While we acknowledge that the Bill introduced to Parliament provides for a two-stage consent process for relevant area-based offsets projects on Native Title or claimed Native Title land, this does not resolve our underlying concerns. The ability for such a project to be declared eligible subject to an outstanding consent condition remains contingent on securing initial consent to the making of the application, with no defined negotiation timeframe, reciprocal good-faith obligations on either Party, or appropriate independent dispute resolution pathway where consent is refused, no response is provided, or negotiations otherwise remain unresolved.
While we recognise that EIH consent arrangements and the Future Acts Regime perform different functions, it is in our view inappropriate to invoke alignment with Native Title procedural rights while omitting the corresponding safeguards that underpin their practical and equitable operation. For instance, under the NTA Future Acts Regime, the Right to Negotiate process requires all Parties to negotiate in good-faith (Section 31) and provides that where agreement has not been reached, a Party may seek an arbitral determination once at least six-months have passed since the notification day. Provision is also made for the arbitral body to mediate between the Parties to assist them in reaching agreement.
View NFF’s full submission here.