The compatibility declaration emphasizes the purpose of the proposed amendments to enable more effective implementation of ILUA and thus “help indigenous Australians enjoy the cultural values and rights of their traditional countries.”  In particular, it acknowledges the objective of the proposed amendments, which is to allow a small number of persons including aNTR to effectively thwart an agreement by rejecting its signature, including in circumstances concerning disputes between the various members of the NTS and the broader claim group.  . G Brandis, Attorney-General, `Transcript of interview with Peter van Onselen-Sky News`, press release, 13 February 2017. See also: G Brandis, Senate Legal and Constitutional Protection Committee, Proof Committee Hansard, February 28, 2017, 69-70. . Queensland Gas Company Limited – Ors /Iman People No. 2; Mandandanji People/Queensland,  NNTTA 210, December 17, 2010 (Sosso DP) at . See also: NNTT, Native Title Hotspots: National Native Title Tribunal legal newsletter, op. Quote., 14-15. However, there is an obvious gap in the application of points 9 and 10. These points apply in such a way that they apply to ILUS applications and applications for registration submitted on the date of McGlade`s February 2, 2017 verdict, while the proposed amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 1 should apply from the date the amended legislation obtains Royal Approval.
 Australia, Senate, Journals, (Proof), 30, 2016-17, February 16, 2017, p. 1009. Finally, in a broader sense, one might wonder whether the manner in which the bill was introduced and debated in the House of Representatives has fostered effective parliamentary oversight of the legislation, given the complexity of the legislative system of which it is a part and its considerable legal and practical impact on the national title sector. The assertion that the McGlade decision was “not foreseen” by the government could also indicate that there may be room for improvement of existing emergency planning regulations and their implementation on these issues. The decision raised questions about the validity of existing registered AES, as well as the mandates and measures granted under these ACCORDS, including the payment of substantial benefits to national securities groups.