Search results

[1] The full text of the Bilateral Agreement is available online at: http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Publications/Files/Bilateral_Agreement.pdf, accessed 24 January 2008. [2] Andrews, K., (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations), CDEP 2006-07 To Build On Success, Media Release, 1 July 2006. [3] Bishop, J., (Minister for Education, Science and Training), Early childhood focus for Indigenous education, Media Release, 7 July 2006, available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B001070706.asp, accessed 24 January 2008.

In the Social Justice Report 1999, my first report as Social Justice Commissioner, I identified four key themes and challenges that existed in the approach of the federal government to Indigenous policy making at the time. These were moving beyond welfare dependency, accountability, participation and reconciliation.[1] Since the release of that report approximately four years ago, the key themes and challenges facing the government have remained relatively constant.

On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo v Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. This decision constitutes the first recognition of indigenous property rights at common law in Australia. The Court rejected the previously existing view that Australia was terra nullius (or land belonging to no-one) upon settlement by Europeans in 1788.

A stable and enduring basis for a dynamic and long term relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people over land is emerging through negotiation and agreement-making. Native title agreements are increasingly seen as an important tool in defining the rights of native title holders over their land. But here, as in other aspects of native title, there is concern that there are currently no mechanisms to safeguard human rights principles. Substantive, just and equitable outcomes are only achieved if there are minimum standards in place to recognize and protect these principles.

In most states and territories of Australia, Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) are negotiated on a case by case basis between the relevant parties, usually traditional owners, governments and industry groups. South Australia however, has taken a more comprehensive approach to these agreements. The South Australian Government, Indigenous traditional land owners and industry stakeholders have developed a state-wide framework that streamlines ILUA processes and reduces the resources that are required for successive negotiations.

Water is vital to life, essential to agriculture and a valuable energy source which may be utilised in the mitigation of climate change impacts. Water is extremely valuable globally to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and is used for many different purposes. Water is also important to both for different reasons.