Land Justice for Indigenous Australians: Conceptual, theoretical and practical contributions to the research.

Ever since Mabo (No. 2) and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) there are two legally recognised and different systems of land ownership and tenure operating in Australia: one older (over 60,000 years), the other much younger (only 230 years). Daniel Lavery asserts that every positive determination of native title is an affirmation of Aboriginal law and custom and their sovereignty that was present prior to 1788. Aboriginal peoples continue to assert they never ceded their sovereignty, their land was stolen from them without their consent, extinguishment is alien to their law and custom and they want to use their property rights to engage in the economy on their terms and at their choosing. Aboriginal peoples are demanding that we sit down and negotiate these outstanding matters to find a mutually agreeable solution. While my PhD thesis explores the possibilities for a coherent policy framework for a mutually respectful coexistence between two culturally different forms of land ownership, use and tenure based on parity, mutual respect and justice, this presentation will focus the contributions my research is making to the conceptual, theoretical and practical aspects of land justice for Indigenous Australians. The presentation will discuss: Concepts of land, land use and planning, land tenure and Torrens Title, inter-cultural contact zone, coexistence, equity and justice. Theories of property, universal principles of property, Indigenous and Western approaches to property and ownership, points of universality between them and the role of dialogic spaces in resolving deep differences. The policy complexity between land, governance, services, infrastructure, land use and planning in discrete, remote Aboriginal communities and the role of the international human rights norms and standards and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

“ Why Land Tenure Reform is Critical for the Social Reconstruction of Aboriginal People and Communities” - presented by Mr Ed Wensing, PhD Scholar at the National Centre for Indigenous Studies at the Australian National University

The current debate about ‘Indigenous land tenure reform’ is skewed toward the neo-liberal view of private home ownership and capital accumulation at the expense of communal forms of tenure where the land value capture can benefit present and future generations and somewhat insulate low to middle income households from the vagaries of the housing market, especially in remote communities where no such market exists (if it ever will in its pure form). In this presentation I will give some insights into my current research into the just accommodation of customary land rights and interests into conventional land tenure systems. I will argue, as others have before me, that the current basis for admitting Aboriginal land rights into the Anglo-Australian framework of land law and tenure only continues the dispossession of colonialism, only this time under the guise of inalienability giving the Crown a monopoly power to extinguish customary land rights and interests, and I postulate that it is time to ‘puncture some legal orthodoxies’ in relating to property and land tenure

Changing Planning’s Policy and Practice toward Indigenous Australians: How can it be done?

Land administration land use and environmental planning in Australia are public functions. Each State and Territory has their own unique sets of laws for administering land tenures and regulating the use and enjoyment of land for present and future generations (Bates 1995: 10). The Australian approach is firmly rooted in statute law which controls the Crown’s power to grant interests in land and to regulate and change those rights and interests. Conceptually at least, the system is designed to balance public and private interests as well as the interests of present and future generations. Although the degree to which these ideals are achieved in practice is highly debatable. While other disciplines such as anthropology and law have been dealing with the interactions between Indigenous peoples and their fundamental human rights for a very long time, there has been very little cross-over to the discipline of land use and environmental planning. In an attempt to fill this gap, this presentation will explore planning’s miserable failure with respect to Indigenous Australians and discuss how the landscape of land use and environmental planning is slowly changing to better recognise and incorporate Indigenous peoples’ rights in planning. The discussion will focus on some recent developments in Queensland planning law which for the first time in the history of planning law in Australia sets Indigenous peoples rights at the front end of the planning system rather than as an afterthought and how this sets an example that other jurisdictions could follow

Antiretroviral therapy uptake and predictors of virological failure in patients with HIV receiving first-line and second-line regimens in Johannesburg, South Africa: a retrospective cohort data analysis

Objective This study described the demographics, treatment information and identified characteristics associated with virological failure and being lost to follow-up (LTFU) for patients with HIV on first-line and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in a large South African cohort. Design A quantitative retrospective cohort study using secondary data analysis. Setting Seven Johannesburg inner city facilities. Participants Unique records of 123 002 people with HIV receiving ART at any point in the period 1 April 2004 to 29 February 2020 were included. Measures Demographic characteristics, ART status, CD4 count information and retention status were collected and analysed as covariates of outcomes (viral load (VL) and LTFU). Results Of the total study patients, 95% (n=1 17 260) were on a first-line regimen and 5% (n=5742) were on a second-line regimen. Almost two-thirds were female (64%, n=79 226). Most patients (60%, n=72 430) were initiated on an efavirenz-based, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based and emtricitabine-based regimen (fixed-dose combination). 91% (n=76 737) achieved viral suppression at least once since initiating on ART and 60% (n=57 981) remained in care as at the end of February 2020. Patients from the community health centre and primary healthcare clinics were not only more likely to be virally suppressed but also more likely to be LTFU. Patients on second-line regimens were less likely to reach viral suppression (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.26, CI=0.23 to 0.28) and more likely to be LTFU (aOR=1.21, CI=1.09 to 1.35). Being older (>= 25 years) and having a recent CD4 cell count >= 100 cells/mu L were predictors of viral suppression and retention in patients on ART. Conclusion Patients on first-line regimens had higher VL suppression rates and were more likely to remain in care than those on a second-line regimen. Being younger and having low CD4 cell counts were associated with poor outcomes, suggesting priority groups for ART adherence support

Effective Treatment of SIVcpz-Induced Immunodeficiency in a Captive Western Chimpanzee

Abstract Background Simian immunodeficiency virus of chimpanzees (SIVcpz), the progenitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), is associated with increased mortality and AIDS-like immunopathology in wild-living chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Surprisingly, however, similar findings have not been reported for chimpanzees experimentally infected with SIVcpz in captivity, raising questions about the intrinsic pathogenicity of this lentivirus. Findings Here, we report progressive immunodeficiency and clinical disease in a captive western chimpanzee (P. t. verus) infected twenty years ago by intrarectal inoculation with an SIVcpz strain (ANT) from a wild-caught eastern chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii). With sustained plasma viral loads of 105 to 106 RNA copies/ml for the past 15 years, this chimpanzee developed CD4+ T cell depletion (220 cells/μl), thrombocytopenia (90,000 platelets/μl), and persistent soft tissue infections refractory to antibacterial therapy. Combination antiretroviral therapy consisting of emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and dolutegravir (DTG) decreased plasma viremia to undetectable levels (<200 copies/ml), improved CD4+ T cell counts (509 cell/μl), and resulted in the rapid resolution of all soft tissue infections. However, initial lack of adherence and/or differences in pharmacokinetics led to low plasma drug concentrations, which resulted in transient rebound viremia and the emergence of FTC resistance mutations (M184V/I) identical to those observed in HIV-1 infected humans. Conclusions These data demonstrate that SIVcpz can cause immunodeficiency and other hallmarks of AIDS in captive chimpanzees, including P. t. verus apes that are not naturally infected with this virus. Moreover, SIVcpz-associated immunodeficiency can be effectively treated with antiretroviral therapy, although sufficiently high plasma concentrations must be maintained to prevent the emergence of drug resistance. These findings extend a growing body of evidence documenting the immunopathogenicity of SIVcpz and suggest that experimentally infected chimpanzees may benefit from clinical monitoring and therapeutic intervention

Land Justice for Indigenous Australians: How can two systems of land ownership, use and tenure coexist with mutual respect based on parity and justice?

Prior to Mabo (No. 2) the legal imaginary of terra nullius enabled the creation of a property system as if the pre-existing land rights and interests of the Aboriginal peoples simply did not exist. Ever since the High Court of Australia’s landmark decision in Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) and the Australian Parliament’s enactment of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) there are two legally recognised and distinct systems of land ownership, use and tenure operating in Australia: one older (over 60,000 years), the other much younger (only 230 years). While Mabo (No. 2) dismissed the convenient legal fiction of terra nullius as the basis for establishing Australia’s sovereignty, the decision set the ground rules for the legal recognition of the pre-existing land rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, which the High Court termed native title rights and interests. Every positive determination of native title is therefore, an affirmation of Aboriginal law and custom and their sovereignty that was present prior to 1788. But Mabo (No. 2) gives rise to several ‘troubling disjuncts’, including the High Court’s ambivalence about fracturing the ‘skeletal principles’ of Australia’s sovereignty and the outright denial of Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty, the Crown’s monopoly power to extinguish native title rights and interests, and their inalienability. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia continue to assert they never ceded their sovereignty, their land was stolen from them without their consent, extinguishment is alien to their law and custom. As such, the Settler state’s assertion of ownership and sovereignty over land has no legitimacy under their law and custom. Aboriginal peoples’ persistent desire is that the two systems of law and custom relating to land be accorded an equal and non-discriminatory status. This is not mere historical or symbolic posturing. They want to use their property rights to engage in the economy on their terms and at their choosing. Their position is supported by various international human rights instruments. This PhD thesis explores the possibilities of supplanting the prevailing orthodoxy with a coherent policy and praxis framework for a mutually respectful coexistence between two culturally distinct forms of land ownership, use and tenure based on parity, mutual respect, reciprocity and justice