Issue Brief 19 / 1997

Native title

The High Court's Mabo judgment of 1992 recognised native title rights based on the traditions of the Indigenous people of Australia where they have maintained their connection with the land and where title has not been extinguished by acts of government. The resulting Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) provides for:

• validation of past acts;
• protection of native title rights in the future;
• a process for establishing native title rights and determining compensation; and
• establishing a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.

The NTA recognises not only native title ownership of land but also prior interest in subsistence resources. This could mean, for example, that Indigenous people might hold resource rights in a national park or on pastoral leasehold land as well as being able to utilise resources on vacant Crown land. Variations in Commonwealth and State legislation have led to inequalities between Indigenous groups and the amount of land they hold, and the types of tenure under which land is held (see Table). The Indigenous Land Corporation is empowered to buy land for Indigenous people; almost $1.26 billion over ten years has been allocated to the fund. The Indigenous Land Corporation can buy land for Indigenous people and also provide resources for its management. This will increase the land and resource base available to Indigenous people, and help people to manage and protect subsistence resources. Although the NTA referred only to native land title, rights at common law might also exist in relation to the sea and its resources.

Resource rights

Prior to the Mabo decision, Australian common law had never recognised Indigenous hunting and fishing rights; Indigenous people had only the same rights as other Australians to use these resources. Some State laws give Indigenous people resource rights, but differing State laws and regulations mean that Indigenous people are better off in this respect in some States than in others. For example, in the Northern Territory, Indigenous people are unrestricted by fisheries laws and regulations when fishing for subsistence purposes. Also, due to variations in Commonwealth and State legislation, inequalities exist in the allocation of land between Indigenous groups and between States. The NTA specifically recognises Indigenous property rights in Indigenous species and this statutory provision could have a major impact on Indigenous use of wildlife in the future.

Aboriginal land in Australia and its distribution.

The importance of subsistence resources

Subsistence activities have high cultural and economic value. Land claimed or purchased under native title legislation or via statutory land rights regimes will result in an expanding Indigenous land base. This in turn will mean that Indigenous people could choose to live partly off the resources of their land. Indigenous people are most involved in wildlife harvesting on outstations where there are few other economic opportunities. About 10 per cent of Indigenous people live at approximately 500 outstations, the majority in the Northern Territory. Nearly half of the Indigenous population live in the coastal zone of Australia, where they can also utilise the resources of the sea. Indigenous people are also involved in wildlife harvesting and management in national parks such as Uluru and Kakadu which they own.

Social indicators show Indigenous people living in rural and remote areas are more disadvantaged than those in metropolitan and urban situations. Studies which show that the resources of the land and sea are of economic importance to Indigenous people and can help to redress this imbalance include:

• a study at Momega outstation, Arnhem Land, investigated the 'dollar value' of subsistence production (hunting, fishing, and gathering activity) over a seasonal cycle and found that subsistence hunting and gathering amounted to 64 per cent of 'income' at Momega. The value of subsistence Australia-wide was estimated to be worth around $25 million per annum in 1986, or nearly 3 per cent of Indigenous income.
• a study at outstations in the Sandover River of central Australia, Northern Territory, indicating that Aboriginal people get 31 per cent of total dietary energy and 74 per cent of total protein from wildlife use; and
• a survey on Yorke Island in the Torres Strait from 1984-86 found that each person consumed about 200 grams of seafood per day, and increased their cash incomes by selling 30 per cent of the catch, some of which was used to buy other food.

Policy implications

Through the operations of the NTA and the Land Fund there is likely to be an increase in the amount of land and subsistence resources available for use by Indigenous people in the future. This will be of clear economic benefit because harvesting wildlife provides opportunities to add to income in situations where there are few other economic opportunities. However, Indigenous people will always need access to cash to underwrite a subsistence lifestyle. The increase in the amount of land owned or available for use by Indigenous people will also add to the growing recognition of their ability and right to participate in environmental management. Informed debate is needed to decide whether Indigenous use of wildlife is an economic option worth supporting, and to explore what benefits and costs may result for both Indigenous people and the wider Australian community.

This issue brief summarised CAEPR Discussion Paper 95, 'Native title and Indigenous Australian utilisation of wildlife: policy perspectives' by J.C. Altman, H.J. Bek and L.M. Roach in 1995. It was also published as a chapter titled 'Use of wildlife by Indigenous Australians: economic and policy perspectives' in M. Bomford and J. Caughley (eds), Sustainable Use of Wildlife by Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders published by the Bureau of Resource Sciences in 1996. The brief was prepared by Linda Roach and edited by Hilary Bek.