This right clearly has a cultural foundation and from a human rights perspective allows for the effective participation of
native title holders in «caring» for traditional land.
And the orders also allow for the recognition of
native title holders as the traditional owners of the land with rights to make decisions about the use of the land.
The recognition of native title rights and interests within nature reserves may have
provided native title holders the opportunity to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
It inhibits
native title holders from achieving broader social, economic and cultural development for their community despite having a determination that their native title continues to exist.
This could
enable native title holders to negotiate for a benefit in return for their consent to a sequestration project being carried out on their native title land.
Another protective measure identified in the government's submission is the provision of «organisations to
assist native title holders to establish and deal with native title».
The further proposed amendment in the Second Discussion Paper appears to be designed to
afford native title holders greater protection.
The decision would require miners to pay closer attention to sites of cultural significance
for native title holders, and would encourage them to settle lease negotiations before any investment in projects.
Yet it is clear that in such cases the statutes by which new interests in land were created had the same discriminatory impact on native titleholders as those tenures created after 1975; either to extinguish or impair only native title rights or, where other interests were affected, to fail to confer a right to compensation
on native title holders only.
provide for adequate and appropriate consultation
with native title holders in relation to decisions affecting their land, in terms of both the procedure adopted and decision itself.
It would not be appropriate for the bill to provide an automatic right to benefit from carbon sequestration or to carry out the project for
non-exclusive native title holders in circumstances where there may be other interests in the land.
Even
if native title holders could convince a court of their exclusive native title rights, the majority approach in the Croker Island case means that only non-exclusive rights could be recognised offshore.
The amendments to the Native Title Act31 have removed the legal protection that ensured that PBCs have an obligation to
consult native title holders about future acts.
On this view, the legal recognition of native title gives
native title holders only the right to exercise the particular rights that are proved for example, the right to hunt, conduct ceremonies, take water and so on.
For native title, the most dangerous changes are reflected in the removal of legislative protection which ensured that PBCs have an obligation to consult with
native title holders about decisions concerning their lands.
The first option - a Prescribed Body Corporate or PBC - is required to represent
native title holders after a native title determination under the NTA.
The text refers to a study by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research that «concluded that the benefits of mining can be shared with
native title holders without impacting significantly on the profits of mining companies or the growth of the Australian economy», p107
Many Laws, One Land invites discussion on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land owner experiences of navigating intersecting systems of law, while promoting new ideas for
how native title holders, practitioners and the broader Australian public can work together to further leverage native title rights.
When considered together with the proposed regulatory changes, it becomes clear that the proposed amendment anticipates substantial changes to PBC functions that
limit native title holders» rights in relation to future acts.