Under the Native Title Act, exploration or mining activities invoke the “right to negotiate,” which gives local parties the option to negotiate agreements with supporters. These agreements define the conditions for the implementation of each future legislative act, including, in some cases, the provision of jobs and training, the protection of the environment or cultural heritage or compensation and payments. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, a party may request a decision from the Native Title Tribunal. In practice, this apparent deficiency may not be able to affect significant NLUAs (if any) given the NNT moratorium on registrations and the awareness of the native title sector to this Act as corrective measures to the McGlade decision (if any). These factors could lead the parties to opt for a postponement of the conclusion of all ongoing negotiations, and to the implementation of agreements and the submission of applications for registration until the outcome of the legislation is known. Given that the McGlade explanatory statement shows that these agreements would not have been ILUAs within the meaning of Section 24CA, registration decisions may be subject to judicial review because of a miscarriage of justice. This may also give rise to doubts as to the legally binding effect of such ILUS under Section 24 DEEA and the validity of the measures implemented within or in accordance with these ACCORDS in accordance with sections 24EB and 24EBA (for example. B, the granting of land interests, such as the awarding of mining, pastoral or other interest leases, for example. B).  These agreements allow individuals to negotiate flexible and pragmatic agreements that correspond to their particular circumstances. The bill could also have the potential to have unintended consequences by allowing individuals who include an NNTR to act overwhelmingly in the performance of an ILUA, without having to make appropriate changes to allow an applicant/RNTC to act majoritily in other circumstances.
(For example, in dealing with issues raised by the NTA with respect to a native title or compensation claim, or in the negotiation and implementation of agreements regarding future legislation.) This may mean that the RNTcs/plaintiffs are subject to different legal provisions, that they can act by a majority in different actions they may bring in relation to the eligible title or whether they must act jointly.