Submission - Access To Aboriginal Land Under The Northern Territory Land Rights Act February 2007

Submission of the

 ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMISSIONER

 on behalf of the

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

to the

 DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS DISCUSSION PAPER

 REGARDING

THE DISCUSSION PAPER:

ACCESS TO ABORIGINAL LAND UNDER THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND RIGHTS ACT

February 2007

---

Introduction

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Federal Government"s Discussion Paper: Access to Aboriginal Land under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act - Time for Change?

2. This submission is relevant to the statutory functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (HREOCA) which includes:

   1. To report on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and recommend where necessary on the action that should be taken to ensure these rights are observed;1
   2. To examine and report on enactments and proposed enactments to ascertain whether or not they recognise and protect the human rights of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.2

3. The Government"s Discussion Paper provides 5 options to address its concerns with the permit system operating on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. In this submission HREOC argues that no changes should be made to the permit system. The permit system is an essential legislative provision to protect the privacy, the interests, the land, the economic assets and the significant and sacred sites of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

4. Option 1 of the Discussion Paper effectively makes no change to the permit system other than what is already provided for under the recently amended Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 (ALRA) and the Aboriginal Land Act (NT). It is therefore HREOC"s preferred option.

5. HREOC does not support any further opening up of Indigenous land, unless there is overwhelming support for this action by traditional land owners across the Northern Territory. The Commission therefore supports the status quo.

6. The arguments supporting HREOC"s position to retain the permit system are contained in this submission.

Background

The Federal Government"s rationale for reviewing the permit system in the Northern Territory

7. On 12 September 2006 the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, responded to a question from the Member for Solomon in the Northern Territory about allegations of violence and crime in Maningrida, Arnhem Land. In his reply, Minister Brough stated that it was time to remove the permit system:
   

   We are working with the states and territories but it is time that the permit system be removed.3

8. On 4 October 2006 Minister Brough issued a media release calling for written submissions in response to a Federal Government discussion paper on the permit system in the Northern Territory. The Discussion Paper contains five options for action. This was the only form of consultation that had been proposed. It allowed nine and a half weeks for written responses. Minister Brough"s media release contained the following:
   

   My concern is that the permit system has created closed communities which are restricting the ability of individuals to interact with the wider community and furthermore to participate in the real economy.

   The permit system has not acted to protect vulnerable citizens, including women and children, and in fact makes scrutiny over dysfunctional communities more difficult.4

Legislative provisions for the permit system and NT Trespass Law

9. The provisions allowing for the permit system derive from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act Cth 1976 (ALRA) working in conjunction with the Aboriginal Land Act NT 1978. It is an offence punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 to enter, or remain on land Aboriginal Land in the NT, except in accordance with these two Acts.

10. Under s21 of ALRA, there is to be "no prosecution except on authority of a Land Council." Land Councils hold the right of prosecutorial discretion, or effective veto over prosecution of defendants.

11. Under the Trespass Act (NT) 1987, a person who trespasses on premises or prohibited land commits an offence punishable by either a fine of up to $2,200, or imprisonment for six months. Premises means a building, yard, garden, area, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and prohibited land means Crown land, land occupied by the Territory or Commonwealth, or land occupied by a statutory corporation upon which a notice in English to the effect that trespassing on the land is prohibited.

12. Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory is covered by the ALRA and is potentially covered by the Trespass Act. The ALRA provides protection and right of veto to entry over communal lands, and the Trespass Act provides protection where an Aboriginal person can demonstrate proprietorial interests over buildings or land. The latter however, is difficult to enforce, especially in circumstances where there is no police presence on Aboriginal land.

Prosecution statistics

13. According to the Office of Crime Prevention, Department of Justice, Northern Territory Government there have been 83 convictions for breach of Sections 4 and 8 of The Aboriginal Land Act (NT) since 1977. Full details of prosecutions under the Act are at Appendix A of this submission.

The origins of the permit system in the Northern Territory

14. The origins and rationale that established the Northern Territory"s Aboriginal Land Rights Act provide a compelling argument for the permit system. In his second report for the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission in 1974, Commissioner Woodward found that:

    One of the most important proofs of genuine Aboriginal ownership of land will be the right to exclude from it those who are not welcome. The Land Councils believe that this principle should be supported by a permit system and I agree with them.5

Fair process in consultation and decision making

If governments intend to make changes to legislation that affects Indigenous land rights, they have a responsibility to ensure dissemination of information, effective consultation and decision-making processes involving Indigenous people.

15. As a minimum, any changes to existing provisions that protect access to Aboriginal land should only be undertaken in compliance with international human rights that set standards for consultation and consent processes with Indigenous stakeholders. In safeguarding the fundamental right to self determination Indigenous people must be able to exercise the right to participate in decisions regarding changes to policy or legislation that has an impact on our lives. To this end, an extensive information and consultation campaign is required to take the message out to Aboriginal people on land, and to give them an opportunity to participate in these decisions. The right to this process as a minimum standard is enshrined in international law.

16. Articles 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) outline all peoples" rights to self determination:

17. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

18. Most recently, obligations relating to the effective participation of indigenous peoples have been synthesized into the principle of free, prior and informed consent by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues, as well as by the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations.6

19. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues conducted a workshop defining each element of free, prior and informed consent. It is summarised below, and should set the standard for consultation:

    • No coercion or manipulation is used to gain consent.

    • Consent must be sought well in advance of authorization by the State or third parties for activities to commence or legislation to be implemented that affects the rights of indigenous peoples.

    • Full and legally accurate disclosure of information relating to the proposal is provided in a form that is understandable and accessible for communities and affected peoples.

    • Communities and affected peoples have meaningful participation in all aspects of assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and closure of a project.

    • Communities and affected peoples are able to secure the services of advisers, including legal counsel of their choice and have adequate time to make decisions.

    • Consent applies to a specific set of circumstances or proposal, if there are any changes to this proposal or to the circumstances this will renew the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in relation to the new proposal or circumstances.

    • Consent includes the right to withhold consent and say no to a proposal.7

20. We are currently in the 2nd International Decade for the World"s Indigenous People. The Second Decade has as objectives promoting non-discrimination and inclusion of Indigenous peoples in national processes regarding laws and policies that affect them based on the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making.

21. The five objectives approved by the General Assembly provide a framework for cooperation and partnership at the international, regional and national levels. They are:

    • Promoting non-discrimination and inclusion of indigenous peoples in the design, implementation and evaluation of international, regional and national processes regarding laws, policies, resources, programmes and projects;

    • Promoting full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in decisions which directly or indirectly affect their lifestyles, traditional lands and territories, their cultural integrity as indigenous peoples with collective rights or any other aspect of their lives, considering the principle of free, prior and informed consent;

    • Redefining development policies that depart from a vision of equity and that are culturally appropriate, including respect for the cultural and linguistic diversity of indigenous peoples;

    • Adopting targeted policies, programmes, projects and budgets for the development of indigenous peoples, including concrete benchmarks, and particular emphasis on indigenous women, children and youth;

    • Developing strong monitoring mechanisms and enhancing accountability at the international, regional and particularly the national level, regarding the implementation of legal, policy and operational frameworks for the protection of indigenous peoples and the improvement of their lives.8

22. The Program of Action was adopted by consensus at the UN General Assembly. Australia has agreed to act in accordance with, and promote these objectives. They set appropriate parameters for policy making relating to decisions affecting indigenous peoples, either directly or indirectly.

23. At the domestic level, the principle of free, prior and informed consent is built into the existing ALRA through the requirement that in carrying out any action regarding Aboriginal land, Land Councils must be satisfied that the traditional owners understand the nature and purpose of the proposed action, and, as a group, consent to it.9

24. It is clear both internationally and domestically that there is a well established requirement for consultation and consent in respect of major changes to land rights and land access legislation. The failure to provide for such a process may be in breach the principles of self-determination, non-discrimination, equality before the law and the protection of minority group cultures.

25. FaCSIA arranged consultation processes during the extended consultation period. Forty visits to communities were arranged to discuss the proposed changes. Some proposed visits could not be made because the wet season precluded use of airstrips. 10 Similarly "there were problems with heat, sorry business and community commitments".11 "Aboriginal people need time to make decisions, the Central Land Council requested a 5 month extension, but were only granted 3 months. Aboriginal people do not want the permit system changed, this is the message the CLC is getting from traditional owners".12

26. It is difficult to see how full compliance or observation of these elements has been met in regard to the current consultation process on the permit system. A Discussion Paper process that initially allowed nine and a half weeks for written reply was neither appropriate for Aboriginal stakeholders, nor was it long enough to adequately canvas the issues. Subsequently a further three months was granted for consultation. This period in the Northern Territory encompasses the wet season, and the Christmas holiday period where land council staff were on leave for long periods.

Countering the arguments for abolishing the permit system

The permit system provides equality before the law and is a special measure to ensure non-discrimination

26. At the heart of debate about the permit system is the right of traditional owners through their representatives to decide who to include or exclude from entry onto Aboriginal land. Along with this is the right to information about who is entering or exiting Aboriginal land. Just as a cattle station owner can exclude the public from access to land, traditional owners should be able to do the same. As David Ross, the Director of the Central Land Council argued:

    The community has no problem with local pastoralists using whatever means of control at their disposal to prevent people accessing their leases without permission but when Aboriginal people similarly control entry to Aboriginal land there are all sorts of objections from the public.13

27. While the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has objected to permits on the grounds that the general public are being refused entry into land and roads paid for by the tax payer, the same argument could be applied to cattle stations. Stations also utilise public, tax funded infrastructure, and they have the right to refuse public access. Station owners enforce their rights by enforcing the law of trespass. They are able to do this because most stations are fenced or have some system whereby they are able to demarcate their property with signage.

28. Traditional owners are communal property owners. For the most part, traditional owners do not fence property. Access to Indigenous land is via roads or light plane. Given that there are no real signifiers to the boundaries of Aboriginal land, and no single owner or owner group, the permit system is the most efficient way to regulate access. It operates as a kind of passport system allowing Indigenous people to exercise their property rights on an equal footing with other Australians.

29. As the Northern Land Council stated in its submission to the Reeve inquiry:

    Traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land, like any other landowners, have as part of their title to the land the right to admit and exclude persons from their land. This is a fundamental aspect of land ownership under the general law and is also fundamental to the achievement of the aims of the Land Rights Act.14

30. The question of whether a permit system is discriminatory was examined in the High Court case of Gerhardy v Brown.15

31. While the High Court found that the permit system established by s.19 of the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act was a racially discriminatory measure, contrary to s.10 of the Racial Discrimination Act, it also found that s.19 was a "special measure" pursuant to s.8 of that Act and was therefore valid.

32. Article 2(2) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination obliges parties to the Convention to undertake, when warranted, special measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms. Special measures should not bring about the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives of the measures have been achieved. Section 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is modelled on this.16

Australian media access to Aboriginal land

33. Minister Brough has used the phrase a "monopoly of silence" as a term to describe the way in which the permit system restricts media access to Indigenous lands and communities and allows for no scrutiny.

    External scrutiny, from the media for example, while sometimes unnecessarily intrusive, acts as a check and balance on unhealthy or even criminal behaviour. But in remote Aboriginal communities, restricted media access has created what some have called a "monopoly of silence."17

34. The arguments behind the changes to the permit system and media access can be traced to some recently reported cases of violence in Indigenous communities. They include the references to paedophiles in the Mutitjulu community and the allegations of the rape of a minor in Maningrida.

35. The Minister argued that "increased external scrutiny would be in the interests of victims of crimes and the disadvantaged and vulnerable in what are now closed communities."18

36. There are some important points that counter the claim that the media is required for external scrutiny of crime. The first is that there are no restrictions of entry on any government employee with law enforcement business on Aboriginal land. Therefore, all officers with responsibility to protect the vulnerable, to report crime, to provide support for victims, and to provide services to prevent crime, have unfettered access to communities.

37. Walkely award wining journalist Paul Toohey is one of the few people to have been prosecuted under the permit system. In 2002 he was prosecuted for a breach of the permit system when, after being specifically refused a permit, he attended Wadeye on the day of a funeral of a young man who had been shot by police. He attempted to interview the young man"s father, who refused an interview with him.

38. Toohey acknowledged in The Bulletin in 2006 that journalists "pry and probe into Aboriginal life," reporting "the miserable facets of Aboriginal life." In reference to the Maningrida prosecutions Toohey wrote: "Northern Territory police kept the case to themselves, giving the media no tip-offs as to the major investigation they had underway. They did this, wisely, in order to give themselves the best chance at making a large number of arrests."19

39. Putting aside the arguments about the role of the media in preventing violence, recent events make clear that the proposed amendments are not needed to guarantee entry for journalists who want to cover legal proceedings on Aboriginal land. In a letter to The Bulletin, the Northern Territory's Attorney-General has stated that the four Land Councils have assured him permits will be issued to people interested in legal proceedings.20 It is therefore a moot point to argue the necessity for the media to have unfettered access to Aboriginal land.

Controlling access to land of undesirable people

40. Opening up Aboriginal land to people who are neither residents, nor legitimate workers may have many negative impacts. There is potential for undesirable people to enter Aboriginal land and exploit Indigenous people who may not be savvy to mercenary tactics. In the past, the history of unfettered white contact with such communities and cultures has not been a happy one. Alcohol, murder, disease, rape, theft and social disruption necessitated a protectionist relationship administered by a government appointed Chief Protector of Aborigines. While this is no longer a necessity, the permit system is one important measure that protects Aboriginal communities.

41. While the Minister"s discussion paper states "the current permit system has not prevented the scourge of drug trafficking or violence and abuse occurring in many communities",21 this cannot be reconciled with the acknowledgement that "For the vast bulk of Aboriginal land, police involvement to remove trespassers may not occur in a timely manner".22 Indeed by removing the permit system, sex offenders and drug and alcohol dealers would have greater and unfettered access to Aboriginal land.

42. Given the lack of law enforcement on communities, HREOC is concerned that there are no safeguards against unscrupulous people moving across Aboriginal land. It is one thing for crime to occur in a community where all people are known and the culprit can be turned over to the authorities, it is another for strangers to be passing through townships, with no police presence to ensure that they act within the law.

43. The Hon Warren Snowdon MP, Member for Lingiari, has argued against withdrawing the permit system outlining fears that it would encourage ... every sort of mercenary, misfit, and crook entering Aboriginal communities.23 He went further to say:

44. The Government"s agenda is not in the least about opening up Aboriginal domains to the world or giving people access to the free market.

    Nor is it about opening communities on Aboriginal land to public scrutiny by the media as a means of delivering justice.

    The proposed changes will rather open the floodgates for every tout, urger and carpetbagger - the shonky insurance salesmen, the encyclopaedia sellers, the art rip-off merchants - to prey on Aboriginal poverty.24

45. Minister Brough wrongly refers to the current permit system as a "vestige of the former protectionist system of Aboriginal reserves under which entering or leaving Aboriginal lands was restricted."25 In fact, the current permit system is administered by traditional owners and their representatives. Minister Brough"s former example describes a system of autocracy managed by government; the latter is a system of autonomy managed by the Indigenous owners or their representatives.

46. Land Councils and Community Councils represent Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land and provide permits to people entering Aboriginal land. It has been their job to do so for the last thirty years. During that time they have established networks and procedures for ascertaining the wishes of the Aboriginal people whom they serve. Their position is similar to that of a solicitor taking instructions from a client, and the obligation to do so is enshrined in statute.

47. Minister Brough states "given the vastness of the Aboriginal land estate and the consequent difficulties in applying normal laws of trespass, the permit system has operated to respect the privacy and culture of Aboriginal people."26 In this he is completely correct. The permit system prevents unimpeded access by outsiders to Indigenous land and importantly, to significant and sacred sites. It also protects ceremony that is conducted at different times of the year at different sites. Taking away the regulatory system of permits could be dangerous for both the participants of ceremony, and the curious.

48. The Minister refers to the necessity for, and lack of, adequate policing and that in the vast bulk of Aboriginal land, "police involvement to remove trespassers may not occur in a timely manner."27 If the permit system is withdrawn, how will trespass be enforced? This question is not answered in the Discussion Paper.

49. The benefit of the permit system is the ability of communities to identify, and protect themselves from intruders. With few roads in remote areas, "visitors" are quickly spotted, and subject to report around the communities by radio or telephone.

50. In fact the permit system upholds Indigenous custom and tradition.

    Traditionally, visitors to a country were obliged to ask the owners" permission to exploit the resources of the land. Among other things, this "asking" confirmed and reconfirmed the status of owners as opposed to that of visitors, it helped owners monitor resource availability and usage, and it ensured the protection of sacred sites. The legal right of owners to "be asked" about country also mirrors an aspect of the Land Claim process. In this, it is practice to question claimants both about their rights to freely exploit land under claim, and the duty of others to seek their permission before exploiting the lands" resources.28

51. Scrutiny of movement of people on land and sea is actively supported and resourced by the Federal Government. In the Northern Territory for example, the Indigenous involvement in "Coast Watch" is recognised by the Federal Government as a vital tool in tracking activities in remote areas. Why should the government promote one activity, and criticise another which effectively achieves the same outcome?

52. Another important function of the permit system is its ability to aid the enforcement of "dry area" policies. The legislation provides for the power to stop vehicles to inspect permits; a distinct disincentive for prospective grog and drug runners. If the permit system is abolished, it could increase the ability for such undesirable activities to occur unchecked in remote regions.

Permits and Indigenous economic development

52. The Minister"s argument that the permit system has prevented economic development, and that its abolition will provide economic benefits requires close scrutiny. There is no doubt that opening up Aboriginal land to non-Indigenous interests will provide benefits to non-Indigenous parties. The question is whether it will benefit Indigenous interests?
    

    Many Aboriginal communities on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory are already remote geographically. The permit system has operated to maintain or even increase that remoteness - both economically and socially. It has hindered effective engagement between Aboriginal people and the Australian economy.29

    Liberalisation would also bring economic benefits that would help to promote the self reliance and prosperity or Aboriginal people in remote communities.30

53. Consider tourism for example. Adventure tourism and cultural tourism are burgeoning industries on remote Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. If Aboriginal lands were to be opened to non-Indigenous interests, there is a high probability that a large number of outside operators would take the opportunity to guide tours through what is virtually unspoilt land. The economic benefits to Aboriginal people would be negligible, at most, the ability to secure waged employment with the operator.

54. Under current arrangements, Aboriginal people are to develop tourism operations, as joint ventures if this suits them, and to maintain control over who enters the land. The restricted access to land adds, rather than detracts from the unique nature of the tourism experience. With appropriate support, Aboriginal people are in a better position to obtain economic benefit from land when they have exclusive rights to it, rather than having to compete in an open market with highly resourced operators. The only consequence of open access to Aboriginal land is that it would allow non-Indigenous interests to take a firm hold of tourism on their land.

55. There are also environmental impacts to be considered. The land degradation caused by unchecked tourism would be impossible to monitor in national parks. Aboriginal communities do not have the capacity and resources to perform this function. Open access would require greater vigilance in protecting cultural heritage, sites of significance, and sacred sites. This too is a resource issue and one that is not addressed in the Discussion Paper. Ultimately, the degradation of the land is the degradation of traditional owners" most precious asset; both in economic and cultural terms.

56. The other major industry on Aboriginal land is the art and artefacts industry. One of the most strident pleas for retention of permits is based on past experience with "art rip off merchants."31 Some of the most sought after Indigenous art is created by elderly painters who may lack corporate savvy, and are easy prey for the slick art dealer. It is an advantage to ensure that their art is sold through credible, accountable and responsible art dealers. "There is currently an inquiry into unscrupulous art dealers taking place. The permit system is the only protection Aboriginal people have against these types of people."32

57. It is our view that the Discussion Paper does not canvass enough options for economic development. For example, under current permit arrangements, fees are not generally charged for the issue of permits. There are some exceptions where fees are charged to visit areas such fishing spots, (on a per car basis), and art centres.33 If the Government is concerned about increasing economic opportunity for Aboriginal people, one option under the permit system could be to charge entry to popular sites.

Permits and the 99 Year leases

58. Under a new provision in ALRA, s19(13), persons who take out 99 year leases are permitted by the relevant Land Council or Land Trust "to enter or remain on the land for a specified purpose that is related to their estate or interest."34

59. Under the Aboriginal Land Act NT, s11:

    1. The Administrator may, on the recommendation of a Land Council, declare by notice in the Gazette, an area of Aboriginal land or a road to be an open area or open road, as the case may be.

    2. Where a declaration is made under subsection (1), a person may enter and remain on the area of Aboriginal land, or use the road, described in the notice without obtaining a permit.

60. These provisions maintain the control of entry onto Aboriginal land by traditional owners and their representative bodies. In the instance of 99 year lease agreements, traditional owners must first have agreed to the 99 year lease option and therefore given their consent to opening the land to other parties. Under the provision in the Aboriginal Land Act NT, Land Councils make recommendations to open land or roads.

61. Withdrawing the permit system will mean that people can travel across Aboriginal land with ease. If outside parties were allowed free access to Aboriginal land there is potential that the leasehold value of land under 99 year leases will increase incrementally.

62. An influx of people into communities will most definitely inflate the price of properties and may exclude local Aboriginal people from the housing market. This may create an underclass of local people in communities with 99 year leases, forever in a rental cycle, and not able to purchase homes. One only has to look at the real estate prices on the Cox Peninsular, South West of Darwin to see that property prices can become prohibitive in places where the fishing is good.

63. In fact, by withdrawing the permit system, the government may inadvertently scuttle its intention to increase Aboriginal enterprise and autonomy by creating a market where Aboriginal people are not competitive.

Trespass laws and communal land

64. Currently the Trespass Act applies to Aboriginal land. According to the Reeves Report; "Aboriginal land is probably included within the definition of "place."35

65. Option 5 of the Minister"s Discussion Paper suggests that the permit system be removed all together, and replaced by the Northern Territory Trespass law.

66. If trespass is to be the only form of protection from unwanted intruders, even the Minister"s Discussion Paper acknowledges the impossibility of policing such a system. Under such circumstances, and with no available evidence to suggest that an alternative to the permit system will work, it is irresponsible to interfere with a system that has thirty years of practical application behind it.

Concluding statements and recommendations

67. HREOC has concerns at the limited consultations conducted by the government on such a critical issue.

68. The 5 options of the Discussion Paper provide a very narrow view about the permit system. As they stand, they will not have a positive impact on economic development for Aboriginal people. A comprehensive strategy is required to improve economic opportunity on Aboriginal land. An economic development strategy will require significant consultation and involvement of Aboriginal people in its design, development and implementation and significant financial support from various sources.

69. While HREOC has reservations about the Discussion Paper, option 1 effectively makes no change to the permit system and therefore is the preferred option. However, it is recommended that the Federal Government complement and supplement the permit consultation format by implementing the following recommendations. These recommendations canvass the issues relating to permits and to economic development on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.

Recommendation 1

70. That thorough consultations and negotiations be carried out with (a) traditional owners and (b) all Aboriginal Northern Territorians regarding the permit system. Consultation should be carried out in compliance with international human rights standards and developments to ensure Australia"s compliance with these provisions to a high standard.

Recommendation 2

71. That the Federal Government canvass a wide range of options to support and increase economic development on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory by engaging Aboriginal people and their representatives in an open dialogue about options to increase autonomy, to improve housing infrastructure and to increase enterprise and economic development opportunities on Aboriginal land.

72. Aboriginal Northern Territorians should be involved in the design, delivery and implementation of the consultation process with the aim of developing a comprehensive Aboriginal economic development strategy for the Northern Territory.

Tom Calma

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

Click here for Appendix A

---

Last updated 21 March, 2007