(a) there are representative bodies for each part of the area covered by the Agreement; And the important clauses are those that give the agreement of the national title part to possible future actions. These clauses must be carefully formulated to ensure that they are agreed to by the native part of the title. Points 4 and 6 – Admission requirements for the preparation of ILUAS and native title applications The total number of ILUas concerned in the register is unclear. On 11 February 2017, it was reported that the NNTT had opened an investigation into the registered agreements in order to identify the potentially affected agreements and, by that date, had identified 123 possible territorial agreements based on Bygrave`s explanatory memorandum, most of which were in Queensland.  Since then, it has been reported that the figure “at least 126. . . for mines, gas fields and infrastructure projects”.  Others estimate that there are approximately 150 such agreements.  Since entity ILUs are the most relevant to CCP, this section only considers ILUs of this type.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the NTA, the parties to the ILUA may agree to ignore, amend or replace all or part of the future law under the NTA. The agreement can validate acts that have already been carried out without respecting the provisions of the future law. (i) if, in accordance with subsection 251A (2), a person has been designated or designated as a party to the agreement by the relevant mother tongue claims group, that person or persons; or (ii) if no person referred to in subsection 251A (2) has been designated or designated as a party to the agreement by the relevant native claims group, a majority of the persons who make up the accused of registered national title. As noted above, Subsoil 9(4) excludes the four ILUs that were the subject of a dispute at McGlade from the general rules on the retroactive validation of ILUas and their registration. In addition, point 12 provides that the agreements prescribed in point 9(4) will be considered ILUA within the meaning of Article 24A of the amending law from the date of entry into force of the amending law (if the law is adopted). . McKenna, “Adani project frozen by shock land rights ruling,” a.a.O., p. 1. (c) a declaration of the nature referred to in Article 24EB(1)(d) of the Law that the transfer of the original ownership under the agreement is intended to destroy the rights and interests of the indigenous people; Subsection 24CD (2) defines the “group of native titles” where there is a registered national chancellor or a registered national name in respect of any of the land or waters in the area. . M McKenna, `Adani project frozen by shock land rights ruling`, The Weekend Australian, 11 février 2017, p.
1. Voir aussi : « Traditional owners Challenge Adani mine deal », Sky News, 13 février 2017; et Wangan &Jagalingou Family Council, « No surrender – traditional owners move to defeat Adani’s Fake Indigenous Land Use Agreement in the wake of Noongar ruling », communiqué de presse, 7 février 2017. . . .