Can native title drive self-determination for Indigenous communities?
Photo: PKKP members on country
With the failure of the Indigenous Voice Referendum, native title corporations have emerged as one of the more tangible and legally embedded pathways for Indigenous self-determination, according to a leading academic.
Dr Michael Lucas’ research bridges Indigenous economic development practices between Native American and Indigenous Australian communities. As part of his PhD, “Governing the Gap: Data-driven Insights for Reforming Native Title Corporations and Indigenous Development”, from the University of Arizona, he applied Indigenous nation-building concepts to Australia’s native title system. He examined both quantitative and qualitative methods to identify key factors driving Indigenous self-determination through effective governance and institutional frameworks.
“It is wrong to view native title corporations as some second-best consolation prize, these corporations (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) represent a practical, ground-level mechanism for Indigenous communities to exercise rights, make decisions, and drive community development where formal political representation has been denied,” he said.
“While these imposed corporations have imperfections, they are more than legal entities; they are practical alternatives for Indigenous peoples to make decisions about their lands and resources. By managing native title rights at the community level, they provide a tangible avenue for pursuing community-governed institutions, creating economic opportunities, and preserving cultural practices in a landscape where formal political recognition remains limited. Native title corporations can be used as tools to strengthen Indigenous governing systems by leveraging existing legal frameworks to creatively and strategically advance community interests.”
Dr Lucas, who is a consultant anthropologist and the Director of Empius – a company specialising in Indigenous governance and economic development – has also explored why some native corporations succeed and others do not. He said the most successful corporations are those that do more than follow government-designed policy and programs – however well-intentioned those programs were.
“Successful PBCs adapt their governance structures to reflect their culture, take control of their own development agenda, and strengthen their own institutions,” he told Indigenous Business Review.
“In other words, these PBCs (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) are not just bodies required by legislation – they are becoming crucial pathways for Indigenous self-determination and self-management. Many of the most successful are creating economic opportunities, preserving cultural practices, and strengthening community resilience by developing governance structures that truly represent their community’s values and aspirations”.
The Fulbright Scholar and a former Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation also looked at why some Indigenous nations succeed over others. Not surprisingly, success doesn’t always come down to money or resources, but how communities build and strengthen their own institutions.
“Research shows that nations who invest in creating governance structures that truly reflect their culture and values are more likely to thrive,” he said.
“Experiences among Native American tribal governments show that the most successful Indigenous nations focus on strong, culturally appropriate leadership, building institutions that match their ways of doing things, and creating long-term strategic plans that put communities in the driver’s seat for decision-making. New evidence from PBCs shows that this is also true for Indigenous communities in Australia.”
Dr Lucas is also hopeful his findings could shape government policy when it came to making decisions around native title. He said the research clearly showed that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work. Dr Lucas said the key message for policymakers was to recognise that each native title corporation was unique, with its own strengths, challenges, and community contexts that cannot be addressed through standardised approaches.
“The findings call for a fundamental shift in how governments approach native title – moving away from seeing these corporations as mere administrative bodies and towards recognising them as dynamic, culturally grounded institutions of community development and self-determination,” he said.
“The research doesn’t create success – it illuminates the incredible strategies Indigenous communities have already been developing. For the first time, there’s quantitative proof of what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have always known: native title corporations are powerful vehicles of community-driven development, economic innovation, and cultural resilience.”
Photo: PKKP Board at the Native Title Determination 2015
First Nations leader and academic Wayne Bergmann, who established one of the largest Indigenous pastoral businesses in Australia, didn’t think Dr Lucas’s findings were the “silver bullet” when it came to creating economic development via PBCs. He said native title corporations were more like local governments.
“Can you imagine going to your local government and asking them to be commercial – they’re a bureaucracy. Native title is a bureaucracy,” he said.
“They’re hit and miss when it comes to creating economic development. There is also that assumption that the directors know what they’re doing in a PBC. A lot of PBCs that I’ve seen are full of clowns”.
Professor Bergman, who is the co-owner of the National Indigenous Times, said internal fighting within PBCs meant there were always question marks around who gets the benefits. He said the best path to economic empowerment for First Nations people was through entrepreneurism.
“PBCs are not the answer to growing an economy and making an impact on social and economic well-being – it is through entrepreneurialism,” he said.
“And PBCs aren’t structured to be entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are individual people who work extremely hard and take a lot of risks because they can see a reward. PBCs work against members, Traditional Owners, taking a risk to build wealth, and it is through building wealth that you can address your own problems and live to a standard that you want.”
Professor Bergmann, who achieved success in getting huge parts of the Kimberley covered by native title while CEO of the Kimberley Land Council, didn’t think PBCs were the answer to solving the ongoing issue of Closing the Gap. The first Indigenous Professor of Practice at the University of New South Wales said Closing the Gap comes with acknowledging the past injustices done to First Nations people.
“I think once there’s truth-telling, and there’s an acceptance of the intergenerational trauma that’s been created, that people can start to address those issues because a lot of Closing the Gap issues are health outcomes,” he said.
“And it’s this cycle that’s been perpetuated from parent to child. And once you can acknowledge that and understand how it affects you, you can deal with it.”
Dr Lucas welcomed Professor Bergmann’s emphasis on First Nations entrepreneurship while highlighting the role of native title corporations.
“Individual enterprise and entrepreneurship are absolutely critical for economic empowerment,” he said.
“However, many First Nations people prefer to work through collective and representative organisations like PBCs – where outcomes accrue to the entire membership. These corporations aren’t competing with entrepreneurship – they’re part of a broader ecosystem of Indigenous economic development that’s here to stay.”
The Indigenous Business Review – Brendan Foster February 12, 2025