The Northern Territory's four land councils - Anindilyakwa Land Council, Central Land Council, Northern Land Council and Tiwi Land Council - have united with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and Aboriginal Housing NT in solidarity against the CLP government's "latest attack on Territorians' basic rights"; a Bill introduced Wednesday to amend the Housing Act to deny public housing tenants the right to procedural fairness.

In a joint statement, the six organisations noted that procedural fairness is a safeguard that protects every Territorian.

"It is about making sure government decisions that affect people's lives are made properly and fairly... Procedural fairness has been described by the High Court as a matter of 'fundamental justice'. It is a legal protection built into Government decision-making, to make sure that there is a minimum level of fairness in government decisions," the groups said.

"All Territorians have an expectation that government decisions that have major impacts on our lives should be made in a fair and transparent way."

'Legislation to allow it to make decisions in ways that it knows will be unfair'

NAAJA chief executive Ben Grimes said the bid to remove procedural fairness requirements is "an admission of failure by the NT government".

"Fundamentally, this means that the government does not believe that it is capable of making these decisions in a fair way, so it is introducing legislation to allow it to make decisions in ways that it knows will be unfair," he said.

The amendments are proposed in response to the High Court decision in December 2025 which found the current NT Remote Rent Framework was invalid because remote tenants were denied procedural fairness when the Framework was introduced in 2021.

The Framework introduced significant changes to the amount of rent paid by tenants, and the way the rent was calculated. The Framework treats remote tenants differently than urban tenants, and calculates rent based on the number of bedrooms rather than on income.

Remote tenants were not given any opportunity to have any input into this significant change, and as a result the High Court decided that the NT Government had failed to provide procedural fairness.

'A false excuse to abolish procedural fairness completely'

"Legally and practically," the Land Councils, NAAJA and Aboriginal Housing NT said, Wednesday's amendment "is not required by the High Court's decision".

"All that is required is that the Government speak with tenants on decisions which directly affect them.

"The High Court decision provided the government a direction to work with tenants and stakeholders to reform the deeply flawed Framework. Instead, the government is using the decision as a false excuse to abolish procedural fairness completely; a dangerous move and slippery slope which erodes the fundamental rights of the Territory community."

'Undemocratic and risks creating bad law'

The groups noted that the government was attempting to rush the change through parliament on urgency.

This will be the 10th bill passed on urgency in this parliamentary term.

"In the past, urgency was only used in significant emergencies," the groups said. "Now, the NT government repeatedly uses this process to silence opposition and avoid scrutiny over rushed and dangerous laws."

The six organisations warned that the process is undemocratic and risks creating bad law which could be exposed to further scrutiny in the courts, at significant cost to the taxpayer.

"This challenge to the Framework has been working its way through the courts since 2022. The government has had plenty of time to develop an appropriate response, and to consult with tenants and stakeholders to develop a suitable alternative. They've chosen not to do so, instead legislating unfairness in a way that almost exclusively affects Aboriginal Territorians,' the groups said.

"The decision to push these changes through on urgency either reflects an inability by government to plan for predictable legal outcomes or is another excuse to avoid democratic accountability."

'This is racist legislation'

Northern Land Council chairperson Matthew Ryan called on NT Housing Minister Steve Edgington to do better.

"This is yet another attack on Aboriginal Territorians, particularly those of us living in remote communities in public housing. This is racist legislation. Our people should have the same rights as all Territorians," he said.

Mr Ryan expressed deep disappointment at the lack of notice and procedural fairness in both the legislation, and the speed that it is being pushed through NT Parliament.

'No consultation on this matter'

Aboriginal Housing NT chief executive Leanne Caton said Aboriginal Housing NT, despite being the Peak Body for Aboriginal Community Housing providers throughout the NT and established and funded by the NT government, "have not been consulted in any way in relation to the amendment of the Housing Act".

"We are also members of the Joint Steering Committee on Remote Housing, along with the four Land Councils and two tiers of government. The Aboriginal Housing Caucus of the JSC are supposed to be genuine and equal partners and yet have had no consultation on this matter," she said.

NAAJA chairperson Theresa Roe said "for any reform to be meaningful, the government must work with tenants and stakeholders to address the systemic issues that are entrenching Territorians in homelessness".

"This means implementing affordable housing strategies such as income-based rent, reducing overcrowding and addressing the rising cost of living to ease financial burdens on tenants," she said.

Undermines Closing the Gap

The High Court challenge which invalidated the Remote Rent Framework was brought by Asher Badari, Ricane Galaminda and Lofty Nadjamerrek from Gunbalanya, along with Laramba woman Carmelena Tilmouth, whose communities were subject to steep rent hikes as a result of the model.

The plaintiffs were represented by Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights and barrister Matthew Albert.

On Wednesday, Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights said the plan to remove the right for tenants to have a say in the determination of rents is a "disingenuous" response to the High Court's ruling, and undermines the Closing the Gap goal of shared decision-making.