From Symbolism to Substance: Embedding Free, Prior and Informed Consent within Australia’s Native Title Act

Tiarna Williams, Menzies Leadership Foundation, UNGA Sixth Committee Fellow 2025

Executive Summary

Australia’s Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) does not require the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of First Nations peoples for land development projects to occur on Native Title land. The Act’s ‘right to negotiate’ provisions enable projects to advance even when Traditional Owners oppose them. This shortcoming erodes self-determination, undermines reconciliation efforts, and leaves sacred sites vulnerable to destruction. Without reform, Australia risks ongoing reputational harm, heightened investor uncertainty, and the perpetuation of systemic inequality. To resolve this, this proposal recommends amending the NTA to embed a definition of FPIC and replacing the right to negotiate with a requirement to obtain consent before acts affecting Native Title land proceed. This reform would bring Australia’s laws in line with its commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The estimated cost of reform is modest, with much of the expense likely to be absorbed by existing departmental budgets. Additional funding of under $1 million will likely be required for national consultations and training. Implementation would be led by the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), supported by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), and National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT). Key barriers include resource constraints, workforce expertise, and logistical challenges associated with consulting across diverse communities. Risks involve political resistance, corporate opposition, and the potential misinterpretation of FPIC. Despite these challenges, embedding FPIC into the NTA is both viable and necessary to restore Indigenous sovereignty, strengthen Australia’s international reputation, and ensure sustainable development that respects the rights of First Nations peoples

Problem Identification

The core problem lies in Australia’s failure to embed FPIC processes into domestic law in relation to land development projects on Native Title land. Although Australia endorsed UNDRIP in 2009, its principles, particularly FPIC, are not enforceable under the NTA. The NTA’s ‘right to negotiate’ regime is procedural in nature and does not require genuine consent from First Nations peoples, meaning projects can proceed even when communities object (National Native Title Council (NNTC), 2022). This gap undermines Indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural integrity. It exposes sacred sites to irreversible harm, as seen in the 2020 destruction of Juukan Gorge (Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia (JSCNA), 2021). 

This problem has direct implications for Australian interests. Culturally, the lack of enforceable FPIC perpetuates historical injustices and undermines reconciliation (Stanford & Evans, 2024). Politically and economically, weak Indigenous land governance erodes Australia’s international credibility and creates risks for investors, with projects vulnerable to community opposition and litigation. Relevant statistics underscore this issue. A 2022 Productivity Commission report emphasised that unresolved Indigenous land claims and poor consultation processes impose high economic costs on major developments (Productivity Commission, 2022). Moreover, a 2021 RMIT study found that numerous mining companies fail to engage in genuine FPIC processes with Traditional Owners, and this is directly due to the NTA's failure to include binding FPIC (Emmanouil & Chan Unger, 2021)

Context

UNDRIP A result of more than twenty years of negotiation, UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and has since been regarded as the foremost human rights instrument concerning Indigenous peoples (Pruim, 2014). While self-determination is considered the central right encompassed within the Declaration, other principles of significance include cultural integrity, respect for existing treaty rights, and FPIC (Wright & Serret, 2022). While not legally binding on states, UNDRIP supports sustainable and respectful decision-making on Indigenous-held lands and waters (AIATSIS, 2020; Davis, 2012). Despite being a signatory to UNDRIP, Australia has fallen short of integrating its principles into domestic law, particularly in the context of land development projects on Native Title land.

FPIC

FPIC is enshrined in Articles 19 and 32(2) of UNDRIP and embodies the right of Indigenous peoples to give or withhold consent to laws, policies, and projects which may affect them or their lands, territories, or resources. In this context:

• ‘Free’ means consent must be given voluntarily and without coercion

• ‘Prior’ means it must be sought before any authorisation or activity begins

• ‘Informed’ means Indigenous communities must be given all necessary information in a culturally appropriate and accessible manner and

• ‘Consent’ means processes must allow communities to make collective decisions through their own representative institutions and traditional processes, including the right to say ‘no’ (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2022; Jameel & Johnston, 2024). 

The Native Title Act

The NTA was enacted in response to Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] and subsequently recognised native title rights under common law (French AC, 2020). The objectives of the NTA are to establish formal processes for recognising native title, to protect it from extinguishment by future legislation, and to validate legislation that pre-dates the Act (JSCNA, 2021). Despite these intentions, the Act has thus far failed to evolve in alignment with UNDRIP. It does not mention UNDRIP nor the principle of FPIC. 

One limitation of the NTA is the future acts regime. Any proposed action or development that occurs after the commencement of the NTA is classified as a ‘future act’. Such acts may include enacting new laws, amending existing laws, or granting licenses, such as mining and exploration permits. The NTA outlines procedures to ensure these acts are valid, with the most significant provision for the resources sector being the ‘right to negotiate’ provision. This provision imposes a duty on parties involved to ‘negotiate in good faith’ and is intended to allow native title parties to be actively involved in discussions (Law Council of Australia (LCA), 2025). While this provision applies to mining and large-scale development, it remains broad, vague, and ultimately procedural (Wagner & Maguire, 2010). Critically, the Act does not provide a right to veto projects, even when they directly impact Indigenous land and cultural heritage (JSCNA, 2021). In this context, even when development activities are classified as ‘low impact’, the requirement for negotiation does not equate to consent, and the arbitration process does not meaningfully empower Indigenous communities to say ‘no’ (NNTC, 2022). 

Moreover, the NTA also established the NNTT to arbitrate disputes, determine applications concerning future acts, support negotiations of Indigenous Land Use Agreements and provide support to stakeholders. However, the Tribunal has overwhelmingly favoured development interests over Indigenous land rights. Between 2009 and 2017, the Tribunal ruled against granting a mining title in only two out of more than 100 arbitration cases, revealing the inadequacy of the obligation to negotiate in ‘good faith’ (JSCNA, 2021). 

The NTA continues to prioritise procedural compliance over substantive outcomes, leaving many First Nations communities sidelined and denied the opportunity to contribute to negotiations (JSCNA, 2021).

Policy Landscape

The broader policy environment has also failed to deliver on promises to uphold Native Title rights. Although Australia made a formal commitment in 2017 to promote UNDRIP principles as part of its successful bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, no meaningful legal or policy reforms followed (Jameel & Johnston, 2024). Moreover, Australia has been criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). A 2017 CERD report recommended that Australia incorporate UNDRIP principles, particularly FPIC, into the NTA to reduce the legal burden on Indigenous claimants and suggested lowering the standard of proof (LCA, 2022).

Furthermore, as part of its response to the destruction of Juukan Gorge, the Federal Government launched an ALRC inquiry in 2024, focusing on the NTA’s future acts regime and Australia’s obligations under UNDRIP, including FPIC (ALRC, 2024; Galloway, 2024). Moreover, the final report handed down in November 2023 by the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (JSCATSIA) highlighted the importance of FPIC being defined by First Nations peoples, rather than governments (JSCATSIA, 2023). 

Case Studies The Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa [2022] case illustrates the growing recognition of FPIC principles in Australian law. The Federal Court clarified that titleholders must provide sufficient information for an informed assessment, engage in genuine consultation, and adopt appropriate measures to address stakeholder concerns (Wynn-Pope et al., 2023). While this case did not directly concern the NTA, it marked a significant judicial shift toward embedding FPIC standards in legislated consultation processes, although the rulings stopped short of recognising a veto right.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) stands out as a domestic legislative example that embeds an explicit right to refuse minerals exploration proposals. The Act, amended in December 2021, preserves a ‘veto’ right for Aboriginal Land Councils. As noted by both Ashurst (2022) and the NNTC (2022), this right gives communities a significant voice in decisions about development on their lands. However, the veto is not absolute, as it may be overridden in the ‘national interest’ under Sections 40(b) and 43 of the Act (Global Compact Network Australia et al., 2020).

Internationally, Canada’s experience offers lessons for embedding FPIC into law. The 2021 UNDRIP Bill C-15 Act requires federal laws to align with UNDRIP and mandates consultation with Indigenous peoples, building on the constitutional duty to consult under Section 35 (JSCATSIA, 2023). However, Indigenous peoples’ and legal experts within Canada have contended that these consultation requirements fall short of adequately implementing FPIC principles (Cote et al., 2025)

Policy Options

The critical measure of success for this policy proposal would be the establishment of a clear definition of FPIC within Australian law, applied federally and enforced through binding mechanisms. Policy options that align with these objectives include:

Option 1: Amend the NTA to include binding FPIC

Firstly, this amendment would embed an internationally recognised definition of FPIC within the NTA, ensuring alignment with UNDRIP and providing legal clarity. Secondly, this amendment would replace the current ‘right to negotiate’ provision with a requirement to obtain FPIC before any act affecting native title land can proceed, thereby granting Traditional Owners the right to withhold consent. Together, these reforms would ensure that Indigenous communities can participate meaningfully in land-use decisions, prevent development occurring without their consent, and address a significant gap in Australia’s implementation of UNDRIP. The estimated costs can primarily be met by existing departmental budgets, with an additional $1 million required for consultations, reviews, and training. 

Option 2:  Amend the functions of the NNTT under the NTA

This option recommends expanding the functions of the NNTT under Section 108 of the NTA to equip it with explicit powers to enforce FPIC processes in Native Title decision-making. The current functions of the NNTT do not include explicit powers to enforce FPIC processes in relation to land development projects on Native Title land (NNTT, 2025). This amendment would enable the NNTT to require developers to submit FPIC compliance documentation and subsequently issue binding certifications or rejections. This amendment would result in the NNTT serving as a national standard-setter and a watchdog for FPIC, ensuring procedural integrity and community empowerment. The NNTT was allocated $8.535 million in funding during the 2023–24 financial year, and this amendment is likely to be largely met within existing resources (Federal Court of Australia, 2024). Additional staffing needs are unlikely to exceed $1 million. As with the previously mentioned options, industry groups and state governments may resist these amendments due to potential delays to major infrastructure or mining projects.

Option 3: Amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) (HR Act) to include UNDRIP under its definition of ‘human rights’

This option proposes amending the HR Act to include UNDRIP within the definition of ‘human rights’ under Section 3(1). This change would ensure that all new legislative instruments are assessed for their alignment with Native Title rights and the application of FPIC. This amendment would enhance the visibility of UNDRIP in federal lawmaking by incorporating it into the scrutiny process. As this proposal requires only a legislative change to current Commonwealth legislation, the cost is likely to be met by existing departmental resources. While this option has a straightforward implementation and would enhance systemic accountability, without complementary, enforceable mechanisms, such as an amendment to the NTA, it risks being largely symbolic. 

Policy Recommendation

This proposal recommends Option 1 “Amend the NTA to include binding FPIC” as the most viable way forward to achieve the critical measure of success.

Policy Implementation

Part 1 would amend Section 222 by inserting a definition of FPIC based on internationally recognised standards, such as those in the UNDP 2022 guidance report.

The amendment might insert a new definition to read: 

“free, prior and informed consent means the collective right of Indigenous peoples to give or withhold consent to a project or decision that may affect them or their lands, territories, or resources, following a culturally appropriate, inclusive, timely and transparent consultation process undertaken in good faith, and includes the right to withhold consent and the right to revoke consent at any stage.”

This definition would clarify ambiguities related to FPIC processes and provide legal clarity on how consent is evidenced, who can give it, and how compensation agreements affect consent (Woodside Energy, 2022). It would also address the enduring nature of consent and the requirement for technical detail sufficient to enable informed decision-making.

Part 2 would amend Part 2, Div 3, Sub-Div P, which governs the ‘right to negotiate’ process in relation to future acts. Currently, Section 31 allows negotiations to occur but does not require genuine agreement or consent from Traditional Owners. This proposal would replace the current right to negotiate with a requirement to obtain FPIC before any act that affects native title rights may proceed. 

Further subsections would specify that:

• Consent must be documented through a transparent, participatory process involving all affected Traditional Owners

• Consent must be capable of being withheld without prejudice

• Consent must be obtained prior to approval and maintained throughout the project lifecycle

• A valid FPIC process must include social, cultural, environmental and economic impact assessments conducted independently and made accessible to communities

  
  

This provision would close the loophole that allows consent to be assumed or coerced under threat of arbitration, a pattern documented in submissions to the Juukan Gorge Inquiry 2021, which outlined systemic issues with the current negotiation framework. 

Embedding FPIC in law ensures that development occurs with, not to, Indigenous communities. This proposal presents a focused, legislatively grounded solution that addresses legal uncertainty, restores cultural sovereignty, and aligns Australia’s native title regime with its obligations under UNDRIP.

Stakeholder Involvement

The successful implementation of this policy would be led by the AGD. The ALRC, which sits within the AGD’s portfolio, would play a central role in progressing the initial stages of reform. The NIAA would provide guidance on culturally appropriate community engagement and support the coordination of consultations with Traditional Owners. In addition, the NNTT would be responsible for operationalising and enforcing the legislative changes, including adapting administrative procedures to ensure FPIC is upheld in all relevant determinations. 

Project Funding

Implementing this policy will require moderate funding, which can be largely sourced through existing departmental budgets. The ALRC received $5.502 million in the 2024–25 financial year to conduct four inquiries, with approximately $1.38 million allocated per inquiry. (ALRC Budget, 2025-26). Since the ALRC is already undertaking a review of the NTA, much of the core policy development will be absorbed within existing budgets. Limited additional funds may be needed for national consultations, legal and administrative reviews, and FPIC-specific training. Ongoing implementation costs, particularly for the NNTT, are expected to be absorbed through existing resources, with only minor supplementary allocations if required.

Barriers and Risks

Barriers

There are human resources constraints, namely the availability of a workforce with the cultural competency and legal knowledge necessary to implement the proposal effectively. Another barrier lies in the logistical complexity of consulting across the diversity of First Nations communities, many of which have distinct governance systems, cultural protocols, and decision-making processes. Without tailored engagement strategies, there is a risk that reforms will privilege certain voices over others, undermining the representativeness of consent. 

Risks

Culturally, there is a danger that FPIC will be interpreted through narrow, outcome-driven or corporate lenses, reducing it to a one-off consultation rather than an ongoing, community-led process (Yaffe, 2018; Jameel & Johnston, 2024). Power imbalances are another persistent risk. The economic and political dominance of mining and resource corporations means FPIC processes may be weakened or even overridden, replicating patterns of dispossession (Jameel & Johnston, 2024). 

Politically, there is entrenched resistance from resource companies and industries whose projects depend on access to Native Title land. However, despite this potential economic impact, many stakeholders within the sector are advocating for such change as it would increase willingness to collaborate on such developments. (Jameel & Johnston, 2024). Policymakers may also view UNDRIP-based reforms as legally ambiguous or politically destabilising. The failure of the Voice referendum highlights the challenges of securing widespread political support for Indigenous-specific rights (Stanford & Evans, 2024). While some critics claim that a right to veto impedes national development, these objections overlook the fact that FPIC is not inherently anti-development. As Tomlinson (2019) argues, many Indigenous communities do not reject extractive projects outright, they only seek to shape them on their own terms. 

References

Ashurst. (2022). A new era for the ALRA The Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation and other changes. Ashurst. https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/a-new-era-for-the-alra-the-northern-territory-aboriginal-investment-corporation-and-other-changes/ 

Attorney-General’s Department. (2025). Entity resources and planned performance. https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2025-03/2025-26-AG-PBS-AGD.PDF 

AIATSIS. (2020). FPIC Policy Snapshot. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/AIATSIS%20FPIC%20Policy%20Snapshot%202020.pdf 

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2025). Entity resources and planned performance. https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2025-03/2025-26-AG-PBS-ALRC.PDF 

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2024). Review of the Future Acts Regime. ALRC. https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-of-the-future-acts-regime/ 

Barelli, M. (2012). Free, prior and informed consent in the aftermath of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: developments and challenges ahead. The International Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2011.597746 

Côté, I., Grant, J. A., Islam, A., McLean, V., Mitchell, M. I., & Panagos, D. (2024). The global implementation of UNDRIP: a thematic review. The International Journal of Human Rights, 29(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2407529 

Cudmore, T. (2022). Submission to the Inquiry into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia. Woodside Energy. https://www.woodside.com/docs/default-source/sustainability-documents/transparency-documents/2022-government-submissions-and-reports/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-the-application-of-the-united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-in-australia.pdf?sfvrsn=37826e10_22 

Davis, M. (2008). Indigenous Struggles in Standard-setting: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9(2), 439. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1683219/Davis.pdf 

Davis, M. (2012). To Bind or Not to Bind: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Five Years on. Australian International Law Journal, 19, 17–48. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.329563918658659 

Delaney, K., Maguire, A., & McGaughey, F. (2020). Australia’s Commitment to “Advance the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples around the Globe” on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Adelaide Law Review, 41(2), 363–393. https://law.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/1758/Australia%27s%20Commitment%20to%20Advance%20the%20Human%20Rights%20of%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20around%20the%20Globe%20on%20the%20United%20Nations%20Human%20Rights%20Council.pdf 

Duff, N. (2013). Reforming the Native Title Act : baby steps or dancing the running man? Australia Indigenous Law Review, 17(1), 56–70. https://www7.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2013/5.pdf 

Emmanouil, D. N., & Chan Unger, C. (2021). First Peoples and Land Justice Issues in Australia: Addressing Deficits in Corporate Accountability (K. Taylor, Ed.). RMIT Business and Human Rights Centre. https://www.rmit.edu.au/content/dam/rmit/au/en/research/networks-centres-groups/bhright/2021-First-Peoples-and-Land-Justice-in-Australia-Final-Compressed.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJr_CIppmSAxXnS3ADHSB9Oq8QFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1RzlZzWE6aAek_Bl356Eas 

Federal Court of Australia. (2024). Annual Report 2023–2024. https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/about/corporate-information/annual-reports/annual-report-2023-2024/pdf/FCA-Annual-Report-23-24.pdf 

French AC, Hon. R. (2020). Australia and International Law. Perth International Law Journal, 5, 3–27. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PerIntLawJl/2020/4.pdf 

Galloway, K. (2024, June 20). The Albanese government has ordered an inquiry into native title – why is it needed? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-albanese-government-has-ordered-an-inquiry-into-native-title-why-is-it-needed-232696 

GetUp! (2023). Questions on notice from the UNDRIP inquiry. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Affairs/UNDRIP/Submissions 

Global Compact Network Australia, KPMG Australia, & University of Technology Sydney. (2020). The Australian Business Guide to Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Global Compact Network Australia. https://unglobalcompact.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Australian-Business-Guide-to-Implementing-the-UN-Declaration-on-the-Rights-of-Indigenous-People_FINAL.pdf 

Howard-Wagner, D., & Maguire, A. (2010). The Holy Grail’ or “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”?: A Qualitative Exploration of the ILUAs Agreement-Making Process and the Relationship Between ILUAs and Native Title. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 14(1), 71. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2010/5.html 

Jameel, H., & Johnston, J. (2024). Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Factsheet. ANTAR. https://antar.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ANTAR-FPIC-Factsheet.pdf 

Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2023). Inquiry Into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia. Parliament of Australia. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/RB000083/toc_pdf/InquiryintotheapplicationoftheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesinAustralia.pdf

Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. (2021). A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge. Parliament of Australia. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024757/toc_pdf/AWayForward.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Law Council of Australia. (2022). Submission to the Inquiry into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia. https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/fbfd761e-43fe-ec11-945c-005056be13b5/2022%2006%2024%20-%20S%20-%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20Application%20of%20the%20UNDRIP%20in%20Australia.pdf

Law Council of Australia. (2025). Review of the Future Acts Regime: Issues Paper. https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/1f35ea9a-fc23-f011-94b3-005056be13b5/4675%20-%20S%20-%20Review%20of%20the%20Future%20Acts%20Regime%20-%20Issues%20Paper.pdf

Maguire, A. (2014). The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination in Australia: Using a Human Rights Approach to Promote Accountability. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, 12, 105–134. https://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2014/7.pdf

National Native Title Council. (2022). Submission To The Senate Inquiry: Application Of The United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples In Australia. https://nntc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-06-24-FINAL-Senate-Inquiry-UNDRIP.pdf

National Native Title Tribunal. (n.d.). Home Page. National Native Title Tribunal. https://www.nntt.gov.au/Pages/Home-Page.aspx

O’Neill, L., Thorburn, K., Riley, B., Maynard, G., Shirlow, E., & Hunt, J. (2021). Renewable energy development on the Indigenous Estate: Free, prior and informed consent and best practice in agreement-making in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 81(1), 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102252

Productivity Commission. (2022). Closing the Gap Annual Data Compilation Report. Australian Government. https://assets.pc.gov.au/2025-06/closing-the-gap-annual-data-compilation-july2022.pdf?VersionId=6tNnqhMWfjvhXPseSziQ0HLYUsZoiqtF

Pruim, S. (2014). Ethnocide and indigenous peoples: Article 8 of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Adelaide Law Review, 35(2), 269–308. https://law.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/573/ch4-alr-35-2-pruim.pdf

Sápmi, A. (2022). Sweden: Locals protest wind energy construction due to concerns over impacts on Sami reindeer grazing lands. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/sweden-locals-protest-wind-energy-construction-due-to-concerns-over-impacts-on-sami-reindeer-grazing-lands/

Stanford, B., & Evans, M. (2024). What can be learned about Australian values in comparing referendums on Indigenous inclusion and recognition? Australian Journal of Political Science, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2024.2430980

Tomlinson, K. (2017). Indigenous rights and extractive resource projects: negotiations over the policy and implementation of FPIC. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(5), 880–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1314648

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). SES Supplemental Guidance: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Applying Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). https://ses-toolkit.info.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke446/files/SES%20Document%20Library/Uploaded%20October%202016/FINAL%20FPIC%20FAQ%20Guidance%20-%20June%2015%202022.pdf

Wright, P., & Serret, C. (2022). Submission: The Application of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Australia 2021. ANTAR. https://antar.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-application-of-the-United-Nations-Declaration-on-the-Rights-of-Indigenous-Peoples-UNDRIP-in-Australia-Submission.pdf

Wynn-Pope, P., Gill, A., Gill-Herdman, K., & O’Brien, E. (2023). FPIC in the Australian context: now and into the future. Corrs Chambers Westgarth. https://www.corrs.com.au/insights/fpic-in-the-australian-context-now-and-into-the-future

Yaffe, N. (2018). Indigenous Consent: A Self-Determination Perspective. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 19(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3153945 

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.