Abstract: Public dialogue on an evidence based approach to comprehensive native title settlements has yet to occur. To address governance, economic, social, cultural and/or legal concerns of native title groups, this paper seeks to contribute to such an evidence based dialogue by analysing aspects of three Australian agreements which were the earliest attempts of what could be considered comprehensive settlements: • the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi Burrup Agreement (‘the Burrup Agreement’); • the Miriuwung and Gajerrong Ord Global Agreement (‘the MG-Ord Agreement’); and • the Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagalk Peoples Agreement (‘the Wimmera Agreement’). Notably, the MG-Ord and Wimmera agreements were approvingly cited by the Attorney General in his 2008 speech as examples of the Commonwealth’s new vision for native title. This analysis of the three agreements is primarily based on observations made at a two day workshop by representatives of the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi, the Miriuwung and Gajerrong, the Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagalk peoples and their negotiating teams; the WA government and their negotiating teams; and invited participants from the native title field. The aim of the workshop was to gain firsthand accounts of the role of comprehensive settlements in progressing Indigenous and government aspirations for native title and to identify possible benchmarks for such settlements. Firstly, by way of contextualising these observations, I outline the potential of comprehensive native title settlements advocated by many Indigenous leaders and academics since the Mabo decision.