A/HRC/15/37/Add.4 raised that agreements have not been developed in ways that maximize benefits for the future generations of the indigenous peoples. 28. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges Government efforts to streamline the existing native title procedure and pursue related reforms, such as minimizing the adversarial approach of the native title system to allow for native title negotiations to be carried out in a more flexible manner, and stresses that continued efforts in this regard should be made. The Special Rapporteur wishes to highlight the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that Australia pursue “discussions with indigenous peoples with a view to discussing possible amendments to the Native Title Act and finding solutions acceptable to all”.10 The Special Rapporteur also notes the comprehensive recommendations for reform in the annual Native Title reports of the Australian Human Rights Commission, published since 1994. 29. The strengthening of legislative and administrative protections for indigenous peoples’ rights over lands and natural resources should involve aligning those protections with applicable international standards, in particular those articulated in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Of note is that the Declaration effectively rejects a strict requirement of continuous occupation or cultural connection from the time of European contact in order for indigenous peoples to maintain interests in lands, affirming simply that rights exist by virtue of “traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use” (art. 26). Also incompatible with the Declaration, as well as with other international instruments, is the extinguishment of indigenous rights in land by unilateral uncompensated acts. Contrary to the doctrine of extinguishment, the Declaration (art. 28) affirms that “indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent”.11 In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern reports received that compensation to indigenous peoples whose rights have been extinguished is extremely difficult to obtain under the current statutory scheme.12 30. On top of ensuring adequate recognition of indigenous peoples’ proprietary or other interests in lands and natural resources, care must be taken to ensure that those interests are not unduly affected by Government regulation. For example, the Special Rapporteur heard concerns that the Wild Rivers Act of 2005 of the state of Queensland limits indigenous communities’ use of and decision-making control over their lands, especially with respect to economic development activities. Likewise, concern was expressed that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974 does not recognize the right of Aboriginal people to be consulted on decisions concerning heritage sites. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur received reports that the Western Australia Aboriginal Heritage Act of 1972 grants a state entity the ultimate authority to make decisions concerning Aboriginal heritage sites. 31. Subsequent parts of this report address a number of other concerns related to indigenous peoples’ ability to effectively enjoy rights over traditional or acquired lands. These include the issue of access to public services by indigenous peoples in remote areas of traditional lands, discussed in paragraphs 66–70, and the arrangements in place or being 10 11 12 GE.10-13887 Ibid., para. 16. See Sawhoyamaxa, Inter-American Court of Human Right (Ser. C) No. 146 (2006), at para. 128 (applying these principles within the framework of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). Native Title Report 2007, p. 7. 9