The impact of the law on consultation practices and purpose: A case study of Aboriginal cultural heritage consultations in NSW

Lingard, Kylie Anne

doi:10.5130/ijrlp.i1.2012.2712

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It does not connect individual specimens to every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group who may have a cultural connection in the species as a whole. On the other hand, granting negotiation rights to multiple groups could result in negotiations that include dozens of people with various needs and aspirations (Lingard 2012). In effect, this may result in no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group having any real control.…”

Section: Control Bush Food Plantsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The potential of current legal structures to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Australian bush food industry

Lingard

2015

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are complex connections between Australia's native plants and first peoples, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The maintenance of these connections is central to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and well-being and the tangible realisation of Australian policy commitments. Diverse cultural connections combine with other motivations to underpin an array of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the commercial development of traditional plant foods ('bush foods'). Despite nation-wide policy support for these interests, there is no national legal framework to support them. This fortifies the popular call for a new (sui generis) law that transforms the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into enforceable legal rights. It is unclear the extent to which a single sui generis law might help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples realise their diverse interests in the development of gourmet bush food products and new bush food varieties. It is also unlikely that Australia will implement such a law in the near future. This paper offers a preliminary study of the capacity of current legal structures to support some key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests that might arise in these two development contexts. The study can inform the future development of practical legal strategies to support the diverse interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the bush food industry.

show abstract

Section: Control Bush Food Plantsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The potential of current legal structures to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Australian bush food industry

Lingard

2015

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Strategies to Support the Interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Commercial Development of Gourmet Bush Food Products

Lingard

Martin

2016

Int J Cult Prop

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Indigenous groups and individuals may have different needs and aspirations in relation to their local plant foods (“bush foods”). Interests may reflect totemic relationships, customary rights and duties, social positions, political and economic motivations, and personal capacities. This article uses a systems method to identify strategies to support the diverse interests of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the commercial development of gourmet bush food products. The aim is to identify possibilities for further consideration by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

show abstract

Are we there yet? A review of proposed Aboriginal cultural heritage laws in New South Wales, Australia

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the extent to which a recent law reform initiative in New South Wales (NSW), Australia—the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 (NSW)—advances the general principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The examination reveals some improvements on the current legal framework and some concerning proposals that distance the NSW government from the UNDRIP principles. Key concerns include a proposed transfer of administrative responsibility to Aboriginal bodies with no corresponding guarantee of funding; the continued vesting of key decision-making powers in government; inept provisions for the protection of secret knowledge; and lower penalties for harming cultural heritage than for related offences in existing environmental and planning legislation. Given the bill’s weaknesses, the article explores pragmatic alternatives to better advance the UNDRIP principles.

show abstract

The impact of the law on consultation practices and purpose: A case study of Aboriginal cultural heritage consultations in NSW

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

The potential of current legal structures to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Australian bush food industry

The potential of current legal structures to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Australian bush food industry

Strategies to Support the Interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Commercial Development of Gourmet Bush Food Products

Are we there yet? A review of proposed Aboriginal cultural heritage laws in New South Wales, Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About