Sentences with phrase «indigenous land interest»

Given this diversity of title, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) uses the term «legal Indigenous land interest» to describe the range of legal relationships to land.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) usefully uses the term «Legal Indigenous land interest» to describe this land.5 The following table from Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Key Indicators 2005 shows the details of Indigenous land interests (not including native title) on a State and Territory basis:

During the Minister's address, the following comments were made in relation to Indigenous land interests: «We do need to ask ourselves why, when Indigenous Australia theoretically controls such a large proportion of the Australian land mass, they are themselves so poor.

Prime Minister addresses Reconciliation Workshop and discusses the prospect of changes to Indigenous land interests to support home ownership

Not exact matches

I'm not in, or an apologist for, the industry; I'm just interested in a reasonable scientific debate on an activity that seems to have the potential to add a great deal of value (including in disadvantaged indigenous communities if the resources are on Native Title lands) and enhance Australian energy security.

In Madre de Dios, Peru, indigenous communities resisted powerful gold mining interests to maintain control of their land.

The government «is keenly interested in bringing the conflicts in indigenous lands to an end,» he says.

These spiritual tours are for people interested in personal growth and healing, and who wish to connect with the spiritual energy of the land, as well as those who wish to learn more about Indigenous culture.

She and Cáceres are impoverished indigenous women in remote places, working to defend their land against the interests of corporate power in places where the rule of law is weak and there is little, if any, accountability for violence.

It must also further the goal of reconciliation of Indigenous peoples» rights and interests with the Crown's assertion of sovereignty over Indigenous lands.

In many cases the consent of a Minister is needed to grant leases or create third party interests in Indigenous land.

The High Court rejected this approach of not recognising Indigenous interests in land because their «usage and conceptions of rights and duties» were irreconcilable with «rights of property as we know them».

The criteria for determining the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests on the same land at common law fail to provide for the co-existence of these interests

In the context of both national and international interests in the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity, Indigenous peoples as custodians have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and maintenance of ecosystems on our lands and waters.

It also works against sharing the land between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests, because it ensures that Indigenous rights always lose out.

Instead the search for equivalence in the common law's translation of Indigenous culture should be aimed at the level of protection that the common law gives to Indigenous relationships to land compared with the protection it gives to non-Indigenous interests in land.

Given there were an estimated 250 Indigenous societies and languages at the time of British settlement, 127 it is no surprise that traditional laws and customs vary between Aboriginal societies, creating an array of interests and rights in land and water.

Another mechanism provided within the NTA is the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) provisions, particularly those in relation to area agreements.50 Of particular relevance is section 24CB (c) that provides for ILUAs about «the relationship between native title rights and interests and other rights and interests in relation to the area»51 This section envisages native title as part of a range of interests that exist within a region.

The Human Rights Committee, following its concerns with the 1998 amendments, recommended «that the necessary steps should be taken to restore and protect the titles and interests of Indigenous persons in their native lands, including by considering amending anew the Native Title Act, taking into account these concerns», (28 July 2000) UN document CCPR / CO / 69 / AUS, para 10.

She teaches & researches in land law and has a particular interest in property law as it affects Indigenous Australians and women.

At the same time there is implicit in the translation process a recognition that exact equivalence between the Indigenous relationship to land and a common law interest in land can never be found.

The extinguishment test is the test that ultimately determines the level of protection granted to Indigenous interests in land.

This chapter focuses on framework agreements as an opportunity for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties to settle upon a set of standards for the co-existence of their interests in land.

For example, much of the output of the Indigenous arts industry, a market activity that generates much tourist interest, is produced on country and uses sustainably harvested natural resource inputs; wildlife habitats on Aboriginal lands (which are the breeding grounds for many migratory species) are maintained; and customary fire regimes assist biodiversity maintenance and can abate atmospheric carbon and smoke.

The situation also presents conflict of interest issues, giving those seeking to develop Indigenous land an actual or potential advantage in negotiations.

This right requires that Indigenous groups are able to maintain and protect the unique characteristics of their culture, thereby requiring adequate protection of Indigenous spiritual and cultural interests in land.

It also raises a more significant question about the extension of compulsory acquisition powers for the benefit of private interests and the appropriate application of these powers to Indigenous land rights.

The recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in land is also intended to protect Indigenous people's cultural, spiritual and social relationship with land.

The 1996 Cape York Peninsula Heads of Agreement agreement [15] between Indigenous people, pastoralists, and conservation groups shows that, at a framework level, native title parties can secure their entitlements and interests in developments on their land.

While Indigenous interests can be represented by non-Indigenous experts, human rights principles require that no decisions affecting native title land should be made without the informed consent of those affected.

A substantive equality approach would seek to provide Indigenous interests in land with the protection necessary to ensure they can be enjoyed, according to their tenor and to the same extent as non-Indigenous interests in land.

The Mabo decision makes it clear that from 1975 the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 (Cth)(the RDA) rendered invalid Crown grants which had the effect of extinguishing Indigenous interests in land for the benefit of non-Indigenous interests.

[110] This latter category is commonly referred to as special measures — a principle which has been applied to both native title rights and interests and other Indigenous land rights.

Rather, the statement signifies that while the indigenous relationship with land is entirely different to common law «proprietary» interests in land, it requires an equivalent degree of protection.

While the relationship of indigenous people with their traditional home land is «primarily a spiritual affair» or as Blackburn J. described it in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR at 167, a «religious relationship», the common law applies to protect only the physical enjoyment of rights and interests that are of a kind that can be exercised on the land, and does not protect purely religious or spiritual relationships with land.

Many of these land councils have a long history of representing Indigenous interests at a regional or State / Territory - wide level.

Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

Other land and property assets will be divested to Indigenous interests before ATSIC is abolished or will be transferred over to the Indigenous Land Corporation or Indigenous Business Australia to be divested for the benefit of Indigenous peoplland and property assets will be divested to Indigenous interests before ATSIC is abolished or will be transferred over to the Indigenous Land Corporation or Indigenous Business Australia to be divested for the benefit of Indigenous peoplLand Corporation or Indigenous Business Australia to be divested for the benefit of Indigenous people.39

As indicated above the Mabo decision represents a fundamental break from the past denial of Indigenous interests in land.

These laws provide a framework for recognising and protecting Indigenous cultural interests in land.

The Committee is concerned, despite positive developments towards recognising the land rights of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders through judicial decisions (Mabo 1992, Wik 1996) and enactment of the Native Title Act of 1993, as well as actual demarcation of considerable areas of land, that in many areas native title rights and interests remain unresolved and that the Native Title Amendments of 1998 in some respects limits the rights of indigenous persons and communities, in particular in the field of effective participation in all matters affecting land ownership and use, and affects their interests in native title lands, particularly pastoral lands.

Interests that complement each other in this way must be identified and specifically addressed to ensure full enjoyment of the traditional connection that Indigenous people have with the land.

As Peterson notes, not only does colonisation displace, alter or eliminate Indigenous peoples» rights and interests in the land they occupied, but it also generally results in a loss of «personal and political autonomy and group sovereignty».119 The Indigenous land rights movements sought to restore both types of rights property rights to the land, and political rights of autonomy.120

Whatever the justification advanced in earlier days for refusing to recognise the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants of settled colonies, an unjust and discriminatory doctrine of that kind can no longer be accepted.

New climate change related laws, regulations and markets may further decrease or limit Indigenous peoples» rights and interests through extinguishment or suspension of native title and by restricting rights in relation to access and use of land, natural and biological resources.

New policies and laws relating to land use and development (including housing and associated infrastructure) require an examination of how new interests and imperatives will impact upon (positively or negatively) Indigenous land, cultural, human and native title rights and interests.

This cultural framework provides Indigenous communities with an important market advantage but will only be maintained if Indigenous communities can protect their rights and interests in land in way that supports the ongoing exercise and enjoyment of culture.

While it is undeniable that past Crown grants created interests potentially incompatible with the pre-existing Indigenous interests, what has created the legal conflict between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous rights to land is the legality accorded to the Indigenous title since the decision in Mabo.

Commonwealth parliamentarians have previously commented on the danger that progress will occur only in those areas with resources of interest to government and industry.80 Native title might then become a system to assist the state governments with land management, rather than to recognise and protect Indigenous connection to land.

[76] Consequently, approaching Indigenous interests in the land in the same way as approaching non-Indigenous interests in land would be: