Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Beyond native title: Multiple land use agreements and Aboriginal governance in the Kimberley

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Sullivan, P

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Canberra, ACT : Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), The Australian National University

Abstract

Aborigines make up by far the largest proportion of the long-term residents of the Kimberley region and much of the population living outside the major towns. They already control, by one means or another, considerable areas of land. The Native Title Act 1993 offers the possibility of greater control still. They have a network of community-controlled functional organisations such as medical services, radio stations, service delivery resource agencies, cultural and language maintenance centres, and a publishing house. Not surprisingly with Canadian models before them and the example of the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the mood is growing among these organisations, in the communities, and with the political leadership, for greater regional autonomy and a form of Aboriginal governance in the region. This paper analyses the various pressures for a regional authority under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), a regional agreement or various sub-regional agreements over multiple land use, and a form of regional Aboriginal governance. It points out the distinction between these three approaches to regional autonomy. It suggests that the need for the first is being driven by pressures for multiple access to land, while the proposal for the second is simply a means of more efficient delivery of Commonwealth development funding and may in the long term act as an impediment to greater autonomy. The third, regional governance, embraces the first two needs and goes beyond them to respond to the longstanding need, sharpened since the Mabo decision, for a new form of political accommodation between Aborigines and settlers in the Kimberley.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

Open Access

License Rights

DOI

Restricted until

Downloads

File
Description
abcd