Estate of Mind

Marcia Langton

Real estate agents use a slogan which encapsulates in three words the contemporary beliefs of urban Australians towards land, actual land which is owned and used by most Australians in the most typical of ways, as hearth: 'Position! Position! Position!'. This concept, if such it can be called, tells us immediately of the underpinning necessity to invest well when purchasing the family home by choosing a location which will appreciate in market value. Only after this fundamental stricture are other matters considered: is it located well for the family needs in respect of work, school and other activities? Is it large enough for the family needs? Is it affordable? Is it a safe and healthy environment? Is there potential for the living space to expand to accommodate family growth and cycle? Is it aesthetically pleasing?

The implication of this clarion call is that a home is not a permanent home in suburban Australia; rather it is an investment or the accumulation of personal and family wealth. A family home may provide the residential base for a family for that phase of its cycle which involves raising young children, and indeed it may be inherited by the children of a family. Each family has its own choice to make. But the property is conceived of by all social participants in the real estate market primarily as an investment, a form of wealth creation (see Relph 1976). IN contradistinction, unless the 'tide of history' has swept away Aboriginal law, Aboriginal people are born with an inchoate, inherited and transmissible right in a 'country'. These right are held in common with other members of 'clans' or local kin-based groups which form the customary land holding corporations. There is nothing apart from social and economic disadvantage, to prevent Aboriginal people, who have rights in Aboriginal land tenure systems, from holding land titles under the Australian system as well. Such a title, for a tiny proportion of Aboriginal people, might be a freehold suburban residential block.

Many other cultural interpretations of notions of home, residence, hearth and related ideas can be construed from the language of the real estate market, the discourse of economic exchange of residential property. The critical distinction is made of course between residential and commercial, that is between sites for residence and those for conducting business dealings. (Sometimes, of course, a site can accommodate both activities.)

Aboriginal notions of land, which differ radically from these non-indigenous beliefs, have been translated by Aboriginal leads and legal experts into an array of Australian titles which express, and to a limited extent protect, the characteristics of Aboriginal title. IN northern Australia, there are two Aboriginal freehold titles created by statute which have this function. These are discussed later.

Some facets of these introductory examples of contemporary non-indigenous Australian ways of owning and perceiving land are mistakenly assumed to be unproblematic, or common sense. In post-Mabo Australia, these ideas are no longer 'common sense'. This is so because the social project thrust upon the nation by the High Court decision in Mabo No 2 (1992) is to accommodate Aboriginal land tenure systems alongside the Australian system and to desist from regarding all land as subject to the categorisations and values of the Australian land tenure system and its ideational history.

Just as pastoral leases were invented, the High Court judges explain in Wik, to provide for a stable title system in the anarchy of the frontier wars to accommodate both indigenous needs and non-indigenous needs, so too we can see that statutory rights have been invented in more recent times to recognise both Aboriginal customary land tenure systems (see Petersen 1981) and the need for procedures, such as those in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwlth) has not delivered its promise, and at the time of writing there is only one mainland determination of native title by the Tribunal. Barlett (1996) provides an alarming account of 'Dispossession by the Native Title Tribunal'. Other ****** which sought to define Aboriginal customary and other rights as post-settlement acts of favour and grace of the Crown have been more successful and, we can conclude from Bartlett's analysis, not only because they have had more time to operate.

This paper surveys some of the governance and land tenure options which Aboriginal people in northern Australia have at their avail and which enable them, in part, to sustain their customary relationships with their birthplaces, hearths and other places of importance in their spiritual landscapes, and to manage and exploit their economic and cultural landscapes, socially and commercially. This is not the place to elaborate on the content and nature of these customary land titles; there is great cultural diversity ranging from the Yolngu, the first native title litigants, to the Dhangadi of New South Wales whose native title application at Crescent Heads was the first determination. The literature is extensive.

While the focus here is on the geographic region of north Australia, this is not to deny that similar problems exist elsewhere in Australia. Williams and Johnstone have noted that
... many Australians may find it remarkable that Aboriginal people in what are commonly called the 'more closely settled' parts of Australian in the southern part of the continent where pastoralism became the dominant economic activity, are also living on (or near and maintaining culturally specific forms of contact with) the land of which they are the traditional owners
....The implications of these and comparable situations throughout Australia where pastoralism became dominant is that, regardless of the tenure regime, 'multiple use has been a reality since contact'... In all these areas Aboriginal people have maintained - to varying extents - elements of their subsistence economy (1994:199).

Aboriginal land tenure systems are perceived mistakenly, to present a threat to the Australian system, and the interaction of the two has been cast, historically, by protagonists in the mining and pastoral industries as conflicting and incompatible. A 'winner take all' approach in remote Australia has been adopted by successive governments, and as a result Aboriginal rights have been denied and misrepresented. Anthropologists have long argued that Aboriginal land tenure systems can be understood and respected even though they are different from the introduced system (see for example Williams 1986). Aboriginal people themselves have argued that the apparent conflicts can be solved by negotiations and compromise. This is not to say that suburban titles are in any way affected by the High Court decision in Mabo No 2 or by the Native Title Act 1993. They are not.

But large tracts of non-urban land, in particular unalienated Crown land over which no Australian title has ever been granted1, are affected in some way by the decisions in Mabo No 2 and in the Wik case2 and their political aftermath. The discovery of native title and its statutory recognition in federal legislation has been perceived as threatening to contemporary non-indigenous land owners and users and their commercial activities and proposals, especially in the mining and pastoral industries. They have effectively lobbied two successive Federal governments seeking to have native title rights diminished or extinguished. The Native Title Amendment Bill 1996, presently tabled in the Federal Parliament, will be debated in early 1997. The amending Bill proposes racially discriminatory dealings in native title, which if passed by the Parliament, will result in litigation from Native Title Representative Bodies. These bodies have announced in the media their opposition to the Bill (ATSIC November 1996).

The High Court decision in Mabo No 2 recognised native title at common law: it found that native title pre-existed the arrival of British law and that native title survives wherever there is a continuing Aboriginal connection to the land under Aboriginal tradition and wherever that customary title has not been extinguished by the overlay of an Australian title, such as freehold or commercial leasehold. The High Court decision in Wik found that native title coexists with pastoral leases but that pastoral leases, the activities associated with pasturage, prevail over native title.

These decisions are official recognition of what Aboriginal people have strived for in various ways, and which indeed statutory law has accommodated in various ways: the coexistence two different law ways. Whatever the outcome of the Parliament's return to the Native Title Act 1993, it is clear that the ****ity of Aboriginal land tenure systems, recognised by the High Court finally in 1992, will not disappear, even if industry succeeds in removing some statutory recognition of this ancient land jurisdiction. In this context, it should be a key concern to researchers, fieldworkers, public servants and land owners that the statutory and tradition characteristics of the Aboriginal domain inform the development of policy, planning, research and related education initiatives in north Australia.

Accommodating 'multiple use' with less litigation.

Increasingly, researchers are recognising that 'multiple use has been a reality since contact', that Aborigines and settlers have co-existed in the rangelands in fact, if not in law, until the High Court decision in Wik. The development of legislation to give recognition to Aboriginal ownership and use of land and sea has provided, along with security of tenure for indigenous people and fair procedures for commercial dealings, greater opportunity for litigation. Much of the litigation, especially appeals by State and Territory jurisdictions against rulings in favour of indigenous people, could be regarded as vexatious. The point of much of the State and Territory appeal litigation seems to have been to make an ideological point concerning the supremacy of settler society, rather than to seek clarification and development of the law. The history of purchases of pastoral leases by or on behalf of Aboriginal people has been a fraught one (see, for example, Palmer 1988).

Indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders have been caught in the conflict and detrimentally affected by the stalling of social and economic development which vexatious litigation has caused. The Larrakia people of the Darwin region are a good example of this: their land claim over unalienated Crown land on the Cox Peninsula was opposed by litigation and other means by the Northern Territory for twenty years, preventing them from resettling the area and developing a contemporary Larrakia economic niche in the area. The Litchfield local government council on behalf of its residents has sought negotiations with the Larrakia to put an end to the conflict which the Northern Territory government has instigated.

The increasing desire for negotiated outcomes between the stakeholders, rather than litigated outcomes involving enormous expenses and conflict, demands a response from researchers and educators.

Custom and commerce: economic considerations from two traditions.

Indigenous people in northern Australia retain their ancient economic forms of subsistence and organisation and are involved in the Australian economy at a number of levels. The economy of northern Australia is highly dependent on government spending and transfers of taxation revenue from other parts of Australia (see Fletcher 1992). The high proportion of indigenous people in the population of the north affects the volume of these transfers, as a result of horizontal equalisation funding determinations by the Grants Commission, and as a result of statutory royalty equivalents to the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account, under the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and supplementary funding for indigenous people through the special measure charter of ATSI and the Indigenous Land Corporation.

There is little public recognition of the fact that indigenous people are engaged in a wide range of commercial activities (see Ah Kit 1997), and their economic contribution to local and regional economies is systematically ignored in the public domain. In public debates concerning the funding levels to the indigenous proportion of the population, their economic status is cast as one of 'welfare dependency', a rubric used to justify accusations of 'wasting "taxpayers" dollars' and undermining economic development.

One major research priority of Aboriginal leaders across a range of Aboriginal and statutory organisations and agencies concerns the dilemma of creating economic opportunities for Aboriginal groups and communities while preserving the social 'safety net' of a range of programs, particularly the Community Development Employment Program (which substitutes social security entitlements for wages for community-controlled work programs).

The key role which Aboriginal people play in the resource extraction industry in north Australia, while misunderstood and misrepresented in the public domain, is also a high research priority for Aboriginal people. The life span of major development projects is often short relative to the planning and implementation required for economic development for stable, traditional communities. Thus, the research requirements of Aboriginal groups concerns diversity and sustainability across a range of industries: resource extraction, tourism, sustainable use of wildlife, joint ventures in bio-prospecting, aquaculture, municipal and industrial subcontracting. Aboriginal leaders want to know more about negotiating economic, social and cultural outcomes advantageous to Aboriginal traditional owners of land subject to resource extraction, exploration or related development; about transferring negotiated financial benefits into long-term community development outcomes; about the design of social and environmental impact assessment and monitoring programs; and about investment regimes for accumulated capital which return long term, stable benefits.

The challenge for Aboriginal leaders is to maintain their ancient jurisdictions, socially and environmentally, and at the same time to reform the economic and related commercial practices to strengthen the participation of Aboriginal people and their corporations in economic development.

The challenges for the stakeholders in northern Australia.

There is a wider and much more complex range of titles and terms of governance obtaining in the Aboriginal domains of northern Australian than in a suburb. This is so because of historical reasons, particularly the slow accumulation of statues across the Commonwealth and three State/Territory jurisdictions which provided recognition for indigenous land and resource use in a piecemeal fashion (see, for example, Peterson 1982; Avery 1994).

Environmental management and planning regimes are less developed, however, despite the region's high level of economic dependence on resource extraction and pastoralism. This presents a dilemma for those concerned with biodiversity conservation, bioregional planning, and land coastal and marine conservation planning (see Fourmile et al 1996; Smyth 1993; Holes 1992). Compliance with available Australian statues concerning traditional environmental management and development planning is relatively straightforward, if not at the high standards expected in densely populated areas.

Professionals in these fields are less aware of the range of statues and bodies in the Aboriginal domain which provide opportunities for conservation planning through a range of agreements or under the auspices of legislation.

Increasingly, there is an awareness in these fields of endeavour that indigenous people in northern Australia are key stakeholders in the future balance between development and conservation in the region, and have the most to lose or gain from the outcomes. At the same time, a key problem is that while their involvement in management, employment and ownership is increasing, this is not matched by an increasing involvement in training, education and research (see Schwab 1996).

Diversity of land tenures for indigenous owned land.

Terrestrial and marine areas within the Aboriginal domain in northern Australia lie both within and without Aboriginal jurisdictions and as a result fall under a variety of tenures and statues which apply a range of restrictions on land use, access to outsiders and dealings in the land. A larger range of tenures is held by Aboriginal people than by holders of traditional Australian land titles. In addition to the Torrens titles, such as freehold, there are several statutory Aboriginal and Torres Trait Islander freeholds, and a type of fee simple, the deeds of grant in trust issued over former Queensland Aboriginal reserves. In addition to leases, including special purpose leases, Crown leases and pastoral leases, there are leases arising from agreements such as national park agreements between Aboriginal owners and governments. Native title adds a further complexity to the tenures of northern Australia.

Interests in land which do not constitute tenures include grazing licences, the right to use and occupy reserves set aside for Aborigines, and occupational licences. Rights to use land, including the rights to ingress and egress, hunting, gathering and fishing are provided under various statutory regimes, such as reservations in pastoral leases, fisheries acts, conservation statues and so on.

Strong recognition of indigenous rights in relation to the land and sea are found in the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. As a result of land claims, the transfer of the former Aboriginal reserves to Aboriginal freehold, the claims made over pastoral leases purchased by Aboriginal groups, approximately forty-two per cent of the Northern Territory land mass is held under Aboriginal titles.

In relation to so-called 'sea enclosures', the Aboriginal Land Act empowers the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to regulate or prohibit access and use of the seas adjacent to Aboriginal land within two kilometres of the low water mark. This provision was a result of the affirmation of the importance of rights to sea within Aboriginal notions of land tenure by the Woodward Inquiry, 1973 (the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission appointed by Prime Minister G. E. Whitlam in 1972). Other forms of tenure which provide recognition of indigenous sea rights and tenure are being sought to enable planning and management of the complex coastal zone management issues. (Lawrence and Jackson 1996; Sharpe 1996; see also Faculty of Law, NTU 1993; Cordell 1991; Resource Assessment Commission 1993; Smyth 1993).

The need for regional planning.

The National Native Title Tribunal and procedures of the Native Title Act 1993 were designed to enable the determination of native title and non-claimant applications with respect to dealings in land that might be subject to native title. Even though the National Native Title Tribunal has not made a single determination in relation to more than 70 applications for determinations of native title, the Act3 has guaranteed a legitimacy to Aboriginal aspirations for fair dealings in relation to land and resources. Especially important in establishing this new found status is Section 23 (4) of the Native Title Act which provides for regional or local agreements (see Crough 1995)

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Social Justice Commissioner's Submission to the Commonwealth Government on Social Justice makes strong recommendations on the role of the federal government in facilitating the negotiations between indigenous peoples and governments for local and regional agreements, whether in relation to service delivery or settlement of land and resource allocations to provide for an enduring economic base for indigenous peoples which goes beyond welfare payments. The Commissioner details the benefits of these agreements and notes in particular that they would 'provide better management and more fine-grained 'knowledge of territory and environment through indigenous control or co-operative management (or co-management) by indigenous peoples and governments' (Dodson 1995).

As this map shows, the area of land mass in northern Australia for which titles are held by indigenous people constitutes a large majority of the tropical and sub-tropical zones, and, of special note is the large majority of the coastal zone under indigenous tenures.

Figure 1: Aboriginal land (reserve, freehold, leasehold and land under claim, 1994, not including native title claims).

Moreover, the proportion of residential settlements within that area, outside the major urban and mining centres, are predominantly Aboriginal and are predominantly governed by Aboriginal bodies, such as community councils under various statues. The Northern Territory communities are in the main incorporated under the Local government Act 1993, thirteen of the Queensland communities under the Community Services Act 1984, while many communities throughout northern Australia are incorporated under the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. The Torres Strait Regional Authority evolved from two previous statutory bodies: the Commonwealth's ATSIC Regional Council for the Torres Strait and Queensland's Island Coordinating Council. It now governs Torres Strait indigenous affairs, relating both to local governance and Commonwealth service delivery of special measure Islander programs, alongside the mainstream Torres Strait Shire Council whose jurisdiction covers the area excluded from the deed of grant in trust areas (which were former reserve areas)

The expansion of Aboriginal community settlement and living areas, including outstations, while slow, is a matter of concern to Aboriginal elders. This expansion involves the construction of infrastructure including the bituminisation of major roads and the creation of new roads. Aboriginal communities and organisations have responded in a number of ways. In north east Arnhem Land the mainland Yolngu clans have established the Dhimurru Corporation for the management of land and resources (Nanikiya August 1992:14). Dhimurru employs a number of rangers and trains some of its members at Batchelor College in the Northern Territory. The elders of the Koko Perra and neighbouring groups resident at Kowanyama on western Cape York Peninsula have established a similar organisation, the Kowanyama Land Resource Management body (see Sharp 1996:22-23). These elders with their expert staff have developed a management plan for the Alice-Mitchell Rivers basin and have negotiated to achieve co-operation from other bodies with the plan. This body performs the functions of a local environmental protection agency, for instance, by employing one of its own members as a senior ranger and fisheries inspection officer. At Aurukun in Western Cape York other similar bodies have been established.

Other Aboriginal institutions are rapidly developing regional environmental protection plans. For example, the Northern Land Council's Caring for Country Strategy (Taylor 1995) and the Cape York Land Council's Cape York Aboriginal Wilderness Zone each aim to provide planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation in these respective Aboriginal domains. The Northern Land Council has established a Caring for Country and People Unit in its Darwin bureau with the specific purpose of providing integrated local area planning, administered by Aboriginal people, within its jurisdiction so that conservation strategies are coordinated by trained staff from the communities which are intended to be the recipients of the various Commonwealth and Northern Territory government agency programs in conservation (Taylor 1995).

These developments, following successful Aboriginal management of national parks at Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Kakadu and Nitmiluk are evidence of Aboriginal concern to be involved in planning the various uses of human and non-human environments at a local and regional level (Australian Nature Conservation Agency November 1996; Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of Management 1991; Nitmiluk National Park Board of Management 19094/95).

Native title claims and non-claim based negotiations with a range of authorities, including the Wet Tropics Management Authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, fishing industry and rural industry groups, and government bodies, demonstrate the desire for real participation in management and planning of the environment cross-governmental and cross-sectoral arrangements.

Aboriginal organisations and their leaders, such as the Aboriginal land councils, as well as various government reports, argue that there is an urgent need for resource management regimes and integrated resource planning which include and address in relevant ways the interests and aspirations of the Aboriginal stakeholders.

There are also strong recommendations for education and training of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to enable comprehensive, strategically planned management. The Royal commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (Johnstone 1991), various reports of inquiries conducted by the Resource Assessment Commission (1993), the Australian Conservation Foundation (1994), curriculum authorities, specialist conferences and seminars, and other bodies have all made specific recommendations to this effect.

Indeed, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 and the amendment to that Act establishing the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) and Land Fund (Land Fund and Indigenous Land Corporation (ATSIC Amendment) Act 1995) require respectively that regional plans be prepared by ATSIC Regional Councils for each of the ATSIC Regions and that land management plans be developed. The Indigenous Land Corporation has specific statutory functions in relation to land management, and its focus on land management extends to all indigenous-owned land, as well as that acquired by the ILC. The Corporation is required to prepare national and regional strategies covering land acquisition and land management matters for a three to five year period. Its functions are:

• undertaking or arranging for land management activities in relation to indigenous-held land;
• arranging land management activities in relation to land held by the Indigenous Land Corporation;
• making grants or loans for land management activities on indigenous-held land; and
• guaranteeing loans made for land management activities on indigenous-held land.

The big questions (what planning ought to achieve) are framed as the normative values of dominant groups in society, for example, economic growth is essential... Planning systems do not acknowledge the political nature of the process, and consequently do not address differences between cultures, particularly their negotiating strengths, economic systems, political representation in decision-making and cosmology.

'Conservation agencies need to ensure that, in line without international human rights and conservation obligations, Aboriginal people are not excluded from the strategic planning processes' (Lawrence and Jackson 1995:15).

A feature of competition for resources, land and sea, and access to land and sea, within the Aboriginal domain is the conflictive nature of negotiations, and the representation of this competition as necessarily conflict-prone.

Strategic land use plans consistently fail to redress the marked inequities in socio-economic status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people (Jackson 1996; Crough and Christophersen 1993; Holmes 1992). Land use planning processes are not viewed as social and political processes requiring sufficiently high levels of public participation to enable interested parties to negotiate and advance equitable land use outcomes. Historically, such processes have discouraged Aboriginal participation and consequently failed to meet the expectations of Aboriginal stakeholders especially in relation to recognition of the fact of, or the aspiration for, indigenous ownership and effective control of terrestrial and marine areas and resources. Whether Aboriginal people should share equally in the benefits that planned and increased economic development is purported to bring to north Australia is a question rarely asked or debated in planning processes (Jackson 1996).

The public construction of indigenous ownership, custodianship and management of terrestrial and marine areas as conflict-prone is the principle impediment to negotiation and settlement and to the establishment of management regimes in northern Australia.

Protected areas, as well, have been the subject of these disputes, but well known examples of management systems emerging from settlements negotiated between indigenous people and the state include: the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, the Kakadu National Park and the Nitmiluk National Park, all in the Northern Territory. Significantly, both the Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Park joint management and lease arrangements resulted form negotiations over assertions of detriment to the public by, for instance, the Northern Territory government. The joint management and leaseback arrangements were aimed at resolving that perceived detriment, and at removing the possibility of such misperceptions as were generated in the 'Ayers Rock for All Australians' campaign in 1985, a political attempt to deny the traditional owners of Uluru ownership of and participation in the management of their traditional lands.

There are other examples, however, of negotiated settlements which vary considerably in the way in which indigenous and non-indigenous interests have been met, such as the historic Heads of Agreement (Cape York Land Council 1996) signed in February 1996 by pastoralists, Aboriginal people and environmentalists, on future land use on Cape York Peninsula. the basis of this negotiated agreement is an acknowledgement and affirmation, by all parties, of the past and ongoing Aboriginal occupation and use of the region, whilst simultaneously guaranteeing pastoralists security in relation to native title under a range of agreed conditions. Moreover, overlaying the whole agreement, stakeholders affirmed and committed themselves to ongoing negotiations aimed at achieving sustainable land management practices whilst maintaining the high conservation values of the region. The agreement was negotiated in the belief that the foundations for the future of Cape York Peninsular land use must be grounded in the recognition by respective stakeholders of each other's rights, aspirations and responsibilities.

This intelligent proactive settlement by regional stakeholders has been overshadowed in the wake of the recent High Court Wik decision, by what would seem ill informed and reactive responses from governments, the media and the wider community. The Cape York agreement attempts to move away from the style of debate characterised by confrontation and suspicion and provide a firm yet flexible basis for ongoing regional stakeholders negotiation and consultation. It is a process aimed at moving away from litigation and toward utilizing the provision for regional or local agreements in Section 21(4) of the Native Title Act 1993. As the Executive Director of the Cape York Land Council, Noel Pearson said,
The spirit of the High Court's Mabo decision will never be achieved simply by court actions or divisive political debate. The essential truth is the unbreakable connection of Aboriginal people to the land. It will never be possible to recognize that adequately in law. It can be achieved only at the local level and only by reconciliation founded on agreement. The High Court's Mabo decision and the Native Title Act have provided the imperative and a framework within which such agreements can be settled (Cape York Land Council 1996:3).

The Cape York Heads of Agreement is only a first step in this process. It is an agreement that is yet to be ratified by either the state or commonwealth governments. Despite this, it is clear that such negotiated settlements with Aboriginal stakeholders will be of increasing importance to a variety of industry and conservationist aspirations, and governments. The latter, for instance, must be able to justify their stewardship of conservation and indigenous interests given their coincidence in crucial areas in remote Australia.

Co-management, or joint management, of terrestrial protected areas is being increasingly accepted as a management principle in Australia. However, it has not been widely implemented due to the complex nature of Australian Federalism and the variety of State responses to Native Title claims, Aboriginal land claims, resource development policies and legal jurisdictions (Lawrence and Jackson 1995:1).

Sustainable biodiversity and the challenge of research, management, and training in northern Australia.

The land mass, coastal, sea and marine area within the Aboriginal domain in northern Australia and the resource wealth within these areas constitute in the late 1990s a significant and urgent management challenge for the nation. It is only in the 1980s and 90s that the biota and human and technological resources in this region are being studied, surveyed and understood as a result of regional studies, by such bodies as the Cape York Peninsula Land and Strategy, the Cooperative Research Centre for the Sustainable Development of Tropical Savannas, Wet Tropics Management Authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and, as well, the studies and inquiries conducted by the Resource Assessment Commission and the Australian Heritage Commission, and the ongoing accretion of scientific literature and data collection by a myriad of other government agencies, statutory authorities, research institutions and universities.

While the need for research has been identified and steps taken to address this need, few accredited training programs are available in northern Australia to assist resource workers, managers and planners in the application of established knowledge to contemporary resource management and planning issues.

Particularly noticeable is the absence of training directed to indigenous land owners - notwithstanding the location of increasingly large areas of land and marine resources within the Aboriginal domain.

Effective management of this land mass and adjoining coastal and marine areas and the resource wealth they contain, constitutes a significant and urgent challenge for the nation. At the same time it provides a significant opportunity for the development of an enduring indigenous economic base and an end to the Aboriginal welfare dependency.

The developing relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous people in land, sea and resource management, and the special knowledges and practises which they bring to the task, are of special significance in the emergence of specific knowledges and approaches in this region.

Education and research in North Australia: how are the needs being met?

While there are a number of programs in the vocational and educational sector offered to indigenous students, for example, by the Cairns TAFE and Batchelor College, until recently there were no higher education sector undergraduate programs which could offer indigenous students an education in natural resource management applicable to the north Australian concept.

The recently established Resource Management Program at the Northern Territory University aims to train indigenous people and those who work in the field of resource management in northern Australia so that indigenous interests are included in such strategic planning processes of the future. The goal is to ensure, also that indigenous interests are represented in the specific content and design of courses and programs to enable the students to take part in long term planning. The program aims to be an interventionist strategy with practical and measurable outcomes.

The key stakeholders in the provision of such courses are industry groups, including mining companies, governmental agencies such as conservation agencies, resource regulatory bodies, and Aboriginal statutory and non-statutory agencies, including land councils and Aboriginal resource management corporations.

The Resource Management program adopts a multi-disciplinary approach to resource management and planning while permitting specialised training suited to particular vocations, industries and regions in northern Australia. Specialised electives permit students to adapt their studies to practical resource management issues and outcomes in their home region.

On completion of the program, students will be equipped to play a leadership role in the sustainable long term management of land and sea resources. They will have the potential to formulate integrated social and economic development plans based on the sustainable use of land and sea resources and to assess and evaluate planning/management strategies in terms of their potential impact on land and sea resources. Most importantly, they will be able to undertake effective action for community ( and regionally) based management of land and sea resources.

The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs recently administered the selection process for the government's new initiative in Aboriginal higher education, the Indigenous Higher Education Centre scheme. The Northern Territory University application to establish a Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management was one of the five successful proposals. This scheme funds research centre which will establish a postgraduate research centre for indigenous students.

The Northern Territory University is establishing a Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management with a number of partners: Batchelor College, Dhimurru Land Management Corporation, the Kimberley Land Council, the North Australia Research Unit of The Australian National University, the Northern Land Council, the NT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation for Education, and the Yothu Yindi Cultural Institute.

The Centre will work to achieve natural and cultural resource management strategies for indigenous people and their lands, the legitimation of indigenous knowledge in the higher education and research system, and will develop undergraduate and postgraduate curricula in resource management for indigenous people. The Centre aims to become nationally and internationally recognised as a focal point for research in indigenous knowledge in the context of sustainable development in northern Australia.

The Centre aims to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into the Australian higher education sector, and establish pathways for indigenous students into mainstream academic research culture, with new, cross-disciplinary approaches to sustainable development in northern Australia. It will enable researchers to refine research methodologies in the indigenous context and empower and inform indigenous people. The key outcome will be qualified indigenous researchers, academics and decision makers.

Despite these developments, Wearne, Young and Benson (1996:3) writing for the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Development of Tropical Savannas, recently found it necessary to make basic recommendations to educational authorities and institutions concerning matters raised in this paper. They recommend for instance that:
Traditional ecological and cultural knowledge be included in mainstream natural and cultural resource management courses under the authorisation and control of relevant Aboriginal custodians (Wearne et al 1996:3).
They also recommend that:
Providers ensure relevant Aboriginal authorities and custodians approve, control and where appropriate, teach traditional ecological and cultural knowledge included in courses across stakeholder groups.
and that:
The national curriculum framework developed by the Caring for Country National Curriculum Development Project be adopted by course developers as the basis for future course development and, where possible, align existing courses with this curriculum framework.

The recommendations of the extent and comprehensive reports in this area, such as Caring for Country: Aborigines and Land Management (Young et al 1991), cannot be implemented until the skills and relevant western knowledge areas are transferred to indigenous people resulting in well educated indigenous people who can aspire with confidence to key positions in the governance of the Australian land estate and its conservation.

Conclusion

In north Australia, there is an increasing level of Aboriginal land ownership and recognition of interests in marine areas, coupled with the need to manage resources sustainably and for the benefit of the owners. The complexity of the challenges faced demonstrates a clear need for more opportunities for research, research training, and education involving Aboriginal people, organisations and their resources and knowledge systems.

Many of the strategies emerging in this region come from Aboriginal bodies, such as the land councils, seeking long term viable solutions to problems of management and sharing of resources which have been the subject of conflicting approaches.

The array of statues available for recognition of Aboriginal interests provide stable titles and administrative regimes, and at the same time, the opportunity for unnecessary litigation. The high levels of litigation in Aboriginal matters are only slowly being replaced by methods of reaching settlement through negotiation. There is a growing recognition that the 'winner takes all' approach to land settlement in remote Australia is no longer sensible in dealings in the Aboriginal domain.

It is critical that curriculum development, course delivery, research, and research training take account of these developments. Cooperation between institutions and agencies in implementing these new educational initiatives will be an important factor in meeting the needs of the stakeholders. The need for sustained government support for these developments is also critical.