This may mean that an RNTC/applicant is subject to different legal provisions, that it can act by a majority, or whether it must act in concert as part of a number of acts it may take with respect to the native title right. [121] One might wonder whether this could lead to confusion or arbitrariness or have unintended consequences on the interpretation of certain provisions of the NTA in its broader context. (a) the name of each party and the address to which the party can be contacted; The applicants in McGlade were persons who claimed to hold national title in the areas covered by each of the four territories covered by ILUA. They sought orders stating that each of the four ILUS was not an “agreement” in the legal sense of the term in the NTA and therefore could not be registered. Note An application must also be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, see paragraph 24BG (2) of the law. The explanatory statement provides a general rationale for the overall approach to the proposed amendments to Points 1 and 5, in the form of a general rule (which allows the claim group to select the ilua parties itself) and a standard rule (applicable in the event that the claim group does not itself choose the parties). The explanatory statement states that the proposed amendments are intended to “give eligible securities groups greater discretion in deciding who belongs to the national securities group” and to ensure that the claim group “retains control of who must be a party to the agreement in order to be an ILUA.” [108] In McGlade, the decision and the explanatory statement include territorial agreements and the interpretation of sections 24CA and 24CD of the NTA. The NNTT has previously established that the interpretation applied to Bygrave is specific to the implementation requirements of the agreements. In particular, the NNTT found that the Bygrave decision does not apply directly to the “right to negotiate” procedure of Sub-Division P of Part 3 of Part 2 of the NTA, whereby the negotiating parties may agree to obtain a future deed in accordance with Section 31 or make an arbitration decision pursuant to Section 38. [60] [139]. the controversies outlined in the review of points 9 and 10 above appear to apply to such agreements.
[59]. Clayton Utz, `Legislative fix for McGlade native title decision to confirm ILUAs due this week`, Clayton Utz website, 14 february 2017. (Readers may note that the company works for Adani Mining Pty Ltd for the Carmichael Coal and Rail Project: Clayton Utz, expertise: native title, Clayton Utz website, 2017. McGlade indicates that this company acted for three of the respondents in this case.) the native decision on the title under-regulation 8 (1) of the PBC regulation. The NTA is bound that if the representation of the native title in question is not a contracting party to the agreement, it informs the representative body of its intention to conclude the agreement before actually concluding the agreement. As noted above, the powers of the Native Title Registrar in Division 3, Part 2, with respect to the registration of ILUAs, are limited to agreements corresponding to the legal definition of an ILUA. (As far as surface chords are concerned, this is the definition of 24CA.) [102].
