Recommendation 15: The Australian Government support
Indigenous land holders to more comprehensively map the extent of their Indigenous Estate.
Recommendation 21: The Australian Government support the analysis of risks for
both Indigenous land holders and financial institutions with the objective of developing a new risk framework to underpin decision making, investment and business practices regarding the Indigenous Estate in partnership with Indigenous people and financial institutions.
Broadly, this relationship is designed to enable
Indigenous land holders to: participate in the management of the park; continue traditional activities and; provide for training and employment.
While the shortcomings of this approach are increasingly becoming apparent [25] they are an important first model of the management relationship between
Indigenous land holders and a conservation agency.
Importantly, an analysis of existing joint management relationships can provide a useful guide to developing better and more equitable management arrangements between
Indigenous land holders and conservation agencies.
All decisions affecting Indigenous land must be taken with the free, prior and informed consent of
Indigenous land holders.
Information is power and information is crucial for Indigenous participation in emerging carbon markets and to ensure that decisions made by
Indigenous land holders are made with their free, prior, and informed consent.
Not exact matches
The bundle of rights approach to native title restricts the control that
Indigenous title
holders can exercise over their
land.
These include: the Act's «validation» provisions; the «confirmation of extinguishment» provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of
indigenous title
holders to negotiate non-
indigenous land uses.
These include: the Act's «validation» provisions; the «confirmation of extinguishment provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of
indigenous title -
holders to negotiate non-
indigenous land uses.
In Chapters 2 and 3 of this report I outline how the main issue before the court in these cases is whether native title is conceived as a bundle of individuated rights which entitle native title
holders to carry out specified activities on their
land or whether it is based on a more fundamental relationship between
Indigenous people and their ancestral
land originating from the traditional system of law and custom.
In accordance with the principle of blanket protection for
Indigenous heritage, all title
holders should be notified of heritage sites on parcels of
land.
The native title
holders and the shire council instead entered into the Aurukun Township & Road
Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
Before a home ownership scheme is developed on
Indigenous land, the community residents and
land owners and any native title
holders must first be provided with all necessary information on home ownership.
recognises
Indigenous governance within their traditional
lands including recognition of native title
holders as owners or joint - owners and managers of the
land
Land rights legislation, which generally grants an inalienable freehold title to traditional owners (who are identified in accordance with traditional laws and customs and are communal land holders), and / or Indigenous residents of an Indigenous commun
Land rights legislation, which generally grants an inalienable freehold title to traditional owners (who are identified in accordance with traditional laws and customs and are communal
land holders), and / or Indigenous residents of an Indigenous commun
land holders), and / or
Indigenous residents of an
Indigenous community.
Extinguishment of native title rights deprives native title
holders of these rights of exercise and protection and consequently fails to satisfy the requirement under article 27 that
Indigenous peoples have the right to enjoy their culture and all its elements, particularly those that relate to
land.
Land rights legislation generally grants an inalienable freehold title to traditional owners (who are identified in accordance with traditional laws and customs and are communal land holders), and / or Indigenous residents of an Indigenous commun
Land rights legislation generally grants an inalienable freehold title to traditional owners (who are identified in accordance with traditional laws and customs and are communal
land holders), and / or Indigenous residents of an Indigenous commun
land holders), and / or
Indigenous residents of an
Indigenous community.
The
Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) has often been asked if it is able to provide assistance to native title
holders, especially in relation to their ongoing operating costs for RNTBCs.
Given that the native title representative bodies do not have enough time, money or people available to ensure that native title
holders and claimants in their area are able to exercise their procedural rights in hundreds of separate negotiations with mining companies and the State, a formalised «opt in» process negotiated by
Indigenous peak bodies may prove to be a means to ensure that native title parties have some meaningful participation in decisions regarding mining exploration over their
land.
Recent Native Title Reports recognise that there have been a number of determinations of native title as well as
Indigenous Land Use Agreements which have provided recognition and protection to some native title
holders.
«Right to negotiate» provisions: In paragraph 7 of Decision 2 (54) the CERD expressed its concern that provisions within the NTA that place «restrictions concerning the right of
indigenous title
holders to negotiate non-
indigenous land uses» are discriminatory.
Options for doing business on
Indigenous land are primarily: mining, pastoralism, agriculture, and tourism.73 Statutory provisions in
land rights and native title legislation offer a mechanism for traditional owners and native title claimants or
holders to engage with some of these industries.
With regard to the first two policy responses, I have longstanding concerns that amendments made to the Act since its commencement have significantly limited the benefits that could be achieved by native title
holders, and that the objectives of the
Indigenous Land Corporation have not been met and require review.
Where
Indigenous land or native title is acquired, the
land owners or native title
holders must receive just terms compensation.
Native title
holders require the means to engage with non
Indigenous interests in order to exercise all of the rights and obligations to
land.
While the native title system is able to deliver social and cultural outcomes through determinations of native title,
Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) are one of the only ways in which native title
holders can pursue economic development.