People still discussing terra nullius should get their feet back on good old terra firma. Nobody cares.

Very interesting Andrew. It seems then that Australia was a 'terra nullius' but not a 'territorium nullius' as there was 'a change of sovereignty' in 1788 (Mabo case per Brennan J many times), I suggest you research Blackstone and Roman law concepts of property as well. Also, the difference between the civil and the common law applications of the doctrine is important. Although Blackburn J got the law "wrong, wrong, wrong" (Calder's case, Canada) in his judgment in the Gove Land Rights case, it would be appropriate for a historian at least to mention it, as Blackburn J's findings of fact about the existence of Aboriginal property relationships were right, even though his legal finding that Australia had been a 'terra nullius' in 1788 was indeed very wrong. Congratulations on getting published in the Australian - they refused to publish my answer to Connor's confused and inadequate effort.
It is interesting that only the lawyers seem to appreciate the role of racism in the liberties being threatened/protected. There is perhaps a relationship with the battles against slavery.

Correction to first post -
the first sentence should read:
It seems that Australia was neither a terra nullius nor a territorium nullius ...

I would have thought that immediately prior to the 22nd August, 1770, the day that James Cook took posession of eastern Australia in the name of King George III, the indigenous occupants of the area were nominal subjects of the King of Spain, as far as existing international law was concerned. Although Great Britain did not recognise the Treaty of Tordesillias, and the territorial claim over the lands washed by the Pacific Ocean made by Vasco Nunez de Balboa at Panama on the 13th September 1513, the international recognition of those claims meant that Cook only claimed part of Spain's portion of Australia, as the rest nominally belonged to Portugal, England's oldest ally. Because England did not recognise the spanish claim this meant that no-one owned it, in any form that would have been recognised internationally.

All this referred to national sovreignity, not individual property rights. As no such rights could be discerned amongst the indigenous inhabitants, none were recognised. Compare New Zealand, where such rights existed, and were respected.

Notwithstanding all this, I can only agree with other posters that this is a very sterile argument, and many people would prefer that the money being spent on lawyers was spent instead on directly helping the people concerned.

I agree with Leigh, nobody cares, it has already been setablished, please move on nothing to read here. Professor Henry Reynolds is of course correct.

I shake my head in bewilderment about the nit picking of legal pedantry over something which is quite straight forward....

1/ White men came to Australia, which was inhabited by Aborigines.
2/ They (Cook) 'claimed' the land.
3/ He had no right except that of 'might' to do so, and at this one point, the fundamental immorality of the establishment of modern Australia occurred.
4/ Now, we have all become the victims of that same history. While not being the perpretrators, we are nevertheless the beneficiaries.
5/ Does anyone seriously doubt that Indigenous people would carry out the same level of 'addressing the crimes of history' that Robert Mugabe is now doing, if they had the numbers ?
6/ Robert Mugabe is doing a lot of things wrong, but one thing he is spot on with, and that is taking back land which was stolen by our mob.
7/ This clearly boils down to one thing.."Power".
8/ We can woffle on till the cows come home about terra this and terra that, but no amount of woffling will change the fact of point 3/
9/ The struggle with the concepts of Terra blah blah is nothing more than a striving after moral redemption and a cleansing of social/historical concience, which no matter which way you cut it, can never happen, based on the evidence and facts.
10/ The best solution, is to seek to reconcile as best we can and to treat indigenous people with dignity and equality, and do nothing FURTHER to expand the problem.

"Sin" is that which can never be undone. It can only be 'forgiven'.

Finally, a Quote from my hero Jesus.

He said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won't even lift one finger to help carry those burdens. Luke 11.46