E/CN.4/2002/24/Add.1 page 35 In their original form11 the alternative provisions would have removed native title holders’ right to negotiate all mineral exploration, including high impact exploration, even though this can cause widespread and permanent damage to land and to Indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage. 70. While Commonwealth Attorney-General Daryl Williams made 13 determinations on 31 May 2000 allowing all of the Queensland alternative provisions, only some of these were allowed by the Commonwealth Senate.12 In the course of the Senate debate Senator John Faulkner tabled a letter from Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to Opposition Leader Kim Beazley that contained the terms of a compromise reached between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments that informed the Opposition’s vote in the Senate. In order to make good the compromise accepted by the Commonwealth Senate, Premier Beattie tabled the Native Title Resolution Bill 2000 in the Queensland parliament on 5 September 2000. The Queensland alternative provisions, in their modified form, commenced operation on 18 September 2000. Whilst some differences remain between the New South Wales and Queensland schemes in relation to the “low impact” exploration processes, Premier Beattie substantially complied with his undertaking to amend the Queensland alternative provisions upon the enactment of the Native Title Resolution Act 2000 (Qld). (iii) Northern Territory 71. The Northern Territory was the first government to seek approval from the Commonwealth in relation to its alternative right to negotiate regime. In considering the scheme the Attorney-General was required by the NTA to take into account submissions made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies. Despite their objections to substantial areas of the scheme, it was approved. The motion succeeded on the basis that if it were not disallowed the Northern Territory could make subsequent amendments to its legislation without referral back to the Commonwealth Parliament. Only the Commonwealth Attorney-General would have an ongoing supervisory role over subsequent amendments. It was considered that this was insufficient to ensure that Indigenous concerns over the state regimes were adequately addressed. A further factor considered by the Senate was the failure of the Northern Territory government to obtain the consent of the land councils. Consequently, the Northern Territory “alternative provisions” never came into effect. The right to negotiate under the Native Title Act (Commonwealth) operates in the Northern Territory. 72. There are alternative procedures available within the NTA which incorporate the principle of effective participation - namely, Indigenous land use agreements. Representative bodies and many other stakeholders support the pursuit of such agreements where appropriate and where the future acts regime has been so affected by discriminatory amendments that it fails to protect native title. (iv) Western Australia 73. Western Australia passed the Native Title (State Provision) Act 1999 which provides for a state Native Title Commission to administer: (a) Future acts on unallocated Crown land and Aboriginal reserves under section 43;