Financial aspects of Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory

In July 1997 the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator The Hon John Herron, announced that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 would be reviewed. Senator Herron appointed Mr John Reeves QC to undertake the review. Mr Reeves submitted his report Building on Land Rights for the Next Generation: Report of the Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to the Minister in August 1998. This Discussion Paper focuses on financial aspects of the legislation. Since commencement of the legislation in 1977, approximately $400 million in mining royalty equivalents (MREs) have been transferred from the Commonwealth's Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Aboriginals Benefit Reserve (ABR) (previously the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account). In accordance with the legislation this amount has been disbursed to other institutions, including land councils and royalty associations, and to incorporated bodies to be used for the benefit of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. In the 20 years of the operations of the legislation the apportionment of these funds has never been substantially reviewed nor rigorously contested. The review provided an opportunity to resolve a number of long-standing issues which have historical legacies and have proven to be ambiguous and contestable in their application. These include the proportional division of ABR receipts, the public or private nature of MREs, the usage of those moneys and the imposition of Mining Withholding Tax (MWT). This Discussion Paper argues that many of the institutions created by the legislation are operating suboptimally and that the review provided the potential to clearly define the role and objectives of the financial institutions created in the Land Rights Act. Current developments such as the prospect of statehood for the Northern Territory become important issues for examination particularly in the context of Commonwealth/Territory relations and the governance of the ABR in the 21st century. This paper also discusses the heterogeneous evolution of royalty associations noting that blanket recommendations are difficult to apply given that royalty associations have operated variably both over the life cycle of individual organisations, compared to other Indigenous organisations, and in the context of wider political and economic forces. Notwithstanding the comments of this paper, and the recommendations of the review, there remains an urgent need for further research and assessment of performance of these associations in order to evaluate past performance and future viability. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some immediate amendments to the legislation are required particularly in the area of accountability measures, clarification in respect of the purpose of mining royalty equivalents and the provision of mentoring services for the future development of royalty associations