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) and the *Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights (Land Titles) Act 1987* (NT). The applicants sought declarations that these provisions were invalid to the extent that they permitted the Northern Territory to extinguish native title rights and interests in relation to certain areas of land and waters. The core of the dispute lay in the interpretation and application of the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) and its interaction with the impugned legislation. The cases were heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the provisions of the *Native Title Act* and the *Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights (Land Titles) Act* that allowed for the extinguishment of native title by the Northern Territory were inconsistent with the prohibition against racial discrimination contained in section 9 of the *Racial Discrimination Act*. Specifically, the applicants argued that these provisions discriminated on the ground of race by treating native title holders less favourably than other landowners, and that this inconsistency rendered the Northern Territory legislation invalid under section 109 of the *Commonwealth Constitution*.

The High Court, in a majority decision, found that the impugned provisions of the Northern Territory legislation were indeed invalid to the extent of their inconsistency with the *Racial Discrimination Act*. The Court reasoned that the *Racial Discrimination Act* was intended to provide a uniform prohibition against racial discrimination throughout Australia, and that the provisions in question, by permitting the extinguishment of native title in circumstances not applicable to other forms of property ownership, constituted unlawful racial discrimination. The Court applied the principles established in *Mabo v Queensland (No 2)* regarding the existence of native title and the subsequent legislative framework for its recognition and extinguishment, emphasizing that any extinguishment must be done in a manner that does not offend the *Racial Discrimination Act*.

Consequently, the High Court made declarations that the relevant sections of the *Native Title Act* and the *Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights (Land Titles) Act* were invalid to the extent that they permitted the Northern Territory to extinguish native title rights and interests on the ground of race. The Court ordered that the Northern Territory pay the applicants' costs.