Aboriginal titles are jointly managed by the state and the Taungurung by a traditional land Management Board owner (to be established after the start of the subdivision). Under a funding agreement, funds can be separated and awarded over a period of time. The village of Gunaikurnai, for example, had $12 million in funding agreements to support THE first operations of the TOGE and for other purposes. Ten million dollars were put in confidence, with the interest to finance the future operations of the company. [Note 53] As part of the Dja Dja Wurrung colony, $8.25 million was allocated to bring the agreement into force. These include $5 million to be held in trust; $3.25 million to be awarded to the company through a three-year “economic development” award and an additional $900,000 through a grant agreement to support the company`s “business capacity” and to recruit staff. [Note 54] While these amounts may seem considerable, the financial costs associated with setting up an TOGE, recruiting staff, complying with regulatory requirements, implementing the scheme and meeting community expectations can be significant. The traditional ownership companies we discussed raised a number of funding issues, both in terms of the initial resources available to businesses and the financing to support their continued sustainability. This issue will be discussed below. Both groups stated that their communities had high hopes for the future contracting process in order to fill gaps in what the TOS Law could offer. They stressed that it would be important to consider how existing traditional proprietary companies can be integrated into the contract process and how the contract is linked to existing transaction agreements. An LUAA grants traditional owners certain governance rights for activities that take place on public land within their subdivision. [Note 63] Given that an LUAA gives a group of traditional owners some control over the activities that take place in their country and how they take place, this is probably the most important agreement available under the TOS Act.

[Note 64] This judgment is a key point in Australia`s history. It has created limited leeway for the development of traditional laws and customs over time, despite the intrinsic effects that colonization would have had on the compliance of its traditional laws and customs by each group of applicants. This burden would disproportionately affect applicants in areas subject to large-scale colonization, such as Melbourne and Victoria at large. Added to this heavy burden of proof was the administrative burden of the NTA: mediation or trial procedures, which in some cases lasted more than a decade. [Note 17] These obvious difficulties in future native claims have led to requests from a number of groups for an alternative billing process.