E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.1 page 18 82. Despite these steps to recognize and protect the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to their land and sacred sites, however, it had been argued that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are unable to benefit from these improvements because in the past they have been dispossessed of their land which has been alienated, their ties to it have been broken and their traditional land-lore has been lost. 83. It has also been argued that the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act do not provide sufficient protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to own and control their culture and heritage. Some Aboriginal groups, such as the New South Wales Land Council, have called for further legislation to transfer the regulation of Aboriginal culture and heritage to Aboriginal control, particularly with respect to sacred and significant sites and the return of human remains. 84. Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, also expressed grave concern that the Federal Government's proposed amendments to the Native Title Act (NTA) breached its commitment to respect the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act. “Proposals regarding the expansion of pastoral leases and the erosion of the right to negotiate would override the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). Far from enhancing the operation of the NTA, I am apprehensive that the Government's amendments will sow the seeds of litigation throughout Australia. This will help none of us.” 85. “The pastoral lease amendments allow Governments to expand pastoral lease interests and uses, while denying affected title holders the procedural protections which would apply to ordinary title holders in the same circumstances. The amendments are not necessary to protect the existing interests of pastoralists. They are safe under the current Act”, Mick Dodson said. 86. Proposals to reduce the scope of the right to negotiate were also criticized on human rights grounds. “The Government has proposed removing the right to negotiate from exploration and prospecting titles, allowing ministerial intervention prior to determination of claims, making the right to negotiate a 'once only' process and reducing the time for negotiation and arbitration”, Mick Dodson explained. 87. “The Government mistakenly regards the right to negotiate as being a special 'gift' to indigenous peoples, which it can take away as it pleases. The right to negotiate is a recognition of actual native title rights, and its preservation is essential if native title is to be accorded true equality of protection. Erosion of the right to negotiate would remove the balance of the NTA, which protects the titles of all other Australians.” 88. Mick Dodson also raised concerns about the practical inability of native title holders to protect their rights when activity such as mining is proposed. This is due to the introduction of a very onerous registration test, which must be satisfied by claimants before they are even entitled to negotiate over, not stop, development of land under claim.