The papers in this collection reflect on the various social effects of native title. In particular, the authors consider the ways in which the implementation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth)—and the native title process for which this act legislates—allows for the recognition and translation of Aboriginal law and custom, and facilitates particular kinds of coexistence between Aboriginal title holders and other Australians. In so doing, the authors seek to extend the debate on native title beyond questions of practice and towards an improved understanding of the effects of native title on the social lives of Indigenous Australians and on Australian society more generally.

These attempts to grapple with the effects of native title have, in part, been impelled by Indigenous people’s complaints about the NTA and the native title process. Since the Act was passed, many Indigenous Australians have become increasingly unhappy with both the strength and forms of recognition afforded to traditional law and custom under this Act, as well as the socially disruptive effects of the native title process. In particular—as several of the papers in this collection demonstrate—there is widespread discomfort with the transformative effects of recognition within the native title process, effects which can then ‘feed back’ into other aspects of Indigenous lives.

It seems clear that many of these problems have been compounded by the treatment of native title as ‘a creature of the Native Title Act’, rather than continuing to treat native title as the common law recognition of Indigenous law and custom. The resulting juridification of native title (Mantziaris and Martin 2000) has increased the degree of transformation that occurs through the process of ‘recognition’ of native title. This transformative ‘violence’ of translation occurs not only within the space of the court, but is also apparent in the approach taken by many NTRBs and anthropologists producing materials accounting for the ongoing connection and custom of claim groups. Such materials are often produced in anticipation of the expectations of other parties—in particular, the State and Federal government agencies charged with ‘signing off’ on consent determinations of native title, or of the judges ruling on native title claims which are decided in the courts. This effect of the native title process has led to one of native title’s greatest ironies—in many cases, strong continuities in Indigenous cultural production hamper ‘recognition’ of native title due to their lack of fit with the NTA, whilst other groups—among whom cultural continuity has been accompanied by the local production of groups and assertions of rights which better ‘fit’ expectations based on the Native Title Act—find ‘recognition’ of their rights and interests proceeds more smoothly on this basis.

For the latter groups—those characterised by ongoing connection to ‘country’ and continuities in cultural production, but also by transformations in the articulation of Indigenous identities and property rights as a result of colonial disruption—native title has, on balance, proved to be a positive social phenomenon, allowing the recognition of Indigenous identity and practical benefits to a number of groups. Elsewhere, some Indigenous histories of strong cultural continuity and connection to land—in conjunction with relatively weak forms of colonial tenure—have allowed for the eventual recognition of substantial property rights, even the recognition of exclusive rights in land. But those who fall somewhere between these two positions can find native title particularly frustrating, leading to disappointing practical benefits and forms of recognition that are understood to be profoundly disjunct from those which operate in local social lives. And of course—the Noongar case notwithstanding—many Aboriginal people in more settled areas continue to be frustrated by a lack of recognition of their continuing connections to country and the legal determination of the extinguishment of their rights and interests.

Despite these frustrations and limitations, the papers in this collection suggest that the ‘native title era’ continues to produce positive results for many (although not all) Indigenous Australians, as well as many settler Australians, and arguably for Australian society as a whole. Positive forms of recognition and coexistence have developed not only within the native title process, but also because of its perceived limitations. A range of alternative provisions now mark the determination of Indigenous Australians to redefine their place in Australian society on the basis of their connections to ‘country’ even where the NTA has provided little or no recognition of these connections. The Act’s provision for the production of Indigenous Land Use Agreements without the formal determination of Native Title, the Indigenous Protected Areas scheme, and a range of alternative processes and agreements (including those developed by the Victorian government, and those relationships developed with Indigenous groups in relation to the Murray-Darling system) all mark an increasing willingness by government departments and other public and private bodies to reach arrangements with Indigenous groups which exceed the recognition afforded by the NTA. In retrospect, the development of such alternatives—one more ‘effect’ of native title, albeit an effect triggered by its limitations—may prove to be just as important as the more positive effects of the native title process both for Indigenous Australians and their settler neighbours.