Binsaris v Northern Territory of Australia; Webster v Northern Territory of Australia; O'Shea v Northern Territory of Australia; Austral v Northern Territory of Australia

These four cases, heard together, concerned challenges brought by Indigenous Australians against the Northern Territory of Australia regarding the validity of certain provisions of the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) (NTA). The applicants, representing various native title claim groups, sought declarations that amendments made to the NTA in 2021, specifically sections 190B(6) and 190B(7), were invalid. They argued these amendments, which introduced new requirements for the registration of native title applications, were inconsistent with the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) (RDA) and therefore invalid under section 109 of the *Constitution*. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the constitutional validity of these amendments.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the impugned amendments to the NTA, by imposing stricter criteria for the registration of native title applications, discriminated on the basis of race in a manner that contravened the RDA. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the amendments placed Indigenous Australians seeking to register native title claims at a disadvantage compared to other groups or individuals, and if so, whether this disadvantage was unlawful under the RDA. The applicants contended that the amendments created a barrier to the recognition and protection of native title rights that was not imposed on other forms of property rights or interests, thereby constituting racial discrimination.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the amendments to sections 190B(6) and 190B(7) of the NTA were invalid. Their Honours reasoned that the amendments imposed a more onerous burden on native title applicants, who are Indigenous Australians, in seeking the registration of their claims. This differential treatment, which was based on race, was found to be inconsistent with the prohibition against racial discrimination contained in the RDA. The court applied the principle that where Commonwealth legislation conflicts with the RDA, the RDA prevails to the extent of the inconsistency, rendering the conflicting provisions of the NTA invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the High Court made declarations that sections 190B(6) and 190B(7) of the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) were invalid.