Keyes, Tony --- "Stirrings: The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (Cth): Implications for Traditional Owners of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park" [1998] IndigLawB 86; (1998) 4(16) Indigenous Law Bulletin 22

• The Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (Cth): Implications For Traditional Owners Of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park
• Proposed Reform Of Commonwealth Environment Legislation
• Background
• Northern Territory Government Representation On The Board
• Changed Status Of The Director Of National Parks And Wildlife
• Conclusion

---

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (Cth):

Implications for Traditional Owners of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park

by Tony Keyes

The Federal Government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (Cth) was introduced into the Senate on 2 July 1998. It is likely to have a significant effect on arrangements under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) ('the ALRA') which provide for joint management by traditional owners of Uluru/Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks, the two parks in the Northern Territory which are under Commonwealth control.

Proposed Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation

In late February 1998, the Federal Environment Minister Senator Hill released a 'Consultation Paper' in relation to his proposed reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation. The basic proposals were:

• That the over twenty existing Environment Acts be consolidated into a Biodiversity Conservation Act and an Environment Protection Act, and
• That the primary responsibility for environmental management and biodiversity conservation under both Acts (including the management of National Parks and World Heritage Properties) be handed over to the States and Territories, under arrangements such as `Bilateral Agreements' and `Conservation Agreements'.

The subsequent Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 broadly embodied the Consultation Paper proposals.

Background

Joint management arrangements at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park were established in 1985. Title to the Park was handed over to the traditional owners under 1985 amendments to the ALRA and to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) ('the NPCWA'). The traditional owners immediately leased the Park back to the Commonwealth Director of National Parks and Wildlife, whose office is a statutory corporation under the NPCWA. Under both the terms of the lease, and under Part 2A of the NPCWA, the Park is managed jointly by the Director and a Board of Management which has majority Aboriginal membership.

Northern Territory Government representation on the Board

The Northern Territory Government was allocated a seat on the Uluru/Kata Tjuta National Park Board of Management in 1985. However, it refused to take up its seat in protest at the handback of the park to traditional owners, and is now no longer formally entitled to a position on the Board. But since the election of the Howard Commonwealth Government in 1996, the Territory Government has made repeated calls for a seat on the Board. Under section 14C of the NPCWA, the Minister may not change the composition of Uluru and Kakadu Boards of Management without traditional owners' agreement. However, after discussions with the Northern Territory Government in May 1998, Senator Hill announced that he would legislate to remove this requirement to allow Northern Territory Government representation. The Consultation Paper released by Senator Hill earlier this year stated that existing ownership and management arrangements for Uluru/Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks would not be affected by the proposed changes to Commonwealth environment legislation. However, the recent Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill does in fact introduce some subtle but important changes to these arrangements. One explicit change compels State or Territory membership of joint Boards of Management. Sub-clause 377(5) of the Bill provides that 'if a reserve is in a State or self-governing Territory, at least one member of the Board must be a person nominated by the State or Territory'. The enactment of this provision will facilitate the Government's stated intention of setting aside section 14C of the NPCWA referred to above.

Changed status of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife

One significant change implicit in the Bill is the foreshadowed change in status of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Director is both the lessee of the National Parks, and the traditional owners' joint management partner. The Bill transfers the existing functions of the Director (and new functions) to the Secretary of the Environment Department. It appears that the Minister intends to abolish the statutory corporation of the office of Director. The Bill makes no mention of the Director's fate and transitional provisions are not included in the Bill. Although the Director generally operates under the Minister's control as a part of the Environment Australia bureaucracy, the office of Director has, as a statutory corporation, enjoyed a degree of independence from political influence up until now. The Secretary of the Environment Department will of course be subject to far greater direct political control than the Director. Once again, the provisions of the National Park leases themselves, which preclude changes in the status or identity of the lessee without the consent of traditional owners, have been ignored, and the Government's view has been imposed without consultation with traditional owners.

Conclusion

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 is being presented by the Government as a logical and unproblematic consolidation of existing environment legislation. However, the proposed legislative changes outlined above pose a significant threat to traditional owners' control of Uluru/Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks established under the ALRA.

Tony Keyes is a lawyer at the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Central Land Council.