNativeTitlesystem

SNIPPET: Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, today introduced legislation to achieve quicker, more flexible negotiated settlements of native title claims. The Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 introduces targeted reforms to give the Federal Court control of the management of native title claims from start to finish, allowing opportunities for negotiated settlements to be more effectively identified and progressed. Mr McClelland said, 'by improving the efficiency and timeliness of mediation, the measures contained in the Bill will improve the operation of the native title system and the outcomes that can be achieved under it.'.

Proposed minor native title amendments

Attorney General's Department
In December 2008 the federal government that during 2009 it will introduce amendments to give the Federal Court a central role in managing all native title claims. This paper outlines the proposed changes. Posted 11-02-2009

ABC Radio National's The Law Report

Broadcast: 8.30am on Tuesday 10 Febuary 2009 Also Available for Download on your Ipod at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/default.htm

This week: Meet two extraordinary indigenous activists.

Vickie Roach has been nicknamed the Eddie Mabo of electoral law.

While in jail she fought a High Court case that overturned an attempt to remove the vote from all serving prisoners.

Also Stephen Hagan. It's 10 years since he began a legal battle to remove a sign he regards as racist from the Toowoomba Sports Ground.

The sign’s come down but he still has to foot the legal bills.

Indigenous intervention, doing good and racism

The High Court has just handed down its decision on the constitutionality of the legislation enabling the Northern Territory intervention: Wurridjal v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] HCA 2. A majority of the Court ruled that the legislation was constitutional, with Kirby J delivering a last (and controversial) dissent. It is a fascinating decision, involving the question of whether the Commonwealth has acquired property by reason of the Northern Territory intervention, and, if so, whether it has done so under “just terms” as required by s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. [The short answer, for those who can't be bothered reading through the entire post, is that the majority of the Court concluded that property was acquired by the Commonwealth as a result of the intervention, but that the terms were just.]

Indigenous Affairs Legislation Ammendment Bill 2008

A Bill for an Act to amend laws in relation to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, and for other purposes