First nations people did not own land, but in their own traditions they belonged to the land and were never ever more than custodians over territory which only ever extended to the low water tidal mark! (Marbo)

We need to stop with the humbug in this area of tribal customs and culture and need to stop anti-development humbug writ large! All of which seem to include large monetary reward if taken off the table. (He, he, snigger snigger)

It is little more than commercial blackmail and they are getting away with it, because nobody is calling it and them out.

If this behaviour is to be the order of the day, then we need to stop supporting Aborigines with quite massive social security payment, some of which are an eyewatering 60 grand plus a year? And often paid to folk with less aborigine blood than myself (8%)?

If this stuff (humbug) is to continue, then the inclusion (voice to parliament) referendum will surely fail!

Now I would favour MSR thorium nuclear power over drilling to resolve absolutely critical energy issues. But that not my, voice in the wilderness, call. But it could be one the first nation people get behind if they would draw down the curtain on deep sea drilling exploration/exploitation!
Alan B.

If the size of the cheque is right, drilling will go ahead immediately. Seen it on numerous occasions. Alternative is to go to Timor with a pipeline and process there. In any event Timor was basically hard done by years ago re gas boundaries.

What an utter pile of garbage, typical of Binoy, some of our legal twits & a bunch of islanders, who wouldn't have ever ventured anywhere near the area before white settlement provided them with boats far better than anything than they had ever produced.

As the others have said, this is simply native highway robbery hold up after even more sit down money than they currently roll in.

Is it time for the big companies to get together and challenge the 'Mabo' decision?
I thought that was an absurd finding, which stretched our legal framework to breaking point.
At the very least, it was an attempt to re-write history.
Perhaps a compelling case could now be made, which would put an end to that (grossly unfair) determination?
Or perhaps companies need to wait until there is a significant change in the makeup of the High Court of Australia?
Longer term members are not likely to vary a previous decision, although they did vary the decision of the legal minds which set up present day Australia.
In any case, is it time to get out from under this almost unbelievable cloud of illogicality?
A final thought.
The highest court in Australia is the people.
For they can (collectively) change the constitution.
And that is something the high court cannot do.

How is it that the properties of ordinary people can be invaded (with government backing) by mining corporations - how come the only possible defense of victims whose property has been raided is their aboriginality, like "First Nations People" are better then the rest of us, like they alone deserve freedom and peace on their land? What an insult!