Suchergebnisse

The foundation of this report is Recommendation 18 in Andrew Forrest's The Forrest Review, which suggests targets and plans for a preferential procurement program. This report explains to motivation behind Recommendation 18 and identifies common problems in procurement programs around the world in order to implement a sound system in Australia, sustainable in the long run. The aim of the report is to aid in the effort to stimulate Indigenous employment by providing a recommendation for implementing and continuing a preferential procurement program applicable to all levels of government and the private sector. Methods of analysis include the exemplification of procurement programs around the world, examining theoretical arguments, and presenting surveys of actors in procurement programs. The report finds evidence of corruption in many instances and examples of policy that failed to grow the contracted businesses or had negative economic implications. The theory and international examples exemplify the obligation of creating a separation of powers within a public program and developing a policy focused on growing the business, not helping it survive. The surveys provide insight to where the government can prioritise to make the purchasing process smooth and a contract desirable.

Indigenous Peoples are struggling for water justice across the globe. These struggles stem from centuries-long, ongoing colonial legacies and hold profound significance for Indigenous Peoples' socioeconomic development, cultural identity, and political autonomy and external relations within nation-states. Ultimately, Indigenous Peoples' right to self- determination is implicated. Growing out of a symposium hosted by the University of Colorado Law School and the Native American Rights Fund in June 2016, this Article expounds the concept of "indigenous water justice" and advocates for its realization in three major trans- boundary river basins: the Colorado (U.S./Mexico), Columbia (Canada/U.S.), and Murray-Darling (Australia). The Article begins with a novel conceptualization of indigenous water justice rooted in the historic United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)—specifically, UNDRIP's foundational principle of self-determination. In turn, the Article offers overviews of the basins and narrative accounts of enduring water-justice struggles experienced by Indigenous Peoples therein. Finally, the Article synthesizes commonalities evident from the indigenous water-justice struggles by introducing and deconstructing the concept of "water colonialism." Against this backdrop, the Article revisits UNDRIP to articulate principles and prescriptions aimed at prospectively realizing indigenous water justice in the basins and around the world.

Policing in Indigenous communities is an issue that demands attention to a range of broad political, socio-economic, cultural and historical contexts, as well as the more mundane matters of police operational concern. Given the complexity of the topic, this chapter will be selective and, from necessity, concentrate relatively briefly on a few key themes. They include the following: · The background to the contemporary relationship between police and Indigenous people. · A discussion of some of the key drivers for reform including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCADIC), and more recently Aboriginal Justice Advisory Councils (AJACs) and the development of Aboriginal Justice Agreements. · A discussion of some of the key policing approaches specific to Indigenous communities such as Aboriginal liaison officers and Aboriginal community police. · A discussion of some of the key interface issues between police and community including the development of Indigenous community justice mechanisms.

The metaphor of "movement" has been applied in limited measure to indigenous action in Australia, and more to recent events (∼1960s and afterwards) than to earlier ones. This review characterizes movement in social-semiotic terms that allow consideratio

The metaphor of "movement" has been applied in limited measure to indigenous action in Australia, and more to recent events (∼1960s and afterwards) than to earlier ones. This review characterizes movement in social-semiotic terms that allow consideratio

Using Indigenous epistemology blended with qualitative methodology, I spoke with forty-five Indigenous people about navigating the problematic processes for multiple American Indian identities within different contexts. I examined Indigenous identity as the product of out-group processes (being invisible in spite of the prevalence of overt racism), institutional constraints (being in the unique position where legal identification validates Indian race), and intra-ethnic othering (internalizing overt and institutionalized racism which results in authenticity policing). I find that overt racism becomes invisible when racist social discourse becomes legitimized. Discourse structures society within the interactions between institutions, individuals, and groups. Racist social discourse becomes legitimized through its normalization created within social institutions--like education, media, legislation, and family. Institutions shape social norms to make it seem right to enact racial violence against, and between, Indigenous Peoples, using stereotypes, racist labels, and laws that define "Indian" race by blood quanta. Ultimately, Indigenous Peoples can reproduce or contest the legitimized racism of Western social norms. Therefore, this work explores the dialectical and reciprocal relationship between notions of structure and agency as represented in negotiations of Indigenous identity.

The Whitlam government of the 1970s introduced the principle of self-determination to Indigenous affairs. Since then it has been accepted as an important factor in attaining equality for Indigenous Australians. Self-determination can be broadly understood to mean the transference of political and economic power to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In is understood in terms of Aboriginal people having control over the ultimate decision about a wide range of matters including political status, and economic, social and cultural development and having the resources and capacity to control the future of their own communities within the legal structure common to all Australians. Political representation is a vital aspect of Indigenous self-determination as it is the forum in which Indigenous people can express their views and opinions as well as influence policies concerning their lives and communities and interact with the government in order to achieve the best possible results for all involved. It can be argued that the present government's policies in the area of Indigenous affairs have marked a significant shift away from the policy of self-determination as evident in the dismantlement of representative structures such as ATSIC. The policies of self-determination and self-management led to what Will Sanders describes as two experiments in the creation of government-sponsored Aboriginal representative structures - the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), and the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). Both the NACC and the NAC were elected advisory bodies to the government that were both short-lived and were replaced with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC differed form its predecessors in that it combined two functions within one organization - representation and executive responsibilities. Upon its inception, ATSIC was described as a path breaking experiment in the field of Indigenous affairs internationally. ATSIC was an elected body with a strong regional focus with 60 (later 36) regional councils which formed the basis of ATSIC's representative structure. Each ATSIC region had a Regional Council. 8-12 people were elected to each Regional Council who then in turn elected a Regional Chairperson and a Deputy. These Regional councils are grouped into 16 ATSIC zones each of which elected a national Commissioner from among their regional councillors. In an attempt to balance representation of regions with very different populations, zones ranged from one to eight regional councils whilst there were 60 regions from 1990 to 1993. From late 1993, when there were 36 regions, zones ranged from one to four regional councils. The administrative arm was headed by a Chief Executive Officer and administrated ATSIC's various programs, including the implementation of decisions made by the elected arm about loan and grant applications and the direction of funding to particular service delivery organisations. A review of ATSIC in 2002-2003 resulted in a public discussion paper and a final report outlining problems with ATSIC's structure and operations and recommendations for reform. One of the main criticisms of ATSIC was the need to improve connections between regional representative structures and national policy formulations. Within six months of the report being published the government position did an abrupt about face - from strengthening ATSIC, which was considered a unique organisation to doing away with it. In April 2004, both the coalition government and the labour opposition announced intentions to abolish ATSIC. In May 2004, the government announced that ATSIC was to be abolished in two stages, with the national board to terminate in 2004 and the regional councils in 2005. The National Indigenous Council (NIC) was established to advise the government on Indigenous affairs and consists of appointed members and is not representative nor does it have the power to influence policy making in Indigenous affairs The abolition of the nationally elected representative Indigenous body ensures that the government will only have to deal with Indigenous peoples on its own terms and without any reference to the views and goals of Indigenous peoples. Increased Indigenous participation and control over decision making is essential to improving government service delivery. Ultimately, abolishing ATSIC will simply silence Indigenous people at the national level while the deeply entrenched crisis in Indigenous communities continues unabated. The removal of ATSIC and the lack of a replacement representative body for Indigenous Australians means that once again, Indigenous people have lost the power to influence the decisions that impact on their lives. International examples from Canada, the US and New Zealand show that there are various models for Indigenous representation which facilitate self-determination. It is vital that these models are considered as well as the models of past Australian representative structures when developing a representative body for Indigenous Australians. A representative body must be established for. Indigenous Australians so that once again, they influence policies which concern them, advocate on behalf of Indigenous Australians and negotiate with governments for positive outcomes to improve their lives.

This review provides detailed information on the extent of diabetes, and its complications and comorbidities among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including: incidence and prevalence data; hospitalisations; mortality and burden of disease. This review discusses the issues of prevention and management of diabetes, and provides information on relevant programs, services, policies and strategies that address the health issue of diabetes among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This review concludes by discussing possible future directions for combatting the growing epidemic of diabetes in Australia. The review focuses primarily on type 2 diabetes among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but also refers to type 1 diabetes and gestational diabetes where relevant. It provides general information on the historical, social and cultural context of diabetes, and the behavioural and biomedical factors that contribute to diabetes among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This review draws mostly on journal publications, government reports, national data collections and national surveys, the majority of which can be accessed through the HealthInfoNet's Australian Indigenous HealthBibliography.

This paper estimates the area of land held by Indigenous people in Australia in 2000. It details the legislation and programs that have lead to the accrual of land for Indigenous people in Australia since the concept of Indigenous ownership of land under Australian law, rather than the allocation of reserve lands, was first addressed in the mid 1960s. It is based on a literature review and data provided by a variety of government agencies and Indigenous organisations around Australia. Using this information, the paper estimates that Indigenous Australians either own, control or have management arrangements over land in the range of 16 to 18 per cent of the Australian continent. The lower range is based on reliable data whereas the higher range is speculative due to the fact that the aggregated area of many small landholdings has never been quantified. As the paper demonstrates, the types of tenures held by Indigenous Australians differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and within jurisdictions. This is a result not only of the federal system of government in Australia, where land management and administration is the role of the State or Territory governments, but also a product of different priorities and objectives set by Federal, State and Territory governments in addressing Indigenous peoples' aspirations for land. In some States and Territories, land rights regimes exist for lands to be claimed across the entire jurisdiction, while in other States and Territories land rights legislation is limited to the grant of specific parcels of land. The plethora of programs, statutes and government agencies involved in dealing with Indigenous land over the past decades has meant that, across Australia today, there is extreme diversity in the types of ownership, beneficiaries, tenures, property rights and governance structures available to Indigenous people. Indigenous landholdings in Australia in 2000 can be characterised as follows: most Indigenous land is located in the remote rangeland regions of the continent. There are many more Indigenous land parcels in the south-east of the continent; however these parcels are very small in area; about half of the aggregated area of Indigenous land in Australia is located in the Northern Territory as a result of successful claims under the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; the aggregated area of Indigenous land in Australia was yet to be influenced by land subject to native title recognition under the common law or the Native Title Act 1993; the area of land accrued by purchase with the assistance of Indigenous Land Acquisition programs is very small by comparison with land accrued by land rights legislation. However, the significance of the acquisition programs cannot be underestimated as they may be the only means by which Indigenous aspirations to land can be addressed in many parts of Australia. The paper also assesses the area of Indigenous land in each State and Territory. It details the programs and legislative frameworks of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments which contribute to addressing Indigenous aspirations for land in each jurisdiction.

Over the past 3 decades, indigenous guardian programs (also known as indigenous rangers or watchmen) have emerged as an institution for indigenous governments to engage in collaborative environmental governance. Using a systematic review of peer‐reviewed literature for research conducted in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa‐New Zealand, and the United States, we sought to characterize the emergence of indigenous guardians in the literature and explore whether guardian approaches are representative of Indigenous approaches to environmental governance. Using a multistep relevance‐screening method, we reviewed 83 articles published since 1995, that report on, critique, or comment on Indigenous guardians. Our findings indicated that most articles on the topic were published in the last decade (88%), focused on Australia (65%), and were in a social science discipline (53%). The lead author of the majority of articles was an academic, although only half of the articles included an indigenous scholar or member of an indigenous group or organization as a coauthor. Finally, 11 articles were on research of guardian programs that were locally led and only 5 exemplified indigenous governance, based on 2 well‐known community‐based monitoring typologies. Our findings indicate that more research is required to understand the implications of current guardian programs for indigenous self‐determination, particularly when such programs are embedded in a broader western environmental governance structure.

". this paper offers a brief overview of issues and themes emerging from Melanesian studies that bear on current concerns with "indigenous governance". My strategy for doing so is to discuss a recent case of political innovation in Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands. Drawing on my own research in Santa Isabel, I ask what issues and questions emerging in that locale may be relevant for other local systems in Melanesia ." - page 1 ; AusAID

". this paper offers a brief overview of issues and themes emerging from Melanesian studies that bear on current concerns with "indigenous governance". My strategy for doing so is to discuss a recent case of political innovation in Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands. Drawing on my own research in Santa Isabel, I ask what issues and questions emerging in that locale may be relevant for other local systems in Melanesia ." - page 1 ; AusAID

The history of Indigenous struggles is a conflicted one that has carried on into the 21st century. Governments have implemented and adapted plan after plan in accordance with their beliefs on how Indigenous affairs should be managed. The goal for Indigenous Australians in 1938 was to obtain equal rights and opportunities. The journey has been a long one and still this milestone has not been achieved. However, these goals have been evolving to include being recognized as the First Australians and the entitlements that entails. Having land given back to Indigenous people was one of the original goals that remains to be a critical issue even in debates today. A Northern Territory strike at Wave Hill Station in 1966 shows the first actions toward regaining land rights, "The strike soon becomes a demand for land rights, when the strikers set up camp on their traditional land and seek the transfer of part of the pastoral lease."1 In the early 1900s, what is now referred to as the 'lost generation,' was caused by the government assimilating Indigenous Australians into mainstream Australian culture. It was a 'government manage all ' approach. To help facilitate this movement, children from mixed decent were taken from their families, and placed in non Indigenous homes to be raised. This practice continued until the late 1960s. When the Whitlarn Labor government carne into power, the phrase self-determination was used to describe the goals of and for Indigenous peoples. This was a vague term used to signify Indigenous people having some sense of independence while existing in Australian society. It was an opportunity to provide input into their own affairs. A separate government department was established to govern Indigenous affairs; this was called the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. An elected advising committee was formed to assist the department in speaking to Indigenous communities. The 1976 Fraser Coalition government moved toward the idea of self-management for Indigenous people. This to an extent reduced the ideals set out by the Whitlam government. The government did not intend to broaden its governance over Indigenous issues, but rather continued to view its responsibility as limited to certain aspects of Indigenous affairs. Under this government discussions of land rights as well as basic rights continued. In 1987, with Prime Minister Bob Hawke, the topic of forming a treaty with Indigenous Australians was raised, something then Opposition Leader John Howard was strongly against. A combination approach to addressing Indigenous affairs was initiated. As a result, in 1989 self-determination resurfaced as a policy approach with the creation of ATSIC. For the government the goal was to increase funding for Indigenous programs as well as give communities greater control over their future. ATSIC was established in 1990 in an effort to satisfy a change in goals. Never before had the government given indigenous people to power to decide where to allocate funds for their own programs. It was seen as a movement from the government making decisions for aboriginal people to helping them in making decisions for themselves. Also established was a council to promote Reconciliation and improve the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. However, the goals set by Government proved to be a stepping stone for what Indigenous leaders were after. The Government was displeased with some of the ways ATSIC was using its power. As a result the government decided it needed to critically monitor the functioning and decision making of the ATSIC board and ordered an intensive review to take place, where ATSIC was forced to account for its every move. This review board reported directly to the minister. In 1993, Indigenous people began the fight for more than just recognition of land claims, but for social reform aimed at improving their conditions and giving them opportunities for a better future. The topic of Reconciliation resurfaces. Indigenous people force the government to address the issue of Aboriginal children having been removed from their homes. The Keating government decided to focus on Indigenous rights and Reconciliation. This provided the opportunity for Indigenous Australians to voice what they had been continuously pushing for,' True Reconciliation.' Among other goals this movement sought an official apology from the government for the 'stolen generations.' In 1996, the Howard government took a step back from the idea of 'True Reconciliation,' and proposed 'Practical Reconciliation' instead. This plan did not satisfy the Indigenous demand for an apology. Through this period ATSIC underwent many struggles and conflict ultimately resulting in its abolishment.

The main aim of this report is to determine the phenotypic characteristics of Somali indigenous chickens. This research is the initial stage toward a future initiative to differentiate and improve Somali local chicken breeds. There are several indigenous and exotic chicken breeds in Somalia, as well as many other hybrids of chicken; however, this study focused on indigenous breeds that differ in body form, colors, comb type, and capacity to adapt to a given environment in Somalia. The five main indigenous chicken breeds in Somalia. The first indigenous chicken (IC) is Dooro Tiyeglow (Tiyeglow chicken), they have well adapted mostly to agro-pastoral communities' regions like Bakool region and it has a remarkable beard feather, it also has a single upright comb broad. The second (IC), is Qoordiir (Naked Neck chicken), which is indigenous chicken mostly they have some tassel in the front part of its neck. The prominent plumage color is white and red stripes or red with white strips. Third (IC), is Dooro Jarray (Somali short chicken), this chicken is part of an eco-friendly chicken and is well-known for its small body size. And the common feature of this chicken is black shanks or gray-black shanks. Fourth (IC) is Dooro Buuftoy (Ovambo chickens), this chicken is considered to be smaller in size than exotic chickens, yet it comes in black and red colors. This has a strong personality and is very aggressive. The Fifth (IC) is Dooro Sawahili (Swahili chicken) this chicken is an exotic species that interbreed many local chickens, comes from many angles, has a huge body frame, and is good in egg production. The recommendation of this study is to undertake a government policy to encourage the conservation of Somalia's indigenous chicken breeds in order to prevent extinction and to make development and improvement of local chickens.

This paper synthesises the lessons learnt and challenges encountered when applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods in natural and cultural resource management (NCRM) in northern and central Australia. We primarily draw on the papers within this special issue of Ecological Management & Restoration, which originated largely from the Indigenous land management symposium at the 2010 Ecological Society of Australia conference. Many of the papers and therefore this article discuss practical experiences that offer insight for enhanced on-ground cross-cultural NCRM and can inform broader thinking and theoretical critiques. A wider literature is also drawn upon to substantiate the points and broaden the scope of the synthesis. Four key themes for consideration in collaborative cross-cultural NCRM are discussed. They are as follows: 1. The differences in environmental philosophy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures which profoundly shape perceptions of environmental management; 2. Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods; 3. The mechanics of two-way approaches to ecological research and managing country (NCRM as perceived by Indigenous people) and 4. Operational challenges for Indigenous NCRM organisations. To conclude, we point out five broad principles for managing country using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge: (i) Recognise the validity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies; (ii) Create more opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, respect and collaborations; (iii) Involve Indigenous people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of the Indigenous NCRM project or research (including planning, design, implementation, communication and evaluation); (iv) Ensure that time and continuity of effort and resources are available (to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building and innovation) and (v) Establish high-level political support through legal and policy frameworks to maintain continuity of government commitment to Indigenous NCRM.