People involved		Darwin Africa/Australia Exchange Seminar at Northern Territory University (NTU) A public seminar was convened at the Mal Nairn Auditorium at NTU at which a cultural exchange was made between the Delegation and indigenous Australians. We were first welcomed by a traditional dance by Aboriginal boys from St Johns College, Darwin and then by Bill Risk of the Larrakia Nation. The Director of CINCRM, Professor Marcia Langton, provided an introduction to land issues in Australia and welcomed a response from delegates. She emphasised the difficult history Aboriginal Australians have experienced since European colonisation and explained how this is reflected today. For example, she gave statistics of the proportion of Aboriginal Australians in prison populations - in the Northern Territory this was more than 400 per 1,000 inmates. In her view this was the product of an "irrational system" that was still based on a "frontier culture" that has not yet died, and she lamented the fact that the $40,000 a year that it takes to keep a prisoner was not better spent on education and health that would ultimately keep people out of jail. This was followed by a general panel discussion on resource management in which we were able to describe similar situations in Africa. A second session was held on human rights, customary law, mandatory sentencing and native title in which Edna Barolits (Manager Regional Services - Northern Land Council), Martin Flynn (Law School, NTU) and Gordon Renouf (North Australia Aboriginal Legal Aid Service) made presentations. This too was followed by a response from the Delegation and a panel discussion.   At the next session Robert Lee, the Executive Director of Jawoyn Association, welcomed us and provided a background statement on his organisation and its achievements. In the discussion that followed the Association was described as a "role model" for other Aboriginal organisations and possibly for those in Africa. In summing up Professor Langton referred to the seminar as more than a cultural exchange in that all parties had openly and constructively shared information in the manner of an intellectual exchange.   Supreme Court of the Northern Territory After lunch we visited the Supreme Court where we were shown all its facilities and enjoyed its architecture and artwork. Justice Ole Keiwua of the Kenya High Court was invited to the chambers of Acting Chief Justice Angel and we were photographed in the ceremonial court. The lawyers in the Delegation were particularly interested to see how cases were conducted and were impressed by the technology being applied that resulted, for example, in transcripts from cases being made available to lawyers the following day. In Africa this can take months if not years. We heard submissions being made by counsel in a murder trial that was being conducted at the time.   Northern Land Council (NLC) We were invited to the NLC for afternoon tea at which we were given an explanation of the role of the NLC in support of indigenous groups. That very afternoon the Federal High Court of Australia handed down a decision in the Hindmarsh case at which the court ruled that the government was entitled to legislate in favour or to the detriment of indigenous people without contravening provisions in the Race Discrimination Act. With regard to the dispute over Jabiluka uranium mine, an excision of Kakadu National Park, the legal adviser, Dominic Beckett, explained one of the difficulties for the NLC negotiated the mining agreement (1982) with the traditional owners and at the same time have a mandate to also represent the interests of those traditional owners who oppose the mine. Keith Taylor, Manager of the Resources Management Branch, explained in detail the structure and functions of his department and invited anthropologist Ben Scanbary, from the Native Title Section to describe how the NLC articulates the nature of customary claims to land. In doing this he explained the difference between traditional owners and Native Title holders: Traditional owners are ‘exclusive’ in that they need to prove through anthropological research that they are a member of a local descent group and exercise a primary spiritual responsibility over land. Native Title holders, on the other hand, are ‘inclusive’ in that they can demonstrate that they are owners of land in accordance with their own traditional law. This involves less litigation and more of a mediation role for the NLC.