564 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

THE SEARCH FO R C ERTAINTY AND THE NATIVE TITLE

AMENDMENT ACT 1998 (CTH)

G A R T H N ETTH EIM *

I. AN O V E R V IE W OF THE EFFECT OF THE

1998 AM ENDM ENTS

T h e N a t i v e T itle A c t 1 9 9 3 ( C t h ) ( N T A ) w a s 1 2 7 p a g e s i n l e n g t h a n d n o t e a s y
to c o m p r e h e n d . T h e 1 9 9 3 A c t, w ith th e 1 9 9 8 a m e n d m e n ts, is 4 4 1 p a g e s lo n g . It
i s a h i g h l y c o m p l e x p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n . *1 T h e 1 9 9 3 A c t h a s b e e n a m e n d e d i n a
n u m b e r o f w a y s w h i c h a r e a d d r e s s e d in t h is a r tic le :

• N a t iv e t itle c la im a n t s h a v e to s a t is f y a s tr in g e n t - a n d r e tr o s p e c tiv e -
new r e g is tr a tio n te st b e fo r e th e y m ay have access to th e ‘r i g h t t o
n e g o tia te ’ (R T N ) in r e la tio n to govern m en t p r o p o s a ls fo r m in in g
a c tiv ity o r s o m e c o m p u ls o r y a c q u is itio n s . T h e te s t a ls o r e p r e se n ts a
b a r r ie r t o s o m e o t h e r p r o c e s s e s u n d e r t h e A c t .

• S t a t e s a n d te r r ito r ie s m a y r e p la c e th e R T N o n su c h a rea s a s p a sto r a l

le a s e s a n d n a t io n a l p a r k s w it h w e a k e r p r o c e s s e s o f th e ir o w n .

• N a t i v e tit le h o ld e r s w i l l a ls o h a v e r e d u c e d p r o c e d u r a l r ig h ts c o n c e r n in g
m in e r a l e x p lo r a tio n .

• H o ld e r s o f p a s to r a l le a s e s m a y d iv e r s if y in to o th e r p r im a r y p r o d u c t io n
a c t iv it ie s w it h o u t th e n e e d to d e a l w it h a n y n a tiv e t itle h o ld e r s .

* Emeritus Professor, Faculty o f Law, University o f New South Wales. An earlier version o f this paper
was presented at The Australian Financial Review, Native Title: Industry Background Briefing, 26-7
November 1998.
1 The NTA itself had a tortuous evolution, traced by T Rowse, “How we got a Native Title Act” in M Goot
and T Rowse, Make a Better Offer. The Politics o f Mabo, Pluto (1994) 111; H McRae, G Nettheim and
L Beacroft, Indigenous Legal Issues. Commentary and Materials , LBC (2nd ed, 1997) p 219-33; F
Brennan, One Land, One Nation. Mabo - Towards 2001, UQP (1995). For a concise account o f the
political processes that led, finally, to the enactment o f the NTAA, see F Brennan, The Wik Debate: Its
Impact on Aborigines, Pastoralists and Miners, UNSW Press (1998). For a detailed account o f the
evolution o f the 1998 amendments, see P Burke, “Evaluating the Native Title Amendment Act 1998”
(1998) 3(3) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 333.
1999 UNSWLaw Journal 565

• It w i l l b e e a s ie r fo r sta te g o v e r n m e n ts to c o m p u ls o r ily a c q u ir e co­

e x is t in g n a t iv e t it le r ig h ts o n p a s to r a l le a s e s a n d to u p g r a d e a le a s e to
f r e e h o ld , s o a s to e x t in g u is h n a t iv e title .

• N a t iv e tit le h o ld e r s w i l l h a v e a r e d u c e d s a y in a r a n g e o f g o v e r n m e n t
a c tiv itie s o n th e ir c o u n tr y , in c lu d in g m a n a g e m e n t o f n a tio n a l p a r k s,
fo r e st a n d o th e r r e s e r v e s , p u b lic fa c ilitie s a n d w a te r r e s o u r c e s.

• N a t iv e tit le h o ld e r s w i l l h a v e n o m e a n in g f u l s a y in r e g a r d to o f f s h o r e
f i s h i n g o r o f f s h o r e m in in g a c t iv it y w h ic h m a y a f f e c t n a t iv e t it le r ig h ts .

• S ta te s a n d t e r r ito r ie s a r e p e r m itte d a fu r th e r r o u n d o f v a lid a tio n of

“ in te r m e d ia te p e r io d a c t s ” b e t w e e n 1 9 9 4 - 9 6 , n o t a b ly g o v e r n m e n t g r a n ts
o f in te r e s ts , w it h o u t g o in g th r o u g h r e q u ir e d N T A p r o c e s s e s .

• S ta te s and te r r ito r ie s are a u th o r is e d to “ c o n fir m ” a le n g th y lis t of

“p r e v io u s e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n a c ts” as h a v in g e x tin g u is h e d n a tiv e
t it le , c o n c e i v a b l y a s fa r b a c k a s 1 7 8 8 . M a n y o f th e s e a c ts w o u ld n o t
h a v e e x t in g u is h e d n a tiv e t itle u n d e r c o m m o n la w p r in c ip le s .

• G e n e r a lly , s t a t e s a n d t e r r ito r ie s h a v e in c r e a s e d p o w e r s , a n d i n c e n t iv e s ,
to e s t a b lis h t h e ir o w n tr ib u n a ls a n d p r o c e s s e s to d e a l w it h n a t iv e t it le
issu e s .

• P r o c e s s e s fo r d e te r m in a tio n s o f n a tiv e t itle w ill b e m o r e le g a lis t ic .

• T h e r e are w e lc o m e p r o v is io n s fo r n e g o tia tio n o f I n d ig e n o u s L a n d U s e

A g r e e m e n t s w h ic h c a n s e r v e to a v o id th e m o r e a d v e r s a r ia l p r o c e s s e s
u n d e r th e A c t.

• T here are a ls o u sefu l p r o v is io n s to str e n g th e n th e r o le of

“r e p r e s e n ta tiv e A b o r ig in a l/T o r r e s S tr a it I s la n d e r b o d i e s ” . But su ch
b o d ie s are a ls o r e q u ir e d to u n d e r g o , w it h in a y e a r , a p r o c e s s o f “r e ­
r e c o g n it io n ” b y th e M in is te r .

A t a b r o a d e r le v e l, th e c h a lle n g e p r e s e n te d b y th e p o s s ib le s u r v iv a l o f n a tiv e
t it le is , g e n e r a lly , tr e a te d n o t a s a m a tte r o f h u m a n r ig h ts in r e s p e c t o f p r o p e r ty
a n d c u ltu r e , b u t a s a m a tte r o f “ la n d m a n a g e m e n t” a n d s t a t e s ’ r ig h ts .2 A la r g e r
m e a s u r e o f c o n t r o l o v e r n a t iv e t it le i s s u e s is s h if t e d to s t a t e s a n d t e r r ito r ie s . And
n a t iv e t it le is fu r th e r c o n f in e d in th e in te r e s t o f c a u s in g m in im a l n u is a n c e to
in d u s tr y a n d to g o v e r n m e n t d e c is io n - m a k in g .

II. ‘C E R T A IN TIE S’ ACHIEVED

In a n u m b e r o f a r e a s th e A c t , a s a m e n d e d , r e s o lv e s u n c e r t a in t ie s , t h o u g h o th e r
u n c e r t a in t ie s r e m a in .

2 G Nettheim, “Native Title, Fictions and Convenient Falsehoods” in C Perrin (ed), In the Wake o f Terra
Nullius (1998) 4.1 Law. Text. Culture 70.
566 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

A. Validations
In 1 9 9 3 , o n e o f th e p r o b le m s p e r c e iv e d a s h a v in g b e e n c r e a te d b y th e M a b o
d e c is io n 3 w a s th e p o s s ib le in v a lid ity o f g o v e r n m e n t g r a n ts o f in te r e s ts in la n d
s i n c e t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t , o n 3 1 O c t o b e r 1 9 7 5 , o f t h e R a c i a l D is c r im in a tio n A c t
1 9 9 3 (C th ) (R D A ). T h is c o n c e r n , e x p r e s s e d b y t h e m in in g in d u s t r y in p a r tic u la r ,
le d to c a lls fo r th e C o m m o n w e a lt h P a r lia m e n t to p r o v id e fo r th e v a lid a t io n o f
s u c h in te r e s ts . T h is p r o p o s a l w a s e x p lic a b le o n th e b a s is th a t, u n til 3 J u n e 1 9 9 2 ,
n a tiv e tit le h a d n o t b e e n r e c o g n is e d .
A c c o r d in g ly , P a rt 2 , D iv is io n 2 o f th e N T A p r o v id e d fo r th e v a lid a tio n of
“p a s t a c ts ” fr o m 1 9 7 5 to th e e n d o f 1 9 9 3 . F o r “ fu tu re a c ts ” , th e e f fe c t o f th e
R D A w a s f o r tif ie d b y th e g e n e r a l r u le in s 2 3 a n d s 2 5 3 (th e f r e e h o ld r u le ) th a t
n a tiv e t itle , in o n -s h o r e p la c e s , w a s e n title d to th e s a m e p r o t e c t io n s a s w o u ld b e
a v a ila b le in r e s p e c t o f “ o r d in a r y t it le ” ( f r e e h o ld , in m o s t p la c e s ) . D iv is io n 2 a ls o
s p e lt o u t th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a n y s u c h v a lid a tio n , a c c o r d in g to fo u r c a t e g o r ie s o f
“p a s t a c ts” , in resp ect of e x t in g u is h m e n t , p a r tia l e x tin g u is h m e n t or non­
e x t in g u is h m e n t . It a ls o p r o v id e d fo r c o m p e n s a t io n .
F rom th e d a te o f th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e N T A - 1 Janu ary 1994 - th e
“ f u t u r e a c t ” r e g i m e s h o u l d h a v e p r e v a i l e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v i e w o f s s 1 0 a n d 11 o f
th e N T A . G o v e r n m e n ts s h o u ld o n ly h a v e g r a n te d in te r e s ts in la n d a n d w a te r s , o r
s e t a s id e la n d o r w a te r s fo r p u b lic u s e s , b y g o in g th r o u g h th e p r o c e s s e s la id
d o w n b y th e N T A . T h o s e p r o c e s s e s in c lu d e d th e is s u in g o f s 2 9 “ fu tu r e a c t ”
n o t ic e s , o r th e lo d g in g o f n o n - c la im a n t a p p lic a t io n s (s 6 7 ) , o r th e n e g o t ia t io n o f
s2 1 a g r ee m en ts. To a s u r p r is in g e x te n t g o v e r n m e n ts fa ile d to u se th e se
p ro cesses.
S o m e g o v e r n m e n ts c h o s e to p r o c e e d o n th e “ e x tr a o r d in a r ily r is k y ” a s s u m p tio n
th a t p a s to r a l le a s e s h a d e x t in g u is h e d n a tiv e tit le fo r a ll tim e . Som e encouraged
g r a n te e s to lo d g e n o n - c la im a n t a p p lic a tio n s . S o m e s im p ly s o u g h t to tr a n sfe r th e
r is k o f n o n - c o m p lia n c e w it h th e N T A to g r a n t e e s .4 A n y t h in g , it s e e m s , r a th e r
th a n n e g o tia te w ith In d ig e n o u s A u s tr a lia n s . The e x a m p le o f Q u e e n s la n d is
illu s tr a tiv e , th o u g h th e p r o b le m w a s n o t c o n fin e d to Q u e e n s la n d . T h e s t a t e ’s
M in is t e r fo r M in e s and E n e r g y r e p o r te d th a t 4 6 0 0 m in in g te n u r e s h a d b e e n
is s u e d b e tw e e n 1 Janu ary 1994 and 23 D ecem ber 1 9 9 6 , th e d a te o f th e W ik
d e c is io n .5 T h e d is r e g a r d o f th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e N T A w a s n o t, a p p a r e n tly ,
c o n f i n e d t o p a s t o r a l l e a s e la n d s : t h e N a t io n a l N a t i v e T it le T r ib u n a l in its A n n u a l
R e p o r t fo r 1 9 9 5 /1 9 9 6 r e p o r te d th a t it r e c e iv e d 5 1 1 4 s 2 9 n o t ic e s fr o m W e s te r n
A u s t r a lia b u t o n ly th r e e f r o m Q u e e n s la n d .6

3 Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.

4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Native Title Report: July 1994 - June
1995, 1995 at 155-74, especially 158.
5 The Wik Peoples and Thayorre People v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1. The High Court held that
pastoral leases under Queensland legislation did not necessarily extinguish native title but native title
interests would have to yield to the rights o f the pastoralist. For a similar decision in regard to pastoral
leases in South Australia and Northern Territory, see Hayes v Northern Territory [1999] FCA 1248 (9
September 1999), per Olney J.
6 G Nettheim, “Wik: On Invasions, Legal Fictions, Myths and Rational Responses” (1997) 20 UNSWU
495-501; G Nettheim, “Responding to Wik: First, Define the Problem” (1997) 4(1) Indigenous Law
Bulletin 14.
1999 UNSWLaw Journal 567

The W ik d e c i s i o n l e d t o a f r e s h r o u n d o f d e m a n d s f o r v a l i d a t i o n o f t i t l e s
w h ic h m a y h a v e b e e n a t r is k o f in v a lid ity . T h o s e w h o w e r e lik e ly to su ffe r fr o m
a n y s u c h in v a lid ity w e r e , o f c o u r s e , n o t s o m u c h th e g o v e r n m e n ts th a t g r a n te d
th e title s b u t th e m in e r s a n d o th e r s w h o h a d r e c e iv e d th e m . B u t it w a s t h e s ta te
a n d t e r r ito r y g o v e r n m e n t s w h i c h le d th e c la m o u r . F o r th e ir d is r e g a r d o f th e
r e q u ir e m e n ts o f C o m m o n w e a lt h la w th o s e g o v e r n m e n ts w e r e “p u n is h e d ” b y th e
e n a c tm e n t o f n e w D iv is io n 2A (in P a rt 2 o f th e A c t) w h ic h p r o v id e s fo r th e
v a lid a tio n o f “ in te r m e d ia te p e r io d a c ts” o f G o v er n m e n ts in th e p e r io d fr o m
1 J a n u a ry 1 9 9 4 to 2 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 . A s w ith th e p r o v is io n s fo r v a lid a tio n o f
“p a s t a c t s ” , “ in te r m e d ia te p e r io d a c t s ” a re d iv id e d in to fo u r c a t e g o r ie s fo r th e
p u r p o s e s o f th e ir e f f e c t o n n a t iv e title : e x t in g u is h m e n t , p a r tia l e x t in g u is h m e n t o r
n o n -e x tin g u is h m e n t. P r o v is io n is a ls o m ade fo r c o m p e n s a tio n . In a d d itio n ,
g o v e r n m e n ts a re r e q u ir e d to n o t if y d e t a ils o f s u c h a c ts r e la tin g to m in in g w it h in
s i x m o n th s , b u t fa ilu r e to c o m p ly w it h th is r e q u ir e m e n t a p p a r e n tly h a s n o e f f e c t
on th e v a lid a tio n . So a fu r th e r in s t a lm e n t o f c e r ta in ty s e e m s to have been
a c h ie v e d , fo r b o th n o n -I n d ig e n o u s in te r e s ts and n a tiv e title h o ld e r s : to th e
b e n e f i t o f th e f o r m e r a n d t o t h e d e t r im e n t o f t h e la tte r .
It s e e m s t o b e c o n c e d e d t h a t b o t h r o u n d s o f v a l i d a t i o n a r e c o n t r a r y t o r a c i a l
d is c r im in a tio n p r in c ip le s . S e c tio n 7 (2 ) o f th e 1993 A c t, n o w s 7 (3 ) o f th e
a m e n d e d A c t , e x p r e s s l y p r o v id e s th a t th e s e c t i o n ’s g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t a s t o th e
a p p lic a b ilit y to th e A c t o f th e R D A d o e s n o t a f f e c t th e v a lid a t io n p r o v is io n s .

B. Confirmations
It n o w a p p e a r s c e r ta in th a t th e im m e n s e ly lo n g a n d d e t a ile d lis t o f p a s t a c ts
w h ic h g o v e r n m e n ts are a u th o r is e d to “ c o n fir m ” as “p r e v io u s e x c lu s iv e
p o s s e s s io n a c ts” e x tin g u is h n a tiv e t itle , as p r o v id e d by ss 23C and 23E .
“ P r e v io u s n o n -e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n a c ts” are a ls o c o n fir m e d as p a r tia lly
e x t in g u is h in g n a tiv e tit le u n d e r s s 2 3 G a n d 2 3 1 .
So, in resp ect o f su ch c o n fir m e d p r e v io u s a c ts, th ere s h o u ld be no m ore
u n w e lc o m e W ik - t y p e s u r p r is e s . The c a te g o r y of “p r e v io u s n o n -e x c lu s iv e
p o s s e s s i o n a c t s ” c l e a r l y d e r i v e s f r o m t h e W ik d e c i s i o n , a s i t c o n s i s t s o f t h e g r a n t
o f n o n - e x c l u s i v e p a s t o r a l a n d a g r ic u ltu r a l l e a s e s ( s 2 3 F ) . I n t e r e s t in g ly , s 2 3 G
e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e s th a t th e e f fe c t o f su c h le a s e s m a y b e s im p ly to s u s p e n d n a tiv e
t it le fo r th e d u r a tio n o f th e le a s e . N o s im ila r a llo w a n c e is m a d e in r e s p e c t o f
“p r e v io u s e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s i o n a c t s ” .
T h e c a t e g o r y o f “p r e v io u s e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n a c t s ” in s 2 3 B is m o r e w id e -
r a n g in g . It i n c l u d e s g r a n t o f :
568 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

• a fr e e h o ld e sta te - n o t s u r p r is in g , in v ie w o f ju d ic ia l sta te m e n ts in
M abo [N o 2] a n d r e c e n t ly c o n f ir m e d b y th e H ig h C o u r t in th e Fejo
c a se ;7

• a c o m m e r c ia l l e a s e th a t is n o t a p a s t o r a l o r a g r ic u ltu r a l le a s e ;

• a n e x c l u s i v e p a s t o r a l o r a g r ic u ltu r a l le a s e ;

• a c o m m u n it y p u r p o s e s le a s e ;

• a p o r tio n o f a m in in g le a s e , a s d e fin e d ;

• a n y l e a s e o t h e r th a n a m in in g l e a s e th a t c o n f e r s a r ig h t o f e x c l u s i v e
p o s s e s s io n .

The d e fin itio n a ls o in c lu d e s v a r io u s “v e s tin g s ” a n d c o n s tr u c tio n o f p u b lic

w ork s. It a l s o i n c l u d e s g r a n t o f a “ S c h e d u l e d I n t e r e s t ” d e f i n e d i n s 2 4 9 C and
lis t e d in S c h e d u le 1 to th e A c t . S c h e d u le 1 s e ts o u t lo n g lis ts o f le a s e s , sta te b y
sta te , g r a n te d under v a r io u s A c ts fo r v a r io u s p u rp o ses. S ta te and
C o m m o n w e a lth o ffic ia ls have d e c id e d th a t th e y co n fe r a r ig h t o f e x c lu s iv e
p o s s e s s io n . S u c h g r a n ts e x t in g u is h n a t iv e t it le . T h e y d o s o fo r a ll tim e , e v e n i f
th e in t e r e s t g r a n te d h a s l o n g s in c e c e a s e d to e x is t: s 2 3 7 A .
T h e f o llo w in g is a s e le c tio n o f th e p u r p o s e s fo r w h ic h s o m e e x tin g u is h in g
l e a s e s m a y h a v e b e e n g r a n te d s o m e tim e in th e p a s t in N S W :

• c u lt iv a t io n o f e u c a ly p t u s

• n ig h t s o il d e p o t

• s h e e p a n d c a ttle y a r d

• w a ttle g r o w in g

• c r ic k e t

• d o g r a c in g c o u r s e

• fe e d lo t

• w h a lin g s ta tio n

• c a r a v a n p a r k a n d c a m p in g g r o u n d .

S im ila r lis t s a p p e a r fo r o th e r s ta te s . In Q u e e n s la n d , fo r e x a m p le , c e r ta in ty o f
im m u n ity fr o m n a t iv e t itle c la im s is s e c u r e d fo r a n y “ c lu b h o u s e fo r th e G r a n d
L o d g e o f th e R o y a l A n te d ilu v ia n O rd er o f B u f f a lo e s ” . In W e s t e r n A u s tr a lia ,
s im ila r c e r ta in ty is a c h ie v e d fo r a n y “b r in e e v a p o r a tin g p la n t ” o r a n y “ lo b s t e r
r e c e iv a l d e p o t” . It is fa r f r o m c le a r th a t a ll o f t h e s e le a s e s a re s o in c o n s is t e n t
w ith th e e x e r c is e and e n jo y m en t o f n a tiv e title r ig h ts and in te r e sts as to
e x tin g u is h th e m .

7 Fejo and Mills v Northern Territory o f Australia and Oilnet (NT) Pty Ltd (1998) 156 ALR 721. The
decision seems contrary to North American jurisprudence. See K McNeil “Racial Discrimination and
Unilateral Extinguishment o f Native Title” (1996) 1 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 181; “Co-
Existence o f Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Land Rights: Australia and Canada Compared in Light o f
The Wik Decision” (1997) 4(5) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4; “Extinguishment o f Native Title: The High
Court and American Law” (1997) 2 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 365. And see Delgamuukw v
British Columbia (1998) 3 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 35.
1999 UNSWLaw Journal 569

C. Permanence of Extinguishment
T h e i s s u e w a s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e W a a n y f c a s e a n d , a g a i n , i n t h e W ik C a s e , i n
r e la tio n to p a s to r a l le a s e s w h ic h h a d e n d e d . I n W ik, t h e m a j o r i t y j u d g e s , ( i n a
“ P o s t s c r ip t ” to th e j u d g m e n t o f T o o h e y J ), f o u n d it u n n e c e s s a r y to d e c id e th e
q u e s t io n w h e th e r n a tiv e t itle w a s sim p ly s u s p e n d e d d u r in g th e c u r r e n c y o f a
p a s to r a l le a s e , s o th a t it m ig h t r e v iv e o n th e e x p ir y o f th e le a s e . B y c o n tr a st,
B ren nan CJ (in a ju d g m e n t w ith w h ic h D a w so n J and M cH ugh J a g r e e d ),
d e v e l o p e d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h h e h a d p u t f o r w a r d i n M a b o [ N o 2] , n a m e l y ,
th a t th e e f f e c t o f a C r o w n g r a n t, e v e n o f a lim it e d d u r a tio n le a s e , i s to r e m o v e th e
la n d in q u e s t io n p e r m a n e n tly fr o m th e d o m a in o f n a tiv e title in to th e d o m a in o f
C r o w n -g r a n te d t itle s . A c c o r d in g ly , w h e n th e le a s e c o m e s to a n e n d , th e fu ll
b e n e f i c i a l t i t l e r e v e r t s t o t h e C r o w n . 89 B u t th e m a jo r ity j u d g e s in W ik r e j e c t e d
t h a t a n a l y s i s . 10
Is th e r e a t e m p o r a l d im e n s io n to th e i n c o n s i s t e n c y w h ic h m a y a r is e b e t w e e n
su r v iv in g n a tiv e tit le and an o v e r la id le a s e ? W h a t m ig h t th e com m on la w
p o s itio n b e ?
L e a s e h o ld t it le s , a s d is t in c t fr o m fr e e h o ld t it le s , a re tr a d itio n a lly g r a n te d fo r
lim it e d p e r io d s o f tim e . P r o v is io n s fo r r e n e w a ls d o n o t a lte r th is s itu a tio n . E ven
p e r p e tu a l le a s e s w ill u s u a lly c o n ta in p r o v is io n fo r fo r fe itu r e fo r breach of
c o n d itio n s , o r fo r su rren d er. G e n e r a lly , at la w , w h e n a le a s e c o m e s to a n e n d th e
u n d e r ly in g t it le c o m e s b a c k in to f u ll o p e r a tio n . I f th e o w n e r o f th e f r e e h o ld title
to a fa r m le a s e s it fo r 2 1 y e a r s , a t th e e n d o f th a t p e r io d th e f u ll t it le r e v e r ts to
th e ow n er. G o v e r n m e n ts h a v e th e p o w e r to g ra n t m in in g le a s e s over m uch
f r e e h o ld o r le a s e h o ld la n d . W h e n s u c h a le a s e is g r a n te d th e r ig h ts o f th e o w n e r
o r le a s e h o ld e r are sim p ly su sp en d ed fo r th e d u r a tio n o f th e o v e r la id m in in g
le a s e .
Is th e s it u a t io n a n y d if f e r e n t w h e n th e u n d e r ly in g t it le is n a t iv e tit le ? I f it
w e r e , t h e s i t u a t i o n w o u l d a p p e a r t o o f f e n d t h e R D A . 11 B u t th e g e n e r a l a n sw e r
p r o v id e d b y th e 1 9 9 8 a m e n d m e n t s a p p e a r s in s 2 3 7 A :
The word extinguish, in relation to native title, means permanently extinguish the
native title. To avoid any doubt, this means that after the extinguishment the native
title rights and interests cannot revive, even if the act that caused the extinguishment
ceases to have effect.
A t p o in t s in th e N T A , a s a m e n d e d , e x c e p t io n s a re m a d e to th is d r a c o n ia n
g e n e r a l p r in c ip le s o th a t th e m a tte r m a y e v e n t u a lly b e s e t t le d b y th e c o u r ts . As
n o t e d a b o v e , s 2 3 G p r o v id e s o n e s u c h e x c e p t io n in r e la tio n to th e c o n fir m a tio n
of “p r e v io u s n o n -e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n a c ts” . O th e r e x c e p tio n s (lik e w is e
e m a n a t in g f r o m t h e S e n a t e ) r e la t e to : A b o r i g i n a l la n d ( s 2 3 B ( 9 ) ) ; n a t io n a l p a r k s
(s 2 3 B ( 9 A ) ) ; a c ts d o n e u n d e r le g is la t io n th a t e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e s th a t th e a c t d o e s
n o t e x t in g u is h n a tiv e tit le ( s 2 3 B ( 9 B ) ) ; “ C r o w n to C r o w n ” g r a n ts o r v e s t in g s

8 North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1995-96) 185 CLR 595.

9 Note 3 supra at 68 and 72-3; Wik Peoples case, note 5 supra at 88-94.
10 Wik Peoples case, note 5 supra at 127-9, per Toohey J; at 155-6, per Gaudron J; at 186-90, per Gummow
J; at 233-5, per Kirby J.
11 ATSIC, Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 - Issues for Indigenous Peoples, October 1997 at 45-6.
570 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

(s 2 3 B (9 C )). A n y e x tin g u is h m e n t w h ic h w o u ld o th e r w is e h a v e b e e n a c h ie v e d a s
a r e s u l t o f h i s t o r i c t e n u r e s ( f o r i n s t a n c e , ‘g h o s t l e a s e s ’) o n l a n d w h i c h i s n o w
A b o r ig in a l reserve or vacant C row n la n d can be d is r e g a r d e d if a c la im a n t
a p p lic a t io n fo r n a t iv e tit le is m a d e a n d th e p e o p le a re in o c c u p a t io n o f th e la n d
(ss 4 7 A , 4 7 B ).

D. Renewals and Upgrades

U n d e r th e 1 9 9 3 A c t a n y in te r e s t c o u ld b e r e n e w e d u n d e r a p r e - 1 9 9 4 le g a lly
e n f o r c e a b le r ig h t ( s 2 5 ) . U n d e r th e 1 9 9 8 a m e n d m e n ts , th is is e x t e n d e d to a p p ly
to a l e g a l l y e n f o r c e a b le r ig h t c r e a te d b e f o r e 2 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 o r to “ a n o f f e r ,
c o m m it m e n t , a r r a n g e m e n t o r u n d e r ta k in g m a d e o r g i v e n in g o o d f a it h ” b e f o r e
th a t d a te o f w h ic h th e r e is w r itte n e v id e n c e (s 2 4 I C ).
T h e g e n e r a l p r in c ip le in th e 1 9 9 3 A c t w a s th a t th e r e n e w a l o f c e r ta in t y p e s o f
l e a s e s ( c o m m e r c ia l, a g r ic u ltu r a l, p a s t o r a l o r r e s id e n t ia l - b u t n o t m in in g ) w o u ld
b e v a lid a s a “p e r m is s ib le fu tu r e a c t ” , p r o v id e d th a t th e r e n e w a l d id n o t c r e a te a
p r o p r ie ta r y in t e r e s t in p la c e o f a n o n -p r o p r ie ta r y in te r e s t o r a la r g e r p r o p r ie ta r y
in te r e s t th a n w a s p r e v io u s ly c r e a te d b y th e le a s e ( s 2 3 5 ( 7 ) ) . U n d e r th e 1998
a m e n d m e n ts , a s im ila r p r o v is o a p p lie s to th e r e n e w a l o f n o n - e x c lu s iv e p a s to r a l
a n d a g r ic u ltu r a l l e a s e s g r a n te d o n o r b e f o r e 2 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 .
B u t u p g r a d in g to lo n g e r te r m o r p e r p e tu a l le a s e s c a n b e a c h ie v e d b y a p r o c e s s
o f c o m p u ls o r y a c q u is itio n fo llo w in g proced ures la id dow n in new s 24M D
w h ic h a re le s s r ig o r o u s th a n t h o s e th a t p r e v io u s ly w o u ld h a v e a p p lie d u n d e r th e
R T N p r o v is io n s . S o , a g a in , a la r g e r d e g r e e o f ‘c e r t a in t y ’ h a s b e e n a c h i e v e d fo r
th e h o ld e r s o f v a r io u s s o r ts o f le a s e s th a t th e y m a y b e r e n e w e d w it h o u t th e n e e d
to deal w ith any n a tiv e tit le h o ld e r s . And it is e a s ie r to u p grad e le a s e s .
C o m p e n s a t io n is p a y a b le to a n y n a t iv e title h o ld e r s .

E. Diversification
O n e o f t h e i d e n t i f i a b l e p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e W ik d e c i s i o n f o r p a s t o r a l i s t s
w a s th e q u e s t io n w h e t h e r t h e y m ig h t d iv e r s if y in to o th e r e c o n o m ic u s e s o f th e
la n d , w it h o u t h a v in g t o g o th r o u g h th e “ fu tu r e a c t ” p r o c e s s e s u n d e r t h e 1993
A c t, n o t a b ly , by o b ta in in g th e a g r e e m e n t o f a n y n a tiv e tit le h o ld e r s . N ew
S u b d iv is io n G (o f P art 2, D iv is io n 3) a u th o r is e s any “p r im a r y p r o d u c tio n
a c tiv ity ” (o r a n o th e r a c tiv ity a s s o c ia te d w ith or in c id e n ta l to a p r im a r y
p r o d u c tio n a c tiv ity ) on a n o n -e x c lu s iv e a g r ic u ltu r a l o r p a s t o r a l l e a s e g r a n te d
b e fo r e 2 3 D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 , p r o v id e d th a t s u c h a c t c o u ld h a v e b e e n v a lid ly d o n e
o r a u t h o r i s e d p r i o r t o 3 1 M a r c h 1 9 9 8 . 12
T h e te r m “p r im a r y p r o d u c t io n a c t iv it y ” is d e f in e d b y s 2 4 G A to in c lu d e :

(a ) c u l t iv a t i n g la n d ;

(b ) m a in t a in in g , b r e e d in g o r a g is t in g a n im a ls ;

(c ) ta k in g o r c a t c h in g f is h o r s h e llf is h ;

12 The latter date was selected to accommodate the expansion o f permissible uses o f such lands under the
Land Administration Act 1998 (WA).
1999 UNSWLaw Journal 571

(d) f o r e s t o p e r a tio n s ;

(e) h o r tic u ltu r a l a c t iv it ie s ;

(f) a q u a c u ltu r a l a c t iv it ie s ;

(g ) l e a v in g f a l lo w o r d e - s t o c k in g a n y la n d in c o n n e c t io n w it h
th e d o in g o f a n y th in g th a t is a p r im a r y p r o d u c t io n a c t iv it y .

It d o e s n o t i n c l u d e m i n i n g ( s 2 4 G A ( 2 ) ) . It d o e s in c lu d e fa r m t o u r is m , t h o u g h
n o t in v o l v in g o b s e r v in g “ a c t iv it ie s o r c u ltu r a l w o r k s o f A b o r ig in a l p e o p l e s o r
T o r r e s S tr a it I s la n d e r s ” ( s 2 4 G B ( 2 ) a n d ( 3 ) ) .
In th e c a s e o f a p a s to r a l le a s e e x c e e d in g 5 0 0 0 h e c ta r e s , n o m o r e th a n h a l f m a y
b e u s e d fo r n o n -p a s to r a l p u r p o se s. H o w e v e r , d iv e r s ific a tio n is m o r e lik e ly o n
s m a lle r , w e ll- w a t e r e d le a s e s . W h ile th e n o n - e x t in g u is h m e n t p r in c ip le is s a id to
a p p ly , som e fo r m s of d iv e r s ific a tio n c o u ld w e ll am ount to de fa c to
e x t in g u is h m e n t . C o m p e n s a tio n is p a y a b le b y a g o v e r n m e n t th a t a u th o r is e s s u c h
a c t iv it y , b u t n o t b y th e le s s e e c o n d u c t in g th e a c tiv ity . A g o v e r n m e n t m u s t a ls o
n o t if y , a n d p r o v id e o p p o r tu n ity to c o m m e n t o n a n y p r o p o s a l fo r f o r e s t o p e r a tio n s
o r h o r t ic u lt u r e o r a q u a c u ltu r e , o r ( o n a p a s t o r a l l e a s e ) a g r ic u ltu r e .
G o v e r n m e n t s m a y a ls o a u t h o r is e a l e s s e e , o r th ir d p a r t ie s , t o c u t a n d r e m o v e
tim b e r or to “ e x tra c t, o b ta in or rem ove san d , g r a v e l, ro ck s, s o il or o th e r
r e s o u r c e s ” f r o m n o n - e x c l u s i v e p a s t o r a l o r a g r ic u ltu r a l l e a s e s ( s 2 4 G E ) . C e r ta in
o ff-fa rm a c tiv itie s a s s o c ia te d w ith p r im a r y p r o d u c tio n are a ls o p e r m itte d to
f r e e h o ld e r s a n d l e s s e e s , s u c h a s g r a z in g c a ttle o r ta k in g w a te r , e v e n i f th e r e h a s
b e e n a d e t e r m in a t io n th a t th e la n d in q u e s t io n is s u b j e c t to n a t iv e t it le ( s 2 4 G D ) .
In c o n s e q u e n c e , th e u n c e r t a in t ie s f e lt b y p a s t o r a lis t s a b o u t th e ir r ig h t t o e n g a g e
in a c t iv it ie s o n - a n d e v e n a d ja c e n t to - th e ir h o ld in g s a r e m o r e th a n a d e q u a t e ly
s e t t le d in th e ir fa v o u r .

F. Water and Airspace

T h e o r ig in a l N T A c o n t e m p la t e d th a t n a t iv e t it le r ig h ts a n d in t e r e s t s m ig h t
a p p ly n o t o n ly to la n d b u t a ls o to w a te r s , o n -s h o r e a n d o ffs h o r e . S e c tio n 2 1 2 ( 1 )
a u th o r is e s le g is la t io n to c o n f ir m (a ) a n y e x is t in g o w n e r s h ip o f n a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s
b y th e C r o w n ; o r ( b ) a n y e x is t in g r ig h t o f th e C r o w n to u s e , c o n t r o l a n d r e g u la t e
th e f lo w o f w a te r; o r ( c ) th a t a n y e x is t in g f is h in g a c c e s s r ig h ts p r e v a il o v e r a n y
o th e r p u b lic o r p r iv a te f is h in g r ig h ts . S e c tio n 2 1 2 ( 2 ) a u th o r is e s le g is la t io n to
c o n f ir m p u b lic r ig h ts o f a c c e s s to v a r io u s p la c e s in c lu d in g w a t e r w a y s , b e d s a n d
banks or fo r esh o re s o f w a te rw a y s, c o a sta l w a te rs and b each es. Any su ch
c o n f ir m a t io n s d o n o t e x t in g u is h a n y n a t iv e t it le r ig h ts a n d in t e r e s t s . In a d d itio n ,
s 2 1 1 la r g e ly e x e m p ts n a t iv e title h o ld e r s fr o m lic e n c e r e q u ir e m e n ts in r e la tio n
to f is h in g (a n d s o m e o th e r a c t iv it ie s ) c o n d u c t e d in e x e r c is e o r e n j o y m e n t o f th e ir
n a t iv e t it le r ig h ts fo r th e p u r p o s e o f s a t is f y in g th e ir p e r s o n a l, d o m e s t ic o r n o n ­
c o m m e r c ia l c o m m u n a l n e e d s .
N o n - I n d ig e n o u s in t e r e s t s in w a t e r s - a n d a ir s p a c e - a re g iv e n la r g e r s u p p o r t
b y th e 1 9 9 8 a m e n d m e n ts . N ew S u b d iv is io n H e s ta b lis h e s a n o th e r c a te g o r y o f
p e r m is s ib le fu tu r e a c t w h ic h c a n b e c a r r ie d o u t w it h o u t r e f e r e n c e to n a t iv e t it le
h o ld e r s , o th e r th a n n o t if ic a t io n a n d a n o p p o r tu n ity to c o m m e n t. G o v e r n m e n ts
m a y l e g i s l a t e o r g r a n t le a s e s , l ic e n c e s , p e r m its o r a u th o r itie s in r e la t io n to th e
572 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

management or regulation of surface and subterranean water, living aquatic

resources or airspace. This would permit the grant of irrigation licences and
commercial fishing licences. The non-extinguishment principle applies and
there is entitlement to compensation.
New Subdivision N also authorises the compulsory acquisition, without
reference to the RTN procedures, of offshore native title rights and interests,
provided that non-native title rights and interests in the area are also acquired,
and provided that native title holders are given the same procedural rights as the
holders of non-native title rights and interests.
So considerable certainty has been delivered to governments and to those who
seek the grant of licences, etc, from governments in relation to water, fish and
airspace.

G. Reservations, Leases etc

New Subdivision J also avoids any obligation on governments to negotiate
with native title holders concerning the management of national parks, forest
reserves and the like. It applies where pre-Wik legislation reserved land or
waters for a particular purpose, or a pre- IVik lease was granted to a statutory
authority for a particular purpose; in such cases, the land or waters may be used
for that particular purpose. In the case of a reservation it may also be used for a
different purpose, provided that the impact on native title is no greater. Native
title will be extinguished if the act consists of the construction or establishment
of a public work; otherwise, not. Compensation is payable. Limited right of
notification and comment are required in the case of public works or national
park management plans.
Again, enhanced certainty is provided to governments and non-native title
interests.

H. Facilities for Services to the Public

Under the original NTA, the provision of new facilities for the public on
native title land would probably have required resort to a non-claimant
application, an agreement, or compulsory acquisition. These will not be
necessary under new Subdivision K. Subdivision K relates to construction,
operation, use, maintenance or repair of various listed facilities for the general
public. The list includes roads, railways, bridges, jetties, wharves, water
pipelines, wells and bores, communication cables or towers, street lighting,
facilities for gas, electricity, irrigation, sewerage, drainage and the like.
Such future acts are conditioned on procedural rights equivalent to those
provided to people who hold freehold title, notification, the non-extinguishment
principle, compensation, reasonable access and provision for protection of
significant sites. So greater certainty is provided to governments seeking to
provide such facilities, again, at the cost of some erosion of the rights of any
native title holders.
1999 UNSW Law Journal 573

I. The Freehold Test

A gen eral p rin c ip le for an on sh ore future act to b e “p e r m issib le ” u nder the
1993 A c t w a s that it ap p ly to n a tiv e title h old ers in the sam e w a y as it w o u ld if,
in stead , th ey h eld “ordinary title ”, d efin ed as freeh o ld title in m o st ju r isd ic tio n s.
T h is p rin c ip le is rep lica ted in n e w S u b d iv isio n M . B u t ea rlier S u b d iv isio n s
alread y n o te d are n o t su b ject to th is ‘freeh o ld te s t’, n o ta b ly the p r o v isio n s
rela tin g to prim ary p rod uction; w ater and airspace; reserv a tio n s, le a s e s etc;
fa c ilitie s for se r v ic e s to the p u b lic.
H ig h ly d e ta iled p r o v isio n s fo llo w relatin g to e x tin g u ish m e n t or n o n ­
ex tin g u ish m e n t o f n a tiv e title, co m p e n sa tio n and so forth. U n d er s 2 4 M D ,
alternative p ro ced u res to the R T N are fou n d in re sp e ct o f co m p u lso ry
a cq u isitio n s for the b e n e fit o f third parties, and th ese appear to c o v e r the c a se o f
a g o v ern m en t se e k in g to upgrade p astoral or agricultural le a s e s to freeh o ld .

J. The Right to Negotiate.

U n d er the 1993 A c t, in relation to future acts o n sh o re, n a tiv e title h o ld ers had
righ ts eq u iv a le n t to th o se o f freeh old ers. In ad d ition , th ey had a tim e -lim ite d
R T N in re sp e ct o f p ro p o sa ls for m in in g and p ro p o sa ls for co m p u lso ry
a cq u isitio n o f n a tiv e title righ ts and in terests for the b e n e fit o f third parties.
T h e sc o p e for the R T N h as b e e n sig n ific a n tly red u ced b y the ex tin g u ish m e n ts
a c h ie v e d b y the v a lid a tio n p r o v isio n s (D iv is io n s 2 and 2 A ) and b y the p r o v isio n s
for co n firm a tio n o f p rev io u s acts (D iv is io n 2 B ). It is a lso red u ced b y a m en d ed
s 2 6 . It n o lo n g e r a p p lies to:
• th e e x te n sio n o f the term o f a m in in g lea se, etc, b ut o n ly to its creation
or variation;
• co m p u lso r y a cq u isitio n for a third party w h ere the p u rp o se is to p ro v id e
an “infrastructure fa c ility ” (b road ly d efin ed ), w h eth er for p u b lic or
p rivate b en efit;
• an ap p roved ex p lo ra tio n act as d eterm in ed b y the C o m m o n w ea lth
M in ister (s 2 6 A );
• an ap p roved g o ld or tin m in in g act;
• op al or g e m m in in g as e x c lu d e d b y s 26C ;
• r e n e w a ls o f v a lid m in in g le a se s (s 2 6 D );
• the creation o f a righ t to m in e w h ere the R T N had a p p lied to
ex p lo ra tio n (s 2 6 D );
• co m p u lso r y a cq u isitio n o f n a tiv e title righ ts and in terests w ith in a to w n
or city;
• the intertidal zo n e.
S o m e o f th e se e x c lu s io n s are su b ject to a num ber o f co n d itio n s, so m e o f
w h ic h are d ep en d en t o n the e x e r c ise o f d iscretio n s v ested in the C o m m o n w ea lth
M in ister. T h e p o ten tia l for greater certain ty for n o n -n a tiv e title in terests is o ffse t
574 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

b y the p o s s ib ility o f a p p lica tio n s for ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f the e x e r c ise o f th o se

d iscretio n s.
S e c tio n 4 3 o f the 1993 A c t p rovid ed for states and territories to esta b lish their
o w n “alternative p r o v isio n s” to the R T N i f th ey so c h o se , su b ject to fa irly tigh t
co n d itio n s. S e c tio n 4 3 rem ain s w ith so m e m o d ifica tio n s. N e w s 4 3 A , as it
em erg ed from the H ow ard -H arradin e agreem ent, a lso p ro v id e s for sta tes and
territories to m ak e alternative p r o v isio n w h en the p ro p o sa l that w o u ld o th er w ise
attract the R T N a p p lies to land w h ic h w a s or is co v e red b y a pastoral le a se (or
certain oth er in terests) or w a s reserved for su ch p u b lic p u rp o ses as a n a tio n a l
park, or is in a to w n or city. S u ch land s a cco u n t for o v er 5 0 p er ce n t o f
A u stralia.
T h e p roced u res w h ic h states and territories m a y p ro v id e are su b ject to
co n d itio n s w h ic h n o w se e m to b e little d ifferen t in e sse n c e , th o u g h n o t in d eta il,
to the R T N itse lf. T h e C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister m a y en d o rse th em as co m p ly in g
w ith the A c t i f the M in ister is o f o p in io n that th ey m ake p r o v isio n for
co m p e n sa tio n to n a tiv e title h o ld ers, and that C o m m o n w ea lth or state or territory
la w p ro v id e s for the p reservation and p ro tectio n o f sig n ific a n t areas and sites.
U n d er the fu ll R T N , it w o u ld b e o p en to n a tiv e title h o ld ers to p resen t a w id er
ran ge o f co n cern s su ch as so c ia l im pact, en viron m en tal p ro tectio n or s o c ia l and
e c o n o m ic m atters. O ther ch ec k s are that the C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister is required
to n o tify rep resen tative A b o rig in a l/T o rres Strait Islander b o d ie s o f a p ro p o sed
d eterm in ation and in v ite and co n sid er su b m issio n s. T h e M in iste r ’s
d eterm in ation is a lso su b ject to p o ssib le d isa llo w a n c e b y eith er H o u se o f the
C o m m o n w ea lth P arliam ent.
S o m e states m o v e d rap id ly to esta b lish su ch alternative p r o v isio n s, th o u g h it
is still to o early to p ro v id e an adequate acco u n t o f w h a t w ill em erg e from the
v a riou s p o litic a l and le g is la tiv e p r o c e sse s. C learly, states h o p e to fa cilita te
m in in g and oth er p rojects. W h eth er their p r o c e sse s w ill m ak e m u ch d iffe r e n c e
in the lo n g run rem ain s to b e seen . In the m ea n tim e, so m e d eg ree o f certa in ty is
lo st to m in in g co m p a n ie s w h ic h m ay n e e d to op erate w ith in d ifferen t p ro ced u res
in d ifferen t ju risd ic tio n s.
W h ere th e R T N rem ain s there are a lso ch a n g es. A u n ifo rm p erio d o f s ix
m on th s is a v a ila b le for n e g o tia tio n for b oth ex p lo ra tio n and ex tra ctio n (s 3 5 ).
A ll p arties - n o t ju s t th e g overn m en t party - are required to n eg o tia te in g o o d
faith (s 3 1 ). A n d there are other ch a n g es. O ne o f the m o st critical fa cto rs is the
n e w registration te st w h ic h is n o w a p reco n d itio n to a c c e ss to the R T N (and
oth er p r o c e sse s under the A c t, m ain ly, the right to cou n ter n o n -cla im a n t
a p p lica tio n s and the righ t to interim statutory righ ts o f a c c e ss on p astoral le a se s).

K. The Registration Test

N e w ss 1 9 0 A -D p ro v id e that a claim an t a p p lica tio n for a d eterm in a tio n o f
n a tive title w ill n o t b e a cc ep ted for registration u n less the R egistrar is sa tisfie d o f
va riou s m atters in c lu d in g that:
• th e factu al b a sis is su ffic ie n t to support the righ ts asserted;
• prim a fa c ie , so m e o f the n a tiv e title righ ts can b e esta b lish ed ;
1999 UNSW Law Journal 575

• a traditional p h y sic a l co n n ectio n o f at lea st o n e m em b er o f the cla im

group w ith the land (su b ject to a “sto len c h ild r en /lo ck ed g a te s”
ex c ep tio n );
• n a tiv e title h as n o t b een ex tin g u ish ed .
T h e registration test is to h ave retro sp ectiv e ap p lica tio n to large n um bers o f
a p p lica tio n s p r e v io u sly p la c ed on the R eg ister (T ab le A , S ch ed u le 5, Part 4 ).
T he registration test w ill m ake it a lm o st certain that reg istered cla im a n ts are the
appropriate p e o p le for g overn m en ts and industry to d eal w ith . U n fo rtu n a tely , its
a p p lication lo o k s certain to d ep rive a num ber o f g en u in e n a tiv e title h o ld ers o f
the R T N to w h ic h th ey ou gh t to b e entitled .

L. Representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander Bodies

S u ch b o d ie s are cru cial to the sm ooth op eration o f the N T A (se e Part 11).
T h e am en d m en ts p ro v id e a stronger b a sis for their w o rk and p ro v id e a d d ition al
m andates. In particular, th ese b o d ie s h ave an im portant ro le in c e r tify in g that
a p p lica tio n s are lo d g e d b y and on b e h a lf o f the right p e o p le , in n e g o tia tin g
In d ig en ou s L and U s e A g reem en ts, in attem p tin g to r e so lv e d isp u tes a m o n g
In d ig en o u s p e o p le s in their area and so on. T h e y represen t the lo g ic a l first stop
for industry rep resen tatives se e k in g to w ork on land w h ic h m a y b e su b ject to
n a tiv e title. S tron g “rep resen tative b o d ie s ”, ad eq u a tely resou rced , are lik e ly to
ad v a n ce the g o a l o f certain ty in the op eration o f the le g is la tio n .13
E x istin g rep resen tative b o d ies, h o w ev e r, fa c e the p ro sp ect o f a re-registration
p ro ce ss b y the C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister after a transition p erio d o f on e y e a r .14 I f
th is p r o c e ss is n ot h an d led ca r efu lly in accord a n ce w ith proper co n sid e ra tio n s,
the resu lt co u ld im pair the g o a ls o f certain ty and w ork ab ility.
It h as a lso b een argued that ad d ition al a cco u n ta b ility req u irem en ts are
e x c e s s iv e and w ill d ivert e n er g ie s and re so u rces from the prim ary fu n ctio n s o f
the rep resen tative b o d ie s.

M. The Federal Court

In b rief, all a p p lica tio n s for d eterm in ation s o f n a tiv e title and c o m p e n sa tio n
w ill n o w b e lo d g e d in the F ederal C ourt and th en referred to the N a tio n a l N a tiv e
T itle T ribunal (N N T T ) for n o tifica tio n s, m e d iatio n etc. A ll d eterm in a tio n s w ill
b e m ad e b y the F ed eral Court. (O ther arrangem ents m a y a p p ly in states and
territories w h ic h set up their o w n p r o c e sse s.) T h is sh ift m a y m ake for m ore
le g a listic ap p roach es in so m e areas.

N. State and Territory Processes

T h e 1993 A c t and the 1998 am end m ents au th orise state and territory
leg isla tu res to va lid a te “p ast a cts” and “interm ed iate p erio d a cts” , and to

13 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Review o f Native Title Representative Bodies, 1995.
14 ATSIC Information Paper, Implementation o f New Legislative Provisions Relating to Native Title
Representative Bodies , November 1998; L Strelein, “Moving the Boundaries: Native Title
Representative Bodies and the Recognition Process” (1999) 4(22) Indigenous Law Bulletin 12.
576 The Search fo r Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

“c o n firm ” the ex tin g u ish m e n t o f n a tiv e title b y “p rev io u s e x c lu s iv e p o s s e s s io n

a cts” (an d partial ex tin g u ish m e n t b y “p rev io u s n o n -e x c lu siv e p o s s e s s io n a cts”).
S tates and territories are a lso au th orised to co n firm the va rio u s m atters
m en tio n ed in s 2 1 2 .
A s n oted , th ey are a lso au th orised to esta b lish alternative p r o v isio n s to the
R T N : ss 4 3 , 4 3 A . S e c tio n 2 7 au th orises states and territories to e sta b lish their
o w n b o d ie s to serv e as the “arbitral b o d y ” for the p u rp o ses o f the R T N . W h en a
state or territory arbitral b o d y m ak es a d eterm in ation as to w h eth er or n o t a
m in in g p ro p o sa l sh o u ld b e perm itted , a p o w er to override su ch d eterm in a tio n
m a y b e e x e r c ise d b y the state or territory M inister: ss 2 7 A , 4 2 .
M ore g en era lly , states and territories m ay esta b lish a “r e c o g n ise d
State/T erritory b o d y ” (s 2 0 7 A ) to m ak e d eterm in ation s o f n a tiv e title,
co m p e n sa tio n and future acts. T h e C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister n e e d s to b e
sa tisfie d as to liste d criteria for the b o d y to b e re co g n ise d . In a d d itio n , under
s 2 0 7 B an “eq u iv a le n t b o d y ” m a y b e a ccep ted b y the C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister to
perform sp e c ifie d fu n ctio n s or e x e r c ise s p e c ifie d p o w er s o f the N N T T or the
N a tiv e T itle R egistrar. A g a in , the C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister n e e d s to b e sa tisfie d
as to liste d criteria.
L ittle u se h as b e e n m ade o f state p o w ers to esta b lish their o w n ‘m a c h in e r y ’ in
the past, th ou gh th is se e m s lik e ly to ch an ge sin c e the a m end m ents. W h eth er th is
w ill b e co n d u c iv e to certain ty p rob ably d ep en d s on the d ifferin g p o in ts o f v ie w
o f state p o litic ia n s and ad m inistrators, C o m m o n w ea lth p o litic ia n s and
adm inistrators, industry, and n a tiv e title h old ers.

III. UNCERTAINTIES REMAINING

V a rio u s u n certain ties h a v e b een re so lv e d , at lea st for the tim e b e in g , in

relation to, a m on g oth ers, v a lid a tio n s, co n firm a tio n s, d iv e rsifica tio n o n p astoral
le a se s. H o w e v e r , u n certain ties rem ain.

A. Possible Revival of Native Title

A s n o ted , so m e a sp ects o f the q u estion w h eth er ex tin g u ish m en t is p erm anent
rem ain to b e d eterm in ed b y the courts, th ou gh the broad p rin c ip le that
ex tin g u ish m e n t is p erm anent is stron gly esta b lish e d in k e y a sp ects o f the
le g isla tio n . I f the cou rts w ere ev e n tu a lly to rule that n a tiv e title m ig h t r e v iv e o n
the exp iration o f a le a se , or that it w o u ld n o t re v iv e, th is co u ld h a v e so m e
b earin g o n the a sse ssm e n t o f co m p e n sa tio n for ex tin g u ish m en t o f n a tiv e title.

B. Sea Country
T h e C roker Islan d c a s e 15 h as p ro v id ed a p o sitiv e a n sw er to the q u estio n
w h eth er n ative title righ ts and in terests m a y ex ten d o ffsh o re . T h e F ed eral C ourt

15 Mary Yarmirr v Northern Territory (1998) 156 ALR 370. See GD Meyers, M O ’Dell, G Wright, SC
Muller, A Sea Change in Land Rights Law: The Extension o f Native Title to Australia’s Offshore Areas ,
AIATSIS (1996).
1999 UNSW Law Journal 577

a lso h eld that su ch righ ts w o u ld n o t a ffect n o n -In d ig en o u s fish in g and oth er

righ ts in the area. M o re ju risp ru d en ce m ay b e n e e d e d in th is area, th o u g h the
1 998 am en d m en ts to the N T A do su p p ly so m e a n sw ers. T h e q u e stio n o f n a tiv e
title fish in g righ ts h as n o t y et b e e n su c c e ssfu lly argued in the c o n te x t o f crim inal
p r o se c u tio n s.16 S o m e an sw ers are p rovid ed in the 1993 A c t and the
am en d m en ts.

C. Sub-Surface Rights
S u ch righ ts h a v e b e e n asserted in several c a se s, and there is so m e support for
the p ro p o sitio n that n a tiv e title is cap ab le o f in clu d in g rights to su b -su rfa ce
reso u rces. It is p o s s ib le that le g isla tio n o f the sev era l states and territories that
d eclare C row n o w n er sh ip o f m in erals m ay b e interpreted as e x tin g u ish in g an y
su ch rights, b ut that m a y d ep en d on the actual la n g u a g e o f the le g isla tio n . It is
w orth n o tin g that there is so m e p rivate ow n ersh ip o f m in erals in sev era l parts o f
A u stra lia .17

D. Managing Co-Existence
O ne o f the c o n ce rn s ex p r e sse d b y so m e p asto ra lists in the afterm ath o f the
Wik d e c isio n w a s ab out h o w to m an age c o -e x is te n c e “on the g rou n d ” . T h is
o u g h t n o t to b e a n o v e l id ea in A u stralia. P astoral le a se s in W estern A u stralia,
South A u stralia and the N orth ern T erritory h a v e lo n g b e e n su b ject to statute-
b a sed righ ts o f co n tin u in g A b o rig in a l a c c e ss. S o m e in d iv id u a l p a sto ra lists h a v e
had lo n g -sta n d in g arrangem ents w ith the n ative titleh o ld ers. S o m e h a v e recen tly
d e v e lo p e d su ch arrangem en ts, and there is an org a n isa tio n d ev o te d to the id ea -
Rural L and H o ld ers for C o -E x iste n c e . T h e C ape Y o rk P en in su la R e g io n a l
H ea d s o f A g r eem e n t in v o lv e d p astoralists, A b o rig in e s and en v iro n m en ta lists and
set ou t broad p rin c ip les for c o -e x iste n c e . It h as b een p ro p o sed that the b e st w a y
to p ro ce ed on th is issu e is v ia a reg io n a l agreem en t su p p lem en ted , at a m o re
sp e c ific le v e l, b y “ farm g a te” agreem en ts. O ne o f the p o sitiv e a sp ects o f the
1 998 am en d m en ts is the en h a n ced p ro v isio n for n eg o tia te d a g reem en ts.

E. Common Law Native Title Rights

T h e 1 998 am en d m en ts as en a cted d eleted the p ro p o sa l for a “su n set c la u s e ” o f
s ix years o n a p p lica tio n s for n a tiv e title and for co m p en sa tio n . It had b een
p o in te d ou t that n a tiv e title is a co m m o n la w righ t and that it w o u ld b e o p en to
n a tiv e title h o ld ers to se e k d eterm in ation s o f n a tiv e title or co m p e n sa tio n w ith o u t
an y n eed to re ly on the N T A , ju st as E d d ie M ab o and h is c o -p la in tiffs did.
A s en a cted in 19 9 3 , the N T A o ffere d n et b e n e fits to n a tiv e title h o ld ers,
p artially o ffse ttin g the p o ssib le lo s s e s cau sed b y the v a lid a tio n p r o v isio n s. T h e
1 998 am en d m en ts su b stan tially erod e th o se b e n e fits and there m a y arise ca se s

16 Mason v Tritton (1994) 34 NSWLR 572; Derschaw v Sutton (1997) 17 WAR 419, 2(1) AILR 53; Dillon
v Davies (unreported, SC Tas, Underwood J, 20 May 1998).
17 GD Meyers, CM Piper, HM Rumley, “Asking the Minerals Question: Rights in Minerals as an Incident
o f Native Title” (1997) 2(2) AILR 203. And see Ben Ward and Others on Behalf o f the Miriuwung and
Gajerrong Peoples v Western Australia (unreported, FCA, Lee J, 24 November 1998).
578 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

w h ere n a tiv e title h old ers m a y se e it as b e in g m ore a d v a n ta g eo u s le g a lly to

p ro ce ed o u tsid e the c o n fin e s o f the A ct. A n o th er p o ssib ility for reg a in in g
‘co u n try ’, q u ite o u tsid e the court system , is b y op en -m arket p u rch ase through the
In d ig en o u s L and Fund.

F. Alternative Legal Arguments

T here m ay, h o w ev e r, b e situ ation s w h ere A b o rig in a l p e o p le or T orres Strait
Island ers are u n ab le to assert n a tiv e title, eith er through the A c t or at co m m o n
law . It is w orth rem em b erin g that the M ab o p la in tiffs had a ltern ative lin e s o f
argum ent w h ic h w ere n o t e f fe c tiv e ly d eterm in ed b y the H ig h Court.
O n e lin e o f argum ent w a s that the p la in tiffs w ere en titled to b e a c k n o w le d g e d
as o w n ers o f their lan d s under co m m o n la w p rin c ip les o f p o s s e s s o r y t itle .18 O n ly
Ju stice T o o h e y g a v e the argum ent an y ex ten d ed c o n sid e ra tio n .19 It c o u ld w e ll b e
relevan t in a situ ation , say, w h ere A b o rig in a l p e o p le co n tin u e to o c c u p y a
p ortion o f their tradition al cou n try w h ic h has n ev er b e e n a lien a ted , but h a v e lo st
to o m u ch o f their traditional la w to b e ab le to esta b lish n a tiv e title.
A n oth er p o s s ib le lin e o f argum ent is a v a ila b le in a d e fe n siv e fa sh io n to
c h a lle n g e th e v a lid ity o f a ctio n s o f govern m en ts. T h is is the argum ent that
g o v ern m en ts o w e a fid u cia ry d uty to In d ig en o u s p e o p le s in certain
circu m sta n ces. T h e argum ent h as b een a cc ep ted in so m e ju r isd ic tio n s su ch as
C anada.20 F id u cia ry d uty h as b e e n argued in sev era l A u stra lia n c a s e s but m o stly
w ith o u t a c o n c lu s iv e result. It d id get a c o n clu d e d an sw er in th e Wik d e c isio n
w h ere the H ig h C ourt r e jec ted an argum ent that p re-1 9 7 5 m in in g le a s e s w ere
in v a lid o n th is grou n d .21

IV. A SSESSIN G THE R ISK OF LEG AL CH ALLEN G ES

IN COURT

A. Challenges to Constitutional Validity

T here h a v e b e e n variou s su g g e stio n s that th e p ro v isio n s o f the N T A A are
c o n stitu tio n a lly in v a lid .
O n e su g g e ste d ground for in v a lid ity is that, in so fa r as it ero d es the righ ts o f
A b o r ig in e s and T orres Strait Island ers, it g o e s b ey o n d the le g is la tiv e p o w er
con ferred b y C o n stitu tio n s 51 (x x v i): the p o w e r to m ak e la w s w ith re sp e ct to
“the p e o p le o f an y race for w h o m it is d eem ed n ece ssa ry to m ak e sp e c ia l la w s ” .
T h e argum ent is that, at lea st sin c e the d e letio n in 1 967 o f the w o rd s “oth er than

18 K M cNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title, Oxford (1989).

19 Note 3 supra at 206-14. See G Nettheim, “Judicial Revolution or Cautious Correction?” (1993) 16
UNSWU 1 at 12-16.
20 Guerin v The Queen (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321. And see C Hughes “The Fiduciary Obligations o f the
Crown to Aborigines: Lessons from the United States and Canada” (1993) 16 UNSWU 70.
21 Wik Peoples case, note 5 supra at 98-100, per Brennan CJ; at 100, per Dawson J; at 131, per Toohey J;
at 135, per Gaudron J; at 167, per McHugh J; at 251-61, per Kirby J. For discussion and additional
references, see H McRae, G Nettheim, L Beacroft, note 1 supra, pp 295-7.
1999 UNSW Law Journal 579

the a b origin al race in an y S tate”, the p o w er m ay o n ly b e u sed for the b e n e fit o f

In d ig en ou s A u stralian s, n o t to their detrim ent.
T here h a v e b een several d icta from H ig h C ourt ju s tic e s in the p ast w h ic h
se e m e d to g iv e so m e cr ed ib ility to th is p rop ositio n . B u t it fa ile d o n th e first
attem pt to argue it in the H ind m arsh Island B rid g e C a se.22 T h e argum ent as to
the su g g e ste d lim ita tio n w a s accep ted , in su b stan ce, in the separate ju d g m en ts o f
G audron and K irb y JJ. J u stices G u m m o w and H a y n e sa w o n ly a lim ita tio n that a
C o m m o n w ea lth la w co u ld n o t represen t a “m a n ifest a b u se” o f P a rlia m e n t’s
d iscretio n to d eem su ch a la w to b e n ecessa ry . C h ie f J u stice B ren n an and
M c H u g h J did n o t co n sid e r the issu e at all. F iv e o f the J u stices (K irb y J
d isse n tin g ) h eld that the ch a lle n g e to v a lid ity fa iled on the ground that the
ch a lle n g e d 199 7 A c t w a s n e c e ssa r ily v a lid as a partial repeal or a m en d m en t o f
the v a lid p rin cip al 1 9 8 4 A ct, on the b a sis that the a sserted righ ts o f the
A b o rig in a l p la in tiffs w e re s o le ly statutory rights.
It m a y still b e o p en to argue that the e ffe c t o f the N T A A on n o n -sta tu to ry
righ ts o f n a tiv e title h old ers n e c e ssa r ily requ ires d eterm in ation o f the issu e
w h eth er th e race p o w e r is su b ject to so m e su ch lim ita tio n . I f it is, there w o u ld
b e little d iffic u lty in d em on stratin g that the ex tin g u ish m e n ts o f n a tiv e title righ ts
and in terests in the am en d m en ts are n o t to the b e n e fit o f In d ig en o u s A u stra lia n s.
A n oth er p o s s ib le C on stitu tion al argum ent that h as b een put forw ard rela tes to
the o b lig a tio n in s 5 1 (x x x i): the p o w er to m ak e la w s w ith re sp e ct to “the
a cq u isitio n o f p roperty on just terms from an y State or p erso n for any p u rp o se in
resp e ct o f w h ic h th e P arliam ent h as p o w er to m ak e la w s ” . T h e N T A , b o th in its
orig in al v e r sio n and as am en d ed , sh o w s a strong a w a ren ess o f th is o b lig a tio n in
its elab orate p r o v isio n s for co m p en sa tio n . A n attem pt to im p o se a cap on
co m p e n sa tio n appears in n e w s 5 1 A w h ic h purports to p ro v id e that the am ou n t
o f c o m p e n sa tio n for the total ex tin g u ish m e n t o f n a tiv e title m u st n o t e x c e e d the
am ount that w o u ld b e p a y a b le for the co m p u lso ry a cq u isitio n o f fr eeh o ld title.
B u t su b-s (2 ) su b jects th is to s 53 w h ic h p r o v id e s that any sh ortfall in the
statutory p r o v isio n s for co m p e n sa tio n sh ould , w h en n e c e ssa r y under s 5 1 (x x x i),
b e to p p ed up to w h at w o u ld co n stitu te “ju st term s” .
A n y ch a lle n g e o n th is ground m a y b e d irected to sp e c ific p r o v isio n s for the
a sse ssm e n t o f co m p e n sa tio n . It m a y a lso ch a lle n g e the p ro ced u res o f the A c t as
fa ilin g a d eq u a tely to fa cilita te a p p lica tio n s for co m p e n sa tio n w h e n p a y a b le. It
w a s p artly o n th e b a sis o f su b m issio n s on th ese m atters that th e 1 9 9 7 B ill w a s
a m en d ed to m ak e so m e p ro v isio n for n o tific a tio n s to n a tiv e title h o ld er s o f
p o ssib le e ffe c ts on n a tiv e title righ ts w h ic h m ig h t n o t o th er w ise h a v e c o m e to
their k n o w le d g e .23
A g a in , o n e can o n ly sp ecu la te on the lik e ly su c c e ss o f a C o n stitu tio n a l
ch a lle n g e o n th is grou n d - or on other grou n ds that m ay b e argued. T h e m ajor
p o in t is that the su b stan tial er o sio n o f the righ ts o f n a tiv e title h o ld ers in the
search for certain ty m a y h a v e created the im p etu s for c h a lle n g e s to the v a lid ity

22 Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 152 ALR 540; 72 A U R 722.

23 Tenth Report o f the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Land Fund, October 1997.
580 The Search fo r Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

o f the N T A A w h ich , until re so lv e d , m ay partly o ffse t the d eg ree o f certain ty

ap paren tly a ch iev ed .

B. Challenges to Statutory Validity

O n e o f the ‘stick in g p o in ts ’ b e tw e e n the G o v ern m en t and n o n -G o v e m m e n t
S en ators co n ce rn ed the relation sh ip b etw e en the N T A and the R D A . The
G o vern m en t w a s d eterm in ed to re sist any am end m ent to s 7 o f the N T A that
m ig h t p ro v id e a b a sis for ch a llen g in g the am en d m en ts for in c o n siste n c y w ith the
earlier R D A . T here w a s a co n cern that p ro p o sed w o rd in g m ig h t create a ‘c la u se
b u ster’. T h e G o v ern m e n t’s co n cern s on th is sco re w ere apparently a lla y ed b y
the la n g u a g e agreed in the H ow ard-H arradine agreem ent:
7 (1 ) T h is A c t is in ten d ed to b e read and con stru ed su b ject to th e
p r o v isio n s o f the [R D A ].
(2 ) S u b se c tio n (1 ) m ea n s o n ly that:
(a) the p r o v isio n s o f the [R D A ] ap p ly to the p erform an ce o f fu n ctio n s
and the e x e r c ise o f p o w er s con ferred b y or a u th orised b y th is A ct;
and
(b ) to con stru e th is A c t, and th ereb y to d eterm in e its o p eration ,
a m b ig u o u s term s sh o u ld b e con stru ed c o n siste n tly w ith the [R D A ]
i f that co n stru ctio n w o u ld r e m o v e the am b igu ity.
T he rem ain in g s 7 (3 ) e x e m p ts the va lid a tio n p ro v isio n s from the o p era tio n o f the
sec tio n .
T h e N T A as am en d ed au th orises le g isla tio n at state and territory le v e l, and
ad m in istrative a ctio n at b oth C o m m o n w ea lth and state/territory le v e ls . T o the
ex ten t that su ch le g isla tio n , or su ch ad m inistrative a ctio n , d iscrim in a tes a m o n g
title h o ld ers o n th e b a sis o f race, it m a y b e in v a lid . State le g isla tio n rela tin g to
n a tive title h as alread y b een h eld in v a lid for in c o n siste n c y w ith the R D A u n less
v ery c lea r ly au th orised b y the N T A .24 S e c tio n 7 au th orises cou rts to co n stru e the
N T A c o n siste n tly w ith the R D A w h ere p o ssib le . A n d s 7 (2 ) states g en er a lly that
the R D A is to ap p ly to the p erform an ce o f fu n ctio n s and the e x e r c ise o f p o w er s
under th e A ct.
P arliam entary d raftsp eop le and adm inistrators w ill n e e d to b e carefu l to craft
le g isla tio n and to take ad m in istrative a ction that, so far as p o ssib le , r e d u ce s the
ra c ia lly d iscrim in atory a sp ects o f the p o w er s b e in g ex e r c ise d , le st th eir a ctio n s
b e h e ld in v a lid eith er for b reach o f the R D A or for ultra v ires (ie , g o in g b ey o n d
the p o w e r con ferred b y the N T A w h en that p o w er is interpreted in a cco rd a n ce
w ith th e R D A ).

C. Challenges on Administrative Law Grounds

A large n um ber o f d isc retio n s are v e ste d in the C o m m o n w ea lth M in ister and
oth ers and the am en d m en ts h a v e the p o ten tia l to ca u se a strong se n se o f
in ju stic e. O ne can e x p e c t a q uite co n sid era b le in crea se in a p p lica tio n s for

24 Note 3 supra ; Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373.

1999 UNSWLaw Journal 581

ju d ic ia l r e v ie w , and oth er ad m in istrative la w c h a lle n g e s in re sp ect o f particular

e x e r c ise s o f d iscretio n a ry p o w ers. T h is p o ssib ility , to o , m a y m ilita te a g a in st the
se n se o f certain ty and w o rk a b ility that w ere p rin cip al o b je c tiv e s o f the e x e r c ise .

V. ASSESSING THE RISK OF INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE

T h e p ro sp ect o f intern ation al c h a lle n g e is v ery strong. It d o es n o t h a v e the

p o ten tia l to in v a lid a te A u stralian le g isla tio n or a ctio n but it can p resen t tro u b lin g
iss u e s for th e n a tio n .25 T h e re lev a n t international la w standards b y w h ic h
A u stralian a ctio n m a y b e a sse sse d fa ll w ith in four m ain groupings:

A. Property Rights
T h e U n iv ersa l D e cla ra tio n o f H um an R igh ts, A r ticle 17, states:
1. E v ery o n e h as the righ t to o w n property a lo n e as w e ll as in a sso c ia tio n
w ith oth ers.
2. N o o n e sh a ll b e arbitrarily d ep rived o f h is property.
A u stralia h as ratified the International C o n v en tio n o n the E lim in a tio n o f A ll
F orm s o f R a c ia l D iscrim in a tio n . A rticle 5 req u ires eq u a lity b e fo r e the la w ,
w ith o u t d istin ctio n as to race (e tc ) in the en jo y m en t o f va rio u s righ ts in clu d in g :
(d ) (v ) T h e righ t to o w n p roperty a lo n e as w e ll as in a sso c ia tio n w ith
oth ers.
(v i) T h e righ t to inherit.
T h e C o m m ittee o n the E lim in a tio n o f R a cia l D iscr im in a tio n h a s m a d e it clea r
that th ese standards c o v e r n a tiv e title righ ts and interests. S o d id the H ig h C ourt
in Mabo on the b a sis o f the R D A w h ic h d irectly in v o k es the standards o f the
C o n v en tio n . T h ere is n o q u e stio n b ut that the N T A a m en d m en ts im pair the
property righ ts o f n a tiv e title h old ers w h ile le a v in g intact and, in d eed , en h a n cin g
th e p roperty righ ts o f others.
O n 11 A u g u st 1 998 the C o m m ittee to o k the h ig h ly u nusual step o f req u estin g
the A u stralian G ov ern m en t to p ro v id e it w ith in form ation , b y 15 January 1 9 9 9 ,
“on the ch a n g es re c e n tly p rojected or in trod u ced to the 1993 N a tiv e T itle A c t, on
an y c h a n g es o f p o lic y in the State party as to A b o rig in a l land r ig h ts...” .26

25 G Nettheim, “The International Implications o f the Native Title Act Amendments” (1998) 4(9)
Indigenous Law Bulletin 12.
26 CER D /C /53/M isc.l7/R ev 2. See Australian Government Response to the United Nations Committee on
Racial Discrimination Request for Information Under Article 9 Paragraph I o f the Convention on the
Elimination o f All Forms o f Racial Discrimination (January 1999); Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Peoples and Australia’s Obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination
o f All Forms o f Racial Discrimination , ATSIC (February 1999); Committee on the Elimination o f Racial
Discrimination, Decision on Australia CERD/C/54/ M isc40/Rev (18 March 1999); (1999) 4(2)
Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 134; D Dick and M Donaldson, Issues Paper N o 29, The
Compatibility o f the Amended Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) with the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination o f All Forms o f Racial Discrimination , Native Title Research Unit, Australian Institute o f
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (August 1999).
582 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

In its d e c isio n on 18 M arch 1 9 9 9 , the C o m m ittee n o ted that “the am en d ed A c t

appears to create le g a l certain ty for govern m en ts and third parties at the e x p e n se
o f in d ig e n o u s title ” . It con tin ued:
7. The Committee notes, in particular, four specific provisions that discriminate
against indigenous title-holders under the newly amended Act. These include:
the Act’s ‘validation’ provisions; the ‘confirmation of extinguishment’
provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions
concerning the right of indigenous titleholders to negotiate non-indigenous land
uses.

B. Cultural Rights
A u stralia h as a lso ratified the International C o v en a n t on C iv il and P o litic a l
R igh ts, A r ticle 2 7 o f w h ic h p ro v id e s that m em b ers o f m in o rity groups “sh a ll n o t
b e d en ie d the right, in co m m u n ity w ith the oth er m em b ers o f their group, to
e n jo y their o w n cultu re, to p r o fe ss and p ractise their o w n r e lig io n , or to u se their
o w n la n g u a g e ” . T h e H um an R ig h ts C o m m ittee esta b lish e d b y the C o v en a n t h as,
in a n um ber o f co n te x ts, m ad e it clear that A r ticle 2 7 a p p lies to the u se o f land
and reso u r ces b y In d ig en o u s p e o p le s. S o m e o f the N T A a m en d m en ts appear to
cut acro ss th is intern ation al standard.

C. Participation Rights
A n um ber o f intern ation al standards support the n e e d for the e ffe c tiv e
p articip ation o f m em b ers o f m in ority grou p s, and In d ig en o u s p e o p le s, in
d e c isio n s w h ic h a ffe c t them . T h e R T N p r o v isio n s in the N T A are co n siste n t
w ith th ese standards; their d ism a n tlin g is not.

D. Equality Rights
T h e p rin c ip le o f eq u a lity and n o n -d iscrim in a tio n on the grou n ds o f race (e tc)
is fu n dam en tal to hum an righ ts standards and is to b e fou n d in the U n ited
N a tio n s C harter itse lf, the U n iv ersa l D ecla ra tio n o f H um an R ig h ts, the
C o v en a n ts and in the R a cia l D iscr im in a tio n C o n v en tio n . T h e G o v ern m en t h as
argued stro n g ly that th ese standards p reclu d e n a tiv e title h o ld ers h a v in g a R T N
w h ic h th e h o ld ers o f other form s o f title - p articu larly p astoral le s s e e s - m a y n o t
have.
B u t eq u a lity la w r e c o g n ise s that there is a d istin ctio n b e tw e e n form al eq u a lity
o f treatm ent and su b stan tive eq u a lity o f ou tcom e: u n equ al treatm ent m a y b e
n e c e ssa r y in order to a c h ie v e su b stan tive eq u a lity o f result. T h is is r e c o g n ise d ,
in part, b y a llo w a n c e s m ad e for ‘sp ecia l m e a su r e s’ w h ic h m a y b e n e c e ssa r y to
a llo w particular grou p s to a c h ie v e ad equate en jo y m en t o f their hum an rights.
T h e rela tio n sh ip o f n a tiv e title h old ers to their land is q u a lita tiv ely d ifferen t from
the rela tio n sh ip to land o f n o n -in d ig e n o u s A u stra lia n s, and requ ires so m e d eg ree
o f d ifferen tia l treatm ent to a llo w for th is. T h e R T N about m in in g o n n a tiv e title
land rep resen ts a bare m in im u m , in th is co n tex t.
1999 UNSW Law Journal 583

E. P ro cesses
A u stralia, h a v in g ratified the k e y hum an rights treaties, has co m m itted it s e lf to
p ro v id in g p erio d ic reports to the relevan t treaty co m m ittees. In three in sta n c es it
has a lso agreed to a llo w in d iv id u a ls in A u stralia to co m m u n ica te d irectly to the
relev a n t co m m itte es. A treaty co m m ittee can form a v ie w and report that
A u stralia is in b reach o f its treaty o b lig a tio n s. S u ch a ru lin g h as n o form al
o p eration in A u stralian la w but it h as the p oten tia l to b e in te n se ly em barrassing
in our p o litic a l rela tio n sh ip s w ith other n ation s and p e o p le s.

VI. WAYS FORWARD

N a tiv e T itle is a p roperty right, d eserv in g o f the sam e resp e ct in A u stralian

la w as oth er p roperty rights. T h e situ ation is co m p lica ted , h o w ev e r, b y the fact
that n a tiv e title h as b e e n so re cen tly a c k n o w led g ed in A u stralian la w . It w ill
in e v ita b ly take so m e tim e to incorp orate it into the le g a l la n d sca p e and to
co m p lete the m ap p in g o f its exten t. It w ill a lso take so m e tim e to incorp orate
n a tiv e title in to the m in d -sets o f industry groups and g o v ern m en t d e c is io n ­
m akers, th ou gh im portant se c tio n s o f so m e industry groups h a v e m ad e m u ch
further p rogress in th is d irection than m an y o f our land a d m inistration
bureaucrats.
B u t p rogress w ill rem ain e lu siv e on all fronts w h ile so m e p o litic ia n s and
others c h o o se to in sp ire fear and lo a th in g in the com m u n ity.
T h e N T A required am en d m en t in several areas and so m e o f the 1 998
am en d m en ts rep resen t p o sitiv e im p rovem en ts. B u t oth ers rep resen t w h a t
appears to b e a strong d esire to p u sh In d igen ou s p e o p le and their righ ts b a ck into
a c o m e r w h ere th ey ca u se m in im u m in c o n v e n ie n c e and disturban ce to the w a y
w e h a v e g row n a cc u sto m ed to d o in g th in gs. In the p ro ce ss, I su sp e ct that the
am en d m en ts m igh t p ro v e to b e self-d e fe a tin g in their c o m p le x ity and in the
le v e ls o f u ncertain ty w h ic h th ey h a v e created in the pursuit o f certainty.
T h e m o st p o sitiv e a sp ects o f the am end m ents are, in m y v ie w , the p r o v isio n s
for n eg o tia te d In d ig en o u s L and U s e A greem en ts. T h e p ro p o sa ls for th ese
am en d m en ts w ere, in fact, d e v e lo p e d b y In d igen o u s A u stralian s in co -o p era tio n
w ith rep resen tatives o f industry groups and w ith the strong support o f Ju stice
F rench, form er P resid en t o f the N N T T . It is to the cred it o f the G o v ern m en t that
it p ic k e d up th ese p ro p o sa ls and ad opted th em in p la c e o f other p ro ced u res
w h ic h w ere p ro p o sed in the 1 996 am end m ents.
N e g o tia te d agreem en ts rep resen t the m o st co n stru ctiv e w a y forw ard. T h e
N N T T in its 1 9 9 7 -9 8 A n n u al R eport, n o ted that so m e 11 0 0 a g reem en ts h a v e
b e e n struck sin c e th e N T A co m m e n c e d in 1993 b e tw e e n d ifferen t In d ig en o u s
grou p s, m in ers, ind u stry b o d ie s and g o v ern m en ts.27 N e g o tia te d a g reem en ts can
take a v ariety o f form s to m e et a variety o f p u rp oses. W h at th ey h a v e in
co m m o n is that all the parties ‘o w n ’ th em in a w a y that all ca n n o t ‘o w n ’ an
im p o sed le g isla tiv e p a ck a g e or the o u tco m e o f ad versarial p rocedu res.

27 National Native Title Tribunal, 1997/98 Annual Report, 1998 at 41.

584 The Search for Certainty and the Native Title Amendment Act Volume 22(2)

T h e y a lso h a v e the in e stim a b le ad vantage that, i f p rop erly co n stru cted , th ey

can d e liv e r that e lu s iv e co m m o d ity - certainty.