Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I think that's fair to say. The McGlade decision did put into doubt the validity of section 31 agreements and provided, in effect, that one needed unanimous agreement. That created some impracticalities because there were circumstance where, for instance, one or more of the native titleholders had passed away and it wasn't possible to get the consent of that native titleholder to a particular determination. This is an arrangement that allows for a default of majority decision-making that is displaceable at all times upon the decision of the people affected by the determination to impose a condition that some other, or higher, threshold be imposed for their particular matter. While the short answer is, yes, it's about providing certainty in light of the McGlade decision, it is certainty provided with the opportunity for native titleholders to maintain control at all times about the thresholds that apply to them.