Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Indigenous Law Reporter

Editors --- "Review of Native Title Representative Bodies - Digest" [1996] AUIndigLawRpr 53; (1996) 1(2) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 303

Review of Native Title Representative Bodies

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

Canberra: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, August 1995

The Board of Commissioners of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission decided in November 1994 to undertake a consolidation review of the effectiveness of Representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander Bodies under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Representative Bodies are the organisations empowered by statute to represent indigenous claimants and native title holders (s. 202 of the Native Title Act).

The "Vision Statement" and "Review Recommendations" sections of the report are reproduced below.

It is beyond doubt that the High Court decision in Mabo v Queensland No. 2 and the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 have fundamentally changed the nature of relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Australian governments as well as the assumptions upon which Australian property law had proceeded for more than two centuries. Those changes have been criticised and resisted by some sections of the Australian community, but native title is no longer an `issue' so much as a fact of life.

The Native Title Act 1993 provides a mechanism for the assertion of interests in traditional lands in a way which has not been possible for many indigenous Australians until now. Although the full benefit of the Act will probably not be felt for some years, there is already evidence of a momentum toward the recognition of indigenous interests in areas where progress has historically been slow and grudging.

There are three domains in which the momentum toward change is most clearly evidenced:

* the lodgement of claims by indigenous claimants to lands where native title may not have been extinguished;

* the exercise by native title parties (including claimants) of a statutory right to negotiate with developers and governments; and

* associated with this, some tentative moves toward `regional agreements'.

We believe that indigenous people and their representative organisations have been more proactive and more positive in their approach to the Act than some developers and, perhaps more obviously, some State Governments.

Nearly two years after its enactment, implementation of the Native Title Act 1993 is at a critical stage. There are several areas of the law relating to native title which remain to be clarified by the courts; mediation is proving to be a more protracted process than was originally anticipated. It has also become apparent that Native Title Representative Bodies have a pivotal role in the operation of the Act, which was perhaps not anticipated or fully appreciated during the debate on, and drafting of, the legislation.

Native Title Representative Bodies need to fulfil a number of indispensable functions on behalf of their constituents, including:

* the preparation and lodgement of claims for recognition of native title or for compensation with the National Native Title Tribunal;

* the carriage of native title litigation and appeals - at this stage, often in the nature of test cases - elsewhere within the court system;

* responding to non-claimant applications and future act notifications (particularly in Western Australia);

* educating and informing their indigenous constituents about the potential and limitations of native title;

* participating in the development of regional agreements;

* undertaking heritage and site clearance work on behalf of native title parties; and

* eventually, assisting potential prescribed bodies corporate in the performance of their functions under the Act.

At this stage, Native Title Representative Bodies are clearly the workhorses of the native title regime.

There was a clear intention in drafting the Native Title Act 1993 that indigenous native title parties should have maximum flexibility in the representation of their interests. Experience has already shown, however, that this equitable goal has costs in terms of reduced efficiency and in an unintended potential to fuel rather than ameliorate disputes among native title parties in a particular area. Past experience and our own research suggest strongly that the interests of native title parties will be best served by larger, professional Native Title Representative Bodies. In our view, there are strong arguments based on maximising economies of scope and scale for Native Title Representative Bodies to be responsible for larger rather than smaller geographical regions and to have exclusive representative powers within those regions.

Indigenous interests have historically been disadvantaged in their dealings with more powerful corporate and government players by lacking access to well-resourced, professional and stable representative institutions of their own. We argue that the provision of adequate resources and support to Native Title Representative Bodies is crucial to the sustained development of a just and credible native title regime.

Establishing that native title continues to exist, preparing a well-grounded case for compensation where native title has been extinguished and responding to an increasing number of overtures by non-indigenous interests wanting access to potential native title lands (among the other functions of Native Title Representative Bodies) are activities which require an intensive investment in securing skilled people. An otherwise sound process which breaks down because it lacks the resources for the efficient and equitable management of native title activity will ultimately serve no-one's interests, no matter how pure the intent of the legislation.

As compelling as arguments based on social justice, human rights and a `fair go' may be, we believe that there are several strong arguments based on economic good sense for ensuring that Native Title Representative Bodies are adequately resourced and function efficiently.

It is, for example, becoming increasingly apparent that for mediation under the Native Title Act 1993 to achieve its full potential, mediating parties must have access to high calibre representation. Similarly, it is unavoidable in an essentially legalistic framework that parties with professional advice and expertise at their disposal will manage the process of litigation more effectively than parties without ready access to such expertise. In this respect, the reduction in opportunity costs to intending developers is obvious. Moreover, we contend that the total costs to the Australian legal system (and therefore the nation) will be reduced significantly if Native Title Representative Bodies are resourced with high calibre professional staff to operate efficiently. The alternative, in our view, would involve the re-litigation in separate native title actions of issues considered by the courts in the Mabo case.

We argue, therefore, that a short- to medium-term investment by government in adequate operational and resource support for Native Title Representative Bodies would generate savings, real and imputed, to both public and private sectors which far outweigh the initial costs.

Resource developers in the mining and petroleum industries (and potentially in other industry sectors such as fisheries and tourism) have articulated concerns that the Native Title Act 1993 and the `right to negotiate' are already generating high transactions costs and creating an `uncertain' investment climate. Some of those purported concerns are undoubtedly instances of `strategic behaviour' and often tend to be based on perceptions rather than empirical evidence. There is no doubt that well-resourced and effective Native Title Representative Bodies have the potentiality to reduce transaction costs and to provide both governments and developers with the `certainty' that negotiations will take place with appropriate native title holders or claimants (particularly if Native Title Representative Bodies have exclusive representative powers in relation to such matters).

There are already indications that it is indigenous interests which have recognised the strategic potential contained in the right to negotiate private agreements: it is State governments and (to a lesser extent) developers who appear to be slow in reaching that conclusion. We can speculate why this is the case but, in at least some instances, it is clearly because those interests have still not accepted that native title and the Native Title Act 1993 are now irrevocably part of the Australian legal, social and political systems and are seeking to establish the `unworkability' of the native title regime. Although there are now a few encouraging signs from industry bodies of their preparedness to work within the current framework, it is still essential that Native Title Representative Bodies are also encouraged to maintain their enthusiasm to work within that framework.

We have concluded that the most equitable outcomes and the most effective and efficient processes will be achieved by ensuring that indigenous Australians have access to a national network of strong, properly resourced, professionally staffed Native Title Representative Bodies. Spurious or inexpertly prepared claims and poorly conducted negotiations and mediation serve no-one's interests, least of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians whose interest in country is most directly at issue.

Indigenous Australians should no longer be regarded as obstacles to development nor even as spectators or occasional beneficiaries of development: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are, by virtue of the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act 1993, key stakeholders in Australia's future. An investment now in Native Title Representative Bodies would not unfairly `advantage' indigenous Australians while `disadvantaging' non-indigenous Australians: native title is a fact of life for all of us and equitable, efficient processes will therefore serve all Australians well.

Chapter 2 - Roles and Responsibilities

The Review Committee recommends:

1. that explicit mandatory functions, including reporting requirements, should be established for NTRBs consistent with those identified in this report, through both ATSIC program guidelines and regulations under the NTA. These should include a requirement that NTRBs:

* establish policies and procedures for coordinating and prioritising the preparation of native title claims and responding to non-claimant and future act notifications;

* have an educative role in respect to the dissemination of information about native title;

* establish organisational structures that are broadly representative of indigenous native title interests in their jurisdictions;

* as part of their annual reporting requirements, produce corporate plans that detail their corporate objectives and organisational structures. These reports should also include guidelines applied in assessing the merits of competing claims (including briefing out where appropriate) and other policies and procedures relevant to their responsibilities under the NTA; and

* be accountable to their clients in a manner consistent with s. 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (see para. 2.70).

2. that the regional land needs assessment and acquisition activity of the Indigenous Land Corporation should be directly informed by the activity of NTRBs (see para. 2.71).

3. that the potential needs of Prescribed Bodies Corporate and their relationship with NTRBs should be considered at an early stage (see para. 2.72).

4. that NTRBs should assume the primary role in mediating conflicts that arise within the indigenous claimant community during the preparation, lodgement and mediation of a native title claim (see para. 2.73).

5. that the issue of appeal with respect to NTRB prioritisation of work should be given further consideration. This issue will remain problematic without the development of a statutory framework for NTRBs (see para. 2.74).

Chapter 3 - Operational Jurisdictions

The Review Committee recommends:

6 that NTRBs should be the appropriate first point of contact for indigenous groups seeking representation to have their native title rights determined and negotiated (see para. 3.68).

7. a large regional level of jurisdiction for NTRBs as being the most cost-effective; providing a sufficient population mass to generate organisational economies of scale; and most successfully facilitating a representative capacity. The regional basis for NTRB jurisdiction is to be, first and foremost, that geographic area described in the determination of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs when recognising the Organisation as a NTRB (see para. 3.69).

8. that the primary focus for NTRB representative jurisdiction should be the land within their determined border and the indigenous constituency with native title interests and rights in that land (irrespective of current residence location). A second area of representation arises in respect to those indigenous peoples resident within their determined area, but who have native title interests in land outside it. In these cases, NTRBs should restrict their representation to providing native title advice, referring constituents to the relevant NTRB and undertaking a watching brief of subsequent assistance. NTRBs are not to operate outside their determined geographic area, except under circumstances specified by `collaboration protocols' established with other NTRBs (see para. 3.70).

9. that each NTRB should have sole regional jurisdiction over its determined area in the role of representing indigenous Australians about native title matters. Sole representative jurisdictions for NTRBs should be accompanied by mandatory NTRB functions, well-developed representative structures and strict accountability requirements (see para. 3.79).

10. that NTRBs should formally negotiate through ATSIC and the Minister any changes required to their boundaries and that surrounding NTRBs should be consulted on requested changes. The Review Committee further recommends that ATSIC should follow up all boundary issues raised in NTRB submissions to the review (see para. 3.85).

11. that NTRBs should collaborate to establish and publicise protocols for dealing with any possible boundary disputes (see para. 3.87).

12. that there should be complete coverage of the continent by NTRBs to ensure that all potential native title interests are represented. The Review Committee recommends that there should be 24 NTRBs operating. Ultimately, to achieve complete coverage of Australia, up to 27 NTRBs may be required (see map of recommended NTRBs in Appendix 3.3, and para. 3.93).

13. that the Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and Tiwi Land Council should continue to operate as NTRBs under the NTA. For the purposes of native title funding the Tiwi Land Council should be funded on a needs basis for specific claim activities only, with the Northern Land Council providing specialist services on an inter-agency agreement basis (see para. 3.95).

14. that determined NTRBs for Western Australia should continue to be: the Kimberley Land Council, Western Desert Puntukurnuparna, Ngaanyatjarra Council and Goldfields Land Council. It is recommended that the Yamatji Land and Sea Council, the Noongar Land Council and an NTRB for the Pilbara region be determined (see para. 3.97).

15. that the Pilbara region should be covered by a newly-established NTRB. Ministerial determination should be predicated upon a well-developed corporate plan, an inclusive membership regime and an organisational structure and governing committee that is representative of all major land-interest groups in the region. The Review Committee recommends that the ATSIC Regional Council and Regional office should actively assist in advancing this matter. Consideration should be given for this NTRB to be centrally located in Roebourne (see para. 3.98).

16. that the native title role of the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia should be redefined as a result of the coverage of Western Australia by regionally-based NTRBs with sole jurisdiction. In the transition period the Legal Service's function should be confined to representing existing clients with all requests from potential clients for native title assistance being referred to the appropriate NTRB. The Legal Service's future role should be focused on providing centralised services, under contract, to NTRBs subject to protocols developed by them. It should also assume responsibility for the provision of secretariat support to the Western Australian Indigenous Working Group on Native Title (see para. 3.103).

17. that NTRBs for Queensland should be: Cape York Land Council; Carpentaria Land Council; North Queensland Land Council; Central Queensland Land Council; Gurang Land Council; Goolburri Land Council; Faira Aboriginal Corporation; and the Torres Strait Regional Authority (see para. 3.105).

18. that the Torres Strait Regional Authority should post staff in the Cairns and Townsville ATSIC Regional offices to service queries regarding the native title rights and interests of Torres Strait Islanders resident on the mainland (see para. 3.107).

19. that the south-west region of Queensland should remain undetermined until a widely representative body is developed which has broad support from regional indigenous constituents. Ministerial determination should be predicated upon a well-developed corporate plan, an inclusive membership regime, and an organisational structure and governing committee that is representative of all major Aboriginal land interest groups. The Review Committee recommends that the ATSIC Regional Council and Regional office should actively assist in advancing this matter. Until a NTRB is determined, indigenous residents with native title queries should approach the ATSIC Regional office in Mt Isa (see para. 3.109).

20. that the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council should continue to operate as the NTRB for New South Wales and for the Australian Capital Territory (see para. 3.112).

21. that the status quo should remain in Tasmania until a single representative body is developed for the entire State. Determination should be predicated upon such a body having a well-developed corporate plan, an inclusive membership regime, and an organisational structure and governing committee that is broadly representative of Aboriginal land interest groups throughout the State (see para. 3.114).

22. that ATSIC and its Regional Council should actively assist in progressing this matter. Until a NTRB is determined, indigenous residents with native title queries should approach the State ATSIC office (see para. 3.115).

23. that the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service's Mirimbiak Native Title Unit should continue to operate as the NTRB for Victoria and become separately incorporated, with a specific focus on native title functions and objectives and with the requirement to develop a widely representative organisational structure and membership regime (see para. 3.117).

24. that South Australia should continue to be serviced by the three determined NTRBs: the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, Maralinga Tjarutja and Anangu Pitjantjatjara. Maralinga Tjarutja is advised to contract its currently limited native title requirements from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (see para. 3.120).

25. that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement should develop a regional office in the north of the State. Its capacity to represent its indigenous constituents is currently spread thinly over the whole State outside the Pitjantjatjara and Maralinga lands (see para. 3.121).

Chapter 4 - Workloads and Resource Needs

The Review Committee recommends:

26. that NTRBs in collaboration with ATSIC should establish procedures for the regular collation of workload data which can be presented in annual reports. These data should be provided to ATSIC as a mandatory component of NTRB grant applications. Preliminary workload data should cover claim applications, responses to non-claimant and future act notifications, test cases, regional agreements, mediation and educational roles, and any other workload matters deemed pertinent by individual NTRBs to their particular jurisdictions. The Review Committee recommends NTRBs be given a lead time to commence this process over the remainder of 1995-96, with more detailed data provided to ATSIC at the end of the 1996-97 financial year (see para. 4.16).

27. that NTRBs should provide the most cost-effective and efficient mechanism for the professional coordination of the complex array of work required to prepare native title claims (see para. 4.24).

28. that NTRBs should maintain full management and financial control over the mediation of disagreements within claimant groups during claim preparation and post-lodgement. NTRBs should assume responsibility for coordinating the equitable representation of conflicting claimant groups (including briefing out, when necessary, to separate legal and research advice) (see para. 4.29).

29. that NTRBs should begin collating data documenting the workload resulting from the NNTT mediation phase. These data should begin to be submitted to ATSIC at the end of 1995-96, with more detailed data, based on greater experience of the process, to be presented at the end of 1996-97. The Review Committee further recommends that ATSIC should collaborate with NTRBs and the NNTT to comprehensively assess NTRB mediation costs with a view to imposing a reasonable time-limit on the process and on costs (see para. 4.37).

30. that the NNTT should widely publicise to NTRBs the areas of assistance it provides, especially in regard to land-tenure history searches. The Review Committee further recommends that the Commonwealth should facilitate collaborative arrangements between the relevant State Government departments, and the NNTT and NTRBs, requiring the efficient conduct of comprehensive land-tenure searches which can be considered to be `expert'; and the establishment of a reasonable fees structure. These searches, and the provision of associated native title documentation by State Governments to NTRBs, should be conducted in a timely manner (see para. 4.45).

31. that NTRBs should regularly provide ATSIC with detailed workload costings for native title claims in order to more comprehensively assess costs and to link these to funding allocations. The Committee further recommends that NTRBs should provide, at their discretion, status updates of developments having unexpected workload and cost implications. It will be incumbent upon ATSIC to respond flexibly to the unexpected costs of NTRBs, especially given that a number of workload areas (such as non-claimant applications and future act notices) and associated resource requirements are unpredictable and many are generated by other parties (see para. 4.47).

32. that ATSIC funding to NTRBs should take account of the relative workloads resulting from the distribution of future act notices and non-claimant applications. Funding should be targeted in a manner that facilitates the development of strategic regional approaches to prioritising responses, particularly in relation to future act notices (see para. 4.53).

33. that regional agreement workloads should be incorporated into ATSIC's assessment of NTRB funding needs (see para. 4.57).

34. that NTRBs and ATSIC should closely monitor the funding implications of the establishment of Prescribed Bodies Corporate. The workload implications of the future role of NTRBs as native title service providers to Prescribed Bodies Corporate will need assessment (see para. 4.60).

35. that at the end of the 1996-97 financial year, NTRBs and ATSIC should seek to negotiate workload agreements based on accurate assessments of ongoing workloads, to establish more secure funding for NTRBs (see para. 4.62).

36. that inter- and intra-state variations in native title workloads should be factored into ATSIC allocation of funds to NTRBs (see para. 4.69).

37. that every NTRB should be funded, at levels directly related to workloads, to establish a core, critical mass of staff and management. A centralised human-resource model for NTRBs offers substantial cost and performance benefits from organisational scope. A recommended minimal human resources base would include, for example: a manager or director, a financial administrator or accountant, an anthropologist, another research specialist (for example, historian, archaeologist, mining expert), a legal officer, a research officer, a field officer and a secretarial position (see para. 4.74).

38. that NTRBs should pursue the most cost-effective, strategic management of external consultants for native title work. The use of external consultants should be coordinated by in-house NTRB staff. NTRBs will need to make judicious use of external consultants in order to maximise their capacity to undertake multiple claim preparations and respond to non-claimant applications and future act notices (see para. 4.85).

39. that ATSIC should establish flexible grant guidelines for NTRBs for hiring external consultants. The requirement to tender for professional consultants in limited markets should be withdrawn (see para. 4.86).

40. that NTRBs should develop clear, written guidelines and procedures for contracting, paying and supervising consultants. NTRBs should establish uniform fees rates for legal advice consistent with the Attorney-General's Department recommended fee structure, and rates for research consultants engaged by Northern Territory land councils (see para. 4.87).

41. that NTRBs should establish registers of available consultants and network with professional associations, university departments and especially the Native Titles Research Unit at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies as a means of informally verifying the professional standing of consultants. Feedback mechanisms should be instituted so that the quality of consultants can be monitored (see para. 4.88).

42. that recently established NTRBs should confer with Northern Territory and other established land councils in order to install information management systems relevant to culturally-sensitive and other research data they will collect (see para. 4.93).

43. that Geophysical Information Systems should not be duplicated by numerous NTRBs in a State but should be centralised, preferably at a metropolitan NTRB with computer access to relevant departmental and other sources of geophysical data. Costs associated with such a centralised system could be shared (see para. 4.94).

Chapter 5 - Funding, Management and Administration

The Review Committee recommends:

44. that NTRBs should be adequately resourced to effectively represent the native title claims and legal rights accorded to indigenous Australians, as well as to facilitate the workability of the NTA for all Australians (see para. 5.5).

45. that ATSIC's three existing programs, Representative Bodies Operational Support, Non-Statutory Land Council and Claims, should be consolidated into two programs. These two new programs should be renamed the NTRB Operational Support Program and Native Title Implementation Program (see para. 5.10).

46. that actual funding to individual NTRBs for core operational support should be dependent on funding bids
to ATSIC, demonstrated performance and the signing of workload agreements. The Review Committee emphasises that the total program vote outlined in Table 5. 1 is based only on notional calculations for all NTRBs (see para. 5.14).

47. that after workloads for NTRBs under the Native Title Implementation Program are quantified for the full fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98, and a number of legal uncertainties are resolved, resource needs for this program should be reassessed (see para. 5.22).

48. that the new funding regime is implemented from 1 January 1996, with a phase-in period of six months. A systematic process for implementation of these crucial funding recommendations is outlined in Chapter 6 (see para. 5.29).

49. that all native title funding from ATSIC State and Regional Council levels, as well as from other government and private sources, should be reported to ATSIC's Central office on an annual basis (see para. 5.32).

50. that a proportion of existing LAFS allocations should be integrated into ATSIC resourcing of NTRBs. Such a transfer is possible under ss.183(3) and 183(5) of the NTA (see para. 5.36).

51. that the global funding needs of statutory land councils with potentially declining land rights claims functions and expanding native title functions (as NTRBs) should be rigorously reassessed in three years time when performance and workload data are available (see para. 5.37).

52. that total resources allocated for the funding of NTRBs established under the NTA should be quarantined from ATSIC's global allocation and strictly earmarked. While not an offset as such, the $16. 3 million currently committed by ATSIC to fund NTRBs, non-statutory land councils and claims would be removed from ATSIC's global allocation and placed in the two quarantined programs (see para. 5.40).

53. that ATSIC should consider providing indicative forward allocations to NTRBs on a three-yearly basis. Native Title Implementation Program grants, especially for any multi-year activities, will also need projections of multi-year funding (see para. 5.45).

54. that appropriate financial management systems should be established at the ATSIC Central office level, including commitment control systems and engagement of staff with financial management skills. ATSIC should investigate the merits of an electronic link with NTRBs, for instance via a quarantined section within the existing ATSIC national network (see para. 5.52).

55. that ATSIC should formulate guidelines outlining standardised requirements for the preparation of financial statements by NTRBs (see para. 5.54).

56. that all NTRBs should produce annual reports: to account for resources with audited financial statements; to review activities; and as an information dissemination service to clients. Annual reports should be tabled, within a specified timeframe, with ATSIC and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (see para. 5.58).

57. that the provision of accurate data on the workloads of NTRBs should become a prerequisite for future funding. An evolving best-practice model is that used by the NNTT to monitor its (interdependent) workload using a spreadsheet (timeline) database (see para. 5.63).

58. that NTRBs should have a degree of flexibility in utilising line items provided under the Native Title Implementation Program so that resources can be transferred between agreed categories. If cost overruns in a particular line exceed 20 per cent, it is recommended that NTRBs should be required to seek approval for budget variation from ATSIC (see para. 5.64).

59. that systems should be established to allow production of monthly in-house reports on expenditure, including forward commitments. It is recommended that training in financial management should be provided to all project and administrative staff of NTRBs (see para. 5.65).

60. that a critical mass of dedicated officers should be quarantined in ATSIC's Central office to administer the NTRB Operational Support and Native Title Implementation Programs. These staff should have legal, anthropological and financial expertise to monitor the workloads and performance of NTRBs. Mechanisms must be instituted
to allow early intervention by ATSIC if any NTRB is not performing precisely to funding guidelines
(see para. 5.77).

61. that a Native Title Branch should be established in ATSIC headed by an Assistant General Manager. The Branch should consist of three sections, Representative Bodies, Performance and Audit and a Legal and Policy Support with six staff in each (see para. 5.78).

62. that eight staff should be approved to provide a specialist officer with sole NTA responsibilities in ATSIC S
tate offices, with two such officers being required in high workload Western Australia and Queensland. Specialist officers should be responsible to both State Managers and the head of the new Native Title Branch
(see para. 5.79).

63. that NTRBs, especially in metropolitan and large urban centres, should seriously consider competitively tendering components of their annual legal workloads to private sector legal firms (see para. 5.95).

64. that ATSIC, in consultation with the Department of Finance, should engage an independent reputable management consultant to devise a simple benchmarking system applicable to all NTRBs. The availability of nationally consistent performance standards will be a useful management tool for NTRBs and an important monitoring tool for ATSIC (see para. 5.96).

65. that the national strategic approach recommended for ATSIC's Native Title Branch in its resourcing of NTRBs and ILC strategic planning and land purchase activity should be both coordinated and dovetailed (see para. 5.103).

66. that the activities of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies' Native Title Research Unit should continue and that it should be provided with additional resources to develop a computerised database on available consultant anthropologists and lawyers with appropriate expertise and indicative scales of fees. NTRBs using these consultants should be encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of service received. The Unit should be encouraged to maintain, and possibly enhance, its conference call activities as a cost-effective means to share information (see para. 5.106).

67. that the desirability of establishing NTRBs within a statutory framework should be considered soon. Such a framework would prove cost-effective and would provide institutional stability, transparency and accountability that will facilitate the efficient operations of the NTA (see para. 5.112).

A copy of the report can be obtained from the Assistant General Manager, Native Title Branch, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission: PO Box 17, Woden, ACT 2606.