Sentences with phrase «indigenous ownership of land»

Indigenous rights and interests in land could be transformed into a stronger economic base by the acceptance of commercial rights that flow from Indigenous ownership of land and resources.

That is, Indigenous ownership of land, houses and infrastructure is not represented by legal titles, deeds and statutes of incorporation that are alienable and able to be used to create capital.

Not exact matches

The second school of thought that was supported by the John Locke school of classic liberalism «recognized that absolute ownership of natural resources could deprive liberty, but classified the great amounts of land populated by indigenous peoples as «unsettled», avoiding the issue in theory, if not in practice.

«Similar levels of agreement were found for the importance of recognising traditional ownership of land (94 per cent in Year 6 and 92 per cent in Year 10) and giving everyone a chance to learn about reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (92 per cent in Year 6 and 91 per cent in Year 10).

And through conversations with others in the growing climate justice movement, I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them.

Such negotiations must aim to cover the types of services, plans, and support that Indigenous communities will require to be able to achieve sustainable control and management of Indigenous natural and cultural resources, as well as the ownership, control and maintenance of Indigenous community lands».

Economic development is often portrayed as unrelated or antithetical to the traditional relationship that Indigenous people have to their land, but as the terms of the current debate suppose, ownership of land, including traditional ownership, can be viewed as ownership of an asset from which development can take place.

Despite this, the potential to realise economic or home ownership outcomes for Indigenous communities has not been fully explored and there has been a lack of government policy directed towards using Indigenous land to achieve these outcomes within existing frameworks.

It is an opportunity to build on what already belongs to Indigenous Australians - their traditional ownership of land.

Representation in Land Councils and Native Title Representative Bodies is limited to Indigenous groups that can demonstrate traditional ownership of areas covered by the land council or NLand Councils and Native Title Representative Bodies is limited to Indigenous groups that can demonstrate traditional ownership of areas covered by the land council or Nland council or NTRB.

Counter to this view is the fact that communal Indigenous land ownership reflects ancient traditional forms of property in Aboriginal societies, giving expression to Indigenous living cultures.

Land rights legislation can give effect to self - determination through recognising prior Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ownership of Australia and by creating a legal and geographical space in which Indigenous law and custom has effect and can contribute to self - directed development into the future.

The Land Councils and Native Title Representative Bodies are limited in their scope for representation as they only generally represent Indigenous groups that can demonstrate traditional ownership of areas covered by the land council or NLand Councils and Native Title Representative Bodies are limited in their scope for representation as they only generally represent Indigenous groups that can demonstrate traditional ownership of areas covered by the land council or Nland council or NTRB.

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.

The long struggle for land rights in Australia has meant that Indigenous people now have a degree of ownership, control or management of approximately 20 percent of Australian lands and waters.

This formed another rationale for land rights: to give effect to the ownership of and connection to land by Indigenous peoples under their traditional laws and customs.

Public discussion began in late 20045 when the CEO of New South Wales Native Title Services and member of the government - appointed Indigenous advisory body, the National Indigenous Council (NIC), 6 Mr Warren Mundine, issued a press release calling for changes to the tenure of Indigenous land to facilitate increased home ownership and business development.7 In February 2005, the federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs indicated that the Australian Government would contemplate changes to tenure in reforming the federal land rights legislation operating in the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Ctland to facilitate increased home ownership and business development.7 In February 2005, the federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs indicated that the Australian Government would contemplate changes to tenure in reforming the federal land rights legislation operating in the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Ctland rights legislation operating in the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (CtLand Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) 8

Most land rights legislation started with the transfer of ownership over former reserves to Indigenous peoples, and many now allow claims over unused Crown land.

The objective of this proposal appears to have been to turn Indigenous settlements into «normal townships», in part by overriding traditional land ownership laws and the responsibilities of traditional custodians through the device of a «headlease».

In the case of communally owned lands this could result in a loss of control, use and effective ownership of Indigenous lands.

It was only by fastening on the notion that a settled colony was terra nullius that it was possible to predicate of the Crown the acquisition of ownership of land in a colony already occupied by indigenous inhabitants.

Nor have the principles addressed the cultural context of communities in terms of communal ownership of land and the economic benefits that can be gained from Indigenous communities» strong connection to their land through an ongoing and vibrant culture.

A key objective of the NIC Principles is to increase Indigenous home ownership on communally owned lands in the Northern Territory this may include remote communities on ALRA (NT) land.

The Prime Minister announced that the Government is interested in supporting Indigenous Australians turn their land into wealth, while protecting the rights of communal ownership and preserving Indigenous land for future generations.

The emerging Indigenous data sovereignty movement asserts that Indigenous peoples across the globe have inherent and inalienable rights relating to the collection, ownership and application of data about them and their lands and lives.

A reform process should instead aim to provide long - term clarity through changes that deliver improved Indigenous land ownership, support the development of local governance and allow communities to meet their development needs.

Reforms to rectify this and improve clarity of ownership and the rights and responsibilities of each party must not be unilaterally imposed or result in the devaluing of Indigenous land.

Governments frequently describe these policies as a means of promoting home ownership and economic development on Indigenous land.

The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has said that another aim of the reforms is to provide «greater economic opportunities (business investment and home ownership) as a result of resolution of land tenure and land administration issues».

(107) One of the strategies for achieving that objective is» [e] xploring opportunities for Indigenous people to gain economic and social benefits from land use and ownership».

While the new leasing rules make it easier for commercial leasing and the introduction of home ownership schemes, they also make it easier to lease Indigenous land to the government.

If the aim of tenure reform is to provide clarity of ownership and improved opportunities for development, this can be achieved by quickening processes for the return of land to Indigenous people and supporting them to pursue their right to development.

The debate was spearheaded by the statement issued by Warren Mundine in late 2004 that the communal nature of Indigenous land needs to be altered so that the land can be utilised to generate wealth for Indigenous people.19 Mr Mundine, a member of the National Indigenous Council and CEO of NSW Native Title Services Ltd, criticised communal ownership under the NSW land rights legislation saying;

(27) Section 47B thus provides some relief from the otherwise inevitable destruction of Indigenous land ownership and culture as a result of the extinguishment of native title.

What distinguishes this decision from previous ones is that it recognises the distinctiveness of Indigenous concepts of land, communal ownership and inalienability, while at the same time incorporating these concepts into the non-Indigenous domain of property.

An effective way of giving Indigenous people more opportunities for economic development is to provide them with improved forms of Indigenous land ownership, particularly in those parts of Australia where Indigenous land is held under inferior forms of title.

I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of traditional owners and the government to devise land tenure arrangements which streamline transaction costs without fundamentally undermining Indigenous ownership and control of their land.

Indigenous land must not be treated as a lesser form of land ownership.

Tenure reforms should aim to provide Indigenous people with stronger forms of Indigenous land ownership.

DOGIT land is held on trust for the benefit of Indigenous inhabitants and is subject to greater government control than full ownership.

At its February 2005 meeting the NIC commenced consideration of how the now considerable Indigenous land base might be best used to facilitate the economic development of Indigenous people, including individual home ownership and entrepreneurship.

«While we have differing views within our community on how to improve the variety of special Indigenous land tenures across Australian, we recognise that collective ownership is inherent in Aboriginal custom and we believe in the fundamental importance of securing that underlying land title for future generations.»

The Committee is concerned... that the Native Title Amendments of 1998 in some respects limit 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.

In short, this report discusses the purpose of land rights and native title legislation; the existing provisions for leasing Indigenous communally owned lands under current legislation; economic factors affecting home ownership and business enterprise; and a human rights analysis of the NIC Principles.It does not advocate a position suffice to note that the full and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples affected by any policy shift, is critical if sustainable outcomes are to be realised.

We recognise the cultural importance of communal ownership of land, and we are committed to protecting the rights of communal ownership and to ensure that indigenous land is preserved for future generations.

While I welcome the Australian Government's intention to explore ways of facilitating the economic development potential of Indigenous land where this is desired by traditional owners, this opportunity must not be used to erode Indigenous control and ownership of land.

The «lease» as a form of land title is being widely advocated as the best means of providing for home ownership and as a means of encouraging economic development on Indigenous land where the underlying title is Indigenous communal ownership.

But where it does apply it has led to some large areas of land being returned to the ownership of some Indigenous traditional owners and communities.6

To resolve and avoid uncertainty of land and resource ownership, and to avoid conflict, instability and violence in relation to indigenous rights to lands and resources;

Whilst this would appear to be self - evident, and widely accepted, current proposals about land rights in Australia suggest that the particular characteristics of Indigenous ownership of and attachment to land need to be re-stated.