Sentences with phrase «indigenous parties to agreements»

To work with Indigenous parties to agreements to assist with applications for funding that leverage economic development projects and opportunities, and coordinate appropriate training and development to support economic development and the full implementation of agreements.

Indigenous parties to agreements must have access to the necessary expertise to negotiate the best agreement possible.

Two short anecdotes will, I think, begin to describe the attitude of the Government of Canada and the gap between Canada and Indigenous parties to these agreements.

Not exact matches

While at this point there is not yet a crystal clear general legal requirement in Canadian law to consult with Indigenous peoples on the negotiation and ratification of international treaties, a number of «modern'treaties, called comprehensive land claims settlements, include explicit obligations on Canada to consult with the Indigenous party in advance of new international treaties that might affect rights under these agreements.

What is significant in terms of Australia's international obligations is whether the bargaining power of Indigenous parties to a native title agreement is equal to that of non-Indigenous parties.

The five - year Agreement commits both parties» to achieving better outcomes for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.

The Western Australian Aboriginal Native Title Working Group (WAANTWG) has proposed that Indigenous parties provide a negotiation report rather than a connection report to clarify issues among relevant Indigenous groups in relation to what interests should be addressed in framework agreements and resulting negotiations.

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.

Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs), which were another product of the 1998 amendments, also provide native title parties with the power to engage in negotiations about things on land.

One option would be for a new National Indigenous Representative Body to become a party to such agreements as trilateral agreements, appropriately renegotiated.

Such agreements can cover a wide range of situations: from negotiation protocols between two parties to an agreement between conservation groups, pastoralists, the government and Indigenous people.

As a result of these studies the Commissioner was of the view that it would be productive to shift some of the focus of the native title debate from lobbying for change in the legislation, to protecting the human rights of Indigenous people at the level of actual agreements between native title parties and the mining and resource industries.

[7] Where the NTA permits the non-Indigenous party to proceed with the proposed act without notifying or consulting Indigenous parties, native title parties have no real bargaining power in the agreement - making process.

As I have indicated framework agreements provide an opportunity to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties to settle upon a set of standards for the co-existence of their interests in land.

The Native Title Act creates the procedures for parties to reach an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA), which is an agreement between a native title group and others about the use and management of land anAgreement (ILUA), which is an agreement between a native title group and others about the use and management of land anagreement between a native title group and others about the use and management of land and waters.

a person who is (or intends to become a party) to an Indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) or an agreement about certain rights, or who is in dispute about those rights (Section 183 (2)-RRB-;

If, as it appears, governments are able to renege on these important agreements without liability then Indigenous parties need to seek further protection of their rights outside of the agreement.

Commercial agreements negotiated by Indigenous parties in the resource sector, state and regional - framework agreements relating to service delivery and a comprehensive agreement making approach negotiated as a result of rights, conferred by the beneficial effect of Mabo and subsequently the NTA, are increasingly important in the political and legal landscape of agreement making in Australia.

Native title agreements provide an opportunity to governments and other parties to deal with Indigenous people on the basis of the recognition of this unique identity.

Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) are already available to parties to negotiate the building of houses, and other essential services, for Indigenous communities.

These treaties and mechanisms provide guidance to the practical nature of consultations with Indigenous peoples, including that they are to be held in good faith, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent between the parties.

There has been a longstanding need for clear agreement among the states and the federal government about their respective responsibilities to Indigenous peoples, how they will act to meet these responsibilities and the resources to be committed by all parties.

A concept which appears to be given general support from government, industry and Indigenous parties alike, is the benefit of negotiating native title, its recognition and its relationship to other interests on the land, through agreement rather than litigation.

... at the outset of any native title agreement - making process, there is a need for the negotiation of an agreed decision - making and dispute management framework amongst the Indigenous parties as a prerequisite to the successful implementation and sustainability of agreements.

Some mechanisms such as consent determinations and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) already exist, but their use as tools for recognition could be promoted and made more attractive and accessible to the parties.

As native title agreements are confidential contracts between two private parties, Indigenous peoples have the same rights as private parties to non-native title agreements to have the confidentiality of their agreements protected.

Under the native title regime for example, traditional owners can be parties to Indigenous Land Use Agreements.

In Indigenous agreement making, Traditional Owner groups must agree to the facilitators and may select a facilitator known to and respected by the parties.

The NSW Government supports the use of the Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA's) to provide a flexible and cooperative means of resolving native title issues to achieve fair and equitable outcomes for all parties.

However, even where framework agreements based on human rights principles are a preferred option, the failure of the legal system to provide mechanisms for Indigenous parties to enforce them requires a political solution.

The Government is considering amending the Native Title Act to include a specific future act process to ensure that public housing and infrastructure in remote Indigenous communities can be built expeditiously following consultation with native title parties but without the need for an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA).