Sentences with phrase «title policy objectives»
This is evidenced by the failure to coordinate native title policy objectives with those that are directed to the economic development of Indigenous people.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/ Not exact matches
Her doctoral thesis is titled «Political Debates, Policy Objectives and Outcomes in British and Italian Immigration Politics, 1997 - 2010».
The DOT Order directs the Department to consider EJ objectives when administering the requirements of NEPA; Title VI and related statutes; the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA); Congressional authorized planning requirements; other laws, regulations, and executive orders, that address or affect infrastructure planning and decisionmaking; social, economic or environmental matters; public health; and public involvement.
The DOT EJ Order directs the Department to consider EJ objectives when administering the requirements of NEPA; Title VI and related statutes; the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended; planning statutes in Title 23, U.S. Code and Title 49, U.S. Code; and other statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that address or affect transportation infrastructure planning and decision - making; social, economic or environmental matters; public health; or public involvement.
The objectives of this Treaty shall, in matters governed by this Title, be pursued by Member States within the framework of a common transport policy.
Yet native title policy is not integrated with these objectives.
However, unclear in most native title policies are the objectives of the negotiation process.
However, native title is not a statutorily created right to meet policy objectives, but an inherent right derived from Indigenous culture.
The report presents an approach that is consistent with and could contribute to the objectives of the federal Government's new arrangements and demonstrates how a synergy between the goals, concepts and processes of the new arrangements and native title policy could be established to achieve sustainable outcomes.
The chapter suggests that failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with these broader policies aimed at addressing the economic and social development of Indigenous people, not only limits the native title process; it also limits the capacity of the broader Indigenous policy to achieve its objectives.
SWALSC propose that the agreement include ongoing dialogue between a Noongar regional representative entity and the State across a range of issues of mutual interest, to give effect to sustainable social and economic outcomes which recognise the interrelationship between native title and the government's broader Indigenous policy objectives.
In turn, native title can contribute to realising the objectives of the government's broader Indigenous affairs policy - the economic and social development of all Indigenous peoples.
Government native title policies of negotiating over litigating without clear objectives for negotiations miss the opportunity to link to broader Indigenous affairs policy goals and use native title agreements for more meaningful outcomes.
Not only does this isolate the native title process from broader policy objectives, it limits the capacity of those broader policies to filter development through the cultural values and structures of the group which is the subject of the policy.
The policy framework advocated in this Report synchronises the three types of negotiations within the native title process towards the achievement of the group's development objectives.
The formulation of policy in this way, through transparent, representative processes, shows a commitment by the South Australian government to facilitating the native title groups» development objectives.
While there is a failure by many States to fully develop policy objectives for native title negotiations, this policy gap could be filled if States were willing to align native title negotiations with the economic and social development objectives contained in their broader Indigenous policies.
Where native title negotiations are not directed through integrated policy objectives towards agreements which lay the foundation for economic and social development then the negotiations will instead be driven by other priorities, such as the need to resolve a legal claim or the land management priorities of the state.
The failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with the State's strategies to address the economic and social development of Indigenous people not only limits the native title process; it also limits the capacity of the broader policy to achieve its objectives.
The NIC Principles open up the possibility of compulsion, not on the basis of national or public interest, which could apply to any title, but on the basis that this is an Indigenous title and that others, non-title holders, have set policy objectives for the title holders.
The failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with the State's strategies to address the economic and social development of Indigenous people not only isolates the native title process from these broader policy objectives; it limits the capacity of the broader policy to achieve its objectives.
While there has been little policy development around defining the objectives of native title agreements this gap could be filled if States and Territories were willing to align the objectives of native title negotiations with the economic and social development objectives contained in their broader Indigenous policies.
This is not to deny that recognising the legal rights of native title parties is a necessary element of a native title policy in which the objective is the sustainable development of the group.
By utilising the existing land holding governance structures, whether they be native title representative bodies or land councils and land trusts, governments have an opportunity to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians to address some of their key policy objectives.
The failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with the State's strategies to address the economic and social development of Indigenous people generally not only isolates the native title process from broader policy objectives; it limits the capacity of those broader policies to achieve their objective of addressing the economic and social conditions of Indigenous people's lives.
An overall policy objective needs to be formulated in relation to economic development for Indigenous lands - both land rights lands and native title lands.
In order to achieve this goal the policies must aim to build the capacity of the native title group to identify and realise its own development objectives.
While there is a failure by many governments to fully develop policy objectives for native title negotiations, this policy gap could be filled if they were willing to align native title negotiations with the economic and social development objectives contained in their broader Indigenous policies.
The failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with the State's strategies to address the economic and social development of Indigenous people not only isolates the native title process from broader policy objectives; it limits the capacity of those broader policies to achieve their objective of addressing the economic and social conditions of Indigenous people's lives.
Unclear in most native title policies, however, are the objectives of the negotiation process.
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.
I propose legislative and policy options for improving the native title system, with the objective of promoting further discussion and debate.
This included developing clear objectives, principles and policies for managing native title claims, and using land summits as a forum for mediating and negotiating overlapping native title claim areas.