Disappointment with both the process and outcomes of Native Title litigation has led to an increased emphasis on agreement making, including ‘comprehensive’ agreement making. In seeking to define a ‘comprehensive agreement’, it is evident that a broad range of agreements currently fall under this general description. Dr Stuart Bradfield discusses a range of current Australian agreements, and (briefly) agreement making in Canada, and suggests that there is value in distinguishing ‘comprehensive agreements’ as a separate type of agreement with a broad subject matter and a distinct process of negotiation which is underpinned by recognition of Indigenous peoples as political entities.