Main Features Northern Territory Response

Following the High Court of Australia's 1996 Wik decision, which determined that native title could coexist on pastoral leases, then Prime Minister John Howard released his Ten Point Plan for native title.

The plan not only effectively extinguished native title on pastoral leases, but also on a range of other land tenures, vacant Crown land (land owned by the government that no-one else is using or has an interest in) in towns and cities and over waterways and airspace.

The Ten Point Plan was then used as the basis for drafting the Native Title Amendment Bill.

This was done without consulting or negotiating with Indigenous Australians. A major national campaign was mounted against the Ten Point Plan by the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title (NIWG) which comprised Land Councils, the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Aboriginal legal services and other Aboriginal organisations.

The NIWG also promoted a position of negotiating with Indigenous Australians to achieve coexistence. The organisation Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) garnered massive support in the broader Australian community for the NIWG position.

The Bill was variously described by Indigenous Australians as leaving native title in name only, a declaration of political war and the "last drink at the poison waterhole" for Indigenous Australians - a reference to the practice of poisoning waterholes to remove unwanted Aboriginal people.

The Native Title Amendment Bill easily passed the House of Representatives, where the Government had a large majority, but had a much more difficult passage through the Senate, where the Government did not have the numbers.

One man, independent Senator Brian Harradine, held the balance of power in the Senate at that time and he gave in on a number of key issues when Prime Minister Howard threatened to go to a so-called "race election" on the Native Title Amendment Bill. Senator Harradine chose this path despite intense lobbying by the NIWG, and individual Aboriginal people and organisations, which believed that Indigenous Australians had much more to lose from John Howard's Ten Point Plan than from a race-based election. Senator Harradine's cave-in allowed most of the Ten Point Plan to be passed, largely by agreeing to a suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act which would otherwise have prevented the racially-specific provisions from operating.

Here are some of the main features of the Native Title Amendment Act which effectively extinguish native title rights:

	Pastoral Leases: pastoralists allowed to diversify activities on pastoral leases beyond grazing (eg: tourism, agriculture, forestry and aquaculture) without having to negotiate with native title interests.
	Mining: Replacement of the right to negotiate with a right to be consulted over mining on pastoral leases, reserves and national parks.
	Towns and cities: Removal of the right to negotiate over developments on vacant Crown land in towns and cities.
	Air and water: Allowing the granting of interests in air space and water (eg: commercial fishing licences) without having to negotiate with native title interests.
	Extinguishment: The extinguishment, or wiping out, by law of native title on a variety of land tenures contained in a Schedule of Extinguishment.
	Validation: Validation of mining leases and other interests in land granted by some State and Territory governments which were unlawful as they did not comply with the original Native Title Act.

The Australian government brought Australia into international Human Rights disrepute, being asked to explain its native title changes to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), on whose convention the Racial Discrimination Act is based. Australia is the first western nation asked to explain its human rights position to the committee.

The amended Native Title Act (10 Point Plan) allows States and Territories to establish their own alternative native title schemes, subject to Senate approval.

In July 1998, the Northern Territory Government became the first State or Territory to pass its own alternative legislation. This was done without any consultation with the Land Councils.

The NT proposal was approved by the Federal Attorney-General in April 1999 but, because it was unacceptable to the Land Councils, the Australian Labor Party and the Democrats, this approval was disallowed by the Senate on August 31, 1999.

Problems with Northern Territory proposal:

The Northern Land Council considered the Northern Territory proposal had serious flaws. It considered the proposal would have weakened the rights and interests of native title holders and their ability to protect their culture and way of life. The NLC also believes the proposals would have undermined hopes of native title holders to get economic benefits from activities on their land.