A systemic securities group is either a registered systemic securities group or a claim group.  Section 24 DEEA provides that, although the agreement is on the ILUA register, the agreement between the parties and all holders of non-partisan native titles will take effect. Section 24EB validates future acts for which there is agreement on the registry at the time of its creation, including a declaration that the parties accept the act. Section 24EBA contains a similar validation provision for previous acts that have already been implemented in nullity, with details recorded in the register of an agreement that contains a statement that the parties are validating the act. However, these provisions cannot apply if the registration of a territory agreement was not valid from the outset due to an error of jurisdiction. In any event, it could also be argued that the concept of “agreement” must be interpreted in points 24EA, 24EB and 24EBA below, in the sense of the concept of “agreement” of section 24CA (for surface agreements) in the equation. From this point of view, a surface agreement that does not meet the requirements of Section 24CD would not be an agreement to which Sections 24EA, 24EB and 24EBA apply.  NTA, Section 251A, defines the conditions for authorizing the production of an ILUA by a native group or holder, referring to the group`s decision-making processes. (This provision is discussed in the “Key Questions and Provisions” section of the proposed amendments to Item 4 of Schedule 1 of the bill. The compatibility statement also underscores the government`s intention to ensure that the amendments give national title claim groups more discretion in determining who may be involved in an ILUA.  It also acknowledges the law`s intention to provide stakeholders with greater flexibility in their admission procedures for ILUAs production.  The database of negotiated agreements, contracts and settlements is a valuable collection of information and examples of agreements between Aborigines and Torres Strait Islands and others in Australia, as well as between indigenous peoples and other nationals abroad. The materials it contains can provide useful information and resources for the PBCs involved in the agreement.
If a PBC comes into operation and assumes responsibility for negotiations on behalf of the native title group, it is very likely that some PBC members will be relatively inexperienced in negotiations and agreements. The letter stated that such a result would cause “a major disruption for industry, government and local parts of the title,” and warns that “each of these sectors should seek urgent remedies in the form of changes to the NTA in The Appearance Recommended in this correspondence.”  The NNTC`s proposal was: . As noted by legal counsel Nick Duff (op. cit., p. 87 and 235-236), two alternative options are submitted to Parliament to define legal requirements for the parties` decision-making process with respect to accreditation, in the event of a dispute within a group of claims over the lack of agreement of the group. First, the legislation could use a legal “standard test” in the form of a “major failsafe” rule which, according to the group, agreed in certain circumstances, for example if a majority of people agree. Alternatively, Parliament could adopt a legal position that the group has not given its authorisation at all, so that the agreement or recourse to that effect cannot be pursued with regard to the law. Duff referred to competing political or philosophical arguments for and against any option and stressed that it was “a genuine political decision rarely recognized as such” (see.