4. Enhancing access to capital and activating the Indigenous Estate
   1. This chapter discusses opportunities to enhance access to capital and activating and leveraging the Indigenous Estate to foster economic development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Enhancing and fast-tracking access to finance and capital

4.2Throughout the inquiry, difficulties in accessing finance and capital were identified as some of the most significant barriers to economic self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Inquiry participants largely attributed these difficulties to the long history of economic exclusion, including through the dispossession of land, displacement of people, unfair or stolen wages, and other discriminatory practices.[1] MrReuben Berg, Co-Chair of the First People’s Assembly of Victoria, told the Committee that the current need for economic self-determination ‘stems from the generational impacts of colonisation’ and the inability for Indigenous peoples to fully participate in society:

We were prohibited, because of the impact of colonisation and the discriminatory practices, from participating in the economy as other communities had, and that has left a lasting legacy, particularly in terms of intergenerational wealth. It’s just not something that exists within our communities. And so we’ve never had the opportunity to leverage from wealth to generate more wealth. We see it happen all the time for other communities, even if it’s as simple as getting a loan from your parents so you can start your own business. That’s just not an opportunity that our communities have had across generations. That has a significant impact on where we see ourselves today.[2]

4.3Mr Lachlan McDaniel of the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research (Jumbunna) told the Committee that in addition to the low levels of intergenerational wealth within First Nations families, there continues to be systemic biases and a ‘trust deficit’ in the investment industry that makes it difficult to obtain finance.[3] MrMcDaniel spoke about his own experience in establishing a native food business known as Native Foodways:

It was extremely difficult for us to get startup capital to get this business underway. Within the investment community, we were seen as being not only too commercial for philanthropic funding but also too social for capital investment funding. We wanted to give back to our communities too much to be able to attract funding.[4]

4.4The Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Industry Science and Resources, Charles Darwin University, Screen Australia, the Queensland and New South Wales Governments, Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation and the National Native Title Council, were all of the view that difficulty accessing commercial finance and capital continued to be an impediment for First Nations businesses, communities and peoples.[5]

4.5Professor Peter Yu, Vice-President, First Nations Portfolio, Australian National University, agreed that there were ‘historical and other barriers that exist in terms of accessing finance from normal financial institutions, banks’ as well as a ‘level of discrimination and prejudice that exists’.[6] Professor Yu commented that in order to build capability, ‘a number of things need to happen simultaneously’:[7]

…even though we have those percentages of land assets, we have very little capability in our corporations. That’s emerging, but our prescribed body corporates who are the statutory or regulatory bodies holding native title in trust have very little resources in terms of being able to adequately interface and participate with third-party interests to access and use their lands for economic development. There’s a question of investing in governance and management capability. I think there is a need to look at this question of how the existing government special investment vehicles are considerate of the nature of how it might provide the flow of capital should there be a particular carve-off considered.[8]

4.6The Dilin Duwa Centre for Indigenous Business Leadership (Dilin Duwa) submitted that finance markets are generally ‘not yet ready’ to provide capital to small businesses in their early stages, and this problem is exacerbated for First Nations businesses because of their ‘lower levels of collateral, limited access to personal wealth, and the banking sector’s lack of confidence in the sector’. Dilin Duwa submitted that these factors make it difficult for First Nations businesses to ‘attain low-cost finance, build a customer base, win contracts, and establish links with reliable suppliers’.[9]

4.7The First Nations Foundation noted that First Nations led businesses faced challenges in accessing capital as they did not meet ‘meet traditional lending criteria, such as fixed assets for security’; the banks Western framework, in particular the sixC’s lending criteria, ‘holds subjective bias towards First Nations peoples’ and ‘entrepreneurs have struggled to obtain finance for business expansion, despite demonstrated economic viability, due to stringent lending requirements’.[10]

4.8The First Nations Foundation highlighted the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman’s recent report reviewing the 2022 implementation of changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs), which found that the mechanism aimed at fostering First Nations commercial opportunities and entrepreneurship was inadequate. Inadequacies identified included a lack of understanding regarding exemptions for Indigenous businesses, and conflicts between government sovereign capability policies and those designed to foster small-to-medium enterprises and First Nations businesses.[11]

4.9The Northern Territory Business Network (NTIBN) submitted that access to capital is the greatest barrier to growing and sustaining Indigenous businesses.[12] It noted a lack of data regarding the sources of capital for existing Indigenous businesses, existing government and private sector spending, and their impact on the broader economy.[13] NTIBN also argued that mining projects on Country would have far more impact on the economic growth by investing capital instead of royalties.[14]

4.10NTIBN suggested business loans with a no payback period of three to five years to allow businesses to establish themselves, stating, ‘You’ve got to reinvest your working capital back into the business over a number of years to build it up, to remain viable and stable’.[15] In particular, it highlighted the need for capital and supports for businesses owned and operated by Indigenous women.[16]

4.11Supply Nation concurred, submitting that limited access to capital is a barrier affecting growth of the First Nations economy. This challenge affects Indigenous entrepreneurs embarking on start-ups and small businesses wishing to expand. Obstacles include a lack of collateral, credit history or financial literacy, as well as access to mainstream financial institution. Supply Nation submitted that improving access to capital can advance First Nations self-determination and economic resilience.[17]

4.12Ms Shannon Malison, Acting Director of Yarpa, confirmed to the Committee at a public hearing that for large-scale businesses, such as construction businesses, access to capital can be an issue. Ms Malison advised that without generational wealth, it is hard to grow businesses. Access to large amounts of capital enables businesses to scale up and scale up quickly. Though she noted that for smaller businesses, capacity building and addressing market need is the real focal point. She advised that access to capital is the second step, stating that, ‘If you can get [the first step] right, you have more chance of accessing capital’.[18]

4.13Jumbunna also noted that not fitting into mainstream risk profiles limits access to commercial lending opportunities. Other investment industry barriers include systemic bias and a trust deficit. This, Jumbunna advised:

A trust deficit can impact First Nations businesses [through] difficulty in attracting low-cost finance, building a customer base, obtaining contracts or establishing links with reliable suppliers.[19]

4.14First Australians Capital is an Indigenous-led financial services organisation that was created in 2016 to promote and support First Nations-led enterprises.[20] It submitted that a legacy of exclusion, high levels of financial stress, and bias and discrimination have created systemic barriers to economic self-determination for First Nations peoples, including being ‘locked out’ of capital markets.[21] It argued that ongoing barriers to economic participation include an inability for First Nations-led businesses to meet mainstream lending criteria, challenges in accessing ‘impact capital’, and difficulties in securing finance to fulfil large-scale procurement contracts.[22]

4.15First Australians Capital recommended a range of systemic changes to address these inequities and to empower First Nations-led economic participation, including:

• inclusive finance strategies, such as such as community-led finance and tailored loan products, to improve access to capital and financial services
• reform to ‘impact investment’ frameworks to recognise and support Indigenous economic priorities
• support for innovative financing mechanisms, such as social impact bonds and blended finance approaches, including First Australians Capital’s ‘catalytic capital’ model
• education programs and outreach campaigns to increase awareness and understanding of Indigenous entrepreneurship and cultural diversity among investors, financial institutions, and the broader public.[23]
  16. At a public hearing, First Australian Capital’s Executive Director, Ms Jocelyn King, added that the superannuation industry and Commonwealth funding entities such as the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund could be required to make a certain amount of their funds available to invest in Indigenous ventures:

The total value of Australian superannuation is currently approximately $3.5trillion. [Imagine] how fast we could close the gap if just three per cent of that was invested in Indigenous led funds.[24]

4.17The Australian Sustainable Finance Institute (ASFI)—whose membership includes many of Australia’s largest banks and superannuation funds—similarly highlighted the barriers that First Nations businesses face in accessing mainstream finance.[25] Itattributed these barriers to historical economic exclusion, stringent requirements and prevailing attitudes and biases.[26] ASFI called for a ‘rethinking’ of traditional investment criteria to support localised capital delivery solutions for First Nations businesses.[27]

4.18ASFI acknowledged the ‘critical roles’ of Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC) and Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) (discussed below), but considered that enhancing financial frameworks to support the growing First Nations business sector could involve ‘expanding the functions or capital-raising capacities of current institutions or establishing new ones’.[28] ASFI suggested that a framework similar to Canada’s First Nations Fiscal Management (FMA) Act should be considered.[29] Canada’s FMA Act is discussed further in Chapter 7. ASFI also supported blended finance solutions to improve the attractiveness of investments that ‘might otherwise be too risky or unappealing for private investors alone’, and catalytic capital to help ‘address specific funding gaps that conventional financing often overlooks’.[30]

4.19The First Nations Clean Energy Network put forward a number of objectives calling for access to financial support ‘through government and private sector financing initiatives to enable participation at the household, community, and large-scale project levels.’[31]

4.20IBA made several suggestions aimed at increasing access to finance and capital for First Nations businesses and commercial enterprises:

1Increase access to finance and capital for First Nations businesses and commercial enterprises by permitting IBA to borrow and raise capital.

2Provide funding and resources for First Nations organisations and communities to undertake pre-finance activities that develop project concepts to the stage of being investment ready.

3Adjust investment mandates and financing criteria to ensure fairer and more equitable access to the multiple existing funding opportunities across government, including through Commonwealth special investment vehicles.

4Facilitate planning, coordination, and collaboration across the Commonwealth, state, territory, and local governments to maximise impact, minimise duplication, and foster a strong community-led response, particularly at a regional and local level.

5Channel private and philanthropic capital towards First Nations assets and enterprises through innovative and catalytic finance approaches.[32]

4.21Innovative financing mechanisms such as social impact bonds, microfinance, equity and crowdfunding were also supported by the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) Australia.[33]

4.22Law Council of Australia highlighted the support and facilitation of access to capital and markets, including the Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP), business hubs, and market information about First Nations businesses, the sector can be lifted ‘into the next frontier’.[34]

4.23The joint submission from the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the Treasury noted that access to finance, among others, is a barrier across OECD countries, and that they and other Commonwealth departments are exploring ways to remove these barriers and unlock opportunities. According to their submission, the Australian Government intends to strengthen the ability of the IBA to leverage their capital for investment in First Nations businesses.[35]

Housing and home ownership

4.24The Australian Banking Association (ABA) highlighted the role of home ownership in facilitating economic self-determination:

Housing is an important building block to a person’s wellbeing. It not only gives individuals shelter and security but has the capacity to meet longer-term goals in economic development, education and the community.[36]

4.25However, multiple participants in the inquiry identified that the low levels of home ownership amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a barrier to accessing capital to grow business. First Australians Capital submitted that FirstNations peoples' historic inability to own land or borrow for housing has led to ‘significantly lower home ownership rates compared to non-Indigenous peers’.[37] Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTAR) told the Committee that First Nations peoples are ‘disproportionately locked out of the housing market and wealth creation’, with approximately 42per cent of Indigenous peoples owning a home in 2021 compared to 68per cent of the total population.[38]

4.26Ms Shannon Mallison of the Yarpa business hub told the Committee that the lack home ownership constrains First Nations businesses’ ability to rapidly scale up to take advantages of opportunities that may arise.[39]

4.27The ABA submitted that ‘unique challenges’ have contributed to no private home ownership on First Nations-titled land, which is a ‘significant barrier’ to economic self-empowerment in those areas.[40] While acknowledging that the barriers to home ownership are ‘multi-faceted’, it partly attributed the low levels of home ownership to the complexities of statutory land tenure arrangements on First Nations-titled land, including land held under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the various Commonwealth, state and territory legislative land rights regimes.[41]

4.28The ABA recommended that ‘community-led, place-based collaborations’ be used to address barriers to home ownership on First Nations-titled land. It submitted:

Private home ownership may not be appropriate for all communities on First Nations-titled land but should be a possibility where the community wishes to pursue it, given its ability to unlock economic opportunities and self-determination.[42]

4.29The Land Back Foundation identified the low levels of home ownership in remote communities as a barrier to unlocking capital:

Many small businesses use the capital of their home as equity for their investment. In remote locations the majority of housing for First Nations people is social housing. To access the equity in the home the small business owner needs to own the home.[43]

4.30The Land Back Foundation suggested reforms to the Commonwealth and states and territories agreement on social housing to ‘unlock debt equity in the home for long-term tenants’, supported by no- or low-interest loans administered by government or by IBA.[44] The Land Back Foundation also suggested funding for subsidised homes for First Nations tenants, funding for Not-for-Profits administering home ownership initiatives, and the construction of new homes using local products.[45]

4.31Aboriginal Housing Victoria reported that currently only 46 per cent of Aboriginal Victorians own or are purchasing their own home, compared to 68 per cent of the general population, with very little reduction in this gap over the past five years.[46] It expressed concern that, without improvements to home ownership rates, the benefits of improvements made in relation to Aboriginal education, employment and business ‘will not translate to an intergenerational wealth transfer and better long-term economic independence’.[47]

4.32Aboriginal Housing Victoria recommended a range of initiatives to improve home ownership and address historical dispossession, including reduced or zero interest rates; government guarantees in lieu of deposits and lenders mortgage insurance; grants to individuals; enabling renters to buy community and public housing; and other innovative policy solutions such as shared equity and community land trusts. Aboriginal Housing Victoria also recommended systemic interventions to improve Indigenous households’ access to capital, to improve housing affordability and supply.[48]

4.33The Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of Peaks) noted that housing is a crucial enabler to provide stability and safety for individuals and their families, highlighting the success of their housing loans program.[49]

Indigenous Business Australia

4.34The purpose of the corporate Commonwealth entity IBA is to ‘support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander financial inclusion and economic independence by providing access to finance and capital as well as skills, knowledge, and networks’.[50] IBAprovides home loans, business finance and support, and other pathways to enable wealth building and prosperity. IBA’s activities address gaps in the provision of financial products and services that are not being met by commercial lenders and the broader market.[51]

4.35IBA reported that it had, to date, supported more than 21,000 First Nations peoples into home ownership.[52] IBA emphasised the importance of housing and home ownership for achieving positive intergenerational outcomes:

Homeownership is an important way for families to establish and build wealth over time. It also allows them to focus on other areas of their lives such as improving health, education, and employment, and aspiring for more.[53]

4.36As prescribed in section 146(b) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Act, IBA is required to protect and grow the money under its management to facilitate the activities it delivers for the benefit of Indigenous peoples.[54] IBA told the Committee that it had grown its total assets from $1.5billion in 2019 to over $2billion currently, and that it has an aspiration to continue to grow its asset base to $2.5 billion by 2028.[55]

4.37IBA intends to reach over 10,000 more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the next five years by providing home loans, business lending and support services, and investment options.[56]

4.38Although IBA receives appropriations and capital injections from the Australian Government to expand its impact and deliver outcomes, IBA claimed that this ‘simply is not enough to meet demand in the future’.[57] It noted, however, that in the 2024–25 Budget the Australian Government announced its intention to enhance IBA’s ability to leverage its capital.[58] IBA submitted that additional capital would enable it to provide:

• More home loans resulting in safe, stable, and suitable housing for FirstNations families.
• More business finance resulting in secure employment, training and skills, and more job opportunities for First Nations business owners and their employees.
• More investment opportunities with First Nations people resulting in steady revenue, financial security and empowerment, and more job opportunities for First Nations communities.[59]

Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation

4.39The ILSC is a corporate Commonwealth entity established in response to the High Court’s Mabo judgement in 1992. The ILSC describes its role as a ‘strategic funder and facilitator’, complementing the Native Title Act 1993 and ‘supporting First Nations people to access, use, and Care for Country on their own terms to achieve their aspirations’.[60]

4.40The ILSC’s primary grants program, ‘Our Country, Our Future’, is used to invest in projects in urban, regional, remote and rural Australia based on ‘measurable benefit’ for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. ILSC assists groups to purchase freehold land (or acquire leasehold interest in land) and water-related rights, as well as supporting First Nations landholders to manage, use and/or care for land or waters already under their control.[61]

4.41The ILSC is funded via the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Land and Sea Future (ATSILSF) Fund, which is a $2.14 billion fund that provides annual and discretionary additional payments to the ILSC to acquire and manage land, water and water-related rights.[62] The purpose of the fund is to provide a capital base from which the ILSC can draw incomes to acquire land and water-related rights for the benefit of First Nations peoples.[63]

4.42The ILSC reported that the annual payment from the fund was around $62.2million in 2023–24. However, noting large increases in the average value of its projects, the ILSC submitted that the current drawdown model set out in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Act 2018 (ATSILSF Fund) is ‘not sufficient’.[64] The ILSC said that it is considering ‘a range of options to secure sustainable funding reform’ to enable it to continue to grow and meet demand.[65]

4.43The Law Council of Australia noted that from the mid-1990s until 2019, when its management was transferred to the Future Fund, most capital from the ATSILSF Fund was invested in low yield term deposits, rather than a more balanced investment strategy, in order to comply with statutory restrictions.[66] The Law Council cited reports showing that the average annual return achieved during that period was only 4.2 per cent for the ATSILSF Fund, compared to 8.5 per cent for the Future Fund, which suggested there would have been hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funding for the ILSC if the funds had been invested instead.[67] The Law Council recommended that the Australian Government consider an injection of funds into the ATSILSF Fund to help address this ‘lost opportunity’.[68], [69]

4.44The Coalition of Peaks recommended that the IBA and ILSC conduct a review to better align their operations with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, particularly for the four priority reforms.[70]

Activating and leveraging the Indigenous Estate

4.45The ‘Indigenous Estate’ can refer to both the tangible and intangible aspects of Indigenous culture collectively held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[71] For the purposes of this report, the Indigenous Estate refers to lands and waters under the care and control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities through ownership, management or rights of use for customary purposes.[72]

4.46According to the ILSC, First Nations peoples have legally recognised rights across 57 per cent of Australia’s landmass.[73] This figure is predicted to increase to 72 per cent by 2030.[74] IBA reported that, in 2020, the Indigenous Estate consisted of:

• 134 million hectares (17 per cent of Australia’s land) that is Indigenous owned
• 174 million hectares (22 per cent of Australia’s land) that is under Indigenous management, comprising of 141 million hectares that are Indigenous managed and 33million hectares that are Indigenous co-managed
• 337 million hectares (44 per cent of Australia’s land) that is subject to other special rights for Indigenous people.[75], [76]
  47. In addition, as of 30 June 2023, more than 113,000 square kilometres of Australia’s sea country was subject to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights or interests.[77]
  48. Outcome 15 under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is that ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical, and economic relationship with their land and waters’. The Agreement’s targets include a 15per cent increase in the areas of land and sea that are subject to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ legal rights or interests by 2030.[78]
  49. However, many submitters to this inquiry highlighted the need to improve the ability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to leverage the Indigenous Estate for economic development.
  50. The Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations (FVTOC) highlighted the important role of the First Nations economy—in which communally held rights, including property rights, are not vested in individuals but where any economic or cultural benefit from their use ‘accrues to the collective, or “nation” as a whole’. It argued that prioritisation of the First Nations economy has the potential to ‘fast track the addressing of issues of individual disadvantage’ while making ‘significant progress on the journey self-determination’. The Federation considered that the ‘creation of, grant to, and recognition and protection of, property, economic, procedural and/or cultural rights vesting in the collective’ is key to growing the First Nations economy.[79] However, at a public hearing, the Federation’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Paul Paton, identified a lack of property rights as a key economic constraint:

The way we see it, noting the very little land base that Traditional Owners hold in Victoria, the lack of property rights is an inhibitor to supporting economic development. That’s not unique; it's demonstrated in the broad parcels of land that are under freehold title and the public land that has limited ability to have economic opportunities applied to it through the processes of native title, the Traditional Owner Settlement Act and the cultural heritage functions that Traditional Owners hold. Not having those property rights makes it more difficult for Traditional Owners to attract capital and investment to be able to practise culture on Country, utilise cultural knowledge through businesses such as cultural tourism and heal country using intellectual property through cultural fire management of country.[80]

4.51The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRCNA) told the Committee that the demand for its 2022 funding program for First Nations-led projects aimed at activating the Indigenous Estate was oversubscribed by 1,500 per cent, with only six per cent of projects to be funded.[81] This suggests that many potential economic opportunities on the Indigenous Estate are not being realised.

4.52The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) advised that it is committed to ‘activating the economic value of land and sea resource rights to enhance the productivity, resilience, innovation and sustainability of the Australian food and fibre supply chain’ and that it ‘welcomes opportunities to explore how greater commercial and economic activation of collectively held land tenure can better support FirstNations economic self-determination within the current legislative framework’.[82]

Native title and land rights

4.53Native title rights and interests have been recognised over around 50 per cent of the Australian landmass. This figure is expected to increase to over 65 per cent by 2030.[83] Already, more than 60 per cent of Australian resource projects—including both exploration and extraction—operate on land covered by a native title claim or determination.[84]

4.54Participants in the inquiry identified the inability of First Nations peoples to use native title land for commercial purposes as a significant barrier to economic self-determination.[85] ANTAR explained in its submission that ‘fundamental limitations in legislation’ and ‘severe underfunding’ of the bodies established to manage the native title interests of First Nations peoples ‘limit their capacity to leverage land-based assets to achieve their cultural, social, environmental and economic aspirations’:[86]

For example, banks do not lend against land held under native title because native title is an inalienable bundle of rights, rather than a form of freehold title that is transferable to the bank in the event that a [Prescribed Body Corporate] defaults on a loan. This means that even where First Nations communities hold native title under terms of exclusive possession, they cannot use this to attract capital or commercial loans necessary for economic development.[87]

4.55The Kimberley Land Council (KLC) similarly noted that the Native Title Act 1993 prohibits native title holders from using their rights and interests in land as collateral for finance; and claimed that is one of only four statutory land title regimes that expressly prohibits rights and interests in land being sold, leased, or mortgaged.[88] It submitted:

Now that the post-determination era has largely been reached, it is more important than ever to consider how the native title regime can facilitate economic development and deliver tangible benefits for native title holders well into the future. Legislative and policy changes to enable native title holders to easily access capital for projects on native title land would be transformational in terms of opening up economic development opportunities.[89]

4.56Despite the constraints, the KLC reported that some native title holders in the Kimberley had developed successful businesses and enterprises on native title lands and/or traditional Country, sometimes involving freehold tenure.[90] It highlighted savanna fire management carbon projects which have been used to generate ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for Prescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) and communities in the north Kimberley (see Box 4.1).[91]

4.57The ILSC highlighted the lack of fundamental reform to the Native Title Act 1993 over the past 30 years, submitting that legislative reform is ‘critical to enhancing the value of native title rights’ and enabling self-determination for First Nations peoples.[93] Itnoted that:

Native title rights and interests are generally limited to ‘the purpose of satisfying their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs’. This creates significant barriers for native title holders to pursue their economic, social and cultural self-determination, as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[94]

4.58Specifically, the ILSC called for sections of the Native Title Act 1993 that prevent native title interests and rights being used for commercial purposes to be amended or removed:[95]

Reforms to the Act should enable native title holders to continue to hold their native title rights in perpetuity, but to create appropriate fungible rights in native title lands under their own terms and in co-existence with other land users that may apply to those lands. This would enable First Nations peoples to achieve greater economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits that include their ownership and management of land and water related rights.[96]

4.59Professor Peter Yu, Vice-President of the First Nations Portfolio at the Australian National University (ANU) also supported the commercial leveraging of native title interests, but emphasised the importance of retaining native title:[97]

The question is how do you leverage those assets and what level of available capital is there to be able to do that? How is that to be deployed and under what circumstances so that you’re able to, firstly, ensure that you can protect your native title rights and interests without jeopardising the nature of impairment or extinguishment [of native title].[98]

4.60The ILSC noted that feedback it had received from First Nations peoples highlighted the limitations under the existing Native Title Act 1993, which prevent native title land from being used for economic development as it is not considered a fungible, or interchangeable, commodity:

We also heard a bit about reforms of the Native Title Act, and in particular the ability to have some form of fungibility criteria for native title lands. This is not a new conversation that we’ve heard. We’ve certainly heard in the vast majority of native title determinations, in particular where there are coexisting rights—that is, it’s not exclusive possession but non-exclusive position—people speaking a lot about the ability to have fungible titles so they can get involved in economic development in those forms of determinations.[99]

4.61The FVTOC stated that to take advantage of economic development projects, native title and other land rights mechanisms should be enabled to operate more like freehold title:

We need to think of some novel ideas about how we transfer resources to Traditional Owners to be able to have a stake in those types of projects. Those barriers that exist through the mechanisms such as native title and the Traditional Owner Settlement Act don’t facilitate any handover of freehold title, as we call it, which is equivalent to any other landholder. That doesn’t apply; therefore, those opportunities are not realised.[100]

4.62DAFF pointed to the current Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) review of the ‘future acts’ regime within the Native Title Act 1993 as an opportunity to better activate collectively held land to support First Nations economic self-determination through ‘significant opportunities’ in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors.[101]

4.63The future acts regime concerns proposed actions or developments that affect native title and establishes procedures to be followed to allow for future acts to be validly enacted.[102] The review was initiated by the Australian Government in response to a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia in its report on the destruction of Juukan Gorge.[103] Among other things, the terms of reference for the review include:

• [having regard to] the opportunity for the native title system to contribute significantly to social, cultural, environmental and economic outcomes for First Nations people, businesses, organisations and communities
• options to support native title groups, project proponents and governments to share in the benefits of development on native title land, including opportunities for native title groups to lead or co-lead development, and for ensuring native title groups receive commensurate and timely compensation for the diminution of native title rights and interests caused by future acts
• whether the Native Title Act appropriately provides for new and emerging industries engaging in future acts.[104]
  64. The ALRC has been asked to provide its report to the Australian Government by 8December2025.[105]
  65. In addition to constraints within the Native Title Act 1993, some inquiry participants identified the complexity of interactions between the Native Title Act 1993 and the various Commonwealth, state and territory legislative land rights regimes as a barrier to leveraging the Indigenous Estate.[106]
  66. The NSW Government highlighted the opportunity for legislative reform to improve interaction between the NSW and Commonwealth Acts and ‘unlock the full economic benefit of land’.[107]
  67. ANTAR submitted that, due to the ‘narrow conditions’ under which LALCs can claim land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), the lands returned ‘are almost invariably on the urban fringes, fully vegetated and conservation zoned, with little to no infrastructure in place’.[108] It argued that on the ‘rare occasion’ that the land returned has inherent economic value, it is ‘prohibitively expensive’ for the LALC to extract that value through development, in part due to the offset liabilities that would be incurred under the NSWBiodiversity Offset Scheme.[109] ANTAR considered this to be a contemporary example of ‘the ways in which Government policy and legislation are designed to block First Nations Peoples from taking full and proper control of their financial futures’.[110]
  68. Mr James Morgan submitted that although large areas of the Northern Territory have been granted as unalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (NT),[111] applications for commercial use of such land are lengthy and could take up to three years.[112] Mr Morgan argued that this limits the ability for Aboriginal peoples to use their land to build wealth and forces them to seek work off Country or assistance elsewhere.[113]

PBCs and Traditional Owner institutions

4.69Prescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) are corporations that are required to be established by native title holders following a determination under the Native Title Act 1993 to manage and protect their native title rights and interests. A PBC may be an existing corporation or a newly established body. When a PBC is officially registered, it becomes a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC), but most often the term PBC continues to be used to describe the body.[114]

4.70PBCs have a range of statutory and non-statutory functions as part of their role in managing Traditional Owners’ native title rights and interests. In particular, PBCs are required under the Native Title Act 1993 to consult with and obtain consent from Traditional Owners regarding any decisions that surrender or affect native title rights and interests. A PBC is therefore the first point of contact for government and other parties wishing to undertake activities on native title land. Matters that PBCs are required to deal with include:

• proposals for work that will affect native title (future acts)
• Indigenous land usage agreements negotiated between governments, companies and the PBC
• consultations with native title holders, and documenting evidence of consultations and consent
• exercising, negotiating, implementing and monitoring native title agreements
• consulting with and considering the views of relevant native title representative bodies and native title service providers
• considering compensation matters, and bringing native title compensation applications in the Federal Court
• bringing future native title application cases in the Federal Court.[115]
  71. PBCs have additional obligations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act) 2006 and may hold money in trust for native title holders. PBCs may also need to deal with matters under other state, territory or Commonwealth legislation regarding land and water management; tenure issues; biodiversity and environmental protection; cultural heritage; and land use planning.[116] If they have capacity, individual PBCs may voluntarily engage in other activities, such as cultural projects, economic development, training and employment activities for the benefit of their communities.[117]

Resource constraints

4.72The Law Council of Australia described the regulatory framework for native title holders as ‘complicated and difficult to navigate’.[118] It reported that native title applicants rely on advice from legal practitioners for establishing and maintaining PBCs,[119] but there is a ‘significant gap…between the resources available to PBCs and RNTBCs and the perpetual mandatory regulatory costs they face’.[120] The Law Council suggested that either reform to the way PBCs are funded or reform to the regulatory burden on PBCs is required to improve their financial sustainability:

As a threshold issue, PBCs must be enabled to develop the capabilities and capacity to effectively and efficiently deal with their native title, heritage and cultural obligations, and be in a position to then pursue expanded aspirational goals. This will include resourcing the skills and capacity training (such as project management and business development skills) necessary for activating native title assets. Smaller PBCs and those in more remote locations may require greater support to meet the challenges posed by factors such as size and geographical isolation.

4.73The National Native Title Council similarly highlighted the potential role of PBCs and other Traditional Owner Representative Institutions (TORIs) to ‘act as a driver of self-determination’,[149] and considered that this potential role has been ‘thwarted’ by short sighted government policies.[150] It described PBCs as being caught in a ‘federation black hole’ with respect to funding:

The state governments have not funded them because they are created by Commonwealth statute. The Commonwealth sees them as part of the state-led “land management” processes. As a result, the only PBC dedicated funding program is the Commonwealth’s Basic Support Funding of a $80,000 grant. Beyond this, PBCs can try some level of cost recovery from proponents under the PBC Fees Regulations (if there are relevant ‘future acts’ on their Country). The fees that a PBC can charge under this structure are designed to ensure that a PBC will never make money through future act fees under the Regulations. This design criteria is said to arise from the constitutional limitations of ensuring that the fees imposed by PBCs cannot be characterised as tax.[151]

4.74The South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Networktold the Committee about the range of economic opportunities that exist on native title estates, including of short-term opportunities such as nature repair, pest control, cultural burning, and land and community works; as well as long-term opportunities such as agriculture, aquaculture and renewables.[121] However, it argued that PBCs currently lack the time, skills, knowledge and funds required to pursue those opportunities in a self-determined way:

Currently, if a PBC is involved in a project on their Native Land Estate, it is because they were engaged by another entity (commercial or Government). In these situations, PBCs are restricted to being reactive in a predetermined context. …PBCs could be supported to pursue their own opportunities by having access to the skills and knowledge to identify, assess and create their own projects on Country. This is the only way economic development on Country can be truly self-determined.[122]

4.75The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute told the Committee that the administrative burdens placed on First Nations organisations are often higher than for non-Indigenous organisations due to their lack of reliable long-term funding. The Institute reported that, of 3,041 organisations registered with the Office of Indigenous Corporations, 72 per cent have a consolidated operating income of less than $100,000. The Institute considered that the time and energy these organisations spend on dealing with administrative tasks are a barrier to their success, and their limited resources meant were less likely to have capacity to invest in governance development.[123]

4.76Other organisations similarly called for reforms to the funding of PBCs. The KLC reported that more than half of the 31PBCs in the Kimberley are ‘completely unstaffed and rely on volunteer work from members and directors and support from the KLC to function’.[124] It argued that PBCs ‘have not been set up to prosper’, with the majority receiving only basic support funding from the Australian Government, averaging around $70,000per year, which cannot be used for economic development or employing part- or full-time staff.[125]

4.77The KLC submitted that investing in PBCs ‘makes sense’, as there is ‘significant opportunity for Aboriginal people to utilise PBCs as vehicles for economic development’. However, it argued that the current lack of ‘secure and adequate funding’ for PBCs is ‘severely hampering their ability to build capacity and participate in economic development’.[126]

4.78At a public hearing, the National Native Title Council’s Chief Executive Officer, MrJamie Lowe, added that PBCs are:

…struggling just to meet their cultural and statutory obligations under the 35pieces of legislation sitting with the Commonwealth, let alone with the states. Their ability to then go to that next step and really mature as a regional authority that could represent their people but also access business opportunities on country—we’ve got 30 or 40 great examples, but then we’ve got 200examples where that’s not the case. So, we’re imploring the Commonwealth to inject resourcing just to fulfil the statutory obligations, let alone to create jobs for the mob.

4.79Ms Karrina Nolan, Co-Chair of the First Nations Clean Energy Network, likewise told the Committee that PBCs, land councils and other Traditional Owner groups are ‘sorely lacking capacity and resourcing’, leaving them ill equipped to respond to the various project proposals put forward by proponents.[127]

4.80The Minerals Council of Australia submitted that the fact that compensation given to Traditional Owners under Native Title Agreements is considered ‘non-assessable non-exempt income’ for tax purposes can inhibit their ability to access finance:

Lenders generally prefer stable and regular income that can be verified and used to assess ability to repay. The non-assessable non-exempt income [Native Title Agreement] payments create difficulties for Traditional Custodians to obtain commercial financing options that are necessary to finance longer term projects, such as mining and associated processing facilities, that have intergenerational benefits.[128]

Examples of success

4.81The National Native Title Council highlighted the Victorian model of funding for Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) as a success story. RAPs are appointed under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) and include the four Victorian PBCs and sevenother groups that collectively exercise statutory cultural heritage responsibility for 75per cent of Victoria’s land area.[129] In 2012, a parliamentary committee recommended that the Victorian Government review the level of assistance provided to RAPs to ‘reflect the principle that [RAPs] undertake the management and protection of Aboriginal heritage on behalf of all Victorians’.[130] In response, the Victorian Government implemented base funding of $0.5 million for each RAP, enabling them to grow revenue through enterprise activities and rapidly improve employment outcomes.[131] The National Native Title Council concluded:

The example of Victorian RAPs illustrates that the TORI sector when appropriately supported by government policy and even modest funding can grow, become self-sustaining, generate employment, and serve as a powerful vehicle for First Nations economic self-determination.[132]

4.82The Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation (DJAARA) is a representative body for the Dja Dja Wurrung People of Central Victoria. DJARRA is a RAP and in 2013 signed a Recognition and Settlement Agreement with the State of Victoria under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic)[133]. The Recognition and Settlement Agreement formally recognises the Dja Dja Wurrung People’s right to maintain their ‘spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and its resources’.[134] The agreement does not provide the Dja Dja Wurrung People with commercial hunting, fishing or forestry rights, but does allow for some limited collection of forest products for commercial purposes, subject to environmental legislation and other terms and conditions.[135]

4.83One of DJAARA’s strategic objectives is to grow its asset base and ‘use it wisely and sustainably to generate economic benefit for Dja Dja Wurrung People’. Since the agreement was signed, DJAARA has established threeDja Dja Wurrung enterprises:

• DJANDAK: engaged in state and local government projects and delivering services in natural resource management, landscaping and cultural services
• DUMAWUL: focusing on cultural tourism, cultural education and creative arts
• DJAKITJ: a food and fibre enterprise. See Box 4.2 for more details.

4.84Mr Rodney Carter, Group Chief Executive Officer of DJAARA, described the group’s corporate structure as a ‘unique success story’ that was resulting in significant improvements to economic outcomes:

Looking at healing country, we’ve inadvertently found that we’ve healed people, and we’re a significant contributor to local, regional and now the state’s economy. Ten years ago, when I started as the CEO, we had six employees, our annual budget was $600,000 and we had one subsidiary entity. Last year we traded at $28million, we have over 200 employees, and we are a significant partner and contributor to multimillion dollar projects.[137]

4.85Mr Troy McDonald, Chair and Director of the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, noted similar success had been replicated in other Traditional Owner corporations in Victoria.[138] The Gunaikurnai people had native title recognised and entered a Recognition and Settlement Agreement with the State of Victoria in2010.[139] Since then, the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation has grown to employ around 100 people, 75 to 80 per cent of whom are Aboriginal staff.[140] Mr McDonald highlighted the ‘multiplier effect’ that this success has had on the regional economy:

So here’s the multiplying factor: of that 75 per cent of our staff—and let’s say it’s 75people—each one is caring for an elder and for kids, are now buying a house, are paying their taxes and are contributing in their local economies. They’re getting their kids to school and the getting their kids educated. It’s a major capability uplift there. What would be happening if we didn’t have native title or Traditional Owner settlement in Victoria? Where would those 75 people be? …in a lot of cases these people never had jobs before.[141]

4.86Dr Matthew Storey, Legal Representative for the National Native Title Council, similarly held up the Victorian experience as an example to demonstrates how the broader economy benefits when Traditional Owner organisations are sufficiently funded:

What you’re seeing is that, once you build the capacity of those organisations to effectively discharge their statutory functions, they also start adopting additional economic functions. The benefits of that economic growth are located in the region where the PBC or whatever Traditional Owner organisation exists. That way, very effectively, you can both target regional and remote unemployment and deliver a human rights agenda by ensuring economic self-determination and a broader implementation of FPIC and a range of other measures in the [United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples].[142]

4.87The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute highlighted the Yawuru Corporate Group, associated with the Yawuru PBC, as an example of a First Nations-led organisation that is successfully advancing the economic development—and social and cultural wellbeing—of its people (see Box 4.3).

Mechanisms to build capacity

4.88Many submissions called for funding for PBCs and other TORIs to be increased.[150]

4.89The National Native Title Council and the KLC both endorsed previous recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia for an independent fund to be established, using revenue from all Australian governments and proponents negotiating with PBCs, to provide increased funding to PBCs.[151] The Australian Government agreed to the recommendation ‘in principle’, and noted that ‘numerous reports’ from native title and industry groups had made similar recommendations over the past decade, but has not yet established such a fund.[152] The Australian Government’s response stated:

The proposed independent fund would consider how government funding could supplement the user pays system to ensure that those PBCs requiring additional corporate and operational support receive it. The Australian Government will further consider how proponents and industry can provide additional contributions to PBCs for negotiation and agreement making on their lands. We will work with business, industry and PBCs to further explore what these options may be.

PBCs operate in areas where there have been native title determinations. It will also be important to consider arrangements where other land tenure arrangements are in place, or where there are sites of cultural importance in locations without native title recognised or statutory land rights resolved.[153]

4.90Mr Reece O’Brien, representing the FVTOC, described the Victoria’s Self-Determination Fund as a ‘financial bedrock’ that Traditional Owners could ‘tap into’ to support economic development’.[154] Mr Reuben Berg, Co-Chair of the First People’s Assembly of Victoria noted that the Self-Determination Fund is managed through a trust, is overseen by Victoria’s First Peoples, and contains multiple ‘firewalls’ to ensure probity and strong governance.[155] He added that although the Self-Determination Fund was initially established using funds from the Victorian Government, it is ‘open’ to funds from other sources, including the Australian Government and philanthropic donations.[156] Mr Berg considered that there is no need for duplication via multiple other funds.[157]

4.91Bishop Tolowa Nona, in a submission on behalf of Tagai Kemer Kemer Zugubal (TKKZ), made a particularly emotive plea to the Committee about the need for long-term strategic funding for Torres Strait communities:

Our Knowledge-Keepers are dying. Our communities do not receive the funding and support they are entitled to, we see a stark difference in the support offered to Torres Strait Islanders who do not live on the mainland. We will continue this work until we are able to achieve the closing the gap targets and until we see our People flourish. We remain determined to secure strategic funding and given the lives of our Community are at stake, we cannot settle for program funding which can be removed or discontinued with a change in government on the mainland.[158]

4.92TKKZ has proposed that the Australian Government funding be used to finance the ‘establishment and further development of TKKZ into a professionally managed, well-resourced and adequately equipped Indigenous community-controlled NGO’.[159]

4.93The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute recommended a ‘concerted effort to fund Indigenous-led organisations’, with particular emphasis on strengthening organisational governance.[160] Professor Yu stated there is a need to invest in governance capability to enable PBCs to negotiate with third party interests.[161] The ILSC supported this approach in terms of developing the capability to deal with proponents and attract investments.[162] Professor Yu also suggested the implementation of a ‘hub-and-spoke’ approach with a central agency providing support services to PCBs.[163]

4.94In contrast to other submitters, the NTIBN argued strongly against the ‘preferencing’ of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) over private sector businesses, claiming that funding of the ACCO sector over the past 60 years has not led to significant longer-term improvements to Indigenous outcomes. It argued that a ‘true economic revolution on Country will come from the private sector’.[164] It also warned that while putting money into the ACCO sector is good, it also creates economic monopolies on Country, which reduces competitive pricing and raises prices.[165]

Committee comment

Enhancing access to finance and capital

4.95Access to finance and capital is one of the most significant barriers to economic self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As a result of the colonial experience, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are simply unable to leverage assets and accrue intergenerational wealth to the same extent as other Australians, including access to the transformative potential of philanthropic capital. These problems are exacerbated by lower levels of employment and home ownership, the so called ‘trust deficit’, and inflexible mainstream lending criteria.

4.96Mainstream lenders, investors, and philanthropic foundations need to improve the accessibility of financial services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, alternatives to mainstream finance options will also be needed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and organisations who wish to grow their businesses.

4.97The Committee acknowledges the important roles that IBA and the ILSC play. IBA provides an essential service in helping First Nations peoples into home ownership and addressing gaps in the provision of financial products and services that are not being met by mainstream commercial lenders. The ILSC helps Traditional Owner organisations acquire freehold land and water rights that can then be used as a basis for further economic activity.

4.98The Committee was concerned to hear that the funding models for IBA and ILSC are facing challenges, limiting their ability to keep up with current or future demand. The Australian Government should continue to work with both organisations to address these challenges, including through further injection of funds.

4.99The Committee also encourages the Australian Government to work with FirstNations peoples and stakeholders in the finance sector to strengthen existing, and develop new, instruments to enhance and fast track Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ access to finance, capital, and philanthropic investment. A range of options including community-led finance, social impact bonds, blended finance approaches, and philanthropic entity to remove investment barriers should be explored. The Australian Government, in cooperation with First Nations peoples, should also consider impediments to responsible lending and capital flow by mainstream banks, financial institutions, and philanthropic foundations.

4.100The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen existing, and develop new, instruments to enhance and fast track Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ access to finance and capital.

4.101The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider impediments to responsible lending and capital flow from mainstream banks and financial institutions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Activating and leveraging the Indigenous Estate

4.102The Indigenous Estate consists of lands and waters under the care and control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities through ownership, management or rights of use for customary purposes. As of 2024, First Nations peoples have legally recognised rights or interests over 50 per cent of Australia’s landmass, with this number predicted to increase to 65 per cent by 2030. Such a vast terrestrial estate should present First Nations peoples with significant economic opportunities.

4.103However, in many cases, successful determinations under the Native Title Act 1993 and claims under other land rights regimes have not translated to improved economic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Committee heard that First Nations peoples continue to face barriers in leveraging the inherent value of the lands and seas over which they have rights. The reasons for this are complex and varied, but they include specific restrictions in the Native Title Act 1993, the inability to use land as collateral for finance, complex interactions between the NativeTitle Act 1993 and other legal regimes, and a lack of resourcing for the PBCs and other representative bodies.

4.104While the Committee recognises that native title alone does not equate to full ownership of land, the Committee acknowledges that a full review of the Native Title Act 1993 may deliver improvements for leveraging economic opportunities.

4.105The Committee notes that the ALRC’s current review the future acts regime under the Native Title Act 1993. The Committee recommendations that, on completion of the Australian Law Reform Commission Future Acts Regime Review, the Australia Government should consider whether a full review of the Native Title Act 1993 is required.

4.106It will be important for any reforms to continue to protect underlying native title rights and interests. However, this should not preclude First Nations communities from benefiting from the lands and seas over which they have rights. Innovative approaches to leveraging the Indigenous Estate that do not carry the risk of extinguishing native title, such as long-term leases or ‘Indigenous free hold title’, should be explored.

4.107The Committee recommends that, on completion of the Australian Law Reform Commission Future Acts Regime Review, the Australia Government should consider whether a full review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is required.

Strengthening PBC resourcing and support for Traditional Owner groups

4.108PBCs established under the Native Title Act 1993, and other TORIs, have important roles to play in enabling economic self-determination on the Indigenous Estate. The Committee was encouraged to hear about various PBCs and other representative bodies that have made use of modest initial investments of funds to not only protect their native title interests, but to establish business enterprises on Country that improve the social and economic wellbeing of their peoples. While business engaged in by First Nations representative bodies should not come at the expense of private businesses established by First Nations peoples, these examples demonstrate the significant potential for representative bodies to generate new employment opportunities, particularly on Country and in remote areas.

4.109Unfortunately, these examples are a minority. The Committee heard from a broad range of submitters about the persistent underfunding of PBCs and other TORIs. The Committee understands that most PBCs receive only a small amount of basic support funding from the Commonwealth, in the order of $50,000–$80,000 annually.[166] This funding is unlikely to be sufficient to enable PBCs to meet their basic statutory obligations, let alone to facilitate the sound governance structures and capabilities needed to drive economic opportunities, or the capacity to negotiate on an equal footing with third party development proponents.

4.110The Committee notes that this is not the first inquiry to hear about the chronic under resourcing of PBCs and Traditional Owner groups. The Committee therefore encourages the Australian Government to ensure resourcing for PBCs is sufficient to enable delivery of its full legislative potential. Similar support for other TORIs that hold rights or interests in lands, outside the Native Title Act 1993, including Traditional Owner groups that are recognised under state and territory legal frameworks, should also be considered.

4.111While this Committee has not taken detailed evidence on a precise funding model that should be used, it was clear that additional support is necessary if better economic outcomes are to be achieved. The Committee considers that all PBCs should be funded at a level that will enable them to meet their statutory obligations, enhance their governance structures, and build their capacity to pursue economic opportunities—including but not limited to negotiating with proponents—for the benefit of their peoples and the broader Australian community.

4.112The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure resourcing for Prescribed Body Corporates in the Native Title Act 1993 is sufficient to enable delivery of its full legislative potential.

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Submission 9, page 5–6; Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research (Jumbunna), Submission 25, p. 9; First Australians Capital, Submission 56, p. 5; National Native Title Council, Submission 62, pages 4–5; MrPhilUsher, ChiefExecutive Officer, First Nations Foundation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July2024, p.2.

[2]Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 30.

[3]Mr Lachlan McDaniel, Associate Dean (Research), Jumbunna, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23July 2024, pages 35–36.

[4]Mr McDaniel, Jumbunna, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23July 2024, p. 36.

[5]DAFF, Submission 9, p. 5; DISR, Submission 69, p. 5, Charles Darwin University, Submission 58, p. 7; Screen Australia, Submission 12, p. 3, Queensland Government, Submission 97, p. 32, New South Wales Government, Submission 95, p. 16, Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Submission 80, p. 5; Mr Jamie Lowe, Chief Executive Officer, National Native Tile Council, Committee Hansard, 19 July 2024, p. 50.

[6]Professor Peter Yu, Vice-President, Australian National University (ANU) First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 2.

[7]Professor Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 3.

[8]Professor Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 3.

[9]Dilin Duwa Centre for Indigenous Business Leadership, Submission 8, pages 4–5.

[10]First Nations Foundation, Submission 6, p. 5.

[11]First Nations Foundation, Submission 6, p. 10.

[12]Ms Naomi Anstess, Chief Executive Officer, Northern Territory Business Network (NTIBN), Committee Hansard, 30 September 2024, Canberra, p. 18.

[13]Ms Anstess, NTIBN, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2024, Canberra, pages23–24.

[14]Ms Anstess, NTIBN, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2024, Canberra, p.22.

[15]Ms Anstess, NTIBN, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2024, Canberra, p.25.

[16]Ms Anstess, NTIBN, Committee Hansard, 30 September 2024, Canberra, p.21.

[17]Supply Nation, Submission 10, pages 3–4.

[18]Ms Shannon Mallison, Acting Director, Yarpa, Committee Hansard, 9 July 2024, p. 9.

[19]Jumbunna, Submission 25, p 9.

[20]First Australians Capital, Submission 56, p. 4.

[21]First Australians Capital, Submission 56, p. 5.

[22]First Australians Capital, Submission 56, pages 5-6.

[23]First Australians Capital, Submission 56, pages 9-10.

[24]Ms Jocelyn King, Executive Director, First Australians Capital, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 July 2024, p.14.

[25]Australian Sustainable Finance Institute (ASFI), Submission 15, pages 2 and 7.

[26]ASFI, Submission 15, pages 7–8.

[27]ASFI, Submission 15, pages 7–8.

[28]ASFI, Submission 15, p. 8.

[29]ASFI, Submission 15, p. 8.

[30]ASFI, Submission 15, p. 9.

[31]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 82, p. 18.

[32]IBA, Submission 34, p. 2.

[33]Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD) Australia, Submission 17, p. [6].

[34]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, pages 13–14.

[35]National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and The Treasury, Submission 64, pages [3–4].

[36]Australian Banking Association (ABA), Submission 32, p. 5.

[37]First Australians Capital, Submission 56, p. 6.

[38]Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTAR), Submission 92, p. 5.

[39]Ms Mallison, Yarpa, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 July 2024, pages 11–12.

[40]ABA, Submission 32, p. 5.

[41]ABA, Submission 32, p. 5.

[42]ABA, Submission 32, p. 6.

[43]Land Back Foundation, Submission 11, p. 2.

[44]Land Back Foundation, Submission 11, p. 2.

[45]Land Back Foundation, Submission 11, p. 3.

[46]Aboriginal Housing Victoria, Submission 76, p. 1.

[47]Aboriginal Housing Victoria, Submission 76, p. 2.

[48]Aboriginal Housing Victoria, Submission 76, pages 1–2.

[49]Ms Patricia Turner, Lead Convener, Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of Peaks), Committee Hansard, 24September 2024, Canberra, pages.18–19.

[50]IBA, Submission 34, p. 3.

[51]IBA, Submission 34, p. 3.

[52]IBA, Submission 34, p. 11.

[53]IBA, Submission 34, p. 11.

[54]IBA, Submission 34, p. 3.

[55]IBA, Submission 34, p. 3.

[56]IBA, Submission 34, p. 4.

[57]IBA, Submission 34, p. 4.

[58]IBA, Submission 34, p. 4, citing Australian Government, Budget 2024–25, Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2, 14 May 2024, p. 65.

[59]IBA, Supplementary Submission 34.1, p. 5.

[60]Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC), Submission 53, p. 1.

[61]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 2.

[62]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 4.

[63]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, p. 10.

[64]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 4.

[65]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 4.

[66]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, pages 10–11.

[67]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, p. 11.

[68]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, p. 11.

[69]The Law Council also made recommendations for similar reforms and an injection of funds in relation to the Aboriginal Benefits Account, which manages royalties from mining on Indigenous land in the Northern Territory.

[70]Coalition of Peaks, Submission 67, p. 2; Ms Turner, Coalition of Peaks, Committee Hansard, 24September2024, Canberra, p. 20.

[71]ILSC 2021, Unlocking the Indigenous Estate: Corporate Plan 2021–22: Strategy to 2025, p. 11.

[72]See ILSC, Unlocking the Indigenous Estate: Corporate Plan 2021–22: Strategy to 2025, p. 11; IBA,Submission 34, p. 12; Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) 2023, Australia’s forests and forestry glossary, DAFF, p. 20.

[73]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 2.

[74]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 2.

[75]IBA, Submission 34, p. 12, citing ABARES 2020, Australia's Indigenous land and forest estate, https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/forest-data-maps-and-tools/spatial-data/indigenous-land-and-forest#australias-indigenous-forest-estate-2020, viewed 8 August 2024.

[76]The IBA submission notes that these areas of land are not mutually exclusive and there is substantial overlap.

[77]Department of Industry, Science and Research (DISR), Submission 69, p. 10.

[78]National Agreement on Closing the Gap, targets 15a and 15b, cited by South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network (SAACCON), Submission 93, pages 1–2.

[79]Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations (FVTOC), Submission 40, p. 3.

[80]Mr Paul Paton, Chief Executive Officer, FVTOC, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 20.

[81]Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRCNA), Submission 98, p. 2.

[82]DAFF, Submission 9, pages 2 and 7.

[83]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 5.

[84]DISR, Submission 69, p. 7.

[85]For example, DAFF, Submission 9, p. 6; Land Back Foundation, Submission 11, pages 3–4; IBA,Submission34, p. 12; Mr Tyson McEwan, Submission51, p.2; ILSC, Submission 53, p. 4; FirstAustralians Capital, Submission 56, p. 9; Kimberley Land Council (KLC), Submission 83, p.5; ANTAR, Submission 92, pages 5–6,18–19. Mr Matt Lowe, Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Policy Group, DAFF, Committee Hansard, 28June 2024, Canberra, p.40.

[86]ANTAR, Submission 92, p. 5.

[87]ANTAR, Submission 92, pages 5–6.

[88]KLC, Submission 83, p. 5.

[89]KLC, Submission 83, p. 5.

[90]KLC, Submission 83, p. 5.

[91]KLC, Submission 83, p. 9.

[92]KLC, Submission 83, p. 9.

[93]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 5.

[94]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 4.

[95]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 5.

[96]ILSC, Submission 53, p. 5.

[97]Professor Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 6.

[98]Professor Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 6.

[99]Mr Joseph (Joe) Morrison, Group Chief Executive Officer, ILSC, Committee Hansard, 30September 2024, Canberra, p. 11.

[100]Mr Paton, FVTOC, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 21.

[101]DAFF, Submission 9, pages 7–8.

[102]Attorney-General’s Department n.d., ‘Future acts regime’, https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/native-title/future-acts-regime, accessed 26 August 2024.

[103]See Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 2024, A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge.

[104]Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) 2024, ‘Terms of Reference’, https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-of-the-future-acts-regime/terms-of-reference/, accessed 26 August 2024.

[105]ARLC 2024, ‘Terms of Reference’, https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-of-the-future-acts-regime/terms-of-reference/, accessed 26 August 2024.

[106]ABA, Submission 32, p. 5; New South Wales Government, Submission 95, p. 11.

[107]New South Wales Government, Submission 95, p. 11.

[108]ANTAR, Submission 92, p. 6.

[109]ANTAR, Submission 92, p. 6.

[110]ANTAR, Submission 92, p. 6.

[111]Roughly 50% of the NT and roughly 85% of the NT coastline has been granted as inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (NT); see Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) 2016, Native Title Information Handbook: Northern Territory, https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/native_title_information_handbook_2016_nt_2.pdf.

[112]Mr James Morgan, Submission 72, p. [2].

[113]Mr James Morgan, Submission 72, p. [2].

[114]AIATSIS n.d., ‘PBC: About PBCs’, https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/role-and-function-pbc/about-pbcs, accessed 18 September 2024.

[115]AIATSIS n.d., ‘PBC: About PBCs’, https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/role-and-function-pbc/about-pbcs, accessed 18 September 2024.

[116]AIATSIS n.d., ‘PBC: About PBCs’, https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/role-and-function-pbc/about-pbcs, accessed 18 September 2024.

[117]AIATSIS n.d., ‘PBC: About PBCs’, https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/role-and-function-pbc/about-pbcs, accessed 18 September 2024.

[118]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, p. 11.

[119]Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs) are bodies established by native title holders to manage and protect their native title rights and interests after a native title determination. A PBC becomes a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) once it is officially registered with the National Native Title Tribunal. However, the term PBC most often continues to be used post-registration and is used interchangeably with RNTBC in this report.

[120]Law Council of Australia, Submission 96, pages 11–12.

[149]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 1.

[150]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 8.

[151]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 9.

[121]SAACCON, Submission 93, p.14.

[122]SAACCON, Submission 93, p.13.

[123]Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Submission 19, p. 2.

[124]KLC, Submission 83, p. 6.

[125]KLC, Submission 83, p. 7.

[126]KLC, Submission 83, p. 6.

[127]Ms Karrina Nolan, Co-Chair, First Nations Clean Energy Network, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July2024, p. 42.

[128]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 4.

[129]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 10.

[130]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, pages 10–11, citing Parliament of Victoria, Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Inquiry into the Establishment and Effectiveness of Registered Aboriginal Parties, November 2012, p. 114.

[131]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, pages 10–12.

[132]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 12.

[133]The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) provides an alternative process to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by providing or an out-of-court settlement of native title and delivery of land justice (see https://www.forestsandreserves.vic.gov.au/land-management/what-we-do/the-traditional-owner-settlement-act-2010).

[134]Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Submission 80, pages 1–2.

[135]See State Government of Victoria, First Peoples – State Relations, ‘Dja Dja Wurrung Recognition and Settlement Agreement’, https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/dja-dja-wurrung-recognition-and-settlement-agreement, accessed 15 August 2024; Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation and The State of Victoria, Recognition and Settlement Agreement under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic), 28 March 2013, Vol 1, pages 91–92.

[136]Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Submission 80, p. 3

[137]Mr Rodney Carter, Group Chief Executive Officer, Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 25.

[138]Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 34.

[139]Mr Troy McDonald, Chair and Director, Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 34; Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, ‘Recognition Settlement Agreement’, https://gunaikurnai.org/our-community/know-your-rights/recognition-settlement-agreement/, accessed19 August 2024.

[140]Mr McDonald, Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July 2024, p. 34.

[141]Mr McDonald, Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July 2024, p. 34.

[142]Dr Matthew Storey, Legal Representative for the National Native Title Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 50.

[143]Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Submission 19, p. 4.

[144]Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Submission 19, p. 4, quoting Professor Peter Yu, ‘Rebuilding the Yawuru Nation: Activating Cultural Assets for Economic Growth and Stability’ in D. E. Smith et al (eds), Developing Governance and Governing Development: International Case Studies of Indigenous Futures, Indigenous Nations and Collaborative Futures (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), p. 234.

[145]ANU n.d., ‘Professor Peter Yu’, https://www.anu.edu.au/about/university-executive/professor-peter-yu, accessed 19 September 2024.

[146]Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Submission 19, p. 4, quoting Professor Peter Yu, ‘Rebuilding the Yawuru Nation: Activating Cultural Assets for Economic Growth and Stability’ in D. E. Smith et al (eds), Developing Governance and Governing Development: International Case Studies of Indigenous Futures, Indigenous Nations and Collaborative Futures (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), p. 234.

[147]Nyamba Buru Yawuru 2020, ‘Governance’, https://www.yawuru.org.au/about/governance/, accessed 19September 2024).

[148]Reconciliation Australia, ‘Indigenous Governance Awards 2018’, https://www.reconciliation.org.au/our-work/indigenous-governance/indigenous-governance-awards/indigenous-governance-awards-2018/ (viewed 19 September 2024).

[149]Reconciliation Australia 2018, ‘Indigenous Governance Awards 2018’, https://www.reconciliation.org.au/our-work/indigenous-governance/indigenous-governance-awards/indigenous-governance-awards-2018/, accessed 19September 2024.

[150]Ms Turner, Coalition of Peaks, CommitteeHansard, 24 September 2024, Canberra, pages 20–21; MrJamesMorgan, Submission 72, p. 2; KLC, Submission 83, p. 6; ANTAR, Submission 92, pages 5 and 10; SAACCON, Submission 93, p. 3; CRCNA, Submission 98, p. 7.

[151]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, pages 9–10; KLC, Submission 83, p. 7, citing Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 2021, A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge, (Recommendation 7); Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 2022, The engagement of traditional owners in the economic development of northern Australia, (Recommendation1).

[152]National Native Title Council, Submission 62, p. 10.

[153]Australian Government 2022, Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia’s: A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge (2021) and Never Again: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia: Interim Report (2022), p. 11.

[154]Mr Reece O’Brien, Principal Advisor, Economic Development, FVTOC, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July 2024, p. 22.

[155]Mr Reuben Berg, Co-Chair, First People’s Assembly of Victoria, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19July2024, p. 31.

[156]Mr Berg, First People’s Assembly of Victoria, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 32.

[157]Mr Berg, First People’s Assembly of Victoria, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 19 July 2024, p. 32.

[158]Tagai Kemer Kemer Zugubal (TKKZ), Submission 89, p. 1.

[159]TKKZ, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. 46.

[160]Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Submission 19, p. 8.

[161]Professor Peter Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 3.

[162]Mr Morrison, ILSC, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 12.

[163]Professor Peter Yu, ANU First Nations Portfolio, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 September 2024, p. 9.

[164]NTIBN, Submission 63, p. 10.

[165]Ms Anstess, NTIBN, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30September 2024, pages 18–19.

[166]NIAA n.d., ‘Capacity building for native title corporations’, https://www.niaa.gov.au/our-work/environment-and-land/capacity-building-native-title-corporations, accessed 8 October 2024.