The central argument of this chapter is that as currently defined in Australian juris­prudence and public policy, native title is of limited value as a basis for Aboriginal' economic participation. This is because native title is understood by Australia's courts and governments as involving only inherent rights in land and sea country, and not an inherent right to Aboriginal self-government Recognition of the latter is critical if rights in country are to be fully mobilised in support of Aboriginal economic participation. I am not arguing that recognition of native title has been of no value in facilitating Aboriginal economic participation. Over the two decades since Mabo v Queensland (No 2)' (Mabo ), Aboriginal people in many parts of Australia have certainly sought to use recognition of their native title in pursuing economic opportunities, and their efforts have met with some success, particularly in the Pilbara, the Kimberley, the Northern Territory and Cape York 3 However, even in these cases, there are major problems in institutionalising gains made in the absence of Aboriginal self-government, and battles for recognition of the right of Aboriginal people to economic participation must be fought over and over again. In many other parts of Australia, the limited procedural rights offered by the Native Title Ad 1993 (Cth) (NTA) have not been sufficient, in the absence of an Aboriginal governance framework, to secure substantial opportunities for economic participation. This reflects, in part, the fact that the NTA operates so as to limit the market power potentially associated with native title property rights recognised in the Mabo decision.