Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Aboriginal treaties"

Thomas Flanagan's article on adhesion to Indian treaties in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Law and Society is a bold foray into a virtually unexplored area of aboriginal rights. Although adhesions to most of the eleven Numbered Treaties in northern and western Canada were common, as Flanagan points out, not much attention has been paid to them. The matter is nonetheless of major importance for many aboriginal peoples, as was demonstrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last year that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai had surrendered their aboriginal title by adhesion to the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty. There can be little doubt that the issue is going to arise more frequently as other aboriginal peoples challenge the application of treaties to their ancestral lands.

The Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement (EMRLCA) with the James Bay Cree of northern Quebec contains a novel approach to achieving certainty in treaties with Indigenous peoples. For the federal government, the certainty of having the rights of an Indigenous nation exhaustively set out in one document is the benefit derived from treaties. Unlike Aboriginal rights, which the government views as ambiguous and hard to define, treaties are negotiated agreements that clearly outline rights. The goal of government when negotiating treaties is therefore to ensure that the Indigenous group can only exercise treaty rights and not their pre-existing Aboriginal rights which are recognized by the common law and the Constitution Act, 1982.

Abstract The 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of R. v. Donald Marshall Jr. brought about a dramatic change in Aboriginal (First Nations) fishing and harvesting rights in Canada’s Maritime Provinces. Marshall argued that a series of eighteenth-century treaties signed between the Mi’kmaq and the British government guaranteed his right to fish for commercial purposes. The British and, later, the Canadian governments accorded little priority to these treaties, despite repeated protests by the Mi’kmaq. The Supreme Court’s decision caught most observers by surprise, particularly because of the sweeping provisions it made for Aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery. Political controversy followed, sparked by the absence of decisive action by the federal government, by the First Nations’ determination to commence commercial fishing, and by growing anger at "judicial activism" by the Supreme Court. The resulting tensions exacerbated long-standing ethnic tensions in the region. The Marshall decision represented a major turning point in Aboriginal harvesting rights in Canada. The Supreme Court’s judgment gave new power to treaties that non-Aboriginal governments had chosen to ignore. At the same time, the decision provided Aboriginal Maritimers with assured access to important fisheries (particularly the lucrative lobster trade) and therefore a key role in the evolving regional economy.

Abstract This article gives a schematic overview of metis aboriginal rights from the Huron and Superior Treaties of 1850 to the Mackenzie Valley Treaty of 1921. It traces the evolution of federal policy in several stages: treating Metis as Indians, followed by individual grants of land, scrip and money. Pragmatism and expediency led to many inconsistencies in policy, but there were also pressures of administrative precedent favouring rationalization. Awareness of this history is essential in determining what metis aboriginal rights, if any, are still “existing” under s. 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This article explores the interpretive principle of sui generis treaties introduced by the Supreme Court of Canada since the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. The article proceeds through an analysis of treaty rights as constitutional rights, contextual analysis of Indian Treaties, the intent of the treaty parties and the principles which govern the interpretation of treaty text. The author concludes that the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada are an attempt to affirm and enhance Aboriginal worldviews and cognitive diversity within the Constitution of Canada.

In the case of R. v. Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada created a justificatory scheme for federal legislation that had the potential to derogate from the rights of the Aboriginal peoples that are protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Since that time, the Sparrow test has been applied to both Aboriginal and treaty rights. The author suggests that the straightforward application of the Sparrow test to treaty rights is inappropriate because of the significant distinctions between Aboriginal and treaty rights. Where there is a need to balance treaty rights with competing rights, any justificatory standard to be applied ought to be consistent with the consensual basis of Crown- Native treaties.

This article examines two problems faced by the Canadian population: the current conditions of Aboriginal children and the lack of concrete course of action established to improve the dire conditions and lack of access to basic resources. This article proposes that a human rights framework can be utilized to address the disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in Canada. An integrated human rights framework acknowledges the complexity of the relationship between universal, natural and legal rights and provides a system of accountability to track the quality and success of the improvements made by the government of Canada. Due to the complex and systematic nature of the problem, a human rights framework provides a way to supplement the treaties and agreements that the government of Canada has often used as reasons for not taking responsibility. This paper concludes that an integrated human rights framework is an effective way to address the significant gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in terms of access and funding for social, health and educational services.

The Constitution of Canada is a prismatic hodgepodge of treaties, royal instructions and proclamations, and UK legislation. The unifying factor is the constitutional monarchy that holds together a topocratic and collegiality federation. Treaties with Aboriginal nations created treaty federalism; subsequent UK legislation created provincial federalism. Both of these imperial documents are more prismatic than systematic. Prismatic thought is reflective of an infinite variety of perspectives of the same core of truth, which is simultaneously solid and shifting. This has been recognized as representing the federation called “the ironic confederation.”

In recent years, the development in Canada of a constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities has had ramifications on government decision-making that are widespread, far-reaching, and potentially expansive. The modern duty to consult doctrine developed in a series of cases in 2004-2005, ensuring that governments have a duty to consult proactively with Aboriginal communities whose Aboriginal or treaty rights may be adversely impacted by a particular administrative decision, even in the face of uncertainty about the scope of asserted rights in the absence of a final settlement or court decision. Case law development on the duty later established that the duty is also triggered in the context of an early, strategic decision that may determine later administrative decisions. Some have put forth the argument that the duty may be triggered prior to the adoption of legislation; adjudication on that issue is currently making its way forwardthrough the courts. The Hupacasath First Nation case, recently decided at the Federal Court of Appeal, raised another question, that of whether or not consultation was owed to Aboriginal communities in the context of international treaty negotiations. Although the federal government has actually engaged in such consultation in some instances so as to avoid infringing Aboriginal and treaty rights, the case raised the complex question of whether it is constitutionally required to do so in order to comply with the duty to consult doctrine. On the particular facts of the case, the issue concerned the Canada-China foreign investment treaty, which the Hupacasath First Nation argued was apt to lead to later infringements on Aboriginal rights. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. Their rejection has broader implications, but we shall argue that it leaves open the possibility that the negotiation of some internationaltreaties may trigger the constitutional duty to consult, thus opening a complex nexus between constitutional and international law.

The rights of aboriginal peoples may vary from one part of the country to the other. This stems from the origin of Canada, its history, its Imperial and the Constitutional Statutes which have determined the territorial evolution of Canada. The terms of the Quebec Act seem to limit the hunting territories of the Indians to that part of Quebec which was not a part of the Colony in 1763. While a federal law extinguished all aboriginal rights in the territory covered by the James Bay agreements, the amendment of 16 March 1983 may have, for Quebec, important legal consequences in that these agreements may be held to be treaties.

In Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that ss. 35(1) is “a solemn commitment that must be given meaningful content” the objective of which is to ensure that Aboriginal rights “are taken seriously.” Despite such a clear directive from the highest court, in Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada [2007], MacInnes J. of the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba seemed incapable of taking seriously the Aboriginal title of the Métis under s. 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, and in no way thought of its explicit recognition as ‘a solemn commitment that must be given meaningful content’. For his part, if Scott C.J. of the Manitoba Court of Appeal was able to find a ‘cognizable Aboriginal interest’ in the expression ‘Indian title’, and thereby recognize to some extent Métis Aboriginal rights, he seemed incapable of conceiving such interests as title. This thesis is basically an attempt to ‘take seriously’ the common law Aboriginal title of the Métis. In order to do so, it first looks at the treatment of the concept of Indian title and the Royal Proclamation, 1763, in the lower courts throughout the infamous St. Catharine’s Milling and Lumber case. Subsequently, the existing common law doctrines of inherent Métis rights, those of the derivative rights doctrine, the empty box doctrine and the distinct Aboriginal people doctrine are all found to be inadequate to the task of providing cogency to the ‘constitutional imperative’ that was evoked in Powley. A fourth doctrine is therefore proposed, that of a Métis Autochthonous or Indigenous rights doctrine. In light of this, it is argued that the recognition of the ‘Indian’ title in s. 31 was not a mere ‘political expediency’ but is rooted in the underlying constitutional principle of the protection of minorities. Furthermore, insofar as the ‘Indian’ title of the Métis is taken seriously, it can be seen as having been extinguished through the federal power over ‘lands reserved for Indians’ under ss. 91(24). The legal implication is that they were, in the logic of the times, basically enfranchised ‘Indians’. Finally, by applying the grid established in Sioui for determining the existence of a ‘treaty’, it is argued that s. 31 is a ‘treaty’ or land claims settlement within the meaning of s. 35.

This thesis investigates the search for new relationships between indigenous and settler peoples in Australia and Canada. Both reconciliation and the treaty-making process in British Columbia are understood as attempts to build such relationships. Yetthese are policies that have arisen in response to the persistence of indigenous claims for recognition of rights and respect for identity. Consequently, I consider what the purpose of new relationships might be: is the creation of new relationships to be the means by which settlers recognise and respect indigenous rights and identities, or is there some other goal? To answer this, I analyse the two policies as the opening of negotiations over indigenous claims for recognition. That is, the opening of new political spaces in which indigenous people�s voices and claims may be heard. Reconciliation opened a space to rethink Australian attitudes to history and culture, to renegotiate Australian identity. Treaties in British Columbia primarily seek to renegotiate ownership and control of lands and resources. Both policies attempt to relegitimise the polities in which they operate, by making new relationships that provide for mutual recognition. However, the thesis establishes that these new spaces are not nearly as expansive or inclusive as they are made out to be. They are in fact defined by the internal struggles of settler society to make life more certain: to resume identities that are secure and satisfying, and to restore territorial control and economic security. This takes place with little regard for the legitimate claims of indigenous peoples to be recognised as people and to enjoy dynamic, flourishing identities of their own. Building new relationships becomes the path to entrenching old certainties.

This paper discusses the legal principles which are relevant in determining the appropriate level of compensation for infringements to aboriginal and treaty rights. This issue has been left open by the Supreme Court of Canada in the seminal case of Delgamuukw. The nature of aboriginal and treaty rights as well as the fiduciary relationship and duties of the Crown are briefly described. The basic constitutional context in which these rights evolve is also discussed, including the federal common law of aboriginal rights and the constitutional position of these rights in Canada. Having set the general context, the paper then reviews the legal principles governing the infringement of aboriginal and treaty rights, including the requirement for just compensation. Reviews of the legal principles applicable to compensation in cases of expropriation and of the experience in the United States in regards to compensation in cases of the taking of aboriginal lands are also carried out. Six basic legal principles relevant for determining appropriate compensation in cases of infringement to aboriginal and treaty rights are then suggested, justified and explained. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

Several ways of understanding aboriginal rights surfaced in the wake of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. During my Masters’ studies, I journeyed these ways, propelled by a troubling dream that came to me while I was in law school. The dream prompted me to reconsider rights and to choose my words with caution and with care. And yet when I thought of what my dream might be trying to tell me, I was afraid. I was afraid to question rights, especially aboriginal rights. There seemed to be so much of me tied up in the cause and construction of aboriginal rights. All through law school I wanted there to be an answer I could find and defend. I wanted there to be a right way to think about aboriginal rights, something that would guarantee me a protected space to be. I wanted to continue pursuing that protection. And yet, there was my dream. Among the Anishinabe, dreams are considered gifts, for they lead us toward our greatest laws and teachings. Though I was loath to question aboriginal rights, I was not willing to question my dream. So I readied myself, preparing to put aboriginal rights into question. To my thesis, I brought all the learning I had done in and outside of law school. I also brought a question to guide me. To give me courage, I carried my faith in who I am, as Anishinabe. Knowing for all that I am Dawnis Kennedy, I am also Minawaanigogiizhigok, I set out to see what I would see. The question that led me through understandings of section 35 is this: do recent understandings of aboriginal rights within Canadian law enable Canadian courts to transform adverse relations with indigenous legal orders? The answer I found is, not yet. The interpretations of aboriginal rights I encountered have effected considerable change within Canadian law. However, my journey shows more is needed before the aboriginal rights framework can support respectful engagements with indigenous law. Indeed, without fundamental reorientation, I believe aboriginal rights jurisprudence will further entrench, rather than transform, Canadian law’s adverse relations with indigenous peoples. I would ask judges, lawyers, legislators, and all who shape Canadian law, to break away from attempts to reconcile indigenous and Canadian law within Canadian legal orders and reorient themselves towards fostering respect between indigenous and Canadian legal orders. In writing my thesis, I found cause for my concern with rights. And yet, this is not all that I found. Also, I found myself able to engage the world beyond the protective limits aboriginal rights provide. I found the ability to trust in another form of law, Anishinabe inaakonigewin, to understand my relations and actions in the world. This trust helped me to find the will to move beyond critiquing systems, toward engaging people.

The topic of this thesis is the prolonged denial and eventual recognition of the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Australia following the British assertion of sovereignty. The analysis considers the manner in which the denial and subsequent recognition of Indigenous rights has affected the system of government of the dominant society (the Commonwealth of Australia) in terms of the establishment and evolution of the constitutional framework and associated processes of institutional change in the principles, structures and procedures of the system of government. The primary jurisdiction in which this topic is explored is the Northern Territory of Australia; the primary contexts are the recognition of Indigenous land rights (defined broadly to include associated natural and cultural heritage and resource rights) and the Indigenous right to self government within ‘the state’ (the internationally constituted and recognised polity of the Commonwealth of Australia).
The thesis draws on analogous developments in Canada and New Zealand to demonstrate that, while significant progress has been made in the recognition of Indigenous rights since the 1960s, many forms of recognition remain conceptually and procedurally limited. In particular, associated regimes have almost invariably been devised and implemented within a fundamentally monocultural context in which Indigenous rights remain subject to unilateral abrogation or extinguishment by Commonwealth governments. In addition, the legal basis of and requirements for recognition of Indigenous rights according to Commonwealth law result in extremely variable levels of recognition in different areas and contexts, and principles and procedures for the mutual recognition and co-existence of Indigenous and Commonwealth law and systems of government are only partially apparent in the Federal and Northern Territory systems of government. In addition to extending and deepening the recognition of Indigenous rights throughout all relevant institutions of the system of government, to address these deficiencies the thesis argues that constitutional recognition and protection of Indigenous rights and the negotiation of treaties are essential if the Indigenous right of self-determination is to be respected and accommodated by the dominant society.

Legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title and treaty negotiations with First Nations in British Columbia (BC) are inextricably linked. While much has been written on the impacts of a small number of such legal decisions, there has been very little research that critically examines how legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title, in general, influence the way the parties to the BC treaty process conduct treaty negotiations. In-depth interviews with ten First Nations, provincial, and federal chief negotiators/advisers, together with British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC) commissioners and senior-level program staff, suggest that legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title influence the conduct of treaty negotiations in an indirect and serpentine manner. Further to this, the results suggest that legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title may act to simultaneously facilitate and constrain the conduct of negotiations.

Narrm, later named Port Phillip Bay by colonisers, shapes Aboriginal politics. This thesis is a place-based examination of the forms of treaty-making practised around Narrm. It aims to deepen the understandings of settler-Australians and historians of the political sophistication of the Kulin federation, a group of allied Aboriginal nations whose Country covers what is now central Victoria, Australia. Drawing on Aboriginal oral histories and colonial primary sources, as well as anthropological and archaeological scholarship, I use knowledge of Kulin culture and philosophy to explore, imagine, and decolonise the history of their politics from 14,000 years ago to the end of 1835. The forms of treaty explored in this thesis have been continuously practised for thousands of generations and exist within, and as an expression of, Kulin law. This thesis is divided into two parts, each consisting of two chapters. Part I examines the Kulin’s pre-colonial traditions of treaty-making, showing political relations were performed with Country, the non-human world and humans. Part II builds on this and shows that when encountering settlers in 1835 the bayside Kulin continued, and evolved, their treatymaking traditions. To describe these forms of Kulin political agreement-making, highlight Kulin agency and the political role of women, I introduce the term experiential treaties. An experiential treaty exists within the Indigenous oral tradition and is a political accord between a sovereign Aboriginal group and another party, be they a neighbouring Aboriginal clan, a refugee, a group of settlers as guests, or the non-human world of Country and animals. Exploring the Kulin world through experiential treaties centres Aboriginal political agency and selfdetermination. It is important to highlight that the practice of treaty-making does not have to include the modern or colonial settler-state. Experiential treaties are characterised by reciprocity and repetition, as they require iterative renewal through personal interactions between host and guest. With an imaginative approach based on Greg Dening’s historical methodology, I explore experiential treatymaking on Kulin country to decolonise Victorian history and highlight the silences and absences within current revisionist historiography of 1835. Rather than analyse the founding of Melbourne, I turn to the underresearched and unacknowledged political agency of the Waddawurrung living around present-day Geelong. Through exploring interactions with John Batman and his crew, I examine the exclusion of women from the narrative of 1835. Re-interpreting the political relations between the Waddawurrung and settlers camped at Indented Head shows that Kulin political traditions were continued, not disrupted, through what I term the Geelong Treaty based on the principle of iterative renewal and reciprocity. This thesis has significance in expanding the narrative of 1835 to include Kulin women and the Waddawurrung, but it also gives new depth to understandings of modern treaty-making and Indigenous activism in Victoria. As Wiradjuri legal scholar Mark McMillan states on the history and custom of Indigenous treaty-making: “There was something before, that still remains”. Key Words: treaty-making, Geelong Treaty, Kulin Treaty, Batman Treaty, Aboriginal treaties, decolonisation, Victorian colonisation, experiential treaties, Indigenous sovereignty, settler-colonialism, Kulin agency, Waddawurrung (Waddawurrung, Wathawurrung), Narrm (Port Phillip Bay), Beangala, Indented Head, William Buckley, cross-cultural lawful relations, environmental history, the Yarra camp.

L’objectif de la présente étude est de documenter la fécondité des Indiennes inscrites au Canada en fonction du traité historique d’affiliation. Les traités historiques sont des ententes légales qui lient le gouvernement du Canada et certains membres des Premières Nations et qui décrivent, notamment, les dispositions prévues à leur égard pour compenser la cession de leurs terres. Mêmes si les traités ont principalement une fonction légale, ils regroupent aussi des individus qui partagent des caractéristiques communes sur le plan culturel, linguistique, socioéconomique, territorial et historique. À partir de données extraites du Registre des Indiens, nous avons produit l’indice synthétique de fécondité (ISF) pour chacune des populations affiliées aux traités historiques pour les périodes 1994-1998, 1999-2003 et 2004-2008. Nous voulions savoir si la fécondité des Indiennes inscrites différait en fonction du traité d’affiliation, si on observait des changements dans le temps et si de grandes tendances pouvaient être identifiées selon les régions couvertes par les traités. Des différences importantes sont relevées, particulièrement entre les traités numérotés qui couvrent les Prairies et les traités de l’est du pays. Étant donné l’absence dans le Registre des Indiens, d’informations sur les caractéristiques sociales, culturelles et économiques des populations affiliées aux différents traités, il n’est pas possible d’avancer des explications précises concernant ces écarts. Toutefois, il est possible de proposer une association entre la fécondité du moment et certaines caractéristiques des populations affiliées aux traités historiques et les dimensions géographique et historique des traités.
This research aims to document the fertility of registered Indians in Canada in relation to their affiliation with historic treaties. The historic treaties are legal agreements, between the government of Canada and certain members of the First Nations, which describe lands surrendered and related compensation. Although the treaties have mainly a legal role, they apply to Indigenous peoples sharing similar characteristics along cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, territorial and historical lines. We used anonymized data extracted from the Indian Register to produce the total fertility rate (TFR) for the population concerned by each historic treaty for the periods 1994-1998, 1999-2003 and 2004-2008. We wanted to know if the fertility of registered Indians differed by treaty memberships, if we observed changes over time and if notable trends could be identified depending on the regions covered by the treaties. Our analyses show that important differences exist, particularly between the numbered treaties, which cover the Prairies provinces, and the treaties populations of Eastern Canada. Since the data collected by the Indian Register do not contain information on social, cultural and economic characteristics of Indigenous peoples that could explain these differences, it is not possible to develop precise explanations of these variations. However, it is possible to propose an association between the fertility rate and the geographical and historic aspects of the treaties populations.

Indigenous and settler relations have been negotiated, and continue to be negotiated in various forms across Canada. This thesis begins from the continued assertions of treaty Elders that the historic Treaty relationships are valid in the form that they were mutually agreed upon and accepted at the time of negotiation. From this assertion, this thesis asks how this mutually agreed upon understanding of Treaty can be understood. In particular, the holistic approach to reading historic treaty draws on the oral history and first hand accounts to provide an understanding of the context and content of treaty. The holistic approach is then applied to Treaty 6 in Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as the contemporary Treaty process in British Columbia. This provides a critical analysis of the continued negotiation of the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Settlers, both regarding how historic treaties are understood in Canada, and how contemporary treaty relations continue to be negotiated.

Abstract This chapter begins with a brief history of the Canadian government’s mistreatment of Indigenous people and an overview of the legal frameworks governing Indigenous rights in Canada. Broadly speaking, aboriginal rights are sui generis, or unique, rights held by aboriginal peoples ‘by reason of the fact that aboriginal peoples were once independent, self-governing entities in possession of most of the lands now making up Canada’. Treaty rights arise from treaties or land agreements between Indigenous groups and the Canadian government. The chapter then presents a background of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), focusing on its core principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the corresponding duty to consult. It also examines potential issues and tensions that may arise in adopting UNDRIP as domestic law in Canada. Finally, the chapter looks ahead and discusses strategies to build partnerships between Indigenous groups and the Canadian government as a path forward to achieving reconciliation.

The protection of indigenous/aboriginal resources is one of the important aspects of biodiversity justice. Many international treaties and conventions legitimised natural rights and privileges of tribal societies and indigenous communities. But some interventionist practices like a conflict of interest in bioprospecting agreement and biopiracy have become major concerns for prospering third-world countries. Strategic application of prior-informed consent and benefit-sharing procedures will definitely meet socio-environmental sustainability in the country. The responsibility and liability of state biodiversity authority and local biodiversity committee at village level need to be fixed to maintain transparency and accountability. Conservation of ethnobiological resources is also important in the view of increasing patent infringement. That's why issues of patentability must include complete disclosure of specification claims even in the case foreign natural resources.

The protection of indigenous/aboriginal resources is one of the important aspects of biodiversity justice. Many international treaties and conventions legitimised natural rights and privileges of tribal societies and indigenous communities. But some interventionist practices like a conflict of interest in bioprospecting agreement and biopiracy have become major concerns for prospering third-world countries. Strategic application of prior-informed consent and benefit-sharing procedures will definitely meet socio-environmental sustainability in the country. The responsibility and liability of state biodiversity authority and local biodiversity committee at village level need to be fixed to maintain transparency and accountability. Conservation of ethnobiological resources is also important in the view of increasing patent infringement. That's why issues of patentability must include complete disclosure of specification claims even in the case foreign natural resources.

The continent nominated by Westerners “Terra Australis Incognita” was land occupied for tens of thousands of years; home to peoples whose surviving descendants, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, could claim to have sustained the world's oldest culture. The colonists occupying the territory, however, declared it “terra nullius,” a land with no recognized claim. The colonial attitude to Indigenous culture was similar, treating it as “Intellectual nullius.” From the colonial occupation to the 1980s became the “Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowledge,” in which the trans-generational capability, engaged in Western knowledge, was rare. In this chapter, this history is revisited on a path to current contributions of the Black Academy to higher education. These are advanced here as: an Indigenous perspective; an oppositional approach; integrative Indigenous knowledge; contemporary Indigenous knowledge; and pure Indigenous knowledge. Reflecting on the research paradigm involved, emerging contributions of the Black Academy represent a supercomplex renaissance.

This chapter argues that those facing persistent injustice have extended permissions to experiment with the social arrangements to be built for future generations, since profound injustices predictably frustrate human flourishing and blockade choices about how to balance multiple aspects of social life. At the same time, it suggests reasons for caution about strongly detailed ideals of what the future should hold, since such blueprints can lead to the pursuit of political goals that are neither achievable nor desirable. The chapter argues that ideal visions can help to make vivid the implications of certain values and their relation to one another, but that such visions should be treated as akin to literary works, which expand the imagination without directly describing a world to be brought about. It argues for the viability of Aboriginal “self-determination” as a protean, midrange goal that maintains space for continued agency and experimentation over time.

This paper will seek to address the rapidly evolving issues relating to the impact of aboriginal interests upon resource development projects. In particular, this paper will address the interaction between aboriginal interests and pipeline projects and recent judicial decisions that have impacted upon this interaction. This paper will specifically discuss the extent of consultation obligations with aboriginal people and strategies that may be employed by proponents of pipeline projects. More specifically, this paper will address the following: Distinctions between various types of constitutionally protected aboriginal interests, including, treaty rights (both historic treaties and comprehensive land claim agreements), aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, and Me´tis rights; Understanding the obligations of government and third party resource developers to consult with aboriginal people, including consultation and accommodation of aboriginal interests and compensation issues; - Consultation as part of the regulatory approval processes for both provincially and federally regulated pipelines, including both National Energy Board requirements and provincial requirements (British Columbia and Alberta); and - The practical realities of consultation, including the scope of remedies for the unjustified infringement of aboriginal interests; and how to create a more effective consultation process and protect the interests of proponents of pipeline projects.

Geelong and the Surf Coast are treated here as one entity although there are marked differences between the two communities. Sitting on the home of the Wathaurong Aboriginal group, this G21 region is geographically diverse. Geelong serviced a wool industry on its western plains, while manufacturing and its seaport past has left it as a post-industrial city. The Surf Coast has benefitted from the sea change phenomenon. Both communities have fast growing populations and have benefitted from their proximity to Melbourne. They are deeply integrated with this major urban centre. The early establishment of digital infrastructure proved an advantage to certain sectors. All creative industries are represented well in Geelong while many creatives in Torquay are embedded in the high profile and economically dominant surfing industry. The Geelong community is serviced well by its own creative industries with well-established advertising firms, architects, bookshops, gaming arcades, movie houses, music venues, newspaper headquarters, brand new and iconic performing and visual arts centres, libraries and museums, television and radio all accessible in its refurbished downtown area. Co-working spaces, collective practices and entrepreneurial activity are evident throughout the region.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the evidence about the program components that are required to implement an effective LDCT screening program (Q3). Questions about LDCT screening acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly included in the scope. However, as the evidence is based primarily on US programs and UK pilot studies, the relevance to the local setting requires careful consideration. The Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study provides feasibility data about clinical aspects of LDCT screening but little about program design. The International Lung Screening Trial is still in the recruitment phase and findings are not yet available for inclusion in this Evidence Check. The Australian Population Based Screening Framework was developed to “inform decision-makers on the key issues to be considered when assessing potential screening programs in Australia”.(10) As the Framework is specific to population-based, rather than high-risk, screening programs, there is a lack of clarity about transferability of criteria. However, the Framework criteria do stipulate that a screening program must be acceptable to “important subgroups such as target participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from disadvantaged groups and people with a disability”.(10) An extensive search of the literature highlighted that there is very little information about the acceptability of LDCT screening to these population groups in Australia. Yet they are part of the high-risk population.(10) There are also considerable gaps in the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different settings, including Australia. The evidence base in this area is rapidly evolving and is likely to include new data from the NELSON trial and incorporate data about the costs of targeted- and immuno-therapies as these treatments become more widely available in Australia.