In any case, native title doesn't mean they own the land to the exclusion of all else".
The reality is that Native Title gives the title holder an effective veto over any other use of the land. This requires any third party that wants to use the land to negotiate for that right to access and use the land. These negotiations, in my direct experience, are often protracted, expensive, and not effectively legally binding on the title holders, as they often seek to amend their agreements down the line. Furthermore the agreements are usually disjunctive, in that they only cover the initial first stage of a project, such as a pre-feasibility study. A more comprehensive agreement is required to be negotiated if a project is to go ahead. And thats when you really are over a barrel. The third party pays all the legal costs of the title holder including the cost of the title holder to attend meetings to negotiate. There are plenty of examples where the title holders have, as a condition of granting access and removing any objections to the development of a project, required large amounts of shares in companies and seats on the board of those companies. None of these outcomes were envisaged when Native Title was first promulgated. It has all been driven by legal process in the absence of sound practical laws and regulations. And gutless self promoting politicians.
