The Larrakia Development Corporation (LDC) says it does not support the Northern Territory Government's amendments to the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, arguing the changes blatantly disrespect Traditional Owners.

The LDC is the latest organisation to express disappointment at a legislative change that forced the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) Board — the statutory body responsible for safeguarding sacred sites in the Territory — to amend a certificate originally issued in 2004 to include the Darwin Waterfront Corporation and the developer, SH Darwin Hotel Pty Ltd.

The amendment, enabled under the new legislation, allows a 47-metre hotel to proceed without fresh consultation with custodians and compels the AAPA to approve it. Last week, AAPA board member Rachel Perkins resigned "effective immediately" over the decision, while Larrakia Traditional Owners also raised alarm about the proposal.

The LDC, which works to create economic opportunities for all Larrakia people through sustainable business models, has called for "genuine discussion and transparent engagement with NT Government, developers and Larrakia Custodians" to safeguard sacred sites and cultural authority.

Chairperson Mark Motlop said the LDC had to apply for an AAPA certificate to build the Larrakia Cultural Centre — scheduled for completion next year — and comply with height restrictions regarding the outward and inward views of the sacred site.

He said the new hotel would "sit directly opposite the sacred site" and interfere with both views of the Dreamtime story.

"If it is good enough for the Traditional Owners of this Land to comply with the AAPA Sacred Sites Certificate — then it should be good enough for everyone else," Mr Motlop said.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by National Indigenous Times (@natindigtimes)

Last week, the AAPA said Authority Certificates are based on "consultation with Aboriginal custodians" and set conditions for work on land or water near sacred sites.

But the Waterfront application marks the first use of recent amendments to the Sacred Sites Act, which allow additional parties to be added to existing certificates and require the Authority to process applications without further consultation.

Mr Motlop said developments in the city — including the Darwin Convention Centre and the Adina Vibe — had complied with AAPA certificate restrictions, asking: "What is the difference now?"

"The changing of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 is blatant disrespect to the Traditional Owners," he said. "This will have an impact on all Traditional Owners throughout the Northern Territory."

Last week, the Central Land Council (CLC) called for Commonwealth intervention, arguing the current CLP government had shown why "it can never be trusted" to protect sacred sites.

"The federal government should clarify the power of the NT government to make laws to protect our sacred sites and work with our land councils and traditional owners to strengthen heritage protections," CEO Les Turner said.

The CLC pointed to the actions of former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Robert Tickner, who in 1992 used federal heritage laws to block the NT Government from building a $20 million flood mitigation dam near Alice Springs, which would have destroyed a sacred women's site.

The decision was welcomed by the community but condemned by the CLP government at the time, with Chief Minister Marshall Perron accusing the Commonwealth of acting like "big brother".

The Northern Territory Indigenous Business Network (NTIBN) also voiced opposition, saying it supports industry and development but not at the expense of cultural authority.

Chief executive Naomi Anstess said the NTIBN "believes that industry and development can coexist with cultural custodianship," but only when "Traditional Owners are properly consulted and respected".

"When legislation is changed in ways that diminish independent oversight and sideline custodians' voices, it undermines trust and the integrity of the process," Ms Anstess said.

The NT Government has defended the amendments, saying they streamline processes and reduce duplication. The government and the Darwin Waterfront Corporation argue the project will provide jobs and boost tourism.