Satisfying First Nations stakeholder consultation requirements under Australia’s offshore resources legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tipakalippa case (Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa [2022] FCAFC 193) highlighted the importance of proper consultation with First Nations people and made it clear that consultation represents both a significant obligation and a meaningful right. The Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance Incorporated (TEACA) is an independent First Nations operated and controlled organisation with 100% First Nations membership which was purposefully established to represent First Nations persons of the top end of the Northern Territory (Top End). TEACA’s central focus has been to facilitate and assist First Nations to engage with the offshore resources industry. TEACA has played a vital role in connecting with other First Nations persons, groups, and communities to identify relevant First Nations persons for coastal and sea country areas for which consultation is required under Australia’s offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage legislation. To date, with TEACA’s support, 12 First Nations Consultative Committees (FNCCs) have been established across the Top End, extending from the Victoria River in the West to Arnhem Bay in the East and over 30 consultations have occurred between offshore industry proponents and FNCCs. TEACA’s work ensures that ‘relevant persons’ (as defined under legislation) are properly consulted to provide important input to Environment Plans and project development. TEACA’s consultation process meets the standards espoused by the Full Court and complies with NOPSEMA’s Guidelines. Prior to TEACA, no other organisations, or bodies have undertaken this work despite substantial offshore activity having occurred off the Top End coast (within Commonwealth waters) since 1965.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".