Most of the Native Title claims should be deeemed invalid as they are based on Eddie Mabo's claim. Eddie was a Torres Strait islander and came from a completely different tradition to mainland aboriginals so that the precedent which was set by his case should not be applied elsewhere.

VK3AUU
I think I would rather leave it to the High Court to determine the extent of the application of the principles of the Mabo decision rather than your uninformed opinion.

My family also has demonstrated that we have long lived in this land, sweated for it, paid for it and sometimes died for it. I don't think that will get us anywhere.
In Australia we are all supposed to have the same value, no discrimination, no favours. Pardon me the word is---supposed. Yet Noongars---our generation---are given title over vast areas of land. Certain sects are given rights to shops, swimming pools etc.
Where is the equality?It does not exist. It is only lip service.

The idea of a seven year time limit on settling claims has a nice biblical ring about it, but still seems an inordinate amount of time for parties to come to some agreement on what are essentially access and consultancy rights. Certainly Eddie Mabo -- indigenous Australian -- had a valid claim but never lived to hear the ultimate court determination.
With so many claims waiting to be resolved, the seven year itch has to be circumvented by parties opting to avoid the courts and getting down to business with the Native Title Tribunal.
Now that the Feds and the West Australian Government are going to appeal the Noongar win in Perth, the whole circus drags on and runs the risk of further alienating the majority population.
Surely there is enough case law now for claimants and their opponents to quite quickly establish bonafides, boundaries and base rules on unalienated land. Howard and Ruddock are playing wedge politics and worse with their antics.

I wonder if our freehold law is really as tight as the lawyers think, given titles were granted by the Crown without proper compensation to the original owners as required by British law, and setting aside adverse possession laws. It would be an interesting case to run, and really get everyone thinking about...about what?

Draft for the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 had it wrong. Same errors when looked at the Native Title Act.

These are all acts for politicians, legal practioners - Judges or lawyers, anthropologists and social workers, they have never been for people who held the land.

Required is
(1) handing over titles for the land whereever freehold titles have not been issued;

(2) resuming any required land and paying just compensation; This needs extend all existing pastoral leases for up to 10 years so they get used to it or sell out before they need renegotiate;)


(3) ex-gratia payments to those who do not qualify for any returning of land;

(4) Enforcing the purpose of Constitution s51(xxvi) both at federation and when amended in 1967, this being it is unlawful to discrimiate between Australians on grounds of race;