This paper focusses on onshore exploration and production because the right to negotiate does not apply offshore. However, the Native Title Act can be relevant to offshore oil and gas explorers and producers. First, where their area of interest includes an island within the jurisdiction of Western Australia. Secondly, in respect of land required for the facilities to treat petroleum piped ashore.Under the original Native Title Act the right to negotiate proved unworkable, the expedited procedure failed to facilitate the grant of exploration titles and titles granted after 1 January 1994 were probably invalid.The paper examines the innovations introduced by the amended Native Title Act to consider whether it will be more 'workable' for petroleum explorers and producers. It examines some of categories of future acts in respect of which the right to negotiate does not apply (specifically indigenous land use agreements, renewals and extensions of titles, procedures for infrastructure titles, reserve land, water resources, low impact future acts, approved exploration etc acts and the expedited procedure).Other innovations include the new registration test for native title claims, the validation of pre-Wik titles, the amended right to negotiate procedure, the State implementation of the right of negotiate procedure and the objection and adjudication procedure for grants on pastoral land.The response of each state and territory parliament to the amended Act is considered, as is the Federal Court decision in the Miriuwung Gajerrong land claim (particularly the finding that native title includes resources, questioning whether these resources extend to petroleum).The paper observes that the full impact of the new Act cannot be determined until the states and territories have passed complementary legislation and it is all in operation. However, the paper's preliminary conclusion is that it does not provide a workable framework for the interaction between petroleum companies and native title claimants.The writer's view is that the right to negotiate procedure is unworkable if relied upon to obtain the grant of a title. If a proponent wishes to develop a project in any commercially acceptable timeframe, it will have to negotiate an agreement with native title claimants. The paper's conclusion is that a negotiated agreement is the only way to cope with native title issues.
